Searching for a particular psychology term?!
Posted on: December 29, 2014 - 10:51pm
Offline
Searching for a particular psychology term?!
I'm trying to recall a particular psychology term from the psych class I took in college. It refers to a person who believes everything they have accomplished is due to only their drive or will. Rather than being a result of multiple external factors. For example they apply agency to their own work but not socio economic, familial, or geographical factors that influenced their developement. It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember it for the life of me.
- Login to post comments
Narcissist, sociopath, republican, libertartian......."See Ayn Rand"......
Was kidding, have no clue the word you are looking for, but what you decribe does descrive a lot of people.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Objectivism does indeed celebrate achievement through ability and hard work, but it's not really a psychology term, and I doubt it's what he's looking for.
I think I have good idea of what you're looking for. You're in charge of your own destiny. You decide what happens in your life, right? Unfortunately, I can't think of the word for it either. Lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Um no, we are in control of some things but we are not always in control 100% of the time. We are a social species and we are always interacting and our success or failure is not either or but can be luck, work or both. It is a ratio. Someone can win the lottery and do no work other than passing 2 dollars over the counter. Half of all businesses started up fail within the first two years. Most humans will not own businesses and will only be workers. There are famous musicians and then there are also better and far more many musicians who will go unknown. For every 45 players who make it to and NFL team there are 100s of thousands of college players who will not make the NFL who are probably just as good, but because the team managers do not have the time to consider that big of a sample rate. So those who do make it still have to rely on someone noticing.
Simple example is you reading this. You litterally are not in control of what I type. Your mere act of reading this is a result of me typing this which means I had an affect on you in a very physical litteral sense. The light emitted from your computer allows you to read it and the photons hit your eyes allowing your brain to proccess what I typed. Mind you, I don't mean in the scope of your entire life no. But we do affect others regardless of thinking we did it all by ourselfs. That is physically impossible.
Even non verbal ques such as body position and facial expression can have an affect on how someone views you or reacts to you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Whoaaaa! Jesus christ on a pogo stick Brian. I'm not even making any of those claims. I was just verifying if that was indeed the type of psychology term he was looking for.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
oh yes you are. You just don't know it yet. Brian will set you straight.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
In his own mind anyway. He's an embarrassment to the entire species. And every other species. To life itself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You kind of describing the type of person but I found the term it was:
Fundamental attribution error
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error, also known as the correspondence bias orattribution effect, is people's tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior, where situational factors are more easily recognized and can thus be taken into consideration.
Like the kind of person who will tell someone in poverty the only thing they have to do to change their situation is "change their attitude," rather than looking at the socio economic and environmental conditions that contribute to their poverty. It's a common characterstic of human social psychology and yeah it's knd of "Randian" in the way it blames everything on behaviour and not the causes of it. I remembered it because it appeared in a book i finished called Thinking fast and slow" - by the psychologist Daniel kahneman.