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.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
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)
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)
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 10, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)