One reality show that I have always enjoyed watching is "Wife Swap," in which two families that are polar opposites swap wives for two weeks with the promise of a decent sum of money for participating. During the first week, the visiting wife lives by the family's rules, and in the second week the wife is able to impose her rules on her new family. Needless to say, there is always a good deal of conflict, which is why the show is still running.
There are typically two distinct sections to each show. The first part, constituting the first week, has the wife generally being upset with her alien surroundings and planning how she is going to change the family's rules once her turn comes during week two. Once week two rolls around (halfway through the show, conveniently enough), the wife is allowed to implement her family's rules and make whatever changes she wants, which the family always immediately rejects and spends the rest of week two fighting until they are eventually forced to obey them or decide that they may have been wrong. Either way, these two weeks are full of internal attributions, ranging from "This family has terrible parenting skills" to "this family is crazy." After this, they have the segment where the two families meet up and tell each other what they learned and what's wrong with each other, and then they move on to the next show, but that doesn't constitute more than two minutes at the end of the show. However, the structure goes deeper than just how the show is organized.
I recently learned from my Sociology class about the three broad types of group leadership styles that exist, those being Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire. Authoritarian is one in which one leader at the top gets all the power, and the people under this leader have no say whatsoever. It maximizes efficiency/goal-accomplishing-power (Instrumentality) at the cost of the workers' creativity and opinions (Expressiveness). Laissez-Faire is the complete opposite, in which the person at the top doesn't really have any say, and the only goal is that everyone stays happy. This maximizes creativity, but your projects might never get done. Then, you have Democratic, the combination of the two. This method allows everyone to have a say, but the leader still makes the final decisions. Not as much will get done, but everyone will have a say, even if it ends up having no impact on the final decision.
There are also three different types of organizations. The first type is a Voluntary organization, which people join for social and entertainment reasons (such as the Boy Scouts). The second type is Utilitarian, which involve practical matters (an example would be a Homeowner's Association). The third and final type is the Coercive organization, which most people do not willingly join. These sorts of organizations ore usually used for purposes of punishment or total resocialization (completely changing your attitude, etc.), and include such organizations as prison and mental institutions.
Along with these is the idea of Culture Shock, which is when you enter a culture (or organization) unlike your own and are overwhelmed by the differing ideals. After seeing this episode of Wife Swap, the true reason for the success of the show occurred to me. What the producers of Wife Swap do is they take two opposite families (such as in this case, with one Authoritarian family and one Laissez-Faire family) and swap them, and hope culture shock will take care of the rest. From my experience, this usually works, and while the families claim to have learned something by the end of the two weeks, it's getting to the point where I wonder if such reality TV shows won't require an IRB to get on the air.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Strategies Behind the Mundane
Today has been a day of discovery for me. Two things that I have thought about in the past suddenly gained meaning as I was exposed either to a definition for said thoughts or to another person who thinks in the same way. They are pretty run-of-the-mill things, but I find them infinitely interesting.
The first concept is one that we covered in one of my psychology courses, referred to as Misattribution of Arousal. This is a result of the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion, which says that we look at our current state of mind and then draw how we're feeling based on that and our current surroundings. How that leads to this misattribution is when one source causes the physiological arousal and we end up attributing it to something else. The example from class was as follows: If you're feeling hot, have an increased heart rate and shaky hands, you need to know what situation you're in to say for sure how you're feeling. Maybe you just saw an extremely attractive member of the opposite sex and are flustered, or maybe you just got done exercising, or any number of other things. The point here is that such feelings can be attributed to a very wide range of things. This is where it gets tricky.
The reason why this is a problem is that we don't always remember why we got into that state or even when we entered it. So it becomes a spur-of-the-moment thing, searching for a reason why we suddenly became aroused. A study that supports this theory is that of the Scenic Attraction Study (Dutton and Aron, 1974). In this study, participants walked across a very high up, unstable suspension bridge in a park. Having done so, they went to the purposefully-very-attractive tester and rated how nice the park was. However, in the process of finishing up the paperwork, the test administrator secretly slipped the participants her phone number. Then, the idea was to wait to see how many participants called her. However, there was one more variable. Half of the participants got to sit on a bench after crossing the scary suspension bridge, while half went straight to the attractive woman. The results of the test showed that many more participants that went straight from the bridge to the rating process called her, implying that they attributed their arousal to her attractiveness rather than their frightening experience crossing the bridge. This supports the theory that people will misconstrue the cause of their feelings if they happen to misread a situation. This is also a good reason to take your date to a theme park and a scary movie, as they might commit the same error and end up seeing you in a much more positive light. Why I found this so interesting, however, is because it explains the typical media example of the superhero saving the damsel in distress from certain death and her falling hopelessly in love with him as a result. It isn't necessarily the superhero's innate good looks, it may just be the shock of the said damsel's situation being mislabeled as being smitten with her savior.
The second point of the day is an observation. When getting ready for tests, I often listen to music from a game called Fight Night Round 4 (a boxing title by EA Sports). One of my favorite motivational songs is called "Ready For The Fight," and features such phrases as "going for the knockout," "I'm gonna stand my ground and be the best pound-for-pound" and other such phrases conveying one's total control over a situation. I thought I might be the only one who viewed tests in this way, but just today a classmate and friend of mine said that they were going to approach today's statistics test "like Rocky," implying that he was going to shoot for total victory. I find it interesting that people view tests in this manner, almost as if it were a boxing match and the test happened to be another person. In this way, it is interesting how people personify their problems in order to more easily motivate themselves to overcome them.
The first concept is one that we covered in one of my psychology courses, referred to as Misattribution of Arousal. This is a result of the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion, which says that we look at our current state of mind and then draw how we're feeling based on that and our current surroundings. How that leads to this misattribution is when one source causes the physiological arousal and we end up attributing it to something else. The example from class was as follows: If you're feeling hot, have an increased heart rate and shaky hands, you need to know what situation you're in to say for sure how you're feeling. Maybe you just saw an extremely attractive member of the opposite sex and are flustered, or maybe you just got done exercising, or any number of other things. The point here is that such feelings can be attributed to a very wide range of things. This is where it gets tricky.
The reason why this is a problem is that we don't always remember why we got into that state or even when we entered it. So it becomes a spur-of-the-moment thing, searching for a reason why we suddenly became aroused. A study that supports this theory is that of the Scenic Attraction Study (Dutton and Aron, 1974). In this study, participants walked across a very high up, unstable suspension bridge in a park. Having done so, they went to the purposefully-very-attractive tester and rated how nice the park was. However, in the process of finishing up the paperwork, the test administrator secretly slipped the participants her phone number. Then, the idea was to wait to see how many participants called her. However, there was one more variable. Half of the participants got to sit on a bench after crossing the scary suspension bridge, while half went straight to the attractive woman. The results of the test showed that many more participants that went straight from the bridge to the rating process called her, implying that they attributed their arousal to her attractiveness rather than their frightening experience crossing the bridge. This supports the theory that people will misconstrue the cause of their feelings if they happen to misread a situation. This is also a good reason to take your date to a theme park and a scary movie, as they might commit the same error and end up seeing you in a much more positive light. Why I found this so interesting, however, is because it explains the typical media example of the superhero saving the damsel in distress from certain death and her falling hopelessly in love with him as a result. It isn't necessarily the superhero's innate good looks, it may just be the shock of the said damsel's situation being mislabeled as being smitten with her savior.
The second point of the day is an observation. When getting ready for tests, I often listen to music from a game called Fight Night Round 4 (a boxing title by EA Sports). One of my favorite motivational songs is called "Ready For The Fight," and features such phrases as "going for the knockout," "I'm gonna stand my ground and be the best pound-for-pound" and other such phrases conveying one's total control over a situation. I thought I might be the only one who viewed tests in this way, but just today a classmate and friend of mine said that they were going to approach today's statistics test "like Rocky," implying that he was going to shoot for total victory. I find it interesting that people view tests in this manner, almost as if it were a boxing match and the test happened to be another person. In this way, it is interesting how people personify their problems in order to more easily motivate themselves to overcome them.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Shared Emotions
Over the past two days in my Social Psychology class, we have been talking about how we communicate emotions to others in unassuming ways. One such way is through our body language, also referred to as "Nonverbal Basic Channels." Such channels include body language and physical appearance, but they can also include such subtleties as eye contact (or lack thereof... for example, police officers wearing mirrored sunglasses) or facial expressions. For this post, I will be focusing on facial expressions, as that is what struck me as truly interesting for that specific class period.
There are two areas of facial expressions that strike me as interesting. The first area is a study, which proved that there are six facial expressions that are universal across cultures. These facial expressions (happy, sad, afraid, surprised, angry, disgusted/sick) can be understood by anyone regardless of what culture you come from. Other emotions such as guilt, pride, and the sort are socially-dependent and as such vary based on what culture you come from. But that is only the beginning.
The second area sheds light on why we have empathy towards other humans, regardless of our situation. There is a curious reaction that goes on in our brain when we see someone in one of those six moods: our brain sends the same signals from the same areas. So if you see someone who is sad, your brain will work to make you sad too, although not always to the same degree. The parts of your brain that work to make this possible are referred to as Mirror Neurons, and they are what allows us to easily be sympathetic towards others. So when people say they're on the same wavelength, their statement may be truer than they know.
In this way, it is true that a smile can make all the difference.
There are two areas of facial expressions that strike me as interesting. The first area is a study, which proved that there are six facial expressions that are universal across cultures. These facial expressions (happy, sad, afraid, surprised, angry, disgusted/sick) can be understood by anyone regardless of what culture you come from. Other emotions such as guilt, pride, and the sort are socially-dependent and as such vary based on what culture you come from. But that is only the beginning.
The second area sheds light on why we have empathy towards other humans, regardless of our situation. There is a curious reaction that goes on in our brain when we see someone in one of those six moods: our brain sends the same signals from the same areas. So if you see someone who is sad, your brain will work to make you sad too, although not always to the same degree. The parts of your brain that work to make this possible are referred to as Mirror Neurons, and they are what allows us to easily be sympathetic towards others. So when people say they're on the same wavelength, their statement may be truer than they know.
In this way, it is true that a smile can make all the difference.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Danger Of Assumptions
The validity of IQ/aptitude tests has been questioned for a long time, and as one might expect they have garnered many forms of criticism. However, it was not until yesterday that I learned the true extent of that criticism. While I thought it was only limited to studies saying that they might not work, there are actually many more studies that go much deeper than just saying they might not be valid.
The first thing that was mentioned was the so-called "Bloomer" study, by Rosenthal and Jacobson. This study took classes of students, assigned IQ test scores to the students at random, and presented those scores to the teachers. They pointed out which of the randomly-selected students were "bloomers" and were supposed to do very well that year, and which ones were not. At the end of the year, they found that the "bloomers" had in fact done well, even though they were randomly selected, hinting that teacher bias has some influence on how much a student learns.
The other point that was brought up was the argument that such IQ tests are culturally biased. To counter this, some mock IQ tests were made to demonstrate to us how uncomfortable not being familiar with the culture could make the testtaking process. Two examples of this are the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity and the Cultural/Regional Uppercrust Savvy Test, which if nothing else do an excellent job of proving their point.
This sort of thing really makes me question the existence of IQ tests and gifted programs.
The first thing that was mentioned was the so-called "Bloomer" study, by Rosenthal and Jacobson. This study took classes of students, assigned IQ test scores to the students at random, and presented those scores to the teachers. They pointed out which of the randomly-selected students were "bloomers" and were supposed to do very well that year, and which ones were not. At the end of the year, they found that the "bloomers" had in fact done well, even though they were randomly selected, hinting that teacher bias has some influence on how much a student learns.
The other point that was brought up was the argument that such IQ tests are culturally biased. To counter this, some mock IQ tests were made to demonstrate to us how uncomfortable not being familiar with the culture could make the testtaking process. Two examples of this are the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity and the Cultural/Regional Uppercrust Savvy Test, which if nothing else do an excellent job of proving their point.
This sort of thing really makes me question the existence of IQ tests and gifted programs.
The Difference One Word Makes
In one of my psychology courses last week, we were talking about the difference one word can make in the interpreter's perception. The example used in class was if we were presented with a "warm, determined, intense, etc." person or a "cold, determined, intense, etc." person. However, I found a different use for such an idea.
In that same class period, we also covered the idea of schema, generalized mental scripts that we create in order to be able to commit our brainpower to less-redundant things. There are three types of schema: those that define a person (for example, the Hippie schema), those that define a role (the schema defining what a student does), and those that define events (schema that tell you what to do when eating at a restaurant, for a common example). As such, these schema can apply to just about anything.
This ties in with the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I have talked about before. The example I have in mind is how our teacher told us that the test that is coming up in a week is going to be HARD. I think this is a bad idea, despite our teacher's intentions. The teacher said that the test was going to be hard thinking that it would motivate us to study and generally be prepared for a hard test. However, I think this may have had the opposite effect. For some students, when they hear that the test is going to be HARD, they panic. This is because their prototype (or an exemplar) of a hard test comes up in their mind. Their prototypical hard test may be a test that they studied for but didn't do well on anyway. This leads them to look at their test-preparation schema and decide that regardless of whether they study or not they won't do very well, and so they don't study and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (their thinking they wouldn't do well led them to not study, and so they didn't do well). This is why I think teachers should say tests are CHALLENGING rather than HARD. Saying a test is HARD implies that some or all of the students will have a tough time with it and some of them just won't be able to handle it at all. CHALLENGING implies that while it will be tough, it can be handled with sufficient preparation. In this way, one word can make all the difference.
In that same class period, we also covered the idea of schema, generalized mental scripts that we create in order to be able to commit our brainpower to less-redundant things. There are three types of schema: those that define a person (for example, the Hippie schema), those that define a role (the schema defining what a student does), and those that define events (schema that tell you what to do when eating at a restaurant, for a common example). As such, these schema can apply to just about anything.
This ties in with the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I have talked about before. The example I have in mind is how our teacher told us that the test that is coming up in a week is going to be HARD. I think this is a bad idea, despite our teacher's intentions. The teacher said that the test was going to be hard thinking that it would motivate us to study and generally be prepared for a hard test. However, I think this may have had the opposite effect. For some students, when they hear that the test is going to be HARD, they panic. This is because their prototype (or an exemplar) of a hard test comes up in their mind. Their prototypical hard test may be a test that they studied for but didn't do well on anyway. This leads them to look at their test-preparation schema and decide that regardless of whether they study or not they won't do very well, and so they don't study and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (their thinking they wouldn't do well led them to not study, and so they didn't do well). This is why I think teachers should say tests are CHALLENGING rather than HARD. Saying a test is HARD implies that some or all of the students will have a tough time with it and some of them just won't be able to handle it at all. CHALLENGING implies that while it will be tough, it can be handled with sufficient preparation. In this way, one word can make all the difference.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Thoughts From Week One
Since I haven't posted in a while, I will post a number of thoughts that I've had from the first week of classes, Peter King style.
1. It has always surprised me how everything can be spun in at least two different ways given the proper viewpoint. This is especially apparent in statistics and law, when you'll see the same data used on both sides of an argument (An astounding 50% did [thing A]! Yes, well only 50% did [Thing A]). However, when you enter the realm of psychology, it becomes a lot harder to look at such arguments. I will use a personal example of a meeting with a friend from a while ago, in which the feeling I had was largely that of neutral emotion, although there were several highlights. Does this mean that the meeting was a failure because there was only one good moment? Or was it a success because that single good moment happened when otherwise there would have been only neutrality with a different person? Do you look at it from a personal standpoint (it was bad) or a comparative one (it was good)? And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the other person felt during the meeting. Had I known how they felt during this exchange, I wouldn't have worried about this at all because I wouldn't have to determine for myself if I made a good impression.
2. My sociology course this semester has an interesting project for us this semester, called the Breaking Social Norms paper. For the paper, we have to choose a social norm to break (by staring at people while in the elevator, for instance) and write a paper detailing the reception we get. This also serves to show us firsthand how taken for granted social norms are, and how people often take offense when someone decides not to follow them. I have seen this myself long before this paper, as I am one of those people who likes to wear shorts all winter, so I've been heckled on the street a number of times. It really makes you wonder if people are trying to get you to change or feel the need to speak up because they're afraid of why you're deviating from their sacred norms.
3. On that note, It seems that sociology and psychology have similar views on the matter. Sociology views breaking social norms as a fun experiment and one of the ways they can test out social theories, and psychology refers to such behavior as “Deviance,” a sign of potential problems or disorders (one of six signs, in fact). This begs the question of whether this deviance is truly encouraged. From the standpoint of society, it seems that such deviation is not welcome (unless you're a sociologist). And in the realm of psychology, deviating from the social norm in certain ways will earn you a swift diagnosis. So in school, I could see how students would receive mixed messages. They are encouraged to develop their creativity and overcome Functional Fixedness (only using something in the way that it is normally used. One example of overcoming functional fixedness would be using a frying pan to hammer in a nail when an actual hammer is not available), but not to deviate from social norms. This can be a very fine line in some situations.
4. There is a concept that exists somewhere in between psychology, sociology, and linguistics referred to as Grice's Conversational Maxims (named after Paul Grice, who came up with them). These maxims are part of our social norms, and dictate how all people have to talk in order to make a conversation run smoothly. In fact, Grice didn't just come up with these under the premise that we follow them to help a conversation along; rather, he said that we follow these maxims in order to keep a conversation going at any cost. His four maxims are as follows:
Quality: Always tell the truth (or what you believe to be true) or what you have evidence supporting.
Quantity: Don't say too much or too little. Say as much as is needed, but only as much as is needed.
Relation: Only say what is relevant, or note that it is unrelated beforehand.
Manner: Keep what you say clear. Don't be ambiguous.
You may be wondering why some people you know blatantly disregard these maxims in order to make a point or just get some hidden meaning across. This is referred to as flouting the maxims. This allows for two ways to communicate: through following or flouting the maxims. This is why you notice when someone attempts to change the subject, and consequently wonder if they're trying to avoid something or just weren't paying attention. What I find interesting, however, is that these maxims seem to apply to emotions as well. While we can really only express our emotions verbally and physically, I still feel that people have the same expectations for emotions that we do for conversations.
5. In my classes so far, I've begun to notice a curious trend: the front three rows are almost always dominated by girls (I would estimate 75-90% are taken by girls on any given day in any given class, with the rest being filled by boys or left open). I can't really come up with a good explanation for this, but it certainly is strange.
As far as I can remember, that's everything from week one.
1. It has always surprised me how everything can be spun in at least two different ways given the proper viewpoint. This is especially apparent in statistics and law, when you'll see the same data used on both sides of an argument (An astounding 50% did [thing A]! Yes, well only 50% did [Thing A]). However, when you enter the realm of psychology, it becomes a lot harder to look at such arguments. I will use a personal example of a meeting with a friend from a while ago, in which the feeling I had was largely that of neutral emotion, although there were several highlights. Does this mean that the meeting was a failure because there was only one good moment? Or was it a success because that single good moment happened when otherwise there would have been only neutrality with a different person? Do you look at it from a personal standpoint (it was bad) or a comparative one (it was good)? And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the other person felt during the meeting. Had I known how they felt during this exchange, I wouldn't have worried about this at all because I wouldn't have to determine for myself if I made a good impression.
2. My sociology course this semester has an interesting project for us this semester, called the Breaking Social Norms paper. For the paper, we have to choose a social norm to break (by staring at people while in the elevator, for instance) and write a paper detailing the reception we get. This also serves to show us firsthand how taken for granted social norms are, and how people often take offense when someone decides not to follow them. I have seen this myself long before this paper, as I am one of those people who likes to wear shorts all winter, so I've been heckled on the street a number of times. It really makes you wonder if people are trying to get you to change or feel the need to speak up because they're afraid of why you're deviating from their sacred norms.
3. On that note, It seems that sociology and psychology have similar views on the matter. Sociology views breaking social norms as a fun experiment and one of the ways they can test out social theories, and psychology refers to such behavior as “Deviance,” a sign of potential problems or disorders (one of six signs, in fact). This begs the question of whether this deviance is truly encouraged. From the standpoint of society, it seems that such deviation is not welcome (unless you're a sociologist). And in the realm of psychology, deviating from the social norm in certain ways will earn you a swift diagnosis. So in school, I could see how students would receive mixed messages. They are encouraged to develop their creativity and overcome Functional Fixedness (only using something in the way that it is normally used. One example of overcoming functional fixedness would be using a frying pan to hammer in a nail when an actual hammer is not available), but not to deviate from social norms. This can be a very fine line in some situations.
4. There is a concept that exists somewhere in between psychology, sociology, and linguistics referred to as Grice's Conversational Maxims (named after Paul Grice, who came up with them). These maxims are part of our social norms, and dictate how all people have to talk in order to make a conversation run smoothly. In fact, Grice didn't just come up with these under the premise that we follow them to help a conversation along; rather, he said that we follow these maxims in order to keep a conversation going at any cost. His four maxims are as follows:
Quality: Always tell the truth (or what you believe to be true) or what you have evidence supporting.
Quantity: Don't say too much or too little. Say as much as is needed, but only as much as is needed.
Relation: Only say what is relevant, or note that it is unrelated beforehand.
Manner: Keep what you say clear. Don't be ambiguous.
You may be wondering why some people you know blatantly disregard these maxims in order to make a point or just get some hidden meaning across. This is referred to as flouting the maxims. This allows for two ways to communicate: through following or flouting the maxims. This is why you notice when someone attempts to change the subject, and consequently wonder if they're trying to avoid something or just weren't paying attention. What I find interesting, however, is that these maxims seem to apply to emotions as well. While we can really only express our emotions verbally and physically, I still feel that people have the same expectations for emotions that we do for conversations.
5. In my classes so far, I've begun to notice a curious trend: the front three rows are almost always dominated by girls (I would estimate 75-90% are taken by girls on any given day in any given class, with the rest being filled by boys or left open). I can't really come up with a good explanation for this, but it certainly is strange.
As far as I can remember, that's everything from week one.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The "New" Threat
Back in 1993, a show began airing on television that was to become one of my favorites to this day: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (which was a chopped-up, Americanized version of a Super Sentai show that gets a new version every year in Japan). To a kid who couldn't wait to hit a double-digit age, this show had everything: Cool crime-fighting heroes, giant transforming robots, and a somewhat-loud hard-rock intro. Since then they have gone on to make over a dozen others, all taken from Japan and with American actors inserted. However, all of these have been new. There was no corporate reselling involved to make a few extra bucks off of something they'd already used.
That is, until now. Last Saturday, I was watching some 4Kids-licensed Saturday morning cartoons on The CW (CBS and WB's co-owned network) because, as most people in an Anime Club will tell you, it's fun to laugh at the atrocious English voice-overs. That was when it happened: The CW announced that they were going to re-air the original Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, starting that week. However, there was a catch. These episodes were advertised as being all-new, despite their being released in 1993.
The CW 4Kids, as this union is called, took the original Power Rangers, threw in some flashy transitions, some Batman sound effects (they actually inserted those POW! OOF! bubbles), and a still somewhat-loud kind-of-new intro and called it a totally new thing. They tried to play it off as something legitimately new by saying that the villain from the show, Rita Repulsa, sent the entire network back in time in order to destroy the original Power Rangers and make it so that none of the other versions would ever exist. While it's a nice thought, it would have been nice if it wasn't a blatant repackaging of a show from seventeen years ago.
However, this seems to have worked. Through clever manipulation, 4Kids and The CW were able to tweak the original show just enough to get a 2010 copyright slapped on it, just like one might with a new edition of a textbook. If I had to call out the network on one thing, it would be taking advantage of their target audience (who are too young to have seen the original show) and playing it off as a new thing. I support their re-airing the show, but playing it off as new just doesn't sit well with me.
I'll end this post with a quote from Wikipedia: "On January 2, 2010 a re-version of the series with a new logo, comic book-referenced graphics, and alternative special effects began airing... and Bandai produced brand new toys to coincide with the series."
That is, until now. Last Saturday, I was watching some 4Kids-licensed Saturday morning cartoons on The CW (CBS and WB's co-owned network) because, as most people in an Anime Club will tell you, it's fun to laugh at the atrocious English voice-overs. That was when it happened: The CW announced that they were going to re-air the original Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, starting that week. However, there was a catch. These episodes were advertised as being all-new, despite their being released in 1993.
The CW 4Kids, as this union is called, took the original Power Rangers, threw in some flashy transitions, some Batman sound effects (they actually inserted those POW! OOF! bubbles), and a still somewhat-loud kind-of-new intro and called it a totally new thing. They tried to play it off as something legitimately new by saying that the villain from the show, Rita Repulsa, sent the entire network back in time in order to destroy the original Power Rangers and make it so that none of the other versions would ever exist. While it's a nice thought, it would have been nice if it wasn't a blatant repackaging of a show from seventeen years ago.
However, this seems to have worked. Through clever manipulation, 4Kids and The CW were able to tweak the original show just enough to get a 2010 copyright slapped on it, just like one might with a new edition of a textbook. If I had to call out the network on one thing, it would be taking advantage of their target audience (who are too young to have seen the original show) and playing it off as a new thing. I support their re-airing the show, but playing it off as new just doesn't sit well with me.
I'll end this post with a quote from Wikipedia: "On January 2, 2010 a re-version of the series with a new logo, comic book-referenced graphics, and alternative special effects began airing... and Bandai produced brand new toys to coincide with the series."
Monday, December 28, 2009
What's In A Name?
In my sociology class last semester, one of the first things the teacher explained was how society influences us and we influence society back. He drew a diagram to simplify this concept that I think worked beautifully: It was two triangles in an hourglass shape, with "society" in one triangle and "you" in the other. The majority of the two never touch each other, but where they meet at the point (which he called "daily interaction"), the two are able to mix and change each other. In this way, psychology influences sociology and sociology influences psychology.
When I was thinking about this a week or two ago, I wondered if that didn't mean that our names (and thus, our parents) affect who we become. In my example (Aaron), my name meant that in elementary school where we would line up alphabetically by first name for anything, I always came first. While that might not sound like a great quality for a child to have (and I don't think I ever picked up on it that much at the time), it might have contributed to my love of vehicle-racing video games and general competitiveness. In other cases, it might define factors such as how tolerant you are (if you have a very difficult name) and how sensitive you are to your name (if you have a very common name). However, since this idea comes down to the ever-elusive Nature Vs. Nurture debate and since I lack the funding and support to do a proper longitudinal study, I can't go any further than this. However, there is one more thing I'd like to touch on.
One other relevant thing that I remember learning from sociology is the idea of Symbolic Interactionism (presented by George Herbert Mead), which among other things defines the difference between "Symbols" and "Gestures," both forms of communication. According to Mead, a Gesture is an uncontrollable response to something. For example, if you touch something hot, you reflexively pull your hand back (you don't think about it or get to decide). With Symbols (which Mead defined as something that both communicating parties interpret in the same way), you can decide how to react. The example given for this was that if the teacher said "the building is on fire" in our classroom context (and he did, though not in an urgent way), we could decide to run screaming out of the building, or sit there knowing that he was making it up. Mead used this to say that animals don't have society because they can't use symbols. When dogs growl at each other, Mead said this was because they are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. And while there are those who take the exact opposite view (that we are the only ones that still have society because every other species on the planet was smart enough to know they didn't need it), that isn't why I brought up Mead. I brought up Social Interactionism for one of Mead's other points: "The I and the Me."
The concept of "The I and the Me" is basically this: our mind/inner self ("The I.") and our body/social self ("The Me.") obviously interact. However, in order for us to be upstanding members of society, our mind has to view our body as a separate person. Otherwise we won't know when we're doing something socially unacceptable. To continue from two paragraphs ago with how our name affects us, I couldn't help but wonder if our names only applied to our outer bodies and not our minds. Obviously, everyone else we know only knows us by our outer appearance (inconveniently and thankfully, we can't read each others' minds yet), so is it that much of a stretch to say that we only know ourselves by that name as well? Are people who "talk to themselves" actually having a conversation from their I to their Me?
If you ask someone what their name is, I'm sure they will tell you. But if you responded with "Not your Me's name. I asked what your I's name is," they will probably look at you funny. Besides wondering why you're curious as to what they've named their eyes, they probably wouldn't have a ready answer. It seems to me that most people see their mind and body as one, and allow their name to convey that in how it applies to their entirety. Perhaps people that we put in mental institutions for the "voices in their heads" (possibly with names attached) are just those who have given a separate name to the I controlling their Me. However, it seems like promoting the existence of your I is socially discouraged, almost like people don't want to have your I brought to the foreground unless it's through the medium of your Me. It's a very strange thought.
When I was thinking about this a week or two ago, I wondered if that didn't mean that our names (and thus, our parents) affect who we become. In my example (Aaron), my name meant that in elementary school where we would line up alphabetically by first name for anything, I always came first. While that might not sound like a great quality for a child to have (and I don't think I ever picked up on it that much at the time), it might have contributed to my love of vehicle-racing video games and general competitiveness. In other cases, it might define factors such as how tolerant you are (if you have a very difficult name) and how sensitive you are to your name (if you have a very common name). However, since this idea comes down to the ever-elusive Nature Vs. Nurture debate and since I lack the funding and support to do a proper longitudinal study, I can't go any further than this. However, there is one more thing I'd like to touch on.
One other relevant thing that I remember learning from sociology is the idea of Symbolic Interactionism (presented by George Herbert Mead), which among other things defines the difference between "Symbols" and "Gestures," both forms of communication. According to Mead, a Gesture is an uncontrollable response to something. For example, if you touch something hot, you reflexively pull your hand back (you don't think about it or get to decide). With Symbols (which Mead defined as something that both communicating parties interpret in the same way), you can decide how to react. The example given for this was that if the teacher said "the building is on fire" in our classroom context (and he did, though not in an urgent way), we could decide to run screaming out of the building, or sit there knowing that he was making it up. Mead used this to say that animals don't have society because they can't use symbols. When dogs growl at each other, Mead said this was because they are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. And while there are those who take the exact opposite view (that we are the only ones that still have society because every other species on the planet was smart enough to know they didn't need it), that isn't why I brought up Mead. I brought up Social Interactionism for one of Mead's other points: "The I and the Me."
The concept of "The I and the Me" is basically this: our mind/inner self ("The I.") and our body/social self ("The Me.") obviously interact. However, in order for us to be upstanding members of society, our mind has to view our body as a separate person. Otherwise we won't know when we're doing something socially unacceptable. To continue from two paragraphs ago with how our name affects us, I couldn't help but wonder if our names only applied to our outer bodies and not our minds. Obviously, everyone else we know only knows us by our outer appearance (inconveniently and thankfully, we can't read each others' minds yet), so is it that much of a stretch to say that we only know ourselves by that name as well? Are people who "talk to themselves" actually having a conversation from their I to their Me?
If you ask someone what their name is, I'm sure they will tell you. But if you responded with "Not your Me's name. I asked what your I's name is," they will probably look at you funny. Besides wondering why you're curious as to what they've named their eyes, they probably wouldn't have a ready answer. It seems to me that most people see their mind and body as one, and allow their name to convey that in how it applies to their entirety. Perhaps people that we put in mental institutions for the "voices in their heads" (possibly with names attached) are just those who have given a separate name to the I controlling their Me. However, it seems like promoting the existence of your I is socially discouraged, almost like people don't want to have your I brought to the foreground unless it's through the medium of your Me. It's a very strange thought.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Ingenuity Of Television Advertisements
With the popularity of television today, more companies than ever are paying more money than ever to get their commercials put on TV. I'd like to think that at this point I can tune out such commercials and that they only really work on small children and others who are easily swayed by such marketing, but last week I think I finally began to understand the true genius behind the commercial.
First off, we have the most basic of commercial tactics: making it memorable. The best examples for this are the world-famous Super Bowl Commercials, in which companies shell out millions of dollars per minute to get their zaniest stuff on the screen in the hope that even one percent of the viewers will find it funny. It has worked too, as some who are uninterested or don't even like football will tune in just to see the commercials. This along with repetition ensures that you are at least familiar with the product.
The second tactic is more of an assumption: we assume that television-viewing is a family event. If you watch TV as a family, you are more likely to remember a product as a family. Also, if you see a commercial that you find amusing, you may just mention it to your family members. While you may not mention the product, it creates interest and causes them to want to see the commercial for themselves, thus creating interest and eventually another view for the commercial.
Finally, we have the combination of the above: association. In my opinion, the biggest thing commercials try to exploit is how we tend to remember things when we are surrounded by similar stimuli to when we first saw them, which could also be called "retracing our steps," although it isn't a perfect analogy. Basically, the commercial-makers want us to associate as many stimuli as they possibly can with their product so that we remember it, want it, and ultimately buy it. Assuming you watch television at home with your family, it means that subconsciously you are making very subtle connections between that commercial/product and your television, the room you saw it in, whoever you watched it with, whatever song they set the commercial to, whoever was in the commercial, how you were feeling, what you were wearing, and hundreds of other situational aspects.
The irony here is that the only way I figured this out was to experience it myself. I will forever have a commercial stuck in my head featuring beer glasses clinking together to the tune of "Let it snow." It has succeeded in creating an examplar in my mind. While I don't remember what beer it was for (and I doubt I will ever drink beer, or any alcohol for that matter), the commercial was a resounding success.
First off, we have the most basic of commercial tactics: making it memorable. The best examples for this are the world-famous Super Bowl Commercials, in which companies shell out millions of dollars per minute to get their zaniest stuff on the screen in the hope that even one percent of the viewers will find it funny. It has worked too, as some who are uninterested or don't even like football will tune in just to see the commercials. This along with repetition ensures that you are at least familiar with the product.
The second tactic is more of an assumption: we assume that television-viewing is a family event. If you watch TV as a family, you are more likely to remember a product as a family. Also, if you see a commercial that you find amusing, you may just mention it to your family members. While you may not mention the product, it creates interest and causes them to want to see the commercial for themselves, thus creating interest and eventually another view for the commercial.
Finally, we have the combination of the above: association. In my opinion, the biggest thing commercials try to exploit is how we tend to remember things when we are surrounded by similar stimuli to when we first saw them, which could also be called "retracing our steps," although it isn't a perfect analogy. Basically, the commercial-makers want us to associate as many stimuli as they possibly can with their product so that we remember it, want it, and ultimately buy it. Assuming you watch television at home with your family, it means that subconsciously you are making very subtle connections between that commercial/product and your television, the room you saw it in, whoever you watched it with, whatever song they set the commercial to, whoever was in the commercial, how you were feeling, what you were wearing, and hundreds of other situational aspects.
The irony here is that the only way I figured this out was to experience it myself. I will forever have a commercial stuck in my head featuring beer glasses clinking together to the tune of "Let it snow." It has succeeded in creating an examplar in my mind. While I don't remember what beer it was for (and I doubt I will ever drink beer, or any alcohol for that matter), the commercial was a resounding success.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Courage Versus Honor
I went to see the movie The Blind Side with the family the other day, an inspirational movie about the life of Michael Oher (who currently plays left tackle for the Baltimore Ravens). While the movie had its share of touching moments, the one that stuck with me was when Oher (or the actor playing him, anyway) wrote the final paper for his English class on the poem The Charge of the Light Brigade, focusing on the difference between courage and honor. This was his essay:
"Courage is a hard thing to figure. You can have courage based on a dumb idea or a mistake, but you’re not supposed to question adults, or your coach, or your teacher because they make the rules. Maybe they know best but maybe they don’t. It all depends on who you are, where you come from. Didn’t at least one of the six hundred guys think about giving up and joining with the other side? I mean, Valley of Death, that’s pretty salty stuff. That’s why courage is tricky. Should you always do what others tell you to do? Sometimes you might not even know why you’re doing something. I mean, any fool can have courage. But honor, that’s the real reason you either do something or you don’t. It’s who you want to be. If you die trying for something important then you have both honor and courage and that’s pretty good. I think that’s what the writer was saying; that you should try for courage and hope for honor. And maybe even pray that the people telling you what to do have some, too."
If nothing else, I think this could be used as a reason why standardized testing is a failure.
"Courage is a hard thing to figure. You can have courage based on a dumb idea or a mistake, but you’re not supposed to question adults, or your coach, or your teacher because they make the rules. Maybe they know best but maybe they don’t. It all depends on who you are, where you come from. Didn’t at least one of the six hundred guys think about giving up and joining with the other side? I mean, Valley of Death, that’s pretty salty stuff. That’s why courage is tricky. Should you always do what others tell you to do? Sometimes you might not even know why you’re doing something. I mean, any fool can have courage. But honor, that’s the real reason you either do something or you don’t. It’s who you want to be. If you die trying for something important then you have both honor and courage and that’s pretty good. I think that’s what the writer was saying; that you should try for courage and hope for honor. And maybe even pray that the people telling you what to do have some, too."
If nothing else, I think this could be used as a reason why standardized testing is a failure.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Gender Relations (A Post From Disneyworld)
I was talking with a friend last night about our respective relationships that we are in, and we came upon the interesting topic of societal gender roles. My friend, being the typical college girl, often speaks of how she and her close group of friends get together and are very close in a friendly way, which is what spawned this post. In my high school, the girls would often hug each other very freely and openly. However, when I talked to my friend about her take on said girls being so open with guys, she said there was a difference. She believed that society has roles and standards for friendships between girls and friendships between a guy and a girl, and that she felt it was wrong to go against them.
This brings up a curious point: If we take this idea to the extremes, girls can show affection towards each other whenever they feel the need but guys can’t do so until they get into a relationship. Girls can be open because they’re supposed to be and thus take advantage of it, while guys generally can’t due to pressure regarding homosexuality. Because guys can’t comfortably get hugs, etc. from other guys due to this, their options are to go to their parents (which is frowned upon by peers), or to go to girls, who may share the same belief as my friend (that guy-girl friends can only have specific relations). This means that during the middle- and high-school age, society has a bunch of guys deprived of physical contact and with no reliable outlet for it, leading to them being desperate for relationships and forcing themselves on girls that they like regardless of what the girls think (due to teenagers’ egocentrism). This makes it highly likely that the girls will reject them due to their clingy behavior and make the guys even worse off.
I find it curious that people would set things up in this way. They promote a society in which guys are deprived of affectionate contact (which might explain why guys play football and other contact sports... it allows them to get physical contact with other males without being chastised for it) and where girls can have as much as they want provided they find the right people. It just seems very strange to me.
This brings up a curious point: If we take this idea to the extremes, girls can show affection towards each other whenever they feel the need but guys can’t do so until they get into a relationship. Girls can be open because they’re supposed to be and thus take advantage of it, while guys generally can’t due to pressure regarding homosexuality. Because guys can’t comfortably get hugs, etc. from other guys due to this, their options are to go to their parents (which is frowned upon by peers), or to go to girls, who may share the same belief as my friend (that guy-girl friends can only have specific relations). This means that during the middle- and high-school age, society has a bunch of guys deprived of physical contact and with no reliable outlet for it, leading to them being desperate for relationships and forcing themselves on girls that they like regardless of what the girls think (due to teenagers’ egocentrism). This makes it highly likely that the girls will reject them due to their clingy behavior and make the guys even worse off.
I find it curious that people would set things up in this way. They promote a society in which guys are deprived of affectionate contact (which might explain why guys play football and other contact sports... it allows them to get physical contact with other males without being chastised for it) and where girls can have as much as they want provided they find the right people. It just seems very strange to me.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Novice Students In Expert Situations
In psychology class last month, we talked about problem-solving. From this particular unit, there is a concept that I am still going over in my head. That is the idea of Novice vs. Expert problem solvers. Both are states of mind, and you can be an expert at one kind of problem but a novice at many others (depending on the societal relevancy of that one thing, there's even a word to describe such people: dilettantes). Here is the basic difference between the novice's and the expert's thought process when presented with a subject/problem that they are a novice or an expert on.
Novice: The novice doesn't have much knowledge on the subject, and thus must go by what they see on the surface of the problem. This means that they are limited to using means-end analysis (working backwards) to find a solution.
Expert: The expert has more knowledge on the subject, and can subsequently categorize the problem based on its structure from having enough experience with similar problems. Because of their being able to break the problem down, they are able to work forward to attain a solution, which is much faster.
A good example of this is with chess. A chess novice will look at the board, take some time thinking about what the best "next move" is, and then make it. A chess master (or "Expert") will see the board and just know what the next move should be from experience. Being an expert allows you to have a heightened sense of awareness surrounding your topic of expertise without even knowing it.
This leads into my next example, formula/equation-related classes. It seems to me that most of the math teachers I've had over the years (and possibly the math teachers everywhere else, and even teachers of other subjects) expect that when they give you the formulas for any given set of problems, it will immediately elevate you to Expert status and you will be able to get through the homework in a few minutes. However, since it takes years to become an Expert on any subject, this doesn't work. Rather, it gives the student a useful step, but they are still a novice. It just makes their problem-solving strategy "look at the problem, look at the formula, see what numbers go in the variables, go from there." While the teacher may see this as a valid strategy, the students are limited to seeing strings of characters on paper. They aren't able to sift through the chaff and see what they need to just having learned what they need to understand the problem. In this, the equations are like learning a new word in a second language, or deciphering a complicated word problem. They won't immediately recognize what they need to, as they lack the skill and experience to have their mind highlight what is important for them.
I'll end this post with a quote from this site.
"Experts tend to be aware when they don't know. Then they ask questions. Many adolescents (and adults) may be aware that they don't know, but they hesitate to ask questions for fear of appearing stupid. Lacking knowledge is ignorance, but not filling in knowledge gaps when you are aware of them is stupid. Don't be a novice all your life - ask questions when you don't know or are unsure!"
Novice: The novice doesn't have much knowledge on the subject, and thus must go by what they see on the surface of the problem. This means that they are limited to using means-end analysis (working backwards) to find a solution.
Expert: The expert has more knowledge on the subject, and can subsequently categorize the problem based on its structure from having enough experience with similar problems. Because of their being able to break the problem down, they are able to work forward to attain a solution, which is much faster.
A good example of this is with chess. A chess novice will look at the board, take some time thinking about what the best "next move" is, and then make it. A chess master (or "Expert") will see the board and just know what the next move should be from experience. Being an expert allows you to have a heightened sense of awareness surrounding your topic of expertise without even knowing it.
This leads into my next example, formula/equation-related classes. It seems to me that most of the math teachers I've had over the years (and possibly the math teachers everywhere else, and even teachers of other subjects) expect that when they give you the formulas for any given set of problems, it will immediately elevate you to Expert status and you will be able to get through the homework in a few minutes. However, since it takes years to become an Expert on any subject, this doesn't work. Rather, it gives the student a useful step, but they are still a novice. It just makes their problem-solving strategy "look at the problem, look at the formula, see what numbers go in the variables, go from there." While the teacher may see this as a valid strategy, the students are limited to seeing strings of characters on paper. They aren't able to sift through the chaff and see what they need to just having learned what they need to understand the problem. In this, the equations are like learning a new word in a second language, or deciphering a complicated word problem. They won't immediately recognize what they need to, as they lack the skill and experience to have their mind highlight what is important for them.
I'll end this post with a quote from this site.
"Experts tend to be aware when they don't know. Then they ask questions. Many adolescents (and adults) may be aware that they don't know, but they hesitate to ask questions for fear of appearing stupid. Lacking knowledge is ignorance, but not filling in knowledge gaps when you are aware of them is stupid. Don't be a novice all your life - ask questions when you don't know or are unsure!"
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Taking Things For Granted
Last Sunday, as my mother and I were driving back from Wisconsin, a song came on the radio titled "Christmas Island." This has nothing to do with the island off the coast of Australia, but rather is a Christmas song about celebrating Christmas on a tropical island. Not paying too much attention to the lyrics and focusing more on the title, I began thinking about what it would be like to live on an island where the inhabitants celebrated Christmas every day. In theory, it would be spectacular. We would wake up to stockings and presents every morning, feast every afternoon, and generally have a good time with our extended families. However, I know that this would not last for long. The reason Christmas and other holidays are fun is because they don't happen often. They release us from our daily routine, allow us to eat to our heart's (or stomach's) content, and generally allow us to enjoy the season. If this happened every day, it would quickly lose its appeal for two reasons:
1. It would quickly get old, and eventually you would run out of decent presents (or money) to give people. Also, the ones from past days would pile up.
2. Receiving presents every day creates expectation (along the lines of classical conditioning. Associating an unrelated stimulus to a natural stimulus, like with Pavlov's dogs... "every day when I wake up, more presents appear") and so over time you would become nothing more than a spoiled brat, getting upset if presents weren't there every morning (despite the temptation to break the routine, you would be giving up your presents for that day).
That was when I made a connection: A lot of people are like that with food. The typical spoiled brat is one who goes around being Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka or Angelica Pickles from Rugrats, demanding everything that tickles their fancy and usually getting their way, reinforcing their behavior (through operant conditioning this time. That is, reinforcing a specific behavior through positive and negative reinforcement, or rewards and punishment. In this case, that would add up to: "When I go through these series of actions, I get what I want"). The less-explored side of this is with hunger in general. When those of appropriate means can have food whenever they desire it, the chidren (being typical children) will typically go to mommy and say "I'm hungry" or "feed me" or something along those lines.
Just as the spoiled brat will seem insensitive to those who don't have CEOs for parents, the child who is oblivious to world hunger will seem insensitive to those of lesser means.
1. It would quickly get old, and eventually you would run out of decent presents (or money) to give people. Also, the ones from past days would pile up.
2. Receiving presents every day creates expectation (along the lines of classical conditioning. Associating an unrelated stimulus to a natural stimulus, like with Pavlov's dogs... "every day when I wake up, more presents appear") and so over time you would become nothing more than a spoiled brat, getting upset if presents weren't there every morning (despite the temptation to break the routine, you would be giving up your presents for that day).
That was when I made a connection: A lot of people are like that with food. The typical spoiled brat is one who goes around being Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka or Angelica Pickles from Rugrats, demanding everything that tickles their fancy and usually getting their way, reinforcing their behavior (through operant conditioning this time. That is, reinforcing a specific behavior through positive and negative reinforcement, or rewards and punishment. In this case, that would add up to: "When I go through these series of actions, I get what I want"). The less-explored side of this is with hunger in general. When those of appropriate means can have food whenever they desire it, the chidren (being typical children) will typically go to mommy and say "I'm hungry" or "feed me" or something along those lines.
Just as the spoiled brat will seem insensitive to those who don't have CEOs for parents, the child who is oblivious to world hunger will seem insensitive to those of lesser means.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Triple Post Tuesday: Human Expectation
This could easily be a follow-up to my impatience post, but I feel it is more of a stand-alone idea.
I've always found it interesting how much inherent expectation society builds into people. Regardless of what it is about, people always seem to expect more quality, harder work, a better life, and whatever else you can think of. This has become especially true as the global economy has developed and global awareness has come with it. I have a few specific examples.
The first example is how people expect their quality of life to always be better. I find it amazing how successful commercials are at convincing people that so many things are necessary for their survival and/or economic status else their position in society be challenged. Along this same line of thought, it's interesting how people are starting to apply the human standard to everything. It's seems contradictory how people advocate for fair treatment of animals by calling it "humane." I'm not sure if they're arguing that it's inhuman to not treat the animals that way or that we should be treating the animals like humans, but either way it's imposing an expectation on all people, and unintentionally pitting societies against each other. Just because one society idolizes an animal and another eats it doesn't mean that either society is wrong or somehow less civilized.
The second and more personally-relevant example is that of emotion. It seems to me that the people around me who voice their opinion feel that because they exist in this society, they are entitled to always be surrounded by good feelings and that all bad things like fear and being tired should be banished to the darkest corners of the Earth. Through the same Disney-influence that affects how we view having a family, it also affects how we think we should feel. Such movies always feature characters being happy whenever possible and feeling negative emotions only when the evil character appears, and so it might give one the impression that they should always be entitled to happiness, which I feel is impossible. People need variety, and even someone being happy all the time could be viewed as a problem just because they could be seen as denying anything which they could see as hurting them. I prefer to believe in people being neutral (or at least indifferent towards their emotions) much of the time, as this seems to make more sense from my experience. You can ask people how they are feeling at any point during the day, but unless they have a very strong emotion accompanied by a reason (I'm tired because I didn't get any sleep last night, I'm depressed, etc.) they will probably give you the societally preferable answer, or the answer of least resistance ("I'm fine/happy/good"). This could be due to their not feeling anything noteworthy, not wanting any trouble over the initiator's predicted reaction to a different response, or just because they don't want to deal with that sort of thing.
It really does surprise me how much society influences the way we think.
I've always found it interesting how much inherent expectation society builds into people. Regardless of what it is about, people always seem to expect more quality, harder work, a better life, and whatever else you can think of. This has become especially true as the global economy has developed and global awareness has come with it. I have a few specific examples.
The first example is how people expect their quality of life to always be better. I find it amazing how successful commercials are at convincing people that so many things are necessary for their survival and/or economic status else their position in society be challenged. Along this same line of thought, it's interesting how people are starting to apply the human standard to everything. It's seems contradictory how people advocate for fair treatment of animals by calling it "humane." I'm not sure if they're arguing that it's inhuman to not treat the animals that way or that we should be treating the animals like humans, but either way it's imposing an expectation on all people, and unintentionally pitting societies against each other. Just because one society idolizes an animal and another eats it doesn't mean that either society is wrong or somehow less civilized.
The second and more personally-relevant example is that of emotion. It seems to me that the people around me who voice their opinion feel that because they exist in this society, they are entitled to always be surrounded by good feelings and that all bad things like fear and being tired should be banished to the darkest corners of the Earth. Through the same Disney-influence that affects how we view having a family, it also affects how we think we should feel. Such movies always feature characters being happy whenever possible and feeling negative emotions only when the evil character appears, and so it might give one the impression that they should always be entitled to happiness, which I feel is impossible. People need variety, and even someone being happy all the time could be viewed as a problem just because they could be seen as denying anything which they could see as hurting them. I prefer to believe in people being neutral (or at least indifferent towards their emotions) much of the time, as this seems to make more sense from my experience. You can ask people how they are feeling at any point during the day, but unless they have a very strong emotion accompanied by a reason (I'm tired because I didn't get any sleep last night, I'm depressed, etc.) they will probably give you the societally preferable answer, or the answer of least resistance ("I'm fine/happy/good"). This could be due to their not feeling anything noteworthy, not wanting any trouble over the initiator's predicted reaction to a different response, or just because they don't want to deal with that sort of thing.
It really does surprise me how much society influences the way we think.
Triple Post Tuesday: The Motivation To Reproduce
Over the past month or so, I've been thinking about why people have kids and the various factors that influence my mindset. It seems to me that many people, however consciously, see having children in the Disney-sense, where having a perfect spouse and perfect kids means you have a perfect life and live in a castle where forest animals do all of your chores. Another way of looking at children is that they are an unfortunate side effect of sex, although I think this viewpoint is largely confined to teenagers and college students who are more focused on getting laid than the repercussions that it might carry. Finally, there is the viewpoint that you have to carry on the bloodline, although I think this view has largely died out. In this day and age, I don't know that there are many bloodlines that are held as highly as some used to be.
The General Other's view aside, I have been questioning whether to have children, partially because I don't know if I would be a suitable father and because many of my female peers say that childbirth is unappealing for obvious reasons. This logic should give me peace of mind, but for some reason when I talked it over with my parents (that is, if my not having kids would disappoint them), I was left with an overlying feeling of uneasiness. This feeling came back this morning, when I learned that my brother might not have children either. I thought about it for some time, and came to the conclusion that people's eagerness to have kids may not be due to any Disney-morality or because of an accident. Rather, they feel like I do, and fear being alone in old age. Thinking ahead, I feel a strange insecurity about not having any relatives when I get really old. While I'm sure there will be other people, and by then we will no doubt have made great advances in communication, it still seems odd that I might not have any immediate family at some point in the future. And this is what I think motivates some people to have kids, however much they realize it.
Mind you, it isn't entirely based on that somewhat-depressing note. I also feel that having kids/a family is one of the things people view as necessary to have "truly lived." Movies such as The Forty Year Old Virgin are a good example of this. If our society didn't expect (nay, demand) that all of its members be sexually active by age 25, such movies wouldn't exist as they would have no impact.
So I feel that, in the end, it is a mixture of deep subconscious fears, our desire to be remembered, and societal expectations.
The General Other's view aside, I have been questioning whether to have children, partially because I don't know if I would be a suitable father and because many of my female peers say that childbirth is unappealing for obvious reasons. This logic should give me peace of mind, but for some reason when I talked it over with my parents (that is, if my not having kids would disappoint them), I was left with an overlying feeling of uneasiness. This feeling came back this morning, when I learned that my brother might not have children either. I thought about it for some time, and came to the conclusion that people's eagerness to have kids may not be due to any Disney-morality or because of an accident. Rather, they feel like I do, and fear being alone in old age. Thinking ahead, I feel a strange insecurity about not having any relatives when I get really old. While I'm sure there will be other people, and by then we will no doubt have made great advances in communication, it still seems odd that I might not have any immediate family at some point in the future. And this is what I think motivates some people to have kids, however much they realize it.
Mind you, it isn't entirely based on that somewhat-depressing note. I also feel that having kids/a family is one of the things people view as necessary to have "truly lived." Movies such as The Forty Year Old Virgin are a good example of this. If our society didn't expect (nay, demand) that all of its members be sexually active by age 25, such movies wouldn't exist as they would have no impact.
So I feel that, in the end, it is a mixture of deep subconscious fears, our desire to be remembered, and societal expectations.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Impatience
Whenever I play online games, it always comes to my attention that people are extraordinarily impatient, at least while others around them are just screen names. The two games that brought this to my attention are Combat Arms, the free MMO from Nexon, and Left 4 Dead, the not-free zombie apocalypse simulator from Valve. In both cases, players sit in an online lobby and chat it up until the room leader decides that they have enough players to start. Once the game starts, everyone has fun. However, there are two instances of impatience here that always make the game a little uncomfortable for me.
The first instance of impatience is the most basic: People will get tired of waiting in the lobby and will start telling the room leader to start the game. This would make sense if they did it in a normal fashion, but unfortunately most people online would rather take the more forceful, less-effective method of spamming "start," "go," or otherwise in all-caps until they get what they want. This would also be at least somewhat reasonable if the person was just easily-irritated. However, since the internet revolves around the user even when they're playing an online game with other people, this is the sort of conversation you get:
Cen_Beta: Wow, he wanted you to go when we only had 3 [players]
*NaClsalt enters the lobby, others follow*
NaClsalt: NO GATING
Cen_Beta: Indeed'
NaClsalt: rdy up
NaClsalt: start
NaClsalt: start
NaClsalt: MAPLE (the room leader)
NaClsalt: STAT
imyourdad2: GO
MrQuintero: SATRT
NaClsalt: ...are you afk...
Killer999: go maple
NaClsalt: GOD
imyourdad2: GO GO GO GO OG OG O G OG GG
MrQuintero: B****
imyourdad2: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Killer999: come on
One important thing to note is that NaClsalt started saying everything he did IMMEDIATELY after he entered the room. He didn't even wait for the leader to recognize that he had entered. This whole conversation took place over the span of ten or twenty seconds. This phenomenon is unfortunately typical of online games as a whole, and is strange to see when the message given to me growing up was one of delayed gratification.
The second form of impatience comes into play when the game has actually started. In certain online games where there are classes that have specific spots that they are best suited for, whenever someone new comes on and doesn't know such things, people have a tendency to say "OH NO THEY'RE A NOOB KICK THEM OR ELSE WE'LL LOSE." I find this odd for two reasons. The first is that everyone has to start somewhere, and you won't know where those spots are except by seeing other people doing it or experimenting yourself. The second reason is that to appease such people, the only real way to do it (aside from outright avoidance, in which case they would never get any new players) is to enter those games as a spectator and just follow whatever class you're looking to play or do what I did before I got Team Fortress 2 and just watch a bunch of gameplay videos online that illustrate strategies for each class. I don't know about you, but I play online games because they're fun, not because I want another class. It's becoming harder and harder to find people who are just interested in a casual game of whatever you're playing anymore... It always has to be about winning. Especially when it comes to First-Person Shooters.
I read an article in the Psychology Today that my parents got for me about how people today are becoming increasingly rude. One example given by the author was when she, driving along, honked her horn at a driver who was about to crash into her as they were trying to park while talking on the phone. The other driver responded by flipping the author off before parking, getting out of their car, and saying "Just off to find a little inner peace, you redheaded b****!" It should be noted that this very aggressive woman was en route to her yoga class.
I'm not sure why people are suddenly losing their knack for chivalry, but it is definitely a problem.
The first instance of impatience is the most basic: People will get tired of waiting in the lobby and will start telling the room leader to start the game. This would make sense if they did it in a normal fashion, but unfortunately most people online would rather take the more forceful, less-effective method of spamming "start," "go," or otherwise in all-caps until they get what they want. This would also be at least somewhat reasonable if the person was just easily-irritated. However, since the internet revolves around the user even when they're playing an online game with other people, this is the sort of conversation you get:
Cen_Beta: Wow, he wanted you to go when we only had 3 [players]
*NaClsalt enters the lobby, others follow*
NaClsalt: NO GATING
Cen_Beta: Indeed'
NaClsalt: rdy up
NaClsalt: start
NaClsalt: start
NaClsalt: MAPLE (the room leader)
NaClsalt: STAT
imyourdad2: GO
MrQuintero: SATRT
NaClsalt: ...are you afk...
Killer999: go maple
NaClsalt: GOD
imyourdad2: GO GO GO GO OG OG O G OG GG
MrQuintero: B****
imyourdad2: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Killer999: come on
One important thing to note is that NaClsalt started saying everything he did IMMEDIATELY after he entered the room. He didn't even wait for the leader to recognize that he had entered. This whole conversation took place over the span of ten or twenty seconds. This phenomenon is unfortunately typical of online games as a whole, and is strange to see when the message given to me growing up was one of delayed gratification.
The second form of impatience comes into play when the game has actually started. In certain online games where there are classes that have specific spots that they are best suited for, whenever someone new comes on and doesn't know such things, people have a tendency to say "OH NO THEY'RE A NOOB KICK THEM OR ELSE WE'LL LOSE." I find this odd for two reasons. The first is that everyone has to start somewhere, and you won't know where those spots are except by seeing other people doing it or experimenting yourself. The second reason is that to appease such people, the only real way to do it (aside from outright avoidance, in which case they would never get any new players) is to enter those games as a spectator and just follow whatever class you're looking to play or do what I did before I got Team Fortress 2 and just watch a bunch of gameplay videos online that illustrate strategies for each class. I don't know about you, but I play online games because they're fun, not because I want another class. It's becoming harder and harder to find people who are just interested in a casual game of whatever you're playing anymore... It always has to be about winning. Especially when it comes to First-Person Shooters.
I read an article in the Psychology Today that my parents got for me about how people today are becoming increasingly rude. One example given by the author was when she, driving along, honked her horn at a driver who was about to crash into her as they were trying to park while talking on the phone. The other driver responded by flipping the author off before parking, getting out of their car, and saying "Just off to find a little inner peace, you redheaded b****!" It should be noted that this very aggressive woman was en route to her yoga class.
I'm not sure why people are suddenly losing their knack for chivalry, but it is definitely a problem.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Hype
When I was a kid, I never really noticed the holiday (or everyday) toy hype. I don't remember ever wanting something that the TV said I had to have. The main reason for this is that I was big on video games at the time (and probably always will be), and since video games weren't the must-have at the time, you didn't see too many commercials for them. If I wanted something, it was usually because one of my relatives took me to a store and said "pick something out," and I would find what interested me on my own.
Today, it's a different story. Many things are blown way out of proportion by their commercials, and the things that I think are the two most frequent repeat offenders are movies and video games. When I was a kid and the Super Nintendo was still new, I don't think preorders even existed. Now you have preorders, midnight releases, and events where people will line up outside a store hours before it opens just for the privilege of POTENTIALLY buying a game or console (if you line up too late, you might not get one). This also applies for movie commercials. Apparently the thing for movies now is to show you a bunch of half-second clips of the movie with epic music such as "O Fortuna" in the background and some narrator saying one word at a time. LIKE. RIGHT. NOW. Then following the release of the movie, they have commercials saying said movie is the #1 movie in America/in the world/of all time, regardless of how true that is. You can even find movies about this hype today, one being Jingle All The Way, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, andmovies that are part of the hype, such as The Wizard (which Nintendo used to advertise/build interest in Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES).
The Wizard actually got me thinking... There are two sociological concepts I want to bring up, those being Idealization and Mystification. Idealization is when someone or something presents the ideal form of itself, such as when a person attends a job interview or when a toy appears in a commercial and appears to be more fun than it probably is. Mystification is when, having gained interest through Idealization or some other form, said thing generates more interest by not giving away anything at all about itself after that. The example used for this is celebrities: People are always interested in them because we see them in movies and then we don't usually hear anything else about them unless they really slip up. As such, their mystique keeps us intrigued, and we find them appealing and attractive.
I will end this post with a quote from Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, who does a weekly video game review called Zero Punctuation.
"There's a reason why I never play demos... demos create expectations and expectations color your opinion of the final product. For most people, the demo for Mirror's Edge colored their expectations a shimmering gold, only to realize once they bought the full game that they had been seeing the light reflecting off a stream of piss."
Today, it's a different story. Many things are blown way out of proportion by their commercials, and the things that I think are the two most frequent repeat offenders are movies and video games. When I was a kid and the Super Nintendo was still new, I don't think preorders even existed. Now you have preorders, midnight releases, and events where people will line up outside a store hours before it opens just for the privilege of POTENTIALLY buying a game or console (if you line up too late, you might not get one). This also applies for movie commercials. Apparently the thing for movies now is to show you a bunch of half-second clips of the movie with epic music such as "O Fortuna" in the background and some narrator saying one word at a time. LIKE. RIGHT. NOW. Then following the release of the movie, they have commercials saying said movie is the #1 movie in America/in the world/of all time, regardless of how true that is. You can even find movies about this hype today, one being Jingle All The Way, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, andmovies that are part of the hype, such as The Wizard (which Nintendo used to advertise/build interest in Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES).
The Wizard actually got me thinking... There are two sociological concepts I want to bring up, those being Idealization and Mystification. Idealization is when someone or something presents the ideal form of itself, such as when a person attends a job interview or when a toy appears in a commercial and appears to be more fun than it probably is. Mystification is when, having gained interest through Idealization or some other form, said thing generates more interest by not giving away anything at all about itself after that. The example used for this is celebrities: People are always interested in them because we see them in movies and then we don't usually hear anything else about them unless they really slip up. As such, their mystique keeps us intrigued, and we find them appealing and attractive.
I will end this post with a quote from Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, who does a weekly video game review called Zero Punctuation.
"There's a reason why I never play demos... demos create expectations and expectations color your opinion of the final product. For most people, the demo for Mirror's Edge colored their expectations a shimmering gold, only to realize once they bought the full game that they had been seeing the light reflecting off a stream of piss."
Monday, November 23, 2009
Academic Pressure
I remember when I was still in high school and we would occasionally have English class interrupted in order to have some aspect of college prep explained to us for the period. What we covered regarding college varied, but two that I remember specifically were when we were shown how to make a proper résumé and when we were shown how to fill out a college application. When making our résumés to submit to our selected colleges, I remember thinking that their ideal resume had an awful lot of extracurricular stuff on it. At the time, I wasn't too worried, and didn't seem to hinder me.
Fast-foward to today. I am in college and am getting similar talks on résumés and applying to colleges, only this time around it is for graduate school and everything seems a lot more pressing. The résumés have more to them, I am expected to do even more, and graduate schools apparently want you to be a student with perfect grades and an endless drive for you to be accepted (or at least, that's what the "ideal resume" would have you believe). I am never sure if such things are meant to show what you should strive for or just to scare you into doing some of those things for fear of falling behind everyone else in the competitive world of today, but I never understood it for two reasons:
1.) While I enjoy structure and do the work that is required, I also enjoy being laid-back and actually having fun once in a while.
2.) Much of what people do for their résumé, at least as far as I've witnessed, isn't because they are legitimately interested in it but rather as extra padding to give themselves a leg up on everyone else.
And as this escalates and people progressively pad more and more, the ideal résumé will only become more and more preposterous, as has the homework load given across all grades (the résumé given to me today by Career Services has "Sally Superstar" winning a different scholarship every year, being fluent in Spanish, and having two or three entries for each of the following categories: work experience, research experience, organizations, leadership activities, and volunteer work), we can only expect the pressure to pad to increase until something gives.
This leads into my reference of this post. In an article on overparenting in the most recent issue of Time, two terms were thrown around for such children who either were pressured into too many things by their parents or were just overwhelmed by the current school system: "Teacups" and "Toasties." They were named for their tendency to break down under the slightest stress or because they came into college already burned out (respectively).
I always worry that someday I may have to pad in similar fashion to get to where I want in the world. When did doing what you love stop being enough to get you where you want to be?
Fast-foward to today. I am in college and am getting similar talks on résumés and applying to colleges, only this time around it is for graduate school and everything seems a lot more pressing. The résumés have more to them, I am expected to do even more, and graduate schools apparently want you to be a student with perfect grades and an endless drive for you to be accepted (or at least, that's what the "ideal resume" would have you believe). I am never sure if such things are meant to show what you should strive for or just to scare you into doing some of those things for fear of falling behind everyone else in the competitive world of today, but I never understood it for two reasons:
1.) While I enjoy structure and do the work that is required, I also enjoy being laid-back and actually having fun once in a while.
2.) Much of what people do for their résumé, at least as far as I've witnessed, isn't because they are legitimately interested in it but rather as extra padding to give themselves a leg up on everyone else.
And as this escalates and people progressively pad more and more, the ideal résumé will only become more and more preposterous, as has the homework load given across all grades (the résumé given to me today by Career Services has "Sally Superstar" winning a different scholarship every year, being fluent in Spanish, and having two or three entries for each of the following categories: work experience, research experience, organizations, leadership activities, and volunteer work), we can only expect the pressure to pad to increase until something gives.
This leads into my reference of this post. In an article on overparenting in the most recent issue of Time, two terms were thrown around for such children who either were pressured into too many things by their parents or were just overwhelmed by the current school system: "Teacups" and "Toasties." They were named for their tendency to break down under the slightest stress or because they came into college already burned out (respectively).
I always worry that someday I may have to pad in similar fashion to get to where I want in the world. When did doing what you love stop being enough to get you where you want to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)