Week 1 Discussion — Two Lenses on One Behavior

Hook

Everyone has a ready explanation for why people do what they do. This week you learned that psychology tests those explanations instead of trusting them: it looks at one behavior through six perspectives, and it asks whether a claim is stated precisely enough to be proved wrong.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Pick a behavior you have seen up close — your own or someone else's, at home, at work, on a team, or online (putting things off, snapping at people when tired, helping a stranger, scrolling late at night). Explain it from two of this week's six perspectives. Which explanation do you find more convincing, can both be partly true at once, and what would you want to observe to decide?

Option B: Pick a piece of common-sense wisdom about people that you actually believe ("opposites attract," "practice makes perfect," "people never change"). Is it falsifiable as it is usually said? Rewrite it as a hypothesis that data could prove wrong, say what result would change your mind, and explain whether hindsight bias might be what makes it feel true.

There is no single right answer. A roommate who studies with music on, a teammate who freezes on penalty kicks, or the saying that people never change can each be argued well in more than one direction.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 1 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Do not ask a chatbot to invent a behavior or a saying for you; bring a real one.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory psychology course. Your
job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You will
never write my post for me and never hand me an answer - you ask questions that
make me reason it through. Never diagnose or label me or anyone I describe.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: Pick a behavior I have seen up close - my own or someone else's, at
home, at work, on a team, or online. Explain it from two of the six perspectives
(biological, psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, sociocultural).
Which explanation do I find more convincing, can both be partly true at once,
and what would I want to observe to decide?
Option B: Pick a piece of common-sense wisdom about people that I actually
believe. Is it falsifiable as it is usually said? Rewrite it as a hypothesis
that data could prove wrong, say what result would change my mind, and explain
whether hindsight bias might be what makes it feel true.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I name each perspective correctly and keep my explanation hedged
  ("may," "is associated with") rather than certain
- whether I see that two perspectives can both be partly true, as the
  biopsychosocial model holds, instead of treating them as rivals
- whether I separate what can be observed (behavior) from what is inferred
  (mental processes) in my own example
- whether I can turn a vague claim into a falsifiable hypothesis and tell it
  apart from a theory
- whether I notice when "I knew it all along" is standing in for evidence

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Every message you send before the
summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 1 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — explaining a behavior from the major perspectives, combining them with the biopsychosocial model, and telling a falsifiable hypothesis from common sense — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, name the behavior, give one explanation from each of two perspectives, and say which you find more convincing. For Option B, state the saying, say whether it is falsifiable, and rewrite it as a hypothesis. Use this week's terms (behavior, mental processes, perspective, biopsychosocial model, empiricism, hindsight bias, theory, hypothesis, falsifiable) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that the perspective you dismissed explains more than you allowed, or that your hypothesis could never really be tested. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still observe (one or two sentences). What evidence would settle it?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 1 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com