XC- Movie Questions/ Response "Babies"

I went to see this movie today at the 42nd street AMC theater with my friend Brian. The movie was only about an hour and a half long, and almost entirely without dialogue. The movie was shot like a nature film, where the babies were the subject of attention, and their was no real interaction, just action. The main objective of the film was simple, to intermittently follow the first year of life of several children around the world.

The children came from America, Japan, Uganda, and Mongolia. The film itself was abstract, giving us bits and pieces of these infants lives, which were up for interpritation and analysis from the viewer. I saw this as a very good film to take notes on and really showed me alot and made me think deeply about the development of humans.

Most of the movie ignored an adult presence almost entirely, and overwhelmingly showed more mother/child interaction than father/child interactions. This seemed to be an indicator of the message the movie was sending that mothers are more important in a childs growth and development than the father.

I am not quite sure if I would say one culture had a better method of parenting than another, but I think that their was a strong similarity between the methods used by more urban families (like in San Francisco and Tokyo), and similarities between more rural families (Uganda, and Mongolia).

In a rural setting, the children were exposed more to natural life, they walked barefoot, saw dead animals, and wore minimal clothing. They were left to discover their surroundings, and given enough supervision so they remained unharmed. The upbringing of urban children clearly was clearly done differently than in rural areas.

Interestingly, I saw that in urban societies, the children weren't neccessarily taught anything different, but taught in a different way. The California family for example had the mother read the daughter a book on animals, trying to make the child understand the relationship between an animal and the noise it makes. The Mongolian family on the other hand didn't need to read a book on animals to their child because the child was physically surrounded by animals all the time.

In some ways, it is evident that the rural and more natural life is an optimal environment for raising a child as they are given a much more physically interactive education of the world than kids in urban areas. Than on the other hand, Zoo's and domesticated animals (Cats and Dogs) make up for this and allow "city kids" to see these animals in real life.

An aspect of this movie that I really enjoyed were the numerous examples of the interaction between animals and children. This was the greatest area where I saw a remarkable similarity between all of the children. In every child's life their was a pet (the African children had the stray dog, the American, Japanese and Mongolian families all had a Cat). Each child had an uncanny ability to interact without conflict with their respective animals. The mutual comfort between the child and the animal showed me that young children are very aware of how temperamental animals are, and they could compliment that temperament by interacting with the animal accordingly.

I think that this movie, while entertaining, gave me a slightly skewed perspective and impression of human development mostly due to the absence of a parental figure in most parts. In Uganda, the interaction between the mother and children seemed far more natural than the Californian family where the parents seemed to have been intentionally removed from the child. The Ugandan mother was lenient enough with her children as to allow them to explore, and discover things, while ensuring their safety and monitoring their activities. The Californian child seemed to be more the subject of observation and intrigue from the point of view of the parents (kind of like a Rubik's Cube).

A particular scene which stood out to me was one involving the family living in San Francisco. In the scene, the mother, father and daughter are all sitting on the bed, and the father points to a book which pictures an elephant. He asks the daughter what sound an elephant makes, and she responds with a motion that was supposed to signify the elephants trunk. In the meantime, the mother is lying on the bed, talking with the daughter as well, but is mostly preoccupied with the book she is reading about parenting techniques.

In Uganda, Mongolia, and in Japan, their was no scene where any parental figure was reading a book on parenting instead of interacting. The interaction was very natural, and this showed me that parenting much have come naturally to these people. The American mother however didn't seem to be very confident in her own ability to raise a child and was reading a book. I think this shows that their is conflict between the drive to raise a child naturally, and the fact that a child isn't being raised in a natural environment.

Coming into this movie I expected that I would be thinking mostly about the behavior of the children, trying to connect it to how people act once they are fully developed, but actually, the actions and behavior of the children turned out to be such a complex topic on its own that without another movie about mature adults to compare this movie to, I wouldn't be able to give a valid analysis of what behavior in the movie "Babies" corresponded to a common adult behavior.

And just incase you wanted proof I went to go see the movie...

HW 57- Parenting

Their are endless theories on parenting today. In the old days, parenting was not as much of a science, but a hit or miss style of raising a child based on the values, goals and expectations of the parents. Since my father was a child, the world has changed, and women do not still assume 100% of the responsibility of raising a child. It has become more common today for the mother and father to take, more or less half of the responsibility each. The question still remains, how should children be raised? To be honest, I don't really know.

I have seen the effects of over-parenting, and the effects of a lack of parenting whatsoever. The amount that a parent can do to shape the life of a child is minimal at best in my opinion. The fact is, you can teach your child not to steal, but they might still steal.

Growing up, I naturally had an analytical mind, probably due in part to being raised by a clinical psychologist for a mother. This made me grow up to be relatively intellectual (not to be self-aggrandizing). My father spent alot of time trying to impress upon me the importance of the arts. For that reason, I grew up to appreciate the arts, and took an interest in the history from where the art came.

Jakob Friedman as I am today, came into being over the last 17 and 1/2 years. I can trace virtually all of my interests back to one of my parents or the other. I feel like to a certain extent, I have learned everything my parents have tried to teach me, but to a certain extent, I have hand picked what I use in my life, and what I don't. I think that this is what parenting comes right down to.

As a parent, the basic goal is to shape your children in the image of what you believe is a potentially very successful human being. Passing on knowledge, teaching physical fitness, and giving your child a moral code for their life is what I want to accomplish as a parent.

Source:http://www.deepsouthmoms.com/2009/08/when-parenting-theories-backfire.html

After reading this article, it struck me immediately that these kids understood that choice isn't really choice at all sometimes. The fact that most kids when presented with the question; "would you like a red or blue cup?", would just pick either red or blue. These kids remembered that they had the option of a yellow cup despite the fact that their mother only offered them red or blue.

To a certain extent however, I think that this could be a potentially destructive mindset for a person in this world. To disregard the choices presented to you, is pretty much to ignore the entire realm of what is realistic or possible. In the world, this is a common problem that causes people to buy 100,000 dollar cars on an 80,000 dollar salary. When people are living with their own idea of what makes up the realm of what is possible, they are living in an alternate reality.


Source: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T130300.asp

This particular piece was interesting to me because it really cleared up a few misconceptions that I had about mother-baby bonding. I was under the impression that their was a great deal of importance to the first moments of bonding between a mother and child, that it would determine the rest of the child's relationship with the mother. According to this article though, the bonding between a mother and child is not instantaneous. Instead it says, that bonding is a long process that involves building trust, creating a sense of dependance and reliance, while encouraging the child to explore and discover the world for themselves.

Much like with any adult relationship, an infant builds an opinion of someone based on their actions and experiences together. A mother who is able to effectively bond with her child has emotionally connected with him or her, and has made the child feel comfortable and safe while in the mother's care. Since babies are seeking affirmation from those around them that they are significant, that they are here on earth with the rest of us, it is logical that an important part of bonding is also making the child feel secure. By letting the child know that his/her cries for attention are being heard and understood, the child becomes much closer with the mother, creating a mutual understanding that the child is aware of.

HW 56- Interviews and Survey Questions

Questions

1. Do you generally put your own best interests before the interests of those around you? If not, how do you decide when to, and when not to do so?

2. Have you ever put someone down to make yourself feel better?

3. Do you ever feel used? Do you ever think you have used someone for your own benefit?

4. What do you think defines a successful life?
-------------------------------------------------

Interviews

Person #1: Mike Krieger

1. I generally put my interests first, but attempt to consider the interests of others, when I am making decisions that are going to affect a lot of people.

2. I most likely have, I tend to try to avoid doing so intentionally, however I believe it is human nature sometimes to put someone below you, in order to attain a feeling of self dignification.

3. I dont often feel used, sometimes I feel I am being used for simple things, like when people copy my homework for example, however I also tend to try to aviod using people for my own personal benefit.

4. I define a successful life in achieving the goals that one might set or might just happen to come up throughout ones life, also attaining happiness is something that cannot be overlooked in determining a life successful or not.

-------

Person #2: Sebastian Gomez

1. Well, personally, I put my interests before those around me. I'm not trying to sound self centered or ego centered, but the interests of those around me are not of my concern. It is more important to put my interests first then those of others simply because what interests me will affect how I feel and so forth.

2. Yes, i have. It's human nature to put others down to boost one's confidence or self esteem. Everyone does it.

3. At times I do. Although I do not publicily express it. Sometimes it is easy to mistake helping someone in dire need for being used. it's hard not to use people. It's fun

4. Well, a successful life could be one of two things. First, it could be the stereotypical "rap phenomenon" where money, clothes, and cars show success. The other is a much more honest approach, one who enjoys waking up everyday to go to work and is respected by those he loves, one who earns a honest and decent living. to be honest, i'd prefer the first one.

------

Person #3: Kira Munson

1. No i don't. I don't like making people unhappy.

2. Hmmm...Yeah probably subconsciously, but not on purpose.

3. I guess both, but i get used sufficiently more than I use other people

4. Comfort and happiness.

-------------------------------

Analyzing Interviews

For the most part, people seemed to respond pretty honestly. I think that between these three people that I interviewed, I was fortunate to get an array of responses. Mike gave me answers that revealed he prefers to focus on himself, but makes attempts to help people other than himself. Across the board, Sebastian, Mike and Kira all admitted to some degree of interacting, or acting in the interest of themselves. Sebastian said he preferred to indulge himself, and his goals in life were more about himself than others. Kira admitted to using people sometimes, but she said that often she felt more like the "used" rather than the "user".

After conducting these interviews, I think that a statement I would like to have included in the Student Survey is;

"I often put myself before my friends" (strongly agree/ disagree, scale of 1-5)

HW 55- Independent Research

Part 1: Research Topic/ Question

For this unit, I decided to focus in on a topic that was researchable and also broad enough that my research wasn't able to prove anything about the topic. What I came up with, is the following;

Can people learn to pursue meaningful connection, or is interaction a pursuit to benefit one's self?

I thought that this question was good enough to start researching, so I found a couple of sources related to the question I asked.

------------------------------

Part 2: Research and source analysis


Source #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

This source was interesting to me because it discussed a part of my topic I didn't think about when I initially asked my question. The idea of interaction not as a topic, but a part of a larger human pursuit to move higher through the social ranks is far more broad a concept than I imagined my topic was related to. When I initially thought about my question I envisioned I was going to look at "social climbing". In my search for a source on that, I discovered this link to "social mobility". Social mobility is about following the path of a person, family, nation or race as their control over power fluctuates in a global society.

This is why I believe my topic is only a small part of social mobility. People who act in the interest of becoming socially elevated, are attempting to mobilize themselves and ensure a higher societal rank for their family. Becoming socially accepted is a small part of personal mobilization, and is accompanied by economic capital and cultural capital.


Source #2: http://socialmediarockstar.com/what-is-social-climbing

This source was helpful in defining and clarifying my thoughts and realizations about people who I know act as "social climbers". People who act in the interest of self benefit work in very recognizable steps. They create a strong core group of people who they can use as a base for branching out into various other social groups. For example, if I have a core group of 5 friends, and those 5 friends have other friends and other core groups, than I become connected to all of those people.

Business people try and play off of their peers in a cutthroat rat-race to the top of the corporate ladder. The entire intent of social climbing is to elevate yourself at any cost. Often times this requires putting others down to clear them out of your way. In this sense, social climbing is a really pathological practice, because you have to think with the mentality, that people are all just assets which can be used to your advantage. Making people seem like assets is dehumanizing and immoral, but nonetheless, an essential component of achieving success in a capitalist society.

In a world where appearances are quickly taking over as the primary mode of determining someone's worth or value, the average person is more concerned with being more socially accepted and sociable, than being a person with validity. In the world of social climbing, people don't need actual talent or skill, but those who actually end up succeeding actually can back up what they say, and really deliver on what they say they can do.

Source #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
Source #4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
Source #5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital

These three sources that I have listed above are three parts, or pieces which make up the requirements to achieving social mobility. For personal mobility, you need to possess economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. What these three things boil down to, is that you need to have money, intellect, and personality/ connections.

In business, those at the top of the business ladder posses the economic capital. These people are the buyers and investors who companies are dependent on in order to get started and become successful. Cultural capital is more about having intelligence and savvy in order to manage a company, and innovate enough as to become more dominant in a marketplace. People with cultural capital are always in demand by those who possess economic capital. Finally, social capital, which has the most debatable value out of the three types of capital, is also the most interesting and relatable to my question.

People who have interesting or engaging personalities, naturally have an ability to attract other people. These people create social webs, and groups. This human tendency is the cause of what is known today as the practice of networking. People who "network" are trying to meet other people, and connect various individuals for the purpose of strengthening their own image. The value of a talent for connecting people lies in the fact that companies find immense market value in such connected groups of people. This is why you have occupations like "club promoters" who try to hype up a club by getting lots of people to fill it up each night, thus creating an image for a club of being a hotspot.

Source #6: http://www.advancementproject.org/

This source was key to supporting my counter argument that interactions are not solely about benefiting the self. Organizations like this directly contradict and negate the intent of social climbers. Working collaboratively to accomplish a goal for the bettering of many other people's lives is what non for profit organizations like Advancement Project were intended to achieve.

The goal of Advancement Project, is to attain funding for good schools, community improvement, and stressing the importance of participation in the political system by people of color. This is an organization based in California that operates mainly in Los Angeles and Sacramento, but has offices based in Washington D.C. The goals are to provide African Americans, Hispanics, and minority groups with better equipment and materials to achieve socioeconomic equality in America.

I think that by looking at the relationship between interaction for the purpose of self benefit (social climbing), and interaction for the purpose of helping benefit others (non-for-profit organizations), I have touched on a deeper issue. This issue is that people who are concerned about society as a whole, are charitable, and for the most part kind people. People who are all about building themselves up, tend to create these divisions in racial, economic and social groups while becoming super wealthy. When people see the world as a place to contribute, we move closer to an equal community, without billionaires, and without massive poverty. When people see the world as a place to manipulate and use for their own gain, is when we become a "me first" society all about appearances, and not about validity.

My conclusion is that most of our interaction is based off of self interest. People often do participate in activities which give back to their community, but this usually isn't people's top priority. The way most people (including myself admittedly) think, is that they must first improve themselves, or achieve success themselves before they can help others. The real dedication to acting on behalf of others only comes when you take a profession, or dedicate yourself to a cause other than yourself.

HW 54 - Testing

Part 1

Taking this Myers-Briggs test was an interesting experience for me because I am not quite sure it was a very effective test. The questions were very broad and poorly worded. Certain questions were asking you to rate your tendencies to do one thing or another, which created a sort of double negative effect. For example, if a question asks; Are the decisions you make more based off of fact, or on gut-feeling? How can you respond to that on a scale of 1-5? Any response that you give could mean two different things. Say I answered 5 (Very accurate). Well, this could mean that I often use fact to make decisions, or that I often use my own gut-feeling to make decisions.

Either way, I don't believe that this survey was helpful or revealing to myself in any way. Another problem with the test also had to do with the way the questions were phrased. The questions were posed in the following basic format; "I tend to do ________ more than _______." This gives a scale of 1-5 a double meaning. Say I respond with a 1 (Very Inaccurate). Well that means I hardly ever tend to do_____. Than the conclusion can be drawn that if I don't do _____, than I must always do the alternative. The same problem comes with answering a 5, except the assumption would be made that I don't do the opposite of what I said I often do.

My test result was ENFJ. This result didn't seem to match who I was, with the exception that I do try to build up the people around me as opposed to bringing them down. I like to see people succeed and I don't see anyone else's success as a detriment or obstacle that is in the way of becoming successful myself. I am definitely not the leader of my group of friends, but I feel I do have qualities of a good leader.

Part 2

The test results for our class were not all that interesting to me, because I have a pretty solid understanding of who everyone in my class is (even if that understanding isn't very comprehensive). The interesting part of hearing other people's results, was that I realized what types of things make up what we call "personality". A person's personality is made up of many things. These are known as traits. This concept made me reflect on my own interpretations of my peer's personalities. For example, Charles has a very outgoing personality, but what makes him outgoing? Well to answer this, we need to consider the traits of Charles' persona. He talks a lot to people, making him very social. He plays sports, making him athletic, and he makes his opinions well known, making him outspoken. Of course their are other aspects to Charles, but the ones that I mentioned are part of what makes up his "outgoing personality". This test asked question to define certain traits, and depending on how we answered, we were paired up with a personality that seemed to be the culmination of our traits.

HW 53- Survey Reflection

Taking this survey was very interesting at a surface level. It didn't make me think very deeply about my life until I hit the short answer questions. I realized that while I am very comfortable being me, and happy in my life, I wouldn't mind changing a few things about myself. Changing the way I feel and think is not what I want to, nor intend to do, but changing certain aspects of my interactive self might be a step in the right direction.

I feel that I am a confident individual for the most part, but sometimes this confidence becomes an absolute certainty that I am right and have found the best way to live and think that their is. This is bordering on over confidence which in a way is the same as lacking in confidence. Being unable to say that I am wrong is a problem that causes me to take very opinionated positions when it comes to how I view other people.

I also realized through taking this survey that the goals of my physical self and my mental self are quite different. My physical self wants to interact with more sexual partners (college should provide me with that). Gain more mass (muscle). Thus I try and exercise to gain muscle mass and interact socially with friends (to increase the likely hood of "getting lucky"). My mental self is thoughtful, critical of the world and concerned with how I can use my life to make a difference in the world. The main difference that I see between the goals of my mental and physical self is that my physical self seeks immediate gratification, while my mental self seeks gradual development.

Some of the survey questions were relatively thought based and I wasn't really able to answer accurately. Questions where I was asked about "what my friends thought about me" or "what my family thinks about me" were solely based off of my own inferences into the actions and words of my friends and family. I feel good about the fact that I believe with little doubt in my mind that my parents and brother and extended family all understand me, and accept me for who I am.

Part 3

Yesterday in class we looked over the results from our class survey. I spent most of my time trying to find questions which would reveal inconsistencies in the common opinion of those who participated in the survey. Some of these pairs I found were very insightful on a basic level, and could have been caused by a lack of thought being put into how certain people responded to the questions. Other questions showed me something much deeper about people's thoughts and behaviors.

The most interesting pieces of data that I analyzed were the results of two questions, one about life, and the other about death. The first question asked if he/she was afraid of death. Between the two most positive responses, 40.3% of people said that they were indeed afraid of death. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 57.7% (between the top two most positive response options) of the people surveyed said that their life was meaningful.

This seemed intriguing to me at first, but I wasn't immediately able to find what made this data so revealing. After I thought about what these responses really meant, it hit me. I realized that people who are afraid of death generally feel that they have not had the opportunity to live their lives to the fullest, and are living in fear that it will all end without them being able to accomplish their goals.

Going off of this premise, it than struck me as strange that over half of the people surveyed believed that they were living meaningful lives. What does "meaningful" really mean? We explored this partly in the digital unit, and we were going on [I felt] a great path, but we really never revisited it. The idea of living a meaningful life is extremely complex, and clearly needs a great deal more of discussion before we can fully and properly complete our investigations on human interaction and behavior in this unit

The conclusion I drew was this. People are complicated! Sam Kaplan said it in class, but it definitely applies well here, so I thought I'd jux the phrase for my own use. People are complex, we aren't computers, so our minds don't work with binary code. Their may be black and white, but their is a grey area for most ethical and philosophical questions that is massive. Looking at this data in one way may lead me to a conclusion about something that might be completely refuted if I were to look at it from another perspective.

Part 4

Well the main difference that I found with the surveys which were professionally done, and the survey we did, is that the "professional" ones were more like a synthesis, and analysis of the data, as opposed to the raw data which we see in our survey. The great thing about looking at our survey as opposed to say the New York City Department of Health survey was that the analyses and inferences were made by ourselves as opposed to being told what the data "means" and given suggestions as how to interpret the findings.

If you have a survey that incorporates two components, where one is the raw data, and the other is made up of the various conclusions made, the survey both allows the viewer to make their own conclusions, and decide if they agree with some more complicated or less obvious connections that were made with the data.

The thing to keep in mind as we continue on with our exploration into surveys is that in statistics, a connection can be made between pretty much any two things, but that doesn't mean that it is the truth. In short, words can be deceitful, numbers don't lie.

HW 52- Initial Theories on Human Relationships

For this assignment, I decided that I would focus on the idea of gender roles and relationships between male and female human beings.

The male tendency or nature is to promote themselves and assert themselves to other males. The goal of this assertion is to attain the role of "Alpha Male". The goal of becoming the "Alpha Male" is a pursuit that is generally conscious, that most every man is aware of, but it is rooted in a deep subconscious desire. Those who fail to attain "Alpha" status generally gravitate towards the Alpha they are most connected to. This is where social structures generally come into play. The "Alpha" sets the rules, the tone, and the decision making in the group.

If the goal of the social male is to become the Alpha, than this spurs the question of what makes an Alpha? Across the world, every culture has different criteria for what makes a leader, or an Alpha. In America, an Alpha male is generally one who is able to amass substantial wealth, be very social, and most obviously, be popular among those of the opposite sex. Women, interestingly play a large role in defining an Alpha, bringing the dynamic between men and women into an interesting light.

In this dynamic, the women are objectified as a component of male dominance. Women essentially are in this case on the same level as cars, clothes and money. While men are very set on the idea that women are the submissive gender, opposite the dominant male (the object and the owner), it is highly important to recognize that without the women to objectify, the "Alpha" ceases to exist. Because of this logic, the dynamic between male and female is such that females have mental and egotistical control over men, which is relatively equivalent to the physical control which men have over women.

Men seek affirmation from those around them. Those who are assertive both verbally and physically become the "Alpha's" of our society. Those who validate this assertive behavior through submissive actions and passive behavior, are the non-alpha's, and the vast majority of the human race.

Beyond women, the male quest for dominance and control is something which is carried throughout almost all aspects of our world and impacts most of our lives. Aggression is the name of the game when it comes to asserting dominance, and their is no shortage of it. In the same way that a street fight may break out over eye contact between two people, a war between two countries can be started just as easily. The insecurity that someone is trying to impose their dominance on you, I believe is the male fear that drives most of this aggression.

When looking at aggression on a much larger scale in the context of war, it is important to note the connection between war and dominance. What is war if not the main tool of imperialism? And what is imperialism if not a policy of international conquest and national dominance? Following this logic, I believe that we can discover and better investigate why people have always tried to dominate one another, and why we continue to do so.

For this unit, I would like to look more into the idea of dominance not only between men, but in women as well. I talked in this assignment about male dominance because I have a better understanding of the male mind than I do of the female mind and nature. I believe that most all of the problems in our world are the product of this human desire for control over one another. If this was not such a huge issue, than Sudan (a symbol of poverty) and Dubai (a symbol of immense wealth) wouldn't be existing on the same planet as they do now.

Many systems of government and economies are structured in a way which promotes dominance, or class systems in one way or another. As we go further in depth with this unit I hope to come back to this assignment and expand on it as to better understand the world around me.

HW 50- School Theorists

In the first text by John Taylor Gatto, he tries to argue his position that schools are factories, in which nothing truly exceptional is created. I would compare Gatto's theory to the idea that if you build a Toyota assembly line, you will get thousands of Toyota's but not a single Ferrari. Using a generic curriculum gives everyone the same education, but doesn't provide the environment for genuine intelligence to thrive.

Gatto also raises interesting points in his acceptance speech, talking about the loss of confidence in the ability of the system to properly equip people to thrive in the real world. School is seen generally for what it is, a place which teaches obediance, and ignores real world application. The fact that people realize this is a big problem for the school system, but instead of changing the system, we make cosmetic adjustments to the system while leaving the actual system the same.

The next theorist I looked at was Paulo Freire. Freire views the school system as an uneffective method for educating American children. The problem he saw was that students were being taught to like a computer is typed into. The person doing the work is inputting their knowledge into someone else. The problem with this is that if the person you are sharing the information with doesn't see how it applies to them, than it is worthless.

Freire seemed to be of the opinion that in order to properly teach children, you need to make sure they learn, not memorize. Arguably memorization is a part of the learning process, but it is not the learning process entirely. To better the system, Freire would try to construct a more collaborative system in which the teachers acted more like coaches and mentors than instructors and teachers. Learning with a person is much more intellectually stimulating than being instructed to figure out an answer or solve a problem.

The educator Lisa Delpit offers unique perspective into the topic of education specified towards certain ethnicities. The concept is that African- Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Caucasians all have different cultures, meaning they have different manifestations of intellectual pursuits, and in America, the school system ignores all but the learning habits of caucasians. Delpit's focus is on the African-American community. She raises an interesting point in her book where she talks about how some A.M's are very well versed and trained in poetry (rap lyrics, both writing and performing). While the American school system doesn't generally recognize this as a way to demonstrate literacy or skill in writing, it is just that nonetheless.

Delpit has some very interesting and unique ideas that I strongly agree with, but others which she speaks about border on preaching the importance of African-American's assimilating into the dominant Caucasian-American system. This, I think is wrong. While it is important for students to receive an education unique to their culture, it is also important to integrate cultures, not just further divide them. For this reason I am a little unsure of the positions which Delpit takes in her writing and theory.

HW 49- Class Movie Analysis

The movie that our class made, was filmed over two days. Given minimal time to put together a finished project, our class did not fully complete the production process. However, because I was [along with Charles] filming the movie, I was able to play my part in contributing to this final project.

The movie itself seemed slightly trivial in that the main actor in the film (Andy) was sending a contradictory messages to the viewer through his inconsistent tone and movements. Our project seemed to lack a clear point or opinion which we were trying to get across. The script as written was clear enough, but unfortunately it got lost in translation when we applied it within a new medium.

Interestingly enough, the same aspects of our project that made the film unclear and confusing were probably the most insightful parts as well. Although Andy was entirely incapable of acting, he revealed how uninteresting it was for a teacher to play a teacher in a movie. Like we learned in the "cool" unit, a person plays a role, a character if you will. Being an actor on stage is when a person playing a role in life assumes another fictional role in the theater. This is the point at which people are the most removed from their true selves.

Andy was entirely removed from himself when he was portraying a fictional version of himself. He got lost and what was left, was the Andy that we see in the film. He stares confusingly into the camera at times, and half heartedly commands his class at others.

What we touched on in this project, was that teachers are part of a much larger system. The teacher shapes the lives of his or her students, and is the flesh and blood connection that we have with the leviathan system that controls the teachers. For this reason, it is logical that the dull, fascist teacher who Andy portrayed was instructing pawn like students who were arguing amongst themselves. Showing signs of argumentation between each other provided enough contrast to highlight the lack of confrontation between the students and the teacher. His rule was unquestioned and the students were content. Typical.

HW 46- Research and Writing

For my research into the concept of "Pedagogy", I read the book "Dante's Inferno" by Dante Alighieri. The book is a tale of two men; Dante the pilgrim, and his guide: Virgil the poet. They journey into the depths of hell, going throughout the rings and sections of the "Hell" that Dante has designed. The book is representative of a pedagogical relationship when you focus on the interactions between Dante and Virgil. While Dante is guided on his journey by Virgil, he is not led by him. More or less, the two are experiencing these events together. The character of Virgil acts as a guardian to Dante. Dante and Virgil do not physically interact with one another, but they discuss their surroundings as they travel. The book follows the two of them from their entry into Hell, to the end of their journey where they meet Satan and escape back to the surface of earth.

The main message of the pedagogy in this book, as I interpreted it, was to highlight the importance of leading your own life, but having a companion or "guide" to ensure you don't stray from your path. The story is told in such a way that their is continuous progression in the plot, and no real obstacles come into the picture. That is because the story is about the setting of the journey, not the journey itself. The real objective is to get through the rings of hell, and than get out. Virgil is Dante's teacher, as much as he is Dante's guide. Arguably Dante is able to stay focused on the goals of his journey because Virgil is with him to remind him of his purpose.

My question for this unit is; How important in the pedagogy in schools? How much or how little should teachers intervene in the education of a student?

In my experiences in this class particularly, Andy plays a Virgil like role in my sociology education. He gives me the information I need, and allots enough time for discussion in order for me to understand a topic, and than takes himself out of the way. Once he is sure that I have enough information available to me, to complete a task or assignment, he leaves it up to me to do it.

In a similar way to how Andy teaches his class, I think that an interesting part of "The Inferno" is that their are many ways in which it could have played out, but only one way that it actually did. Dante could have strayed off his path, as their is no evidence that Virgil would have prevented him from doing so. Virgil provided Dante with enough guidance as to ensure that Dante stayed on the rout he was supposed to.

I think that the ideal teacher would be able to interfere as little as possible, while keeping students in line. Virgil was able to do this, and to quote an episode of Futurama; "When you do things right, people won't be sure that you've done anything at all". Guidance, not instruction is the way I envision an ideal pedagogy.

HW 45- More Big Thoughts on Schools

E.D. Hirsch seems to have been the person who first developed the idea of a core curriculum in schools. His premise was that the ability to learn on a more advanced level was dependent on having a base level knowledge first. Although this is a pretty basic idea, and completely logical, I think that schools tend to sometimes ignore children who may be learning below their grade level, and continue moving forward without bringing them up to speed first.

Hirsch's concept seems to be directly relatable to the No Child Left Behind Act, which seemed to work off of the premise that children should already have this basic core curriculum down pact. The idea behind the core curriculum is that children are failing because they don't have this basic knowledge, and that is the result of a neglectful school system in America. By passing ledgislation like NCLB, the government doesn't improve our school system or address the real issues with US educational policy, they simply blame it on the schools and make threats to cut funding. I'm positive that hasn't been an effective strategy.

Ted Sizer's writing on educational policy eventually culminated into the theory behind the Essential Schools movement in the 1980's. The movement soon became what is now "The Coalition of Essential Schools", of which SOF is a member.

In his ideal, educational policy should be determined from the bottom up, at the level of the school, rather than as a result of state or federal directives. Schools, he argued, should abandon one-size-fits-all educational methods like standardized tests, grading and even the grouping of students into classes by age.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/education/23sizer.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

Up until this quote, I had been completely in favor of virtually everything that Sizer had said about education. This seemed to bring a new aspect of Sizer's philosophy to the table, showing me that Sizer's theory was not only about improving the current system but creating an entirely new system all together. I don't think the problem is the system. I think that the core values of the school system relate directly to the pedagogical way of developing a student, not just instructing a student like a dog or a machine. I think that where the problem lies in how the system is run. The system depends on teachers to function, and the core values of the system are being distorted and lost in translation because of uneffective teachers.

This all just begs the question; what makes an effective teacher? The answer to that lies in bits and pieces in many of the movies that we have been watching in class.

WORK IN PROGRESS!

HW 44- Big Expectations for School

In the Thomas Friedman article, the main point that he was making, was that we have a failing national school system. The interesting part is, who is it failing? The school systems may be turning out graduates at a lower rate than India and China, but that doesn't seem to be the primary concern of the business world. What they are concerned about is that if we cannot provide these scientists, and mathematicians of tomorrow, than China will. As long as someone, somewhere is being taught and trained to become an expert in technological development. In the article, Friedman quotes the CEO of Intel; Paul Otellini as saying the following:

“As a citizen, I hate it. As a global employer, I have the luxury of hiring the best engineers anywhere on earth. If I can’t get them out of M.I.T., I’ll get them out of Tsing Hua”

This is a quote that provides a really important insight into the way the world as a whole thinks about education. As people, we genuinely want our children to do well, and become successful and intelligent individuals. On the other side of that, is the industrialist perspective. This perspective is that of a person who wants to see schools all around the world turn out workers and assets who will increase the value of his company and develop new technologies as to eliminate competition. Schools as I see it are factories, and the product is ourselves, walking, breathing calculators and minds that the corporate elite can cherry pick to build a more successful and larger company.

In the USA Today op-ed article, the columnist seemed to take a similar position on the topic of school as I have. The idea of school as a factory seems to have historically shown a trend between those who diverted their energy away from school and those who engaged themselves completely in school. In the column, the author Robert Kiyosaki writes:

"The way to train entrepreneurs is almost exactly the opposite of the methods used to train employees. Another common thread about Ford, Gates and Jobs is that they all dropped out of school. This is not to say education is not important, but training entrepreneurs is different from training people to be employees."

The thing is, in my mind, I see myself as a student presented with two options for how I spend the rest of my life. Either I work towards the goal of becoming a wealthy employee, and live as another complacent worker drone, or I figure out how to become part of the elite. The current school system teaches us to learn "skills" that will give us the "competitive edge" when we apply for jobs in our "chosen" career. The system doesn't teach us how to improve the world, how to become a CEO, they teach us that hard work and determination will pay off. But really, it is determination that makes the difference between those who rule and those who are ruled over. The fact is that we are taught to start small, and if we are lucky, we will get to be big.

Becoming successful in a career or field that we genuinely find interesting is rare in America at best. The founder of Ford Motors, Henry Ford showed a strong interest in mechanics from a young age, and with that, he went on to become an engineer for Edison Illuminating Company, and the rest is history. The fact is, that Ford went throughout his life pursuing what he wanted to do. I believe that people who want to be successful have the confidence in themselves to achieve what they want. Schools which set the office cubicle as the limit deny millions of kids the opportunity and the confidence in themselves to change something and do something bigger than themselves.

Of course, I could have summed up the last paragraph by saying that schools teach and enforce complacency, but I wanted to get all my ideas out in this post. Being in school I strongly feel is a chance to gain the skills you need to further your own self, not just get yourself further in the game of life. When it comes down to it, if you are trying to work your way up the ladder in today's world, your not very likely to reach the top. The people in power don't want to see us become successful, they want us to become their employees.

Take the skills and the information you learn in school and use it for yourself. Don't think about where you want to work, think about what you want to create. Think about the company you want to own, not the company you want to work for. Pursue something that you want to do, something you are good at. If you aren't good at it, take your interest out of school. Become good at it. As long as we live a life of settling down, we won't ever be able to break the cycle. Personally, I want to break the cycle, even if it's only for myself.

HW 43- Before Bed Thoughts

I remember my first day of school not first hand, but through bits and pieces I've strug together from pictures, video and what little memory I have from that age. I remember that I was focused on making friends, meeting people. I was learning how to interact with people, and virtually no actual work was assigned. I particularly recall playing alot with blocks. I think that I always liked building and putting things together. When I got to school on the first day, the people I met were the kids who also gravitated towards the blocks. Even at a young age, we found friends in those who shared our common interests.

Now I find that I have the same interests, but I no longer get to build in school. Because of art class (and my father teaching me to draw), I became interested in art. Because of recess I loved to play and I became athletic. Today, these oppertunities are no longer available to me in school. Pursuing what I want to do is not something that has a place in school apparently. We are told that we are supposed to do work in school, not play or build.

I still feel this urge to be creative and explore even in the 12th grade. I can't take the time right now to draw, because I am supposed to be writing this journal. I want to learn the piano, but I need to wait until afterschool on a day where I don't have homework and I don't have to study. We are given a little freedom at the beginning of our time at school, and from that point on we are given schedules and must adhear to them. The freedom that I had as a kindergartener I don't think was childish, but apparently it is not appropriate after a certain age. Personally, and quite frankly I think this is propoganda, framing creativity as the equivilant to laziness, and promoting essay writing and mathematics as worth while.

HW 42- Global Education Rankings

Constantly, we are told in America that our education "ranking" is slipping, going down to 18th, 20th, 30th or whatever. I really didn't understand what this was based off of. Are people in India learning at triple the rate we are? What do these rankings mean, and what makes up a 1st rate education system, and why is America not considered a country which offers this?



Source #1: http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/Global2005.pdf

The first source I looked at took me a while to find. I searched for a good amount of time, trying to find who exactly was deciding which country ranked where. Eventually I found the Educational Policy PDF report on educational quality and accessibility from 2005.

HW 41- Teacher Education

Richard , Ingersoll. "Teacher Education." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, 2006. Web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_education.

This article wasnt as informative as I thought it would be. It was created through contributions from various members of the wikipedia site, and quotations from various books and other printed material. The main idea that I took away from the article was that teachers are constantly improving and changing their methods. The main idea behind teachers ed. seems to be about shaping every generation of educators to match their methods with the times.

Additionally, the other prominant idea I found in this article was that teaching is a highly stressful profession. According to the article, teaching is so stressful that it is common for teachers to give up teaching even after finishing their basic training.

"Many teachers experience their first years in the profession as stressful. The proportion of teachers who either do not enter the profession after completing initial training, or who leave the profession after their first teaching post, is high."



"Curriculum Studies and Teacher Education." Stanford University School of Education. 02 Jan 2010. Stanford University, Web. 23 Feb 2010. http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/programs-degrees/cte.html.

This was not really an article, but more of a course description for a Curriculum Studies course at Stanford University. This actually proved to be quite informative, as it discusses the goals of teachers education courses. The idea behind teachers ed. seems to be that in order to teach effectively you need to be able to learn to work with students instead of instructing them from a far. I think that a teacher is more effective if they can create a more casual environment in which to learn.

In my experiences I have always learned better and been more enthusiastic about a class when the teacher is trying to get the students to understand the topic, and not just learn it and move on. The article also talks about the use of grading as a way to shape how students learn. A key quote that I pulled out from the was;

"schools are most likely to improve when those engaged in their improvement recognize the highly interactive nature of school processes"



"Teacher Education Handbook." Education @ Davidson. 10 Aug 2009. Davidson College, Web. 23 Feb 2010. http://www1.davidson.edu/academic/education/tehandbook.html.

This third and final source I looked at, is the handbook for teacher education at Davidson College. The entire document is quite long, so I decided to focus on a few key pages. The most interesting thing to me, was this diagram I found labeled as "The Characteristics of a 'Future-Ready Educator'". The diagram is pentagonal and on each one of its five sides, is a characteristic of a "Future-Ready Educator". The characteristics are Leadership, Diversity, Content Knowledge, Facilitation, and Reflection.



Each of these describes a way in which teachers are supposed to act as role models in the classroom, promoting certain things and denouncing others. These five characteristics are supposed to be the pillars of quality teaching. As far as I can see, the goals for the Stanford University course on teachers ed. are very closely related to the five concepts in this handbook.

HW 40- School Interviews and synthesis

Question #1: If you could change one thing about school, what would it be?

Melissa (mom):

"I think that my main issue with the way schools are run today is that schools have replaced a large part of the curriculum with preparation for high stakes testing. I think that letting these tests become the focus of American education is the absolute wrong direction to go in."

Marty (dad):

"As an artistic person by personality, and by trade, I think that the lack of art and music programs in schools today are making students less likely to become creative, because they don't have the chance to explore art in school."

Ronny (dad's friend):

"Having gone through the NY public school system as a student, and than returned as a teacher, I have to say, that the system has improved immensely. The students are more relaxed than in the past, and the teachers are much more approachable. I would say that creating a more accepting atmosphere while maintaining structure, would be a good way to improve the system we have today."

Hunter (my friend):

"Honestly, if I could, I would change the cafeteria food at my school. I think that the lack of nutrition that the food provides students with, often makes students sluggish and less energized in school after lunch."

Self-Interview:

"I think that if I were to change one thing about school it would be to provide more real world applications of everything that we learn. I think that stuff that we don't really need outside of school, should be cut, because it's not really helping us in any way and a waste of our time."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #2: Do you think that we should add certain classes to the current curriculum?

Melissa (mom):

"I think that language classes like Chinese should be made available in more public schools"

Marty (dad):

"I would like to see courses such as economics and political science offered in high school. I think that the idea of certain courses being "college courses" is idiotic. The fact is, giving kids an early introduction to higher level concepts can only be beneficial to kids."

Ronny (dad's friend):

"The courses I teach are fairly traditional, but I would definitely be in favor of having high school students taking a course on personal finance, given the out of control credit card debt we see in America today."

Hunter (my friend):

"I take a speaker building class this year, that I really enjoy. I would like to see more classes which could not only provide the enjoyment of this class, but incorporate things from other classes as well. I think that integrating courses is the best way to improve a course and create new ones."

Self- Interview:

"I think that the addition of personal finance courses to the current curriculum would be really helpful for myself and my peers. The value of a dollar is so distorted in the eyes of today's youth that a course on finance could help people understand how to manage money and create a budget to live comfortably on, not just "get by on"."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #3: Why is private education considered to be better than public education?

Melissa (mom):

"I really believe that the quality of a persons education is only as good as what you put into it. If I thought that private school education was really better than public education, you and Max wouldn't have attended public school all your lives. The idea of private school being superior has a lot more to do with the appearance of a more advanced and better equipped facility than a higher level of education."

Marty (dad):

"Well since I never attended private school and neither have my children, I can't really say all that much about private school education. I think that public school education may not be as good as private school education, but I would hope that $50,000 dollars a year for education would make a difference."

Ronny (dad's friend):

"I think that public education is just as good as private, the difference I think, is that most people just want their children to grow up and be educated in an environment where only wealthier people are around them. The idea of going to school surrounded by minorities and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds appears to be frightening to people with tens of thousands of dollars to spend annually on education."

Hunter (my friend):

"I think that private schools are better than public schools, but I don't see any major advantage to attending a private school over a quality public school such as Stuyvesant [where I currently attend]."

Self- Interview:

"I think that public vs. private education is essentially the debate between the effects of nature vs. nurture in human development. We have the lower and middle class students who attend public school, and the upper class students who attend private schools. The odds of a private school student getting into say... Harvard are well above the odds for a public school student. The argument I have gathered, is that being surrounded by people who are all aiming to go to Harvard will improve your own determination to work just as hard as those around you. Ultimately, I think this is true, and the money people pay for private education is more about this advantage than anything else."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #4: How has your k-12 education prepared you for what you do in your life today?

Melissa (mom):

"As far as pretty much every subject is concerned, I only use the basic concepts from the core english, math, science and history courses. In my work today as a psychologist, almost everything that I use, I learned in college, and graduate school. What I learned in k-12 basically was only useful in helping me reach that point."

Marty (dad):

"For me, school was never really an interest of mine. I was good in history and math, but really I was always passionate about drawing. From the time I was still in elementary school I already knew I was going to be a cartoonist. My time in middle-school and high-school pretty much was just required, and I was just waiting to get out and start my career."

Ronny (dad's friend):

"I was always a good student, and I enjoyed doing well in school. In my first career as a census worker, I used a lot of math in my job, so my k-12 education helped me greatly. Once I became a teacher, I obviously had a much greater use for my education. My time in school has, at least in my life, helped me immensely."

Hunter (my friend):

"Well, I am currently in 12th grade, so as of now, education is still a major part of my life. When I graduate, I plan on going to school for engineering. If I follow through with this, I believe that I will be using a lot of the mathematics, and sciences that I have been taught throughout high school."

Self- Interview:

"I think that as a high-school senior, I am entering a phase in life where I will try and figure out what I want to do with my life. I think that the advantage to having an education in science, math, english, and history, from kindergarten until 12th grade gives me a great deal of information which can be applied to a wide variety of professions in life. While I may not want to pursue a career as a writer, I have ben taught how to write well, and speak eloquently, meaning that I'm still able to pursue writing if I am so inclined."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part B:

I think that people have the general opinion that education is a good thing. In my interviews the criticism which people expressed towards the school system was minimal when compared to the positive remarks people had when discussing school. I liked asking other people about what they felt about school, but I just don't think that people find much controversy with this topic. After I finished interviewing everyone, I decided to look at my own life so far, and try to assess how school has been able to help me in the real world.

In my past internships and paid jobs, I have found that I often rely on my supervisors to tell me what I should do. I attribute this in part to my education, specifically the way in which I have been educated. I think that by being "instructed" and not "taught", I have learned to follow instructions, not solve problems on my own. School has also taught me a lot about "getting along" socially. Being able to work well with other people is a professional skill and a life skill that is a product of the school environment, not so much the curriculum. In all, I think that school promotes complacency, and in the end we become robots that have strict programs, and not people than can make decisions on our own. Basically, school doesn't allow us to mature.

HW 39- First School Assignment

Part A:

Questions:

1. When was the United States public school system founded?

2. Where/ When did school originate?

3. Was their a demand for education in this country or in others which led to the creation of a school system?

4. Why does school occupy most of our lives from the time we are 2- to 22 years old?

Ideas:

1. The intent of school is to keep us occupied until we can join the workforce

2. School was created to condition us into becoming "civilized and productive member's of society". We get graded based off of what we do, when there are many people who school doesn't appeal to that are actually far more intelligent than those who do well in school.

3. Private school is segregative, creating a barrier between Caucasian and Jewish youth from the Hispanic, Asian, and African- American youth in America. While some Jewish people (such as myself) are in public school, and some African-American's are in private school's, this is not common.

Experiences:

1. I like being in public school, because I feel more connected to a wider variety of people than my friends in private school, who are often misinformed about how people from different backgrounds act and have a xenophobic attitude that is often unintended

2. Being in school gives me a sense of accomplishment, but only do I feel like I had a worthwhile day when I learn something that I want to study more on at home on my own free time.

3. I notice that what I said in #2 ^^ rarely happens, and if school were structured better than I would be more excited about spending my time in school (35 hours per week)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part B:

I think that school is an inherently positive institution. Although school began as a privilege offered only to the very wealthy, it has since become available to almost everyone in America. The problem with school is not so much about the institution, but more so about the less obvious intent of the school system. I think that in a sense, schools are very well masked conditioning centers, where rebellious young children are turned into complacent, "civilized" people. The illusion of school is that we have been given a gift from the government to become educated and smart, but realistically we learn little about historically significant events that may be considered "controversial".

The Riverside speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., discussed the evils of capitalism and the horrible effects of the Vietnam war. Had Andy not told me about this speech I don't think I would have taken the time to listen to it, and understand how eloquently Dr. King had spoke about the detriment which capitalism hath brought upon America, and the African American community.

The problem is, we are rarely taught anything that doesn't reflect well on the United States Government. As far as I can tell, we are taught to be loyal to this country, for what reason I am not entirely sure, but starting from kindergarten and straight through high school, we are conditioned to believe that America is virtuous and can do no wrong. Instead of being taught about the Hay-Market riots on May 1st, we are alloted a "Labor-Day" sometime in September, a holiday that lacks relevance to the labor struggle in this country.

I don't think that it is school that is bad, but it is the ignorance that it creates which is dangerous, and plays right into the hands of those who rely on the ignorance of the people to generate profit, and breed patriotism.

End Note:

I think it is interesting that American's feel united and seem to constantly perpetuate the importance of a country "united not divided". At the same time, people living in Utah have very little to do with people from Florida, and People from Alabama have very little in common with New Yorker's. We really aren't that united, but we all like to have this stupid fairy-tale illusion that we are.

Cool "Art Project"- Self Reflective Essay/ Art project

Over the past few days I have been trying to figure out what I might want to do for my art project for this cool unit. Since we were formally assigned this project less than a week ago, I haven't made any progress, and I feel that the reason for this can be explained and analyzed using the lessons and ideas discussed in this unit. I decided instead that I would write an essay, as I have a knack for writing (at least more than I do for acting). Frankly I am not a good actor, and immediately, the option to make a video was of little interest to me. To act well, is to allow the viewer to watch what is happening without considering that what they are watching was filmed and is entirely scripted. In my experience, the movies I have watched that have influenced me the most have all generally appeared highly realistic, with rich plots and quality acting.

While the majority of people in the sections will make videos which are probably really good, I don't think it makes sense to have a video assignment for this "cool" unit. The time frame is small, allowing us minimal time to properly edit, script and produce these short films. As far as my personal reason's are concerned, I have a certain insecurity about acting. When it comes down to it, I think that once you assigned this project, I put to the test everything I thought I had figured out after this unit, anddddd..... I failed!

In a similar way to the production directed by Augusto Boal In Sao Paulo, I had a lot of opinions and idea's about what should happen, and what I would like to see happen, but when it came time to actually carry my words out, I couldn't. My very refusal to act, is evidence of the fact that I have not been able to escape my "box", or change my character. My goal for this unit had been to leave my "box", and I think I partly achieved that. To a certain extent, I believe that I grew as a person after our exploration of cool, as I can now recognize certain social cues that people are trying to send in order to mask something from others. Being able to process and understand more about how and why people say and do what they do is a very important part of being able to create realistic solutions to large problems. This is the very essence of what Boal's Theater of the Oppressed was intended to accomplish through the platform of Forum Theater.

I wanted to test this method in a real scenario, to see if it could actually be effective in problem solving outside of a theater setting. I decided it would work best in my home, the next time I found my brother arguing with one of my parents. I ended up getting an opportunity a few hours later when I heard my dad arguing with my brother about taking the trash out, while my brother wanted to go out, insisting that he would "do it later". With a little effort, I got them both to be quiet and listen to me as I explained the idea behind and the concept of Boal's Forum Theater. I asked if they would do me a favor and try to work this problem out using this method, so I could discuss it for my history project. They agreed. In the spur of the moment, I asked my brother Max to try and say something different to my dad rather than "I'll do it later". When this didn't work, I decided to use the real approach of replacing Max with myself, trying to solve the problem by instead saying I would take out the trash now (acting as Max).

While I was able to successfully present Max with a solution, I failed to actually solve the problem, my brother ended up taking out the trash, but only after getting my father increasingly angry at him before doing so. I would urge anyone to try and think about alternatives in their life, weighing all options and not limiting yourself to something you feel doesn't fit you. Being concealed to a box may be easy, but it's predictable, and leads people to become autonomous drones who don't think, but act and don't question their lives at all. This is how people become submissive, allowing the upper class and corporations to condition the minds of the masses, without very much resistance.

I have found, that the largest and most common arguments are based off of people's different perspectives on reality, with arguments over memory, who-did-what, and so on. If we can become aware of how other people think, we can be more understanding, and put ourselves into someone else's shoes. become open to think about our world at a deeper level than what we have been conditioned to think, is where we can find the real solutions to our problems.

----------

Comparison of my paper to "Of Glory" by Michel de Montaigne

In the essay "Of Glory" by Montaigne, he writes of the futility in man's pursuit of g-d- like qualities. The pursuit of Glory, is used to describe what we seek in dreams of fame, fortune, and importance. We deify certain qualities, and are surprised when we never can attain them. In a way, this could be compared to a person who intentionally dropped a gold necklace in the sahara dessert and became frustrated when they couldn't find it. By placing these qualities on an echelon above ourselves, we lower ourselves, and try to convince ourselves we are as important as g-d.

In my essay, I focused on the topic of cool, attempting to write openly and without restraint as to get to the very core of what I feel and think about this idea of "cool" after completing this unit. I found that what I wanted to get at, was that the idea of cool is just that, an idea. We have the reality we live in, and the reality that we want to create. We pay celebrities and athletes crazy amounts of money to do things we wish we could do, and try to emulate our peers to capture a certain look and complete the persona of a character we want to pretend we are. My essay was written in a way that differed from Montaigne's as it was written to reveal my own thoughts to myself, not so much to present my thoughts to the world. At the same time, I concluded my essay with a sentence encouraging people to question the world around them, giving my essay a very "advice column" like feel to it. I would say that in comparison to Montaigne's essay, I would consider mine to be a rearranged version of "Of Glory" (about cool, not glory).

"Thus is it that t0 God alone glory and honor appertain; and there is nothing so remote from reason as that we should go in quest of it for ourselves."

- Michel de Montaigne; Essays; XI. Of Glory

HW 37- Cool Paper: Final Draft

In a few months, I will be going to college, and within the decade I will probably be started a career. I know that I want to be successful, but what I don't really know, and what I am unsure of is how I want to define my success. The truth is, I don’t know. What I do know is that personal success is not about personal gain, but in America, personal gain is the name of the game. I don’t want to be a part of this, but unless I can understand why I aspire to the goals I have for myself, I don’t think this will change. To often, we insist that our behavior simply is, and never has a reasonable explanation. We often cite “human nature” to hide behind when asked about why we do what we do. We use the idea of "success" as a way to describe our aspirations, when in reality we have been conditioned by our communities, government and corporations, to deify hopes and dreams that we don't completely understand. In this paper I will try and explain this behavior, clearly making the connection between aspirations and that thing we call "cool", which make up this mysterious "cool factor" in our society.

In the world, we are divided by race, religion, finance, nationality and gender. Each of these categories have their own social maps that define what people who fit "x" description should do. It has become commonplace that teenagers in industrialized countries are shown wealth as the bottom line for what it means to be successful. The competition between us leads us to lavish our wealth on ourselves, and not contribute it to the community.

We aspire for an identity in America; something that we believe separates, and defines us from everyone else. This has made us uninterested in our similarities, and intent on highlighting our differences. We celebrate and embrace what makes us different, because we frankly enjoy being told we are "special" and "unique", as if being a unified species is a horrible egalitarian ideology. The social effect if this has historically been, “The Zeitgeist" (Beatrice's post put me onto this term), a German term meaning "the spirit of the times", i.e. popular culture. I think that this competition is unhealthy, as it does nothing to unite us, and only divides us. This want to be different is ideologically founded in the same place as white supremacy and imperialism around the world. The opinion that certain people are inherently superior has always been destructive throughout human history, and always will be.

Being "fresh" in New York is a common goal in the social map of a teenager living in New York City, and most cities around the world today. It's all about being dressed the best and looking the most "put together". Pretty much, it is the epitomy of the deification of consumerism. I am no exception to this trend, as I like to wear nice clothes, and am consumer minded as anybody else my age. Recently however, I came to realize that a certain triviality lies in this pursuit. "Getting fresh", like other consumer pursuits, has a goal that requires no skill or talent to achieve. The ability to be more or less fresh relies on the access to money that the person has, serving as another outlet for people to compete and flaunt their wealth i.e. success. The lack of a need to be physically or mentally gifted, is what makes social consumer maps so popular, because essentially you can buy your way to the top of your map.

Being more successful, generally = having more money. Since a better job = more money, we compete with each other to become the richest, thus the most successful. We would logically assume that the hardest workers would be the most successful, but that's rarely true. In America, the wealthiest people are athletes, actors, musicians and CEO's. The misconception of being a harder worker to achieve more, directly benefits the corporate structure, which often yields far lower than we put in (this is essentially the basis of capitalism, a system in which labor is commoditized, and the working class is a commodity). In a darkly comedic way, people have become subservient to a class of CEO’s and executives in the vain attempt to compete with each other, and become blind to the very futility of this competition.

I think that there is a much larger aspect to this cool unit, pertaining to our existence as a whole. Since society began, the human race has been perplexed by the question; "why are we here?" This is a question that like most has been approached scientifically, socially, and philosophically. Many people have postulated and nobody seems to know exactly what to believe. I think that this has created a void in our lives, which we fill by trying to set a goal, or making a purpose for ourselves. We treat this purpose as if it were actually our reason for living, but often times, we focus on one personal goal, and fail to contribute to society.

Wanting to feel important is what we hope to achieve by reaching the end of our map. Often times, this is not the case, in the upper class, being wealthy is rewarding, but not emotionally fulfilling. This is why; psychologists like Matt Fried conclude that people often turn to substance abuse, which gives the user a temporary sense of importance. The idea of "cool" is in a sense, an opiate, which gives us a sense of validation by being reassured that the people around us approve of the character we play.

The English Philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, designed a prison structure in 1785, which he called the “Panopticon”. The idea of the prison was that a tower would be placed in the center of a ring of prison cells, where each cell has an obstructed view of the tower, allowing the guards to see in, but the inmates not to see out. Centuries later, in 1975, Michel Foucault published “Discipline and Punish”, which delved deeply into the sociological importance of the Panopticon design. While the actual Panopticon designed by Bentham was never built, various prisons have been designed after it since than.

Foucault asserted that the brilliance of the Panopticon lied in the uncertainty that it created. While people mainly think in absolute terms (yes/ no, hot/ cold, etc…) prisoners in the Panopticon had to act without certainty of whether they were being watched or not. Socially, we all act as if we are being watched, but in privacy, we let down our guard and are less scrutinizing of our actions. In being competitive, society as a whole has become a Panopticon, except there really is nobody in the central tower. We all are unsure of ourselves, and thus play the role of the prison guard because we lack confidence to live beyond the walls of the prison (i.e. society).

Unlike heroin or alcohol, you cannot purchase the high of social acceptance. It has become evident that in order to gain this, you need to develop yourself into a more socially competitive and intelligent person. This has created competition amongst ourselves, and the reason we try to 1up each other. It has worked out heavenly for businesses, as part of this competition is having more expensive things, thus the emergence of consumerism. Our self made consumer haven has been so profitable, that almost all facets of our lives have been marketed to and flooded with images of what’s cool, and how you can buy, buy, buy, your way into social acceptance.

The sociologist Erving Goffman talked about the idea of our "selves" as a part of us, which we are alienated from because of the overwhelming influences of society. He asserted that in a way, Shakespeare was correct in writing that "all the world is a stage & all the men and women are merely players". The influence of society has created our character, which we play almost 24/7, and often what we confuse with our "true" self.

This unit has forced me into thinking far more critically and deeply about how I live, act, and carry myself, than I ever have before. I have tried to reach some sort of conclusion about this "cool unit", but frankly, every revelation of the topic that I've had, I logically refute a day or two later. If anything can be taken away from this unit, it won't be a concrete truth, but yet another theory, trying to define the entire world and categorize it into a little box (much like we do with ourselves playing roles, and becoming confined to our "box"), but the world isn’t a box, and not everybody is the same. The line between popular culture and the real world is fading with every product we buy and every celebrity we attempt to emulate.

As much as we hate to admit it, we are all pretty much the same, and when you get down to it, physiologically, we are virtually identical. Genetically very little differentiates us. We insist that everyone is special and unique, but really, when you look at the facts, we have created these differences in our minds through our obsession with individuality. The more we insist that it exists, the more we believe it, and the more we will sacrifice in the name of “individuality”. Our variety lies in our mentality, not our physical appearance. This is not called being unique, this is not “cool”, this is racism, and it should never be fought for, but fought against.

Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about 0.1 percent.

(The National Human Genome Research Institute)

Sources:

-- http://faithfulfiend.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/14.jpg

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presidio-modelo2.JPG

-- http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=4590&gid=328

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Conceptual_history

-- http://www.iam4re4l.blogspot.com/

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

HW 36 - Triangle Partner Help

After writing my rough draft, I looked at the blogs of Marco, and Beatrice who are my triangle partners, and commented on their drafts using the restructured format for commenting on our peer's blogs.

Marco's Draft:

As I read your draft, your main idea seemed to be fairly straight forward. I concluded that your point was that; While we have a lot of various influences which make up our "cool" figure, we spend far more time trying to become this synthetic image of "cool" instead of developing ourselves, and thus lack in actual self- worth.

I would say, that cool is a way we break down a larger question into much smaller, manageable goals. We don't really know how to value ourselves, but we know that we must have some value. This question becomes a search for inner worth, to find a way to show the world that "you have value!". Instead of becoming valued, we end up lacking in validity, our inner selves are all but empty, but the character we put forth in the world, becomes our "true" self. What begins as a search for purpose ends up as a search for items that can be adorned on ourselves to "prove our worth".

I think that you have a really high quality draft here, and I only suggest that you expand and reorganize your paper. Being as the search for cool is about the search for meaning, you seem to start off with smaller topics and expanded into a larger topic (comprable to starting with your conclusion and ending with your introduction). I would say that you should make a new conclusion, and add your current one onto your introduction. The transition from the inner search for meaning, to the social manifestation of this search should improve your paper.

Good stuff so far, and I can't wait to read the final product. Good luck on your finals next week!

-Jakob F.

---------------------------

Beatrice's Draft:

Although you have a lot of work you need to do on this draft before it is complete, I think you are going in a very interesting direction with this paper. I think that your dominant idea here, is that "cool" transcends time, and is for the most part something out of your control. We try and determine style and fad's, but from the moment we are born, we have cut our options for our life in half (boy/ girl).

The human race has developed a strong belief in the idea that we are better than animals, and above animalistic tendencies. We have come to accept as truth, that we have an intellectual reason behind everything we do, unlike inferior species without developed minds such as ourselves. This has become deeply rooted in our society, which is based off of masking any simple human desires or behavior similar to animals. While males have a less calculated approach to choosing sexual partners than females do, men and women overlap in certain area's we consider social, which are actually quite similar to many species of animals. Most notably, females tend to choose more "in-shape" men, who have more social, sexual and genetic appeal than men with lesser physiques. This really is a physical manifestation of genetic superiority, which females find attractive as a characteristic in a mate, to pass on good genetics to their offsprings.

Sorry if this is way off topic, but I think that if I were writing this paper, your ideas seem to provide a good way to transition into this more abstract element of cool, which I don't think we'll see in other people's papers.

Good luck with the rest of your paper, and I hope to read it when it's finished. See you next week, and good luck with your finals.

Stay ^, -Jake F.