One might assume that the student body at Lewis and Clark is exceedingly politically conscious and proactive. In class students seem passionate and in tune with a large and colorful pallet of current events. People are also very engaging passionate and seemingly eager to have conversations regarding the declining state of this country and our future predictions. On the surface this observation made me feel a bit optimistic. The approach and outlook that my generation specifically carries is one that now provokes dire pessimism.
American youth is unarguable much more individualistic than most countries around the world. The middle and upper class youth dream of careers that will provoke revolutionary action where they do not follow but instead lead. Self-fulfillment has always been the greatest incentive but a country of revolutionary leaders can not exist. People seem to voice their opinions for the sake of personal recognition rather than sincere and intended change.
I was absolutely astounded when I observed some of my peers during the political debates. I imagined watching the debates in a large group and sitting in my room watching them on my computer did seem appropriate by any means. I imagined watching them in the main lounge in platt-howard, amongst my peers who were just as passionate, and interested in what we were watching as I was. In reality people were unable to stay focused and interested for the entire 2 hours of the debates. By the time the debates finished only one third of the students were able to stay the entire time of the debates. I rushed to the debates from dinner accompanied by two of my friends. After a half hour, they decided to watch in on their lab top in their rooms. I was interested if they really would follow through with doing what they said and so I asked them about it later on. As expected, they responded with something along the lines of “ distracted and forgetting”. During the debates people were texting, talking on the phone, or usually just leaving all together. I feel a lack of collaborate efforts and genuine understanding of the dire situation that is worsening every day in our country.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Contradiction of Community Service
Community service is an activity that is intended to provide humility for the contributor and assistance for the receiver. At the high school that I attended, a certain amount of community service was necessary, and I wonder if this having this requirement generates the same self fulfilling goals.
I can not imagine that forced or congratulated community service provokes a life long pattern of philanthropic fulfillment in the same way that self initiated community service might.
Against my will, I was a member of an elite mother daughter group, during high school, which was designed to practice community service. The community service always seemed to have an artificial quality to it. The group was devoted to doing charity work for the community, but I quickly gathered that most of the girls were merely a part of the group because of the group’s reputation for being a valuable asset to put on ones resume. Once a year the group would meet for a luxurious luncheon. During this luncheon the head of the National Charity League would recognize a few honorable members, and distribute a select amount of gold plaques to the girls who received the most community service hours. I cannot deny the positive outcome that must have come from the devotion of these girls, but the entire process was competitive and far from selfless. I wonder if the intrinsic incentive behind the outcome should be as valued as the extrinsic motivation that comes from the service.
The college acceptance process highly praises individuals who engage in community service and it makes me contemplate if this rewarding strategy is having an adverse effect.
I can not imagine that forced or congratulated community service provokes a life long pattern of philanthropic fulfillment in the same way that self initiated community service might.
Against my will, I was a member of an elite mother daughter group, during high school, which was designed to practice community service. The community service always seemed to have an artificial quality to it. The group was devoted to doing charity work for the community, but I quickly gathered that most of the girls were merely a part of the group because of the group’s reputation for being a valuable asset to put on ones resume. Once a year the group would meet for a luxurious luncheon. During this luncheon the head of the National Charity League would recognize a few honorable members, and distribute a select amount of gold plaques to the girls who received the most community service hours. I cannot deny the positive outcome that must have come from the devotion of these girls, but the entire process was competitive and far from selfless. I wonder if the intrinsic incentive behind the outcome should be as valued as the extrinsic motivation that comes from the service.
The college acceptance process highly praises individuals who engage in community service and it makes me contemplate if this rewarding strategy is having an adverse effect.
Differences Between Betty and Mcloud
Julie Betty constantly claims that it is impossible to get a completely objective perspective on any analytical research. This personal critique is a theme with the first few chapters and is very admirable.
As an attempt to introduce the book, Betty spends a great deal of effort in describing the context of the girls and their school. She explains her incentive behind the book and the contributing factors that lead her to end up at the location that she did.
Unlike Mcloud, Julie Betty gives the reader a much more complete illustration of the novels setting. She explains her tactics and strategies that she used to accumulate trust between members of opposing cliques. She seems to pay close attention to small details that might provoke a negative influence on her reputation with each group. For example, she goes into great detail about her apparel to bring about a neutral attitude.
Mcloud’s insight was matchlessly articulate but he failed to accomplish some of the thorough introductory details that might have been helpful for the reader to better understand the following raw data.
Betty constantly identifies the relentless subjectivity that is ingrained within all research, and this reoccurring honesty seems to give her work more credibility. She is constantly describing her personal influence on her interactions. A great deal of researchers seems to dismiss their own personal characteristic and purely dwell on the subject without recognizing their magnitude of their personal influence. Because of the mere title of a sociologist or researcher people tend to assume sociologists as an objective point of reference; Bettie reminds the reader that biases are fundamentally ingrained.
As an attempt to introduce the book, Betty spends a great deal of effort in describing the context of the girls and their school. She explains her incentive behind the book and the contributing factors that lead her to end up at the location that she did.
Unlike Mcloud, Julie Betty gives the reader a much more complete illustration of the novels setting. She explains her tactics and strategies that she used to accumulate trust between members of opposing cliques. She seems to pay close attention to small details that might provoke a negative influence on her reputation with each group. For example, she goes into great detail about her apparel to bring about a neutral attitude.
Mcloud’s insight was matchlessly articulate but he failed to accomplish some of the thorough introductory details that might have been helpful for the reader to better understand the following raw data.
Betty constantly identifies the relentless subjectivity that is ingrained within all research, and this reoccurring honesty seems to give her work more credibility. She is constantly describing her personal influence on her interactions. A great deal of researchers seems to dismiss their own personal characteristic and purely dwell on the subject without recognizing their magnitude of their personal influence. Because of the mere title of a sociologist or researcher people tend to assume sociologists as an objective point of reference; Bettie reminds the reader that biases are fundamentally ingrained.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Problem with Capitalism
As a class we collectively criticized the school structure that is present in the working class projects. We seemed to come to common coconscious that the school was partially responsible for the outcome of the Hallways Hangers and others who are unsuccessful. The school in the project seems to produce a social system which produces a cookie cutter type of student who is obedient toward authority and is fit for the working class. They do not seem to encourage students to question that authority, so those that fail these demands create a subculture. Teachers that encourage the questioning of their own authority seem to be nonexistent in the schools located in the projects. Questioning seems to be a luxury among the upper and middle class. The schools within the projects seems to be trying to merely ingrain the fundamental skills which will provide them with social skills which are necessary with in working class jobs. Those who were unable to keep up with the rigid expectations of these schools became similar to the Hallway Hangers. These skills differ greatly among the skills that are necessary among upper class jobs. In my high school we did extensive research on revolutionary figure that went against the status quo. We were encouraged to question our teachers and to write racy commentary.
During this class, we seemed to discourage the method in which the schools in the projects use. Many seemed to voice that it was unfair how they were not presented with the tools and values that would give them a chance to rise above the working class. We seemed to all wish that this entire teaching style should be abolished. The reality of the situation is that we depend entirely on these people that dwell in the projects. They are the ones that are willing to work for minimum wage jobs. It is entirely unrealistic to strive for schools that are all similar and mimic the creative lucid structure of many of the schools that are located in the upper class neighborhoods. Although this seems fair, the values that each social class deems are entirely contradictory toward each other. It is optimistic and hopeful to strive to engrain this approach to life that is unbound by social class for every child. As cenacle as it might seem, the economy relies on the working class which mold to the low expectations of the teachers and schools who mentor them. Not everyone can own their own business, or acquire jobs of an upper class stature. In a capitalistic society this is not possible. This does not disregard the randomness, hostility, and pain that is unfair for the majority that suffer from this structure. But nevertheless, it is impossible to deny that they are necessary for the upper class to exist. In class we seem to antagonize the schools and systems, and we brainstorm alternative methods, which present a more aspiring future for these children. But our social structure does not make this aspiration beneficial for the economy as a whole. The outcome of this reality is grim, and bleak which seems to be the fundamental reason why this issue is not addressed.
During this class, we seemed to discourage the method in which the schools in the projects use. Many seemed to voice that it was unfair how they were not presented with the tools and values that would give them a chance to rise above the working class. We seemed to all wish that this entire teaching style should be abolished. The reality of the situation is that we depend entirely on these people that dwell in the projects. They are the ones that are willing to work for minimum wage jobs. It is entirely unrealistic to strive for schools that are all similar and mimic the creative lucid structure of many of the schools that are located in the upper class neighborhoods. Although this seems fair, the values that each social class deems are entirely contradictory toward each other. It is optimistic and hopeful to strive to engrain this approach to life that is unbound by social class for every child. As cenacle as it might seem, the economy relies on the working class which mold to the low expectations of the teachers and schools who mentor them. Not everyone can own their own business, or acquire jobs of an upper class stature. In a capitalistic society this is not possible. This does not disregard the randomness, hostility, and pain that is unfair for the majority that suffer from this structure. But nevertheless, it is impossible to deny that they are necessary for the upper class to exist. In class we seem to antagonize the schools and systems, and we brainstorm alternative methods, which present a more aspiring future for these children. But our social structure does not make this aspiration beneficial for the economy as a whole. The outcome of this reality is grim, and bleak which seems to be the fundamental reason why this issue is not addressed.
Connection Analysis
The sociological analysis of racial influence upon class and therefore employment struggles is surprising and complex. From the beginning of the book “Ain’t No Makin’ It” it is well established that the Hallway hangers target the black community as the sole reason for their economic and social problems. It is interesting that personal connection could be the single most important determining factor within all social classes. The pool of applicants is so much greater than the amount of available jobs, and mere skill is not always the most valuable asset. This was present in 1991 but it is still if not more of a concern for youth in today’s job market. I read a statistic, which claimed that only 30% of teenagers looking for a job this past summer of 2008 were successful. Back home, many of my friends were not including in the positive portion of the statistic, and those who were successful admitted that this was due to a family connection or something of the sort. This past summer of 2008 I searched for jobs and interviewed to about 6 different places and ended up getting a job working at the hospital where my father is a neurologist. The success had nothing to do with my personal skill, and I was granted a 12 dollar an hour job for almost no reason at all. The recession that is taking place seems to be demonstrating its effects through ones such as the previously mentioned example.
There seems to be an assortment of reasons why the Hallways Hangers are incapable of holding steady jobs or finding jobs at all. There is not enough demand for the type of the work that the Hallways Hangers offer. Secondly the Hallways Hangers, with the exception of Frankie, battle with drinking and drug habits and this makes them hardly the best candidate for job positions. Frankie who has been going to counseling sessions, has stopped drinking for years and has overcome a before seemingly unbearable hurdle. Even after vigorous searching he remains unemployed. Frankie discusses the importance of connection and politics. Both of his brothers are cops, and he claims that his family is well known. He also claims that this “fame” has caused him to be more obvious and vulnerable to criticism in the eyes of the general public and he has burned all possible bridges that could have been a catalyst for positive progression on his life.
There seems to be an assortment of reasons why the Hallways Hangers are incapable of holding steady jobs or finding jobs at all. There is not enough demand for the type of the work that the Hallways Hangers offer. Secondly the Hallways Hangers, with the exception of Frankie, battle with drinking and drug habits and this makes them hardly the best candidate for job positions. Frankie who has been going to counseling sessions, has stopped drinking for years and has overcome a before seemingly unbearable hurdle. Even after vigorous searching he remains unemployed. Frankie discusses the importance of connection and politics. Both of his brothers are cops, and he claims that his family is well known. He also claims that this “fame” has caused him to be more obvious and vulnerable to criticism in the eyes of the general public and he has burned all possible bridges that could have been a catalyst for positive progression on his life.
Monday, September 15, 2008
the #1 godless campus
Lewis and Clark student body consists of a striking majority of non-religious students. Liberalism and atheism seems to be progressively very closely associated amongst one another. Some college poles have even rated us as the #1 Godless campus. Is not believing in God a popular belief or is it something that each student passionately believes and as disvovered through their own unique path. This caused me to wonder what makes people believe in God. One interesting hypthosesis to entertain is that there are physical elements in the body that might cause some people to be more prone to believe in God than others. It seems to be evolutionary beneficial. The majority of human beings believe in some manifestation of the supernatural, this suggests that we might have a similar gene which has continued to be passed on for generations. Ever sense there is written documentation proving human existence there has been reference to the supernatural. It suggests that this is perhaps a survival trait, and is consistent with Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. A common belief is that the faith in God might call for less cognitive effort than the disbelief in God.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Effect of Stimulants on America's Youth
The Effect Speed has on America's Youth
Never before have pharmaceutical drugs affected such a large percent of the population. Furthermore these drugs are progressively being prescribed to a younger age group. It almost seems as though pharmaceutical companies are inventing diseases/illnesses. The prescription drugs that I see most commonly prescribed to misdiagnosed patients are stimulants. Adderall, Ritalin, and many more are revolutionary phenomena. They are given to control the natural behavior of children as young as 7 years old.
Ritalin and adderall have been around for quite for some time now, but just recently has attention deficit disorder been such a common diagnosis. Could it be true that current generations are just developing more problems with focusing, and the pharmaceutical companies are merely compensating to keep up with the demand for the drug? If this is true, than what is the changing variable in the present world, which has created such an unnatural state of mind? Psychiatrists often claim that patient’s brains are not producing enough of a certain chemical and these pills simply bring the brain to its nature/normal state. Or are the majority of these cases being misdiagnosed while the pharmaceutical companies make large profit. Almost any student who has tried the drug will admit that adderall (or other stimulants in the same class) help them study. Whether one has or doesn’t have attention deficit disorder, it doesn’t change the fact that the drug is beneficiary to some degree. Unlike a diabetic who needs insulin to function, while a non-diabetic would not get the same beneficiary results, stimulants help almost everybody, feel absolutely fascinated toward subjects that were possibly the most laborious and dry. A drug that gives you confidence to participate in class and speak colorfully in ways that you would have never imagined. The drug does not seem to provoke “one’s natural state of mind” at all. Since the drug is relatively new, not all long-term effects can really be understood.
It seems absurd that speed is legal and even encouraged in many ways by the government and society. The effects of stimulants help mold people in to a successful member of society. Children suddenly get good feed back from impressed teachers. It provokes a sudden desire to organize and clean your surroundings. List making is very common. Kids that previously found them selves’ daydreaming and making unpredictable decisions now want to spend every moment doing something productive and planned. Our society seems to cater to predominantly left-brain thinkers, and this drug is leeching the spontaneity and creative nature of many right brain thinkers.
Never before have pharmaceutical drugs affected such a large percent of the population. Furthermore these drugs are progressively being prescribed to a younger age group. It almost seems as though pharmaceutical companies are inventing diseases/illnesses. The prescription drugs that I see most commonly prescribed to misdiagnosed patients are stimulants. Adderall, Ritalin, and many more are revolutionary phenomena. They are given to control the natural behavior of children as young as 7 years old.
Ritalin and adderall have been around for quite for some time now, but just recently has attention deficit disorder been such a common diagnosis. Could it be true that current generations are just developing more problems with focusing, and the pharmaceutical companies are merely compensating to keep up with the demand for the drug? If this is true, than what is the changing variable in the present world, which has created such an unnatural state of mind? Psychiatrists often claim that patient’s brains are not producing enough of a certain chemical and these pills simply bring the brain to its nature/normal state. Or are the majority of these cases being misdiagnosed while the pharmaceutical companies make large profit. Almost any student who has tried the drug will admit that adderall (or other stimulants in the same class) help them study. Whether one has or doesn’t have attention deficit disorder, it doesn’t change the fact that the drug is beneficiary to some degree. Unlike a diabetic who needs insulin to function, while a non-diabetic would not get the same beneficiary results, stimulants help almost everybody, feel absolutely fascinated toward subjects that were possibly the most laborious and dry. A drug that gives you confidence to participate in class and speak colorfully in ways that you would have never imagined. The drug does not seem to provoke “one’s natural state of mind” at all. Since the drug is relatively new, not all long-term effects can really be understood.
It seems absurd that speed is legal and even encouraged in many ways by the government and society. The effects of stimulants help mold people in to a successful member of society. Children suddenly get good feed back from impressed teachers. It provokes a sudden desire to organize and clean your surroundings. List making is very common. Kids that previously found them selves’ daydreaming and making unpredictable decisions now want to spend every moment doing something productive and planned. Our society seems to cater to predominantly left-brain thinkers, and this drug is leeching the spontaneity and creative nature of many right brain thinkers.
Effects of Birth Order
I have always been interested in birth order and its influence on how it shapes peoples lives. I think it is a subject of great interest for me because of my own personal challenges regarding to a possible correlation of birth order.
When I first meet people and I attempt to understand them as a person, I frequently ask if they were a first born, middle etc. child. I am guilty of generalizations but my hypothesis about what I expect is surprisingly accurate. I can usually learn more about that person through this answer than from knowing that their favorite sport is soccer or favorite color is green.
In my personal observation, only children seem to commonly present themselves with opposite characteristics. There seems to be little middle ground. Due to their lack of siblings, some seem to become comfortable being alone and fail to develop sharing habits while others become eager to share due to their years of being alone and not having the opportunity. Some seem to be poor and rude regarding confrontation while others shy away from it.
I have noticed that youngest children often have significant difficult with making decisions, big or small. This may be due to years of older children making decisions for them and their tendency to go with the flow instead of lead the pack.
Birth order may also play a crucial role in the combinations for successful dating. For example youngest children seem to have a hard time dating due to their inability to make decisions. They might be unable to decide on where and when to hang out. I have witnessed both getting annoyed with this quality in their partner without realizing that they possess the same characteristic.
I haven’t done any formal research, and the only conclusions that I have are based on my own personal observations. Most people that I know who regularly see psychologist happen to be middle children. Conclusive accurate data to support this claim does not exist but it’s an interesting idea to entertain nonetheless. Middle children might possibly be overwhelmed with expectation from the eldest child. I have also observed that middle or second children seem to be the most artistic and unorthodox out of the other children in the family. Middle children (obviously ) where neither the child who was praised for being the first nor savored for being the last. This might cause a lack in identity.
Middle children seem generally easy going and tend to go with the flow of things. They seem to be more of right brain thinkers rather thank left. Middle children also seem to start several projects but rarely finish. I have also noticed that middle children tend to be polite and interested in pleasing people. A possible explanation for this finding of pleasing people might be due to numerous years of mediating between the other children who had a large age gap. Middle children are often battling for attention for reasons mentioned earlier and this may carry on to their relationships outside of the family.
Oldest children naturally take leadership roles in the family but as well as in the world. Most of the U.S. presidents have been oldest children. That claim alone supports the significant amount influence that the mere order in birth has on your perceptions that one carries for one’s entire life.
When I first meet people and I attempt to understand them as a person, I frequently ask if they were a first born, middle etc. child. I am guilty of generalizations but my hypothesis about what I expect is surprisingly accurate. I can usually learn more about that person through this answer than from knowing that their favorite sport is soccer or favorite color is green.
In my personal observation, only children seem to commonly present themselves with opposite characteristics. There seems to be little middle ground. Due to their lack of siblings, some seem to become comfortable being alone and fail to develop sharing habits while others become eager to share due to their years of being alone and not having the opportunity. Some seem to be poor and rude regarding confrontation while others shy away from it.
I have noticed that youngest children often have significant difficult with making decisions, big or small. This may be due to years of older children making decisions for them and their tendency to go with the flow instead of lead the pack.
Birth order may also play a crucial role in the combinations for successful dating. For example youngest children seem to have a hard time dating due to their inability to make decisions. They might be unable to decide on where and when to hang out. I have witnessed both getting annoyed with this quality in their partner without realizing that they possess the same characteristic.
I haven’t done any formal research, and the only conclusions that I have are based on my own personal observations. Most people that I know who regularly see psychologist happen to be middle children. Conclusive accurate data to support this claim does not exist but it’s an interesting idea to entertain nonetheless. Middle children might possibly be overwhelmed with expectation from the eldest child. I have also observed that middle or second children seem to be the most artistic and unorthodox out of the other children in the family. Middle children (obviously ) where neither the child who was praised for being the first nor savored for being the last. This might cause a lack in identity.
Middle children seem generally easy going and tend to go with the flow of things. They seem to be more of right brain thinkers rather thank left. Middle children also seem to start several projects but rarely finish. I have also noticed that middle children tend to be polite and interested in pleasing people. A possible explanation for this finding of pleasing people might be due to numerous years of mediating between the other children who had a large age gap. Middle children are often battling for attention for reasons mentioned earlier and this may carry on to their relationships outside of the family.
Oldest children naturally take leadership roles in the family but as well as in the world. Most of the U.S. presidents have been oldest children. That claim alone supports the significant amount influence that the mere order in birth has on your perceptions that one carries for one’s entire life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)