What kind of profession would the female lead have if she was researching on "impact of high school on your overall character" ?

[Kelliezgirl]

I recall reading that even the results of the popular personality tests like Myers-Briggs aren't fixed throughout life, so her belief does sound rather... Uninformed.

Meyers-Briggs is kind of nonsense to begin with. You can get different results taking it 2 days apart.

 

[Strixaluco]

Meyers-Briggs is kind of nonsense to begin with. You can get different results taking it 2 days apart.

Well, true. But there is also a limited amount of factors that considered constant. Things like being a bully or a charmer are not a among them.

 

[gunhilltrain]

But this would mean she hadn't learned that much about her own field in the university, and how would she then even get the grant?

Though confirmation bias would indeed fit her belief. It sounds biased and not well-based. To begin with, you'd have to be able to separate high school from earlier and later impacts. The earlier ones may be me way more important, high school doesn't necessarily change anything regarding what character you grow to have. And if one is a player, how did *high school* make one so, instead of having those tendencies irregardless of high school?

I've thought more about Wiseman's movie, but I can't quite link to the the OP yet. For one thing, the film is fifty-six years old and depicts what I'd call "peak public high school." It was filmed in Northeast Philadelphia, and the vast majority of the students in it are white. One thing to keep in mind is that the upper classes usually send their kids to a private school, or they use a public school in a particular area that they live in. (Say Darien, CT or Ridgewood, NJ.) For people further down the social scale (say all four of my grandparents around 1918-20) it was not always considered that vital to get a diploma. The late 1960's were around the point when high school was close to a "universal" experience. (I entered my school in 1969.)

My "work-in-progress" postings here becoming too detailed. Around the time of Wiseman's movie, high schools in the big cities were not disappearing but entering a period of a "crisis unraveling." In New York, the big 5,000 to 6,000 student schools eventually became unworkable and had dismal graduation rates (like less than 10% over four years). The solution was to break them down into smaller, "specialized" schools within the same buildings. So far that has been mostly a cosmetic change, I think.

Those are some things to ponder at the moment.

 

[gunhilltrain]

There is a great documentary about that.

Trading Places was a funny movie in places, but it is not a documentary. Billy Valentine's uplift struck me as rather abrupt and more than a bit unlikely. Of course, that was required to make the film watchable. I suspect that if that was to really happen, it would take a lot longer and require much more input than what is in the movie.

 

[Voboy]

She is a psychologist. I'm sure you're tempted to make her a clinician, but I would avoid that; she is an academic. She is up for tenure, and is seeking a significant research finding that will push her over the top and secure her a full professorship.

She teaches all sorts of psych courses (because junior faculty), but she is a personality theorist at heart. She is researching whether personality is fluid or concrete (those are psych terms with which she would be familiar). Her goal is to create a lab that can generate its own grant revenue, while also giving her status in the university and a ready pool of grad students she can mentor. She has published academic articles (and a book, which was her PhD thesis), but she would like to go more mainstream and become someone laymen know about.

These kinds of goals, and the career trajectory that goes along with them, are common in academia, and will likely ring true to most readers.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Trading Places was a funny movie in places, but it is not a documentary.

 

[lustychimera]

She is a psychologist. I'm sure you're tempted to make her a clinician, but I would avoid that; she is an academic. She is up for tenure, and is seeking a significant research finding that will push her over the top and secure her a full professorship.

She teaches all sorts of psych courses (because junior faculty), but she is a personality theorist at heart. She is researching whether personality is fluid or concrete (those are psych terms with which she would be familiar). Her goal is to create a lab that can generate its own grant revenue, while also giving her status in the university and a ready pool of grad students she can mentor. She has published academic articles (and a book, which was her PhD thesis), but she would like to go more mainstream and become someone laymen know about.

These kinds of goals, and the career trajectory that goes along with them, are common in academia, and will likely ring true to most readers.

That's wonderful! With that kind of set-up, it doesn't make as much sense for her to be as initially obstinate about her theory as sweetdreamsss set it up in the initial post. Originally, I was thinking that she'd have to be, quite frankly, pretty daft to be genuinely stuck on the high school theory, which made me think that she'd have to be pretty far down on the totem pole wherever her research role was.

But in yours, it seems more like she'd see the pop culture potential in her theory and wants to capitalize on that hype to propel her career. So, she has a strong vested interest in creating research that will support her conclusion.

It's a half measure shortcut, and when it's published, the critics would absolutely rain down on her. I could see it becoming a personal ego fight for her after that, and she argues it so much and so vigorously that she genuinely convinces herself that it's true.

It'd be a great way to inversely show the deterioration of her marriage. Her husband hates the theory due to his PTSD as they said, and she's zealously doubling down on trying to prove it true for nobody but her own self.

 

[tenyari]

So I've been thinking of this story. It consists of a woman in DINK marriage. She gets a grant to research on the subject

" Influence of high school on overall character of an adult"

She believes that what characteristics you form during high school will remain the rest of your life and you can only hide or overcome it but it's set for life.

Psychologist, Anthropologist, or educational profession.
- Each of these will approach the question differently and with different biases over their research.

A psychologist is looking at what makes people have the personalities they do. And anthologist is looking at how social structure form. And educational professional is looking at the importance of primary education in our lives. Each of them will research on the assumption that the conclusion which shows the importance of their base professional assumptions is the correct one, and have a hard time being swayed away from it.

I believe the theory works for some people but not all or even most people. Your formative years are your teens through twenties and it's not any one thing in that time span that affects everyone the same, but rather some or all of the things in that time span that will impact you.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Oops, lost the entire post. See below.

 

[gunhilltrain]

View attachment 2340967

Sorry, I thought you meant that the movie was at least partially plausible. Typical of the many misunderstandings that take place in social media.

 

[Voboy]

That's wonderful! With that kind of set-up, it doesn't make as much sense for her to be as initially obstinate about her theory as sweetdreamsss set it up in the initial post. Originally, I was thinking that she'd have to be, quite frankly, pretty daft to be genuinely stuck on the high school theory, which made me think that she'd have to be pretty far down on the totem pole wherever her research role was.

But in yours, it seems more like she'd see the pop culture potential in her theory and wants to capitalize on that hype to propel her career. So, she has a strong vested interest in creating research that will support her conclusion.

It's a half measure shortcut, and when it's published, the critics would absolutely rain down on her. I could see it becoming a personal ego fight for her after that, and she argues it so much and so vigorously that she genuinely convinces herself that it's true.

It'd be a great way to inversely show the deterioration of her marriage. Her husband hates the theory due to his PTSD as they said, and she's zealously doubling down on trying to prove it true for nobody but her own self.

I'm thinking about Milgram, who was explicitly setting out to achieve tenure when he did his experiments on obedience. He did not begin with a null hypothesis, and achieved results that ran completely counter to his expectations (to an alarming degree). Subsequent questions about his conclusions and his ethics derailed his career; he'd been a high-flying instructor bound for appointment at Harvard, but the notoriety from his experiment made him persona non grata in the Ivy League and even the next tier below.

Which doesn't mean he was a bad researcher, by the standards of his time, and didn't mean he was through doing meaningful work. His story is a useful lesson, though, on how behavioral research can be a gamble of sorts; that kind of dynamic would interest me, at least, if the OP wanted to go there.

Ten years later, Zimbardo encountered a somewhat similar dynamic... but he was already tenured at Stanford, which made all the difference. Even so, Milgram was grateful to Zimbardo for taking the ethical heat off him at last.

 

[lustychimera]

I'm thinking about Milgram, who was explicitly setting out to achieve tenure when he did his experiments on obedience. He did not begin with a null hypothesis, and achieved results that ran completely counter to his expectations (to an alarming degree). Subsequent questions about his conclusions and his ethics derailed his career; he'd been a high-flying instructor bound for appointment at Harvard, but the notoriety from his experiment made him persona non grata in the Ivy League and even the next tier below.

Which doesn't mean he was a bad researcher, by the standards of his time, and didn't mean he was through doing meaningful work. His story is a useful lesson, though, on how behavioral research can be a gamble of sorts; that kind of dynamic would interest me, at least, if the OP wanted to go there.

Ten years later, Zimbardo encountered a somewhat similar dynamic... but he was already tenured at Stanford, which made all the difference. Even so, Milgram was grateful to Zimbardo for taking the ethical heat off him at last.

But how would she reach the conclusion that four years in high school form these immutable characteristics if she's not going in with a bias?

I think your idea would only work if her theory was more plausible. Asking readers to suspend their disbelief that she naturally reached that conclusion is a big ask, as in, she found the truth and everyone else didn't like it.

And if she, quite literally, tortured someone to reach that asinine conclusion, that's two major flaws with her character. So I think the focus would have to be on how her character is flawed since she'd have to be a really bad researcher for all that to work.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But how would she reach the conclusion that your four years in high school form immutable characteristics for the rest of your life?

I think your premise would only work if her theory was more plausible. Asking readers to suspend their disbelief that she naturally reached that conclusion naturally is a big ask.

There are millions of people who believe the position of the stars at one's birth defines personality for the rest of one's life. "Four years in high school" seems quite sober and plausible in comparison.

Never underestimate the power of a researcher with a pet theory to persuade themselves and others, regardless of its truth or supporting evidence. See e.g. Andrew Wakefield.

 

[lustychimera]

There are millions of people who believe the position of the stars at one's birth defines personality for the rest of one's life. "Four years in high school" seems quite sober and plausible in comparison.

Never underestimate the power of a researcher with a pet theory to persuade themselves and others, regardless of its truth or supporting evidence. See e.g. Andrew Wakefield.

I agree with you there. And those are flaws with those people's characters. They're looking for confirmation bias to support their pet theories.

But I took Voboy's reply to mean that this researcher went in thinking one thing, and was surprised when her research pointed to High School being these immutably formative years.

Since it's a conclusion that affects just about everyone, I think a lot of readers are going to disagree pretty strongly with that. It'd be different if she was studying some niche thing about the price of rice in China where readers can easily suspend their disbelief.

 

[Voboy]

But I took Voboy's reply to mean that this researcher went in thinking one thing, and was surprised when her research pointed to High School being these immutably formative years.

I'd just be thinking in terms of her motivation for doing the research in the first place. It's entirely the OP's decision where to take the story, of course.

 

[sweetdreamssss]

Thank you for ur feedback..

Yes,the OP is a flawed character and she is pushing her theory in order to get funding for the research and move up in the ladder and I will indirectly address it.
She tries to dismiss her husband's claim because she doesnt want holes in theory. SHe also gets enamoured by the bully because she believes he possesses the same quality he had at high school despite now being almost homeless and working as a delivery driver and compares him with her husband who is earning well and a winner in life

 

[gunhilltrain]

I'm thinking about Milgram, who was explicitly setting out to achieve tenure when he did his experiments on obedience. He did not begin with a null hypothesis, and achieved results that ran completely counter to his expectations (to an alarming degree). Subsequent questions about his conclusions and his ethics derailed his career; he'd been a high-flying instructor bound for appointment at Harvard, but the notoriety from his experiment made him persona non grata in the Ivy League and even the next tier below.

Which doesn't mean he was a bad researcher, by the standards of his time, and didn't mean he was through doing meaningful work. His story is a useful lesson, though, on how behavioral research can be a gamble of sorts; that kind of dynamic would interest me, at least, if the OP wanted to go there.

Ten years later, Zimbardo encountered a somewhat similar dynamic... but he was already tenured at Stanford, which made all the difference. Even so, Milgram was grateful to Zimbardo for taking the ethical heat off him at last.

From what I know about Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, the particpants all knew what they getting into. And he did call it off after about six days when it became too "realistic."

I suppose the results were disturbing, but I don't know how it could be applied in a real-life settings. Humans can be quite - the word "ornery" is not really accurate, but it will have to do. Maybe what these researchers discovered is that all the good will in the world can't solve certain behaviors.

 

[MillieDynamite]

As I was homeschooled, I can't comment on this. But I think people are different from year to year. They have tendencies, but you change. You're never the same person at 18 that you are at 28 or 38; you're still evolving. With that said, a few people never change. I don't believe that is a good thing.

 

[Voboy]

From what I know about Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, the particpants all knew what they getting into. And he did call it off after about six days when it became too "realistic."

I suppose the results were disturbing, but I don't know how it could be applied in a real-life settings. Humans can be quite - the word "ornery" is not really accurate, but it will have to do. Maybe what these researchers discovered is that all the good will in the world can't solve certain behaviors.

His contention is that the Prison Study is not really about prisons (per se), but about power dynamics. There are additional findings that relate to aggression. The results are frequently borne out in real-life settings. It also confirmed conclusions reached by attribution theorists.

The main ethical issue with the Stanford study involved Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and participant, which compromised his judgement. He's always been fairly open about the flaws of his experiment design. I think that dynamic, too, could be intriguingly explored by the OP's story.