Objective 1: describe the problems psychology must face as a young science.
When I was asked this question, I became a little confused: though I know that psychology is a science, I know that science and psychology are two very different things. According to dictonary.com, psychology can be defined as the study of the mind or of mental state and processes, while science is defined as the state of knowing. When you mash psychology, a study of the vast and forever changing mind with a study of something very specific and "law abiding" such as science, you start to get some confusion. It's hard for many people to grasp the concept that something that is permanent and concise will always be endlessly changing.
As a 'young' science, psychology does have quite a few problems to face, but some stick out more than others. One of the more well known problems is one that relates to my previous paragraph. We know there are mistakes and flaws in people's actions, moods, and behavior, but the problem isn't necessarily correcting the mistakes that are made in the past, it's finding out what causes them in the first place so they don't happen again in the future. Since each person is different and everyone is unpredictable, it is impossible to find one "law" that explains everyone's reasoning for doing what they day. Unfortunately, since people are unpredictable, we can't run everyone through the exact same tests over and over again with hopes to get a constant result. People change and adapt to situations, so our answers to these tests may be different each time. Because we can't get these law abiding, scientific answers, this brings up another problem that psychology must face.
With hypotheses and theories always changing in the psychological field, it gets a little bit of a bad reputation. Unlike other science like physics, chemistry, and trigonometry that deal with variables that are controlled (up to a point) and solid, consistent answers and permanent theorems, psychology revolves around people that are unpredictable, because you can't control the mentality of people. Though this does give psychology a bad rep, a loss of respect is incurred due to the age of the psychological field. In 1879, William Wundt established the very first formal psychological research center in Germany. Though a lot of research has been conducted in the past 135 years, few consistent answers have been found in the psychology, and many answers have been changed over and over time again. Another good example of how psychology is always changing is how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders is constantly changing with society. Not only does this manual changing make it more difficult to diagnose a person's illness, but it also makes society question psychology: how can anything be right or "for sure" if it's always changing? To see some of the most recent changes in the Manual, click the first link below!
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/05/26/update-dsm-v-major-changes/
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt
As a 'young' science, psychology does have quite a few problems to face, but some stick out more than others. One of the more well known problems is one that relates to my previous paragraph. We know there are mistakes and flaws in people's actions, moods, and behavior, but the problem isn't necessarily correcting the mistakes that are made in the past, it's finding out what causes them in the first place so they don't happen again in the future. Since each person is different and everyone is unpredictable, it is impossible to find one "law" that explains everyone's reasoning for doing what they day. Unfortunately, since people are unpredictable, we can't run everyone through the exact same tests over and over again with hopes to get a constant result. People change and adapt to situations, so our answers to these tests may be different each time. Because we can't get these law abiding, scientific answers, this brings up another problem that psychology must face.
With hypotheses and theories always changing in the psychological field, it gets a little bit of a bad reputation. Unlike other science like physics, chemistry, and trigonometry that deal with variables that are controlled (up to a point) and solid, consistent answers and permanent theorems, psychology revolves around people that are unpredictable, because you can't control the mentality of people. Though this does give psychology a bad rep, a loss of respect is incurred due to the age of the psychological field. In 1879, William Wundt established the very first formal psychological research center in Germany. Though a lot of research has been conducted in the past 135 years, few consistent answers have been found in the psychology, and many answers have been changed over and over time again. Another good example of how psychology is always changing is how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders is constantly changing with society. Not only does this manual changing make it more difficult to diagnose a person's illness, but it also makes society question psychology: how can anything be right or "for sure" if it's always changing? To see some of the most recent changes in the Manual, click the first link below!
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/05/26/update-dsm-v-major-changes/
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt
objective 2: Identify major theoretical and professional perspectives in psychology and their basic assumptions.
Psychology is a vast and ever changing field of science, and as new ideas arise, so do people's opinions and theories. What's different about psychology than many other field of science is that even though there aren't many permanent laws, most theories relate back to or build off of the first few well known ideas of psychology. New theories don't necessarily prove old theories wrong, but they do expand on what is already known into more recent and specific information. Even early psychologists built on each other's theories, like many did with Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species, is known for helping support many opinions and hypotheses on natural selection throughout history. Any scientist or psychologist that agreed with Darwin's perspectives and assumptions also believed in natural selection: that if you aren't good enough to survive in this world, then you will be killed off one way or another so you can't reproduce. An example of this would be females, of any species, looking for a mate. A female would want to have children with the best male she could find, whether it be intelligence, strength, leadership, or if you're a bird, plumage. Reproducing with the best would be an indication of having the best offspring. If we all had children with the runts of the litter and those who lie at the bottom of the pack, our species would die out because we'd all be too stupid to survive.
B.F. Skinner and John B. Watson are known as the father's of psychology in America for their re-defining of psychology. Psychology was now a study of observable behavior, and people were ready to put this new science to a test. The new argument was though you couldn't read a person's mind, you could watch what they do to understand what they were thinking because science is rooted in behavior. This made Skinner an Watson not only psychologist, but behaviorists. They continued on to carry out experiments that were based upon observable behavior like the Little Albert experiment.
On the opposite on of behaviorism lies Freudian psychology, which gives emphasis on the ways our behavior is affected by unconscious thought processes and emotional responses to childhood experiences. Freudian psychology comes from Sigmund Freud, an infamous personality theorist. Not only did Freud start a major movement with his perspectives on self-understanding, but he also had ideas about our stages of psychosexual development. Though these stages have been highly controversial based on their sexual content, they have sprung new ideas, theories, and movements across the world.
Psychology is now known as the science of behavior and mental processes, and psychologists are having a ball with expanding upon it. With all the new and improved technology the world contains, the possibilities are endless to prove, disprove, and improve old theories and methods. A more contemporary psychological theory is the nature-nurture debate, which was originally argues by Charles Darwin. In the nature-nature debate, the natural qualities of a person, or "nature," are being compared to an individual's personal experiences, "nurture", to see which causes more physical and behavioral differences in a person. Darwin believed that natural selection not only shaped the physical qualities of a species, but also the behavioral traits. Though many agree with him, others argue that physical and mental aspects of a person are based on where they come from and who they were raised by, while yet others believe that it is a mixture of the two. It all just goes to show that in psychology you might not necessarily be wrong, but you're not right either.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=e2
On the opposite on of behaviorism lies Freudian psychology, which gives emphasis on the ways our behavior is affected by unconscious thought processes and emotional responses to childhood experiences. Freudian psychology comes from Sigmund Freud, an infamous personality theorist. Not only did Freud start a major movement with his perspectives on self-understanding, but he also had ideas about our stages of psychosexual development. Though these stages have been highly controversial based on their sexual content, they have sprung new ideas, theories, and movements across the world.
Psychology is now known as the science of behavior and mental processes, and psychologists are having a ball with expanding upon it. With all the new and improved technology the world contains, the possibilities are endless to prove, disprove, and improve old theories and methods. A more contemporary psychological theory is the nature-nurture debate, which was originally argues by Charles Darwin. In the nature-nature debate, the natural qualities of a person, or "nature," are being compared to an individual's personal experiences, "nurture", to see which causes more physical and behavioral differences in a person. Darwin believed that natural selection not only shaped the physical qualities of a species, but also the behavioral traits. Though many agree with him, others argue that physical and mental aspects of a person are based on where they come from and who they were raised by, while yet others believe that it is a mixture of the two. It all just goes to show that in psychology you might not necessarily be wrong, but you're not right either.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=e2
Objective 3: describe the characteristics of a good (reliable) theory.
By definition, a theory is an explanation using an integrated set of principles that organizes observations and predicts behaviors or events. But what makes a theory good and reliable? A reliable theory produces hypotheses, or researchable questions and testable predictions of the theory that are used to specify the results that are hoped to be found. A good theory is also something that other theories can't answer and hasn't been thought of yet. For example, there is a theory that the universe was created a short time ago by a flying spaghetti monster. Though
it is satisfactory theory because it can't be ruled out by experiment, it is
not considered a good theory because it doesn't make any unique predictions
about what we should observe. This theory is also unreliable in that it has few
researchable questions and few predictions that can be tested accurately, so it
can't be proven true or false.
A
good and reliable theory would be one such as the atomic theory. The atomic theory is a scientific theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is made up of atoms. Since this theory produced
an unbiased hypothesis and yielded answered that proved this theory while
disproving another, this theory could be considered a reliable theory. This
theory could also be an example of a good theory in the sense that other
theories couldn't answer it, and no one had thought of this theory yet.
http://lclane2.net/goodtheory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
http://lclane2.net/goodtheory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
objective 4: describe what constitutes valid and reliable observation especially with regard to operationalizing variables, experimenter bias, demand characteristic, and unobtrusive measures.
If I were to tell you that I was going to Spring Park in search of the Woolimagosh that lives under the bridge, you'd probably call me crazy because you've never heard of a Woolimagosh and there's no way something like that could possibly exist. But if I was raised believing that a Woolimagosh lives in Spring Park, I'd definitely be going there with a great determination to find one. Even if you we right about the Woolimagosh not existing, I might convince myself that anything I saw that resembled a Woolimagosh would be, in fact, a Woolimagosh. This is just a prime example of how experimenter bias works.
Instead of calling me crazy when I returned from my journey, you might instead look at my research to see if I used operational variables so my research could be considered valid and reliable. When researchers operationalize variables, they are actually creating a very specific list of how they're going to observe, execute, and describe their experiment. Since I was obviously able to make a very clear and concise procedure of how I carried out my experiment, you would be able to replicate it and get the same result that I did: the Woolimagosh is real!
Now that you know my research is free of experimenter bias and it contains operational variables, we much check for demand characteristics. Demand characteristics are things that may cause you, another researcher, to interpret the purpose of my lab, whether it be unconsciously, unknowingly, or unintentionally. If this happens, you may form your own opinion that changes your behavior to fit your own schema. Lots of different things can cause this, like rumors of the study, the setting of the laboratory, and communication. If you heard a rumor that I'm crazy, you may form your own opinion and this bias could change my results. If, in my lab setting I have you wear a haz-mat suit just to go into Spring Park, you may feel threatened by my experiment. Me communicating with you before the lab, saying that I'll bribe you into confirming my research, could also lead to a demand characteristic. To avoid all this, I may have to either deceive you into thinking my research isn't actually about the Woolimagosh, use more than one person to execute my experiment so "unique interpretations" are ruled out, or use unobtrusive measures.
Don't worry, these unobtrusive measures don't harm the experiment or experimenters in any way. They're just a way to hide the difference between my dependent in independent variables. Imagine that I'm doing a totally different experiment, something non-Woolimagosh related, like the famous study, "Pygamalion in the Classroom." In this study, Robert Rosenthal told teachers that certain of the their students would undergo an "intellectual growth spurt" over the academic year. They would, therefore, improve academically -- although there was in fact no reason to believe that this was actually true (a case of experimental deception being used intentionally). At the end of the year Rosenthal found that those students, as compared with others in the same classes, actually showed gains both in IQ scores and in academic performance. He concluded that the only possible cause of these results was that the teachers in some way influenced the performance of the students during the year (for example by taking an interest in them and paying more attention to them) and that this, in turn, resulted in improved student performance. The expectancy of the students, influenced by Rosenthal's deception, in some fashion had an impact on student behavior and, consequently, performance.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://www.duq.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/center-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-and-learning/pygmalion
Instead of calling me crazy when I returned from my journey, you might instead look at my research to see if I used operational variables so my research could be considered valid and reliable. When researchers operationalize variables, they are actually creating a very specific list of how they're going to observe, execute, and describe their experiment. Since I was obviously able to make a very clear and concise procedure of how I carried out my experiment, you would be able to replicate it and get the same result that I did: the Woolimagosh is real!
Now that you know my research is free of experimenter bias and it contains operational variables, we much check for demand characteristics. Demand characteristics are things that may cause you, another researcher, to interpret the purpose of my lab, whether it be unconsciously, unknowingly, or unintentionally. If this happens, you may form your own opinion that changes your behavior to fit your own schema. Lots of different things can cause this, like rumors of the study, the setting of the laboratory, and communication. If you heard a rumor that I'm crazy, you may form your own opinion and this bias could change my results. If, in my lab setting I have you wear a haz-mat suit just to go into Spring Park, you may feel threatened by my experiment. Me communicating with you before the lab, saying that I'll bribe you into confirming my research, could also lead to a demand characteristic. To avoid all this, I may have to either deceive you into thinking my research isn't actually about the Woolimagosh, use more than one person to execute my experiment so "unique interpretations" are ruled out, or use unobtrusive measures.
Don't worry, these unobtrusive measures don't harm the experiment or experimenters in any way. They're just a way to hide the difference between my dependent in independent variables. Imagine that I'm doing a totally different experiment, something non-Woolimagosh related, like the famous study, "Pygamalion in the Classroom." In this study, Robert Rosenthal told teachers that certain of the their students would undergo an "intellectual growth spurt" over the academic year. They would, therefore, improve academically -- although there was in fact no reason to believe that this was actually true (a case of experimental deception being used intentionally). At the end of the year Rosenthal found that those students, as compared with others in the same classes, actually showed gains both in IQ scores and in academic performance. He concluded that the only possible cause of these results was that the teachers in some way influenced the performance of the students during the year (for example by taking an interest in them and paying more attention to them) and that this, in turn, resulted in improved student performance. The expectancy of the students, influenced by Rosenthal's deception, in some fashion had an impact on student behavior and, consequently, performance.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://www.duq.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/center-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-and-learning/pygmalion
objective 5: Describe the differences between correlational and experimental research especially with respect to causality and prediction.
Though they are different types of research, correlational and experimental research go hand in hand. While correlational research has to do with variables, it doesn't manipulate these variables as done in experimental research. For example, if I was doing an experiment on how fast a certain plant grows, I would be able to change a variable like how much water each plant gets. When my experiment was completed, I would measure my independent variable: how much water each plant received and look at the growth rate for each plant. If this was a correlational research procedure, I would not have changed the amount of water each plant received, instead I would compare it to how fast the plant grew to see if they were correlated. In short, correlational research is to correlation as experimental research is to causation.
Since looking at how correlated things are helps us make assumptions of how they influence each other, we can use correlation research for predicting things. A good example of correlation was produced by a student at the University of Minnesota, where they studied relationships between sleep and school grade point average. Most commonly, student who received 8 hours of sleep per night had high GPAs, so it could be said that getting 8 hours of sleep and getting a good GPA were correlated, though that was not always the case in this study. Some students received 8 hours of sleep per night and had low GPAs, and vice versa. This being said, getting 8 hours of sleep didn't cause students to obtain high GPA's because correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.
Unlike in correlational research, experimental research isolates an independent variable to measure causation instead of correlation. Experiments have to be replicable and have the capability to consistently yield the same results so the causality of the independent variable on dependant variables can be measured. Imagine that tying hedgehogs to the bottom of your feet would give you the ability to run at a speed of 90 miles per hour. An experiment would be set up to measure the effect that the independent variable, the hedgehogs, had on your speed, the dependent variable. Through this process, we would be measuring the causality of the hedgehogs to your speed. If the results of this experiment showed that every person who tied hedgehogs to their feet ran at 90 miles per hour, then it would be proven that tying hedgehogs to your feet causes you to run at 90 miles per hour.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://www.psych.umn.edu/sentience/files/Lowry_2010.pdf
Since looking at how correlated things are helps us make assumptions of how they influence each other, we can use correlation research for predicting things. A good example of correlation was produced by a student at the University of Minnesota, where they studied relationships between sleep and school grade point average. Most commonly, student who received 8 hours of sleep per night had high GPAs, so it could be said that getting 8 hours of sleep and getting a good GPA were correlated, though that was not always the case in this study. Some students received 8 hours of sleep per night and had low GPAs, and vice versa. This being said, getting 8 hours of sleep didn't cause students to obtain high GPA's because correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.
Unlike in correlational research, experimental research isolates an independent variable to measure causation instead of correlation. Experiments have to be replicable and have the capability to consistently yield the same results so the causality of the independent variable on dependant variables can be measured. Imagine that tying hedgehogs to the bottom of your feet would give you the ability to run at a speed of 90 miles per hour. An experiment would be set up to measure the effect that the independent variable, the hedgehogs, had on your speed, the dependent variable. Through this process, we would be measuring the causality of the hedgehogs to your speed. If the results of this experiment showed that every person who tied hedgehogs to their feet ran at 90 miles per hour, then it would be proven that tying hedgehogs to your feet causes you to run at 90 miles per hour.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
http://www.psych.umn.edu/sentience/files/Lowry_2010.pdf
objective 6: define what positive, negative, and zero correlation are.
Positive, negative, and zero correlations are all different things, but before we can understand what they are, we must have a concept of what correlation means in the psychological world. According to the Oxford Dictionary, correlation is defined as a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. When talking about positive, negative, and zero correlations, we reference correlation coefficients, also known as numbers between −1 and +1 calculated to represent the linear dependence of two variables or sets of data (how to items are correlated). The closer the absolute value of the coefficient is to one, the stronger the relationship. For example, if a student getting 8 hours of sleep each night and getting good grades had a correlation coefficient of .79, this would be considered a strong relationship. However, if it was found that a student was getting 8 hours of sleep each night and getting bad grades had a correlation coefficient of -.79, the correlation coefficient would be as strong as the coefficient of the student who was getting good grades. When looking at data such as this on a linear regression chart, the dots of the data would follow very closely to the line. If the data had a weak correlation coefficient, the dots would be more scattered about and not necessarily follow the line. Therefore, the more closely the dots follow the line, the stronger the correlation coefficient.
Not only must we understand how to identify the strength of a correlation coefficient , but we also need to know how to distinguish a positive correlation from a negative or zero correlation. As you can see from the chart below, there
are big differences between positive, negative, and zero correlation. Let's
pretend that the positive correlation sets are for the student who got eight
hours of sleep and good grades. Any positive correlation has two factors that
rise or fall together, described as ↑↑. If the positive correlation is perfect or
strong (such as a correlation coefficient of 1 or .8), the dots will closely
follow a line from the lower left hand corner to the upper right hand corner.
If the positive correlation is weak (such as a correlation coefficient of .3),
the dots will still travel from the lower left hand corner to the upper right
hand corner, but not as closely. For this student, the correlation coefficient
was .83, indicating that getting eight hours of sleep is positively correlated
with and influenced the student to get good grades.
For our negative correlations, refer back to the student who got 8 hours of sleep but received bad grades. Any negative correlation can be described as ↑↓ because the two factors relate inversely. In a perfect or strong negative correlation (-1 or -.8), we see the dots closely follow the line from the upper left hand corner to the bottom right hand corner. In a weak negative correlation (-.3), the dots and line follow the same direction as in a strong correlation, but they do not closely follow the line. This student had a negative correlation coefficient of -.83, meaning that getting eight hours of sleep negatively correlated with and influenced the student to get bad grades.
For our negative correlations, refer back to the student who got 8 hours of sleep but received bad grades. Any negative correlation can be described as ↑↓ because the two factors relate inversely. In a perfect or strong negative correlation (-1 or -.8), we see the dots closely follow the line from the upper left hand corner to the bottom right hand corner. In a weak negative correlation (-.3), the dots and line follow the same direction as in a strong correlation, but they do not closely follow the line. This student had a negative correlation coefficient of -.83, meaning that getting eight hours of sleep negatively correlated with and influenced the student to get bad grades.
Our zero correlation chart to the left comes from scienceaid.co.uk. In this chart, we have graphed two sets of data that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Our "X" points equal the amount of rain Iowa receives per year and our "Y" points are the shoe sizes of teenage Iowan boys. In a correlation coefficient of zero (↓↓), the dots do not follow any line and are not close at all, indicating that the two data sets do not correlate at all. Since the amount of rain Iowa receives and the shoe size of teenage boys in Iowa have a zero correlation, it means they do not correlate at all!
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us
http://scienceaid.co.uk/psychology/approaches/images/correlation.jpg
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us
http://scienceaid.co.uk/psychology/approaches/images/correlation.jpg
objective 7: construct an experiment from a given hypothesis and identify the independent and dependent variables.
Will 4th Grade Students perform better when promised a reward or threatened with a punishment?
Procedure:
1. Fifteen students have been selected at random. Five were placed in a control group, five were placed in the Reward Group and five were placed in the Punishment Group at random.
2. All students were met with individually, given a pen and blank sheet of paper, and explained the instructions:
a. "You are to sit in your assigned seat for four minutes and begin writing out neat rows of circles. You are not to look over at your neighbors paper. You are not to get up from your seat. You are not allowed to look at anywhere but your paper."
3. In private, the five members of the Reward Group are told they will be awarded 15 extra minutes of recess if they are able to perform the task well. The Punishment Group members are told that they will be deducted 15 minutes of recess if they are unable to perform the task well. The Control Group is only given the basic instructions with no reward or punishment option.
4. The test is conducted while the instructor keeps a silent tally of the performance of the students.
5. After the test the sheets are collected and the scores are tallied.
IV: Promise of reward or threatened with punishment.
DV: Performance at a set of basic tasks involving concentration.
Control: Students in one of the three groups were not introduced to either a reward or a punishment option.
Findings: Students were more likely to respond to rewards for their behavior rather than punishment. Students with no motivation in terms of punishment or reward were no more likely or less likely to perform.
Reward Group: 5/5 able to perform the task.
Punishment Group: 2/5 were able to perform the task.
Control group: 3/5 were able to perform the task.
Procedure:
1. Fifteen students have been selected at random. Five were placed in a control group, five were placed in the Reward Group and five were placed in the Punishment Group at random.
2. All students were met with individually, given a pen and blank sheet of paper, and explained the instructions:
a. "You are to sit in your assigned seat for four minutes and begin writing out neat rows of circles. You are not to look over at your neighbors paper. You are not to get up from your seat. You are not allowed to look at anywhere but your paper."
3. In private, the five members of the Reward Group are told they will be awarded 15 extra minutes of recess if they are able to perform the task well. The Punishment Group members are told that they will be deducted 15 minutes of recess if they are unable to perform the task well. The Control Group is only given the basic instructions with no reward or punishment option.
4. The test is conducted while the instructor keeps a silent tally of the performance of the students.
5. After the test the sheets are collected and the scores are tallied.
IV: Promise of reward or threatened with punishment.
DV: Performance at a set of basic tasks involving concentration.
Control: Students in one of the three groups were not introduced to either a reward or a punishment option.
Findings: Students were more likely to respond to rewards for their behavior rather than punishment. Students with no motivation in terms of punishment or reward were no more likely or less likely to perform.
Reward Group: 5/5 able to perform the task.
Punishment Group: 2/5 were able to perform the task.
Control group: 3/5 were able to perform the task.
objective 8: describe the process of neural transmission.
In basic terms, the neuron's job is to give information to and take information from the nervous system. When that neuron is communicating with the nervous system, it is actually sending out electrical impulses and going through the process of neural transmission. These electrical impulses are sent out when the neuron is stimulated by pressure, heat, light, or chemical information for other cells, causing the neuron to be "activated" or "fired". Once this "activation" has begun, the neuron's inner fluid is separated from its outer fluid by a polarized membrane that contains ions. The neuron then reaches the neural threshold (where the cell doesn't fire) after it has been sufficiently stimulated, and then moves on to depolarization. Below is a more detailed video on the process of neural transmission.
Another (but more simple) explanation of how neural transmission works can be demonstrated in the picture to the left. In this picture, we see a cockroach and its antennae. The antennae, as most people know, are used for detecting the objects and temperature surrounding our gross little bug. This works this way because of the tiny neurons on the bug's antennae. Since cockroaches don't really see with their eyes, they use the neurons on their antennae to be able to tell when they're about to run in to something so they can either change course or climb up the wall! As my brother put it, "It's like a bunch of little people telling you what time do.. like when you eat something gross. Your (neurons) tell your taste buds that tell your tongue that tell your brain 'That's gross, spit it out!'"
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/psychology/psychology/psychology-biological-bases-of-behavior/neural-transmission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdUUP2pMmQ4
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/psychology/psychology/psychology-biological-bases-of-behavior/neural-transmission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdUUP2pMmQ4