ink

Uploaded on Dec 9, 2011 Portrait ‘Ink and Water’ (speed painting) offers a glance at my artistic vision—it is my first artwork featured on Youtube. I’m playing with ink by dropping it on some wet surfaces of the paper (size … Continue reading


Uploaded on Dec 9, 2011
Portrait ‘Ink and Water’ (speed painting) offers a glance at my artistic vision—it is my first artwork featured on Youtube. I’m playing with ink by dropping it on some wet surfaces of the paper (size A4) in order to create a lasting visual impression.

I’m a French contemporary artist (drawer, painter and illustrator) and I’m glad to offer a glance at my artistic vision. This particular artwork is probably in the vein of contemporary pop art and pop artists. I’m often asked whether I use watercolor but with this type of paintings, ink is by far the best material.

ART SUPPLIES
– Pentel Waterbrush Pens : fine, medium and broad tip.
– Regular Black India Ink, from “Pébéo”
– Watercolor paper called “Centenaire”

List of materials:

Round brushes n. 2 and n.10
Blue and red Chinese ink
Green watercolour (I didn’t have green Chinese ink, so used this).
Fabriano white watercolor paper, fine grain
Yellow cardboard paper
dropper

Root your Android 4.4 KitKat

How to Root your Android 4.4 KitKat device using TowelRoot Step 1: Head over to TowelRoot.com and click on the lambda icon to download the TowelRoot app. Step 2: Install the TowelRoot app on your phone and open it. Tap on “ Make it Ra1n” and wait for a few seconds for the app to root … Continue reading “Root your Android 4.4 KitKat”

How to Root your Android 4.4 KitKat device using TowelRoot

Step 1: Head over to TowelRoot.com and click on the lambda icon to download the TowelRoot app.
Step 2: Install the TowelRoot app on your phone and open it. Tap on “ Make it Ra1n” and wait for a few seconds for the app to root your phone.

installing-towelroot

cognitive dissonance

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or […]

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

  • The importance of the subject to us.
  • How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
  • Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

  • Change our behavior.
  • Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
  • Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

Dissonance increases with the importance and impact of the decision, along with the difficulty of reversing it. Discomfort about making the wrong choice of car is bigger than when choosing a lamp.

Note: Self-Perception Theory gives an alternative view.

Leon Festinger‘s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]

Self-Perception Theory

Zanna, M. P., & Cooper J., Dissonance and the Pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. JPSP, 1974, 29, 703-709


This study tested the idea of whether dissonance had arousal properties.

Cognitive dissonance is often experienced as psychological discomfort or tension. Yet prior research hasn’t proven evidence of dissonance-produced attitude change.

Previous studies by Schachter showed that subjects unknowingly under the influence of epinephrine could be made to label their arousal as either angry or happy based on external stimuli. Another study with insomniacs showed that if they could get subjects to attribute their nocturnal arousal to a pill, they found it easier to fall asleep (and if they were told it would make them more relaxed and it didn’t work they were even more aroused).

Theoretically, this should also work with attitude change. People who are put into a cognitive dissonance situation but can attribute their arousal to another factor (a pill) should be less likely to change their attitudes than people who don’t attribute their arousal to the pill.

Procedure
Subjects were told to write an essay counter to their beliefs (about free speech on campus). One third were given a pill and told it would make them tense, one third told it would make them relaxed, and one-third were not given a pill at all. In this 2X3 experiment, the other variable was giving the subjects either high-choice in writing the counteressay (it’s up to you…) or low choice (do this…).

After writing the essay they completed an attitude questionnaire that asked them about campus speech and their present feelings.

Results
People who were told the drug would make them feel more tense did indicated they were more tense, and those in the “relaxed” condition felt more relaxed (vs control). Interestingly, the people in the high-choice control group reported more tension than either the “tense” or “relaxed” groups (which is expected by dissonance theory).

The overall results were as expected. For people in the control group, those in the high choice condition had a bigger attitude change (agree with the ban on speech) than the low-choice people. They had nothing to attribute their action on the essay to.

In the “tension” condiition, subjects were able to attribute their tenseness to the pill and not the essay, so the dissonance effect was realized and their attitudes didn’t change (agreement with the ban was low). On the contrary, in the “relaxed” condition there was increased cognitive dissonance (they felt tense rather than relaxed) and their shift in favor of the ban was more pronounced than with the control group.

Big Five personality traits

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a widely examined theory of five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe the human personality and psyche.[1][2] The five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Acronyms to aid in remembering the five […]

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a widely examined theory of five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe the human personality and psyche.[1][2] The five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Acronyms to aid in remembering the five traits include OCEAN and CANOE. Beneath each proposed global factor, a number of correlated and more specific primary factors are claimed. For example, extraversion is said to include such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.[3]

Five factors

  • Openness to experience: (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus. Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences, such as skydiving, living abroad, gambling, et cetera. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance, and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor.
  • Conscientiousness: (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High conscientiousness are often perceived as stubborn and obsessive. Low conscientiousness are flexible and spontaneous, but can be perceived as sloppy and unreliable.[4]
  • Extraversion: (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. High extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking, and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed.[5]
  • Agreeableness: (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one’s trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive. Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.[5]
  • Neuroticism: (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, “emotional stability“. A high need for stability manifests as a stable and calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. A low need for stability causes a reactive and excitable personality, often very dynamic individuals, but they can be perceived as unstable or insecure.[5]

need for cognition

The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towardseffortful cognitive activities.[1][2] Need for cognition has been variously defined as “a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways” and “a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world”.[3] Higher NFC is associated […]

The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towardseffortful cognitive activities.[1][2]

Need for cognition has been variously defined as “a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways” and “a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world”.[3] Higher NFC is associated with increased appreciation of debate, idea evaluation, and problem solving. Those with a high need for cognition may be inclined towards high elaboration. Those with a lower need for cognition may display opposite tendencies, and may process information more heuristically, often through low elaboration.[4]

Need for cognition is closely related to the five factor model domain openness to ideas, typical intellectual engagement, and epistemic curiosity (see below). Need for cognition has also been found to correlate with higher self-esteem, masculine sex-role orientation, and psychological absorption[citation needed], while being inversely related to social anxiety.

The 18 statements from the revised Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984) used in the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education are shown below. Asterisks designate the items that are reverse scored.

  1. I would prefer complex to simple problems.
  2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
  3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.*
  4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.*
  5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely a chance I will have to think in depth about something.*
  6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
  7. I only think as hard as I have to.*
  8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.*
  9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.*
  10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
  11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
  12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.*
  13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
  14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
  15. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.
  16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.*
  17. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.*
  18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.

Elaboration likelihood model

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion[1] is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes form. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in the mid-1980s.[2] The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on […]

 

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion[1] is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes form. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in the mid-1980s.[2] The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change. The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. Under the central route, persuasion will likely result from a person’s careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy.[3] The central route involves a high level of message elaboration in which a great amount of cognition about the arguments are generated by the individual receiving the message. The results of attitude change will be relatively enduring, resistant, and predictive of behavior.[4] On the other hand, under the peripheral route, persuasion results from a person’s association with positive or negative cues in the stimulus or making a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position. The cues received by the individual under the peripheral route are generally unrelated to the logical quality of the stimulus. These cues will involve factors such as the credibility or attractiveness of the sources of the message, or the production quality of the message.[5] The likelihood of elaboration will be determined by an individual’s motivation and ability to evaluate the argument being presented.[6]

ISO/IEC 27001

ISO/IEC 27001 es un estándar para la seguridad de la información (Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements) aprobado y publicado como estándar internacional en octubre de 2005 por Inter…

ISO/IEC 27001 es un estándar para la seguridad de la información (Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements) aprobado y publicado como estándar internacional en octubre de 2005 por International Organization for Standardization y por la comisión International Electrotechnical Commission.

Especifica los requisitos necesarios para