1. Did one culture, shown in the film, have a better way of parenting than the others?
Of all the babies, Ponijao (Namibia) seemed to turn out the best. But of course, that is based on a scale that measures how social the baby is, or how interactive he/she is with his/her surroundings. And it seemed that the movie was trying to highlight that particular aspect about the development of a baby. With that being said, and assuming that Ponijao was one of the better-raised children, it seems that the better way of parenting would be to allow the child to explore while providing the guidance and resources that they need. In Ponijao's case, his mother was constantly breast feeding him, and eating while he ate- she was not only providing for him his necessities, but she was also there to experience those necessities alongside with him. Meanwhile, some of the other parents, particularly Hattie (America), gave them what they needed and just left them there. But it wasn't that the other parents left their baby alone at all times, and played no role in their development. It was just that they had bursts of conscious efforts. Hattie's and Mari's (Japan)parents went to those group classes, and imitating whatever the stranger (or as they call her, the instructor) was doing. Whenever the schedule was, or whenever the parents had free time, there were these sudden bursts of efforts from the other parents, while the Ponijao's mother was more passive. But then again, it seemed that the mothers in Namibia only had the responsibility of taking care the child and the nest. So their main focus was on the child, while the other mothers had to worry about their career and making a living as well, which I would assume is the main focus of the males in Namibia, based on their appearance (or rather their lack of appearance) in the movie.
Aside from the consistency of the parental guidance, it also seems that parenting closely with other parents helped the child develop a sense of comfort with people outside their family. Ponijao was surrounded by other babies and other children, and thus he was more sociable and was less shy, compared to Hattie, who would want to leave if she was in a circle filled with other parents and children. Babies with more interaction with other children were also more comfortable with animals as well. Bayar (Mongolia) and Ponijao were constantly interacting with the animals (cats, dogs, goats, cows, other children, etc.). Even Mari had her moments where she was playing with the cat. However, Hattie, an only child who was rarely playing with other children, left the cat alone even when she was within two feet from the cat. Based on all this, it seems that parenting in a close community is also another aspect of "better parenting."
3. What looked universal - common to all humans - from the film - at least as edited? Why is this universality significant?
One of the most important universal thing about developing as child, and even as a human was portrayed in the very first scene. It was the motion of interacting with other people, but more importantly the motion of imitating another person. In the first scene, we see that Ponijao was doing what he saw from the baby, which was hitting a small rock against a bigger one. Throughout our lives, particularly the earlier stages, we learn through imitation. We even see this later on in the movie, when the children begin to speak, and when they begin to imitate the sounds and the music that they hear from their parents and their community. Regardless of where the baby is from, we can see the role of imitation in their behaviors. It's a monkey-see-monkey-do world.
Another universal aspect portrayed in this movie is the rise or the fall of going between an animal and a human. Based on the Thomas Balmès's choice of camera angles and music, he would probably say it's a rise. We all start off as animals (and remain as animals throughout our lives, but with more humanistic behaviors). Similar to most other mammals, we start off moving by crawling, on our four limbs. As we develop more and more, we first learn to stand- getting on our two lower limbs, and eventually moving on those two limbs. And at that point, Balmès would say that we have triumphed as babies, given his choice of what the last scene was- Bayar, alone on a hill rising up on his feet, as the sun begins to set, and as the music shifts from the instrumental percussion portion of the song, to the lyrical portion.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Parenting 102 [HW #58- Draft]
[Part 3]
Similar to Margarrete, my parents seem to be settling for mediocrity. While Margarrete’s goal was to raise kids that were “honest, humble, and hardworking” my mom just wishes that I’m respectful of my elders, and don’t cause any trouble for anybody. But then again, they are constantly telling me about their grand retirement plans and grand houses, sponsed by me, of course. But it seems that parents lowered their standard, possibly to set a wall for themselves in case their child fails to exceed all others. So wanting their children to be honest, humble, hardworking or respectful is just the minimal- the very basic construct of the child. Meanwhile, wanting the nice house with the koi ponds is their hope. It’s not that parents do not want their children to achieve excellence, and reap their childrens excellence, it’s that they’d rather not be disappointed when it does not actually happen.
Similar to Margarrete, my parents seem to be settling for mediocrity. While Margarrete’s goal was to raise kids that were “honest, humble, and hardworking” my mom just wishes that I’m respectful of my elders, and don’t cause any trouble for anybody. But then again, they are constantly telling me about their grand retirement plans and grand houses, sponsed by me, of course. But it seems that parents lowered their standard, possibly to set a wall for themselves in case their child fails to exceed all others. So wanting their children to be honest, humble, hardworking or respectful is just the minimal- the very basic construct of the child. Meanwhile, wanting the nice house with the koi ponds is their hope. It’s not that parents do not want their children to achieve excellence, and reap their childrens excellence, it’s that they’d rather not be disappointed when it does not actually happen.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Parenting 101 [HW #57]
[Part I]
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)
I think the best parts of how I was parented was the fact that my parents treated me as an (at least, when it came to intellectual discussions- not so much about me taking care of myself and cooking for myself). They would usually want to talk to me about their ideas, but usually those talks turn into arguments, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We would talk about our interpretation of the people we know or people we see. And despite knowing that I know very little about artifacts and jade, my parents would always give me something and tell me what I feel about it, or determine whether or not it’s fake. I think that the gesture of starting a discussion with me about a topic that is not: what did you do in school today, allow me to develop some sort of intellect in subjects that I normally wouldn’t learn about. It also gave me the sense that I was an equal with my parents- that despite our age difference, they would still want to hear about what I thought, and that I can still teach them something.
How should kids be parented?
This question actually ties to the other question about whether children should be treated like adults or like puppies. And I think that there needs to be a balance, just like most other things in life. As a child, we all need some sort of guidance; we all need to understand what's the before we develop our own way of playing it. And rather than having a child run in circles for the first however many odd years of his/her life, trying to figure out the basics, he/she could be learning it directly from his/her parents or guardians. However, it is still important to let the child learn on their own, because if everything was spoon-fed to them, it would hold no meaning to the child. And if we were taught everything, and were guided every step of the way, there would never be any advancements. It would just be a repetition of the same generation, with 1 or more different looking people replacing the people of the previous generation.
These two opposing methods remind me of quote from Bruce Lee, which may not be directly pertinent:"I mean here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. Not--if you have one to the extreme, you'll be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden, a mechanical man- no longer a human being. So it is a successful combination of both, so therefore, it's not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness, or natural unnaturalness." In terms of raising a child, the "natural instinct" would be the child's own ability to learn and figure stuff out, meanwhile "control" is strictly all-parenting. But as Bruce Lee says, if we were to rely on solely on our natural instincts to interpret the world, we would be unscientific- things would become more random, and less predictable. And if we were to rely on control, we would become a "mechanical man"- just robots whose output is the same as the input. So perhaps, it would be good to have a balance, to have some structure but still have for the child's own more-random development.
[Part II]
Re: When Parenting Theories Backfire
This story is the typical case where the parents spoil the child(ren), and empower them to the point that it takes away from their authority. This type of scenario also ties back to one of the questions in part one, asking whether kids should be treated as adults or as pets. Clearly, in this case treating a child too much like an has it's flaws. By giving children choices, the parents are treating them as an equal. And all of this makes me wonder why is it that age defines superiority and sub ordinance, because it does for many cases in our culture. It's interesting how my first reaction to when the mom said "You can have the red cup or the green cup. You choose." or "You can wear blue pants or tan pants to church. You choose." I thought that she was being considerate and was being a cool parent by not bossing the child around. But when the child said "MOM! CHOOSE ONE! WATCH TV OR STAY UP LATE! YOU CHOOOOOOSE!!!" I thought that the kid was a brat. I immediately sympathized with the parents, because they had the role to say what they did. Meanwhile, the child was thought to be "out of lines." Looking at this with a parenting aspect, I would say that children are expected to subordinate to the parents, and grateful if they come anywhere close to equality. But if they get too close, they would be perceived as a spoiled brat, who was raised improperly.
I found a few of the comments to this post quite interesting. Most, if not all of the comments involved the person finding this type of situation funny and "LOL"-worthy (with the cap locks). It just seems like people see parenting as an extracurricular activity, and if a person fails at it, it's just something to find humor in. The comment that I found most interesting was: "Oh my! That just sounds like so much fun... I think I wanna try it!" Apparently, parenting is "fun" and is something to try. Not many people seem to take it seriously, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Another thing that I found interesting is the reason that the parent might want to publish this online for the world to read about. It may be that she wanted to share her experiences so that people won't make the same mistake, or rather follow the same path that would lead to similar results. But it seems to me that she is trying more to get sympathy for her, and have people tell her that her kids are wrong in doing what they're doing. "Jack: (quietly sneaks away without saying a , waits until I'm not looking, then gets milk whenever the heck he wants it)."- Just in this one sentence, it seems she's a victim in this relationship, being that she's portraying herself as being betrayed by her son ("waits until I'm not looking") and her son as the perpetrator ("whenever the heck he wants it"- emphasis on the heck). So one insight that I got from this is that: when the kids turn out well, the parents will glorify their kids, as it would glorify them as their parents and people playing their roles. But if the kids turn out spoiled, it is common that the parents would look for sympathy, and make themselves look like the victim of the situation- even though they're the creator (if not creator, then influence) of the situation.
Re: WHAT ATTACHMENT PARENTING IS- THE 7 B’S
It would make sense that each of these 7 B’s would promote a bond between a parent and a child. Each of these all go towards making the child seem like he/she is the most important person in the parent’s world. Many of us view a close child-parent relationship as something great or “beautiful.” But there is of course the argument that the child might get too attached, and thus unprepared for the outside world. In psychology, the liberation between a child from his/her parent is considered one of the most painful, but necessary phases in life. So although, it is good to be attached to our parents, being too attached may not be a good thing. This balance in a child-parent relationship is one example of autonomy versus fushion. Although we want to become one with our parents, as we once were with both of our parents, and connect with them, we don’t want to be dependent on them our whole lives. It is in our paths (our as in most Americans) to eventually branch away from our parents, but still remain connected.
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)
I think the best parts of how I was parented was the fact that my parents treated me as an (at least, when it came to intellectual discussions- not so much about me taking care of myself and cooking for myself). They would usually want to talk to me about their ideas, but usually those talks turn into arguments, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We would talk about our interpretation of the people we know or people we see. And despite knowing that I know very little about artifacts and jade, my parents would always give me something and tell me what I feel about it, or determine whether or not it’s fake. I think that the gesture of starting a discussion with me about a topic that is not: what did you do in school today, allow me to develop some sort of intellect in subjects that I normally wouldn’t learn about. It also gave me the sense that I was an equal with my parents- that despite our age difference, they would still want to hear about what I thought, and that I can still teach them something.
How should kids be parented?
This question actually ties to the other question about whether children should be treated like adults or like puppies. And I think that there needs to be a balance, just like most other things in life. As a child, we all need some sort of guidance; we all need to understand what's the before we develop our own way of playing it. And rather than having a child run in circles for the first however many odd years of his/her life, trying to figure out the basics, he/she could be learning it directly from his/her parents or guardians. However, it is still important to let the child learn on their own, because if everything was spoon-fed to them, it would hold no meaning to the child. And if we were taught everything, and were guided every step of the way, there would never be any advancements. It would just be a repetition of the same generation, with 1 or more different looking people replacing the people of the previous generation.
These two opposing methods remind me of quote from Bruce Lee, which may not be directly pertinent:"I mean here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. Not--if you have one to the extreme, you'll be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden, a mechanical man- no longer a human being. So it is a successful combination of both, so therefore, it's not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness, or natural unnaturalness." In terms of raising a child, the "natural instinct" would be the child's own ability to learn and figure stuff out, meanwhile "control" is strictly all-parenting. But as Bruce Lee says, if we were to rely on solely on our natural instincts to interpret the world, we would be unscientific- things would become more random, and less predictable. And if we were to rely on control, we would become a "mechanical man"- just robots whose output is the same as the input. So perhaps, it would be good to have a balance, to have some structure but still have for the child's own more-random development.
[Part II]
Re: When Parenting Theories Backfire
This story is the typical case where the parents spoil the child(ren), and empower them to the point that it takes away from their authority. This type of scenario also ties back to one of the questions in part one, asking whether kids should be treated as adults or as pets. Clearly, in this case treating a child too much like an has it's flaws. By giving children choices, the parents are treating them as an equal. And all of this makes me wonder why is it that age defines superiority and sub ordinance, because it does for many cases in our culture. It's interesting how my first reaction to when the mom said "You can have the red cup or the green cup. You choose." or "You can wear blue pants or tan pants to church. You choose." I thought that she was being considerate and was being a cool parent by not bossing the child around. But when the child said "MOM! CHOOSE ONE! WATCH TV OR STAY UP LATE! YOU CHOOOOOOSE!!!" I thought that the kid was a brat. I immediately sympathized with the parents, because they had the role to say what they did. Meanwhile, the child was thought to be "out of lines." Looking at this with a parenting aspect, I would say that children are expected to subordinate to the parents, and grateful if they come anywhere close to equality. But if they get too close, they would be perceived as a spoiled brat, who was raised improperly.
I found a few of the comments to this post quite interesting. Most, if not all of the comments involved the person finding this type of situation funny and "LOL"-worthy (with the cap locks). It just seems like people see parenting as an extracurricular activity, and if a person fails at it, it's just something to find humor in. The comment that I found most interesting was: "Oh my! That just sounds like so much fun... I think I wanna try it!" Apparently, parenting is "fun" and is something to try. Not many people seem to take it seriously, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Another thing that I found interesting is the reason that the parent might want to publish this online for the world to read about. It may be that she wanted to share her experiences so that people won't make the same mistake, or rather follow the same path that would lead to similar results. But it seems to me that she is trying more to get sympathy for her, and have people tell her that her kids are wrong in doing what they're doing. "Jack: (quietly sneaks away without saying a , waits until I'm not looking, then gets milk whenever the heck he wants it)."- Just in this one sentence, it seems she's a victim in this relationship, being that she's portraying herself as being betrayed by her son ("waits until I'm not looking") and her son as the perpetrator ("whenever the heck he wants it"- emphasis on the heck). So one insight that I got from this is that: when the kids turn out well, the parents will glorify their kids, as it would glorify them as their parents and people playing their roles. But if the kids turn out spoiled, it is common that the parents would look for sympathy, and make themselves look like the victim of the situation- even though they're the creator (if not creator, then influence) of the situation.
Re: WHAT ATTACHMENT PARENTING IS- THE 7 B’S
It would make sense that each of these 7 B’s would promote a bond between a parent and a child. Each of these all go towards making the child seem like he/she is the most important person in the parent’s world. Many of us view a close child-parent relationship as something great or “beautiful.” But there is of course the argument that the child might get too attached, and thus unprepared for the outside world. In psychology, the liberation between a child from his/her parent is considered one of the most painful, but necessary phases in life. So although, it is good to be attached to our parents, being too attached may not be a good thing. This balance in a child-parent relationship is one example of autonomy versus fushion. Although we want to become one with our parents, as we once were with both of our parents, and connect with them, we don’t want to be dependent on them our whole lives. It is in our paths (our as in most Americans) to eventually branch away from our parents, but still remain connected.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Interviews & Survey Question [HW #56]
[Part I]
1. Do you have particular character(s) from TV/books/movies that you look up to? If so, who and why? [Ask for description of character]
2. How has that character affected you?
3. Describe your interaction/relationship [with a similar situation/person in life] Do you find it similar to your character's approach to them.
4. Do you frequently update your status (on AIM, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)? How often?
[Part II]
Interview #1
1. Yes, there are particular characters from TV/books that I look up to, generally the characters that are similar to myself, sort of the "nice and quiet" character. For example, in the movie, 27 dresses, she is the bridesmaid, the one most of her friends would turn to when they need help. I look up to her because she was able to help herself in the end instead of constantly putting others before herself.
2. This character affects me because it allows me to consider ways to overcome my own similar situation.
3. My interaction with a similar situation to the character in 27 dresses, is that I find a way to allow my helping others to help me as well. I take an optimist outlook on how being there for others is a benefit to me.
4. I update my statuses every couple days roughly.
Interview #2:
1. Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. She was very driven and stubborn and did everything her way without caring about right or wrong. She had a certain vibe to her that seemed so irresistible. I think she was the type of character that just like the river flow. She didn't really concern others in her impulsive actions she just got up and said "Lets go!" I liked her because she's not quite the character I am. I mean I try to be sometimes, I try not to care. But its not like I'm the where people don't actually care-- I have parents who do. So doing something impulsively is not something people look up at but look down upon.
2. I'm sure I've seen many actors play this character but this in particular caught my eye. They've affected me through my thoughts. Every once in a while I always think, "Hey, what would she do in this situation?" I often wish she were controlling my minds. I tend to care way to much than I need to.
3. She is the life of the party, what ever party it may be. I think we both share the same love for children. I believe we are both very loving people. She is just more charismatic than I will ever be.
4. Not so often. Tumblr. like 1 hour a day.
Interview #3:
1. Yea, of course I have people I admire. One person I admire is Kai Greene. I admire and respect them because they posses what I do not have, whether it be personality, physical appearance, money, etc. They are the people that I think if I became more like them I’d be closer to being a complete package. I see my own faults and these people that I admire are people with my faults as their strong point.
2. For the past year I’ve been striving to strengthening my faults by observing and “learning from” these characters I admire. I watch them, I try to act like them, fuse with them if you will on a non-face to face level. When I stop trying to be them maybe a part of them will un-fuse with me, I hope..
3. My day would sometimes be nothing but thinking about my meals and my work out. Kai Greene describes working out as a type of meditation, where all you concentrate on is the contraction of the muscle. During my workout or before I would try to clear my mind of all things and only focus on the contraction of the muscle. Granted I’ve been working out incorrectly for 11 months now, this one month where I’ve had time to research I’ve gained significantly more weight by following Kai Greene in terms of nutrition and working on clearing the mind before working out and before I go to sleep every night.
4. No, once a month maybe for Aim only.
Interview #4:
1. I look up to a character named Cloud Strife. His motivation to live on and fight is to find a meaning in life because his rival and coincidentally blood brother call him a puppet that is used by people. I want to find the meaning in my life as well so I look up to his way of approaching life and try to make the best out of it in any way possible.
2. Cloud has given me an alias for what I can be seen as in the virtual internet world. It allows me to say anything I want and be unaffected by what people think about me because no one would really know me. In reality I feel that my thoughts are overshadowed by his. But they do not change any of my actions.
3. With the same type of Cloud character people, they are quiet and don’t say much about themselves directly. Talking to them is very tedious but I think it’s worthwhile because I get to see what the person is really like through they’re few words better than someone who talks a lot.
4. I update my status depending on what I’m thinking about. Though sometimes I over look the fact that I even have a status, so I’d say I change around 3-4 times a week
[Part III]
It seems that of the people I interviewed, everyone has a fictional character that they look up to. And based on my own relationship with those people, and my knowledge of the characters that they said, it seems like each person is imitating that character quite well; at least, he/she is interpreting that character quite well. So with that, I think that we do create identities through the characters that we watch or read about. They give us a mold, which we use to determine how we act and interact. That is what question #3 is trying to reveal. For example, for interviewee #2, it seems that he/she loves to be with children, which is similar to his/her character. So based on his/her character, and the influence of his/her character, she chooses to interact with different people, in this case, children.
And for the last question about the status-updates, many people said it was irrelevant, but to me, status-updates are people’s ways of broadcasting themselves, in the same way that certain characters are projected through books/movies/TV. So by asking that, I could see how often people have the urge to put themselves out there. But being that I’m friends with all of these interviewees, and I have them as buddies on AIM/Facebook, I can tell that some/most of these interviewees understated the frequency of their status updates. And I’m not too certain about what this means, but I think it’s people’s denial of how hard they might try to create an identity. They want other people believe that they’re effortlessly “being themselves.” I’m still a bit unclear about how this might directly connect to my focus, but I thought that it would be interesting to see what people say, and how it compares to the actuality.
[Part IV]
I know the type of person that I want to become.
1. Do you have particular character(s) from TV/books/movies that you look up to? If so, who and why? [Ask for description of character]
2. How has that character affected you?
3. Describe your interaction/relationship [with a similar situation/person in life] Do you find it similar to your character's approach to them.
4. Do you frequently update your status (on AIM, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)? How often?
[Part II]
Interview #1
1. Yes, there are particular characters from TV/books that I look up to, generally the characters that are similar to myself, sort of the "nice and quiet" character. For example, in the movie, 27 dresses, she is the bridesmaid, the one most of her friends would turn to when they need help. I look up to her because she was able to help herself in the end instead of constantly putting others before herself.
2. This character affects me because it allows me to consider ways to overcome my own similar situation.
3. My interaction with a similar situation to the character in 27 dresses, is that I find a way to allow my helping others to help me as well. I take an optimist outlook on how being there for others is a benefit to me.
4. I update my statuses every couple days roughly.
Interview #2:
1. Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. She was very driven and stubborn and did everything her way without caring about right or wrong. She had a certain vibe to her that seemed so irresistible. I think she was the type of character that just like the river flow. She didn't really concern others in her impulsive actions she just got up and said "Lets go!" I liked her because she's not quite the character I am. I mean I try to be sometimes, I try not to care. But its not like I'm the where people don't actually care-- I have parents who do. So doing something impulsively is not something people look up at but look down upon.
2. I'm sure I've seen many actors play this character but this in particular caught my eye. They've affected me through my thoughts. Every once in a while I always think, "Hey, what would she do in this situation?" I often wish she were controlling my minds. I tend to care way to much than I need to.
3. She is the life of the party, what ever party it may be. I think we both share the same love for children. I believe we are both very loving people. She is just more charismatic than I will ever be.
4. Not so often. Tumblr. like 1 hour a day.
Interview #3:
1. Yea, of course I have people I admire. One person I admire is Kai Greene. I admire and respect them because they posses what I do not have, whether it be personality, physical appearance, money, etc. They are the people that I think if I became more like them I’d be closer to being a complete package. I see my own faults and these people that I admire are people with my faults as their strong point.
2. For the past year I’ve been striving to strengthening my faults by observing and “learning from” these characters I admire. I watch them, I try to act like them, fuse with them if you will on a non-face to face level. When I stop trying to be them maybe a part of them will un-fuse with me, I hope..
3. My day would sometimes be nothing but thinking about my meals and my work out. Kai Greene describes working out as a type of meditation, where all you concentrate on is the contraction of the muscle. During my workout or before I would try to clear my mind of all things and only focus on the contraction of the muscle. Granted I’ve been working out incorrectly for 11 months now, this one month where I’ve had time to research I’ve gained significantly more weight by following Kai Greene in terms of nutrition and working on clearing the mind before working out and before I go to sleep every night.
4. No, once a month maybe for Aim only.
Interview #4:
1. I look up to a character named Cloud Strife. His motivation to live on and fight is to find a meaning in life because his rival and coincidentally blood brother call him a puppet that is used by people. I want to find the meaning in my life as well so I look up to his way of approaching life and try to make the best out of it in any way possible.
2. Cloud has given me an alias for what I can be seen as in the virtual internet world. It allows me to say anything I want and be unaffected by what people think about me because no one would really know me. In reality I feel that my thoughts are overshadowed by his. But they do not change any of my actions.
3. With the same type of Cloud character people, they are quiet and don’t say much about themselves directly. Talking to them is very tedious but I think it’s worthwhile because I get to see what the person is really like through they’re few words better than someone who talks a lot.
4. I update my status depending on what I’m thinking about. Though sometimes I over look the fact that I even have a status, so I’d say I change around 3-4 times a week
[Part III]
It seems that of the people I interviewed, everyone has a fictional character that they look up to. And based on my own relationship with those people, and my knowledge of the characters that they said, it seems like each person is imitating that character quite well; at least, he/she is interpreting that character quite well. So with that, I think that we do create identities through the characters that we watch or read about. They give us a mold, which we use to determine how we act and interact. That is what question #3 is trying to reveal. For example, for interviewee #2, it seems that he/she loves to be with children, which is similar to his/her character. So based on his/her character, and the influence of his/her character, she chooses to interact with different people, in this case, children.
And for the last question about the status-updates, many people said it was irrelevant, but to me, status-updates are people’s ways of broadcasting themselves, in the same way that certain characters are projected through books/movies/TV. So by asking that, I could see how often people have the urge to put themselves out there. But being that I’m friends with all of these interviewees, and I have them as buddies on AIM/Facebook, I can tell that some/most of these interviewees understated the frequency of their status updates. And I’m not too certain about what this means, but I think it’s people’s denial of how hard they might try to create an identity. They want other people believe that they’re effortlessly “being themselves.” I’m still a bit unclear about how this might directly connect to my focus, but I thought that it would be interesting to see what people say, and how it compares to the actuality.
[Part IV]
I know the type of person that I want to become.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
[HW #55]
Part 1:
Do we play our roles in relationships according to what we see in the media? How or how not?
Part 2:
Comment for John's Question- What are the factors that can increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship?:
Right now I think that your question would require a listing response. And I think that there are certainly many factors. So for you question, maybe focus on one or a few factors that you think may increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship, and see whether or not those are true. So in other words? Does ______ change the relationship between two people? And if, how does it change the relationship- increase or decrease the relationship?
Comment for Esther's Question- Does Altruism occur or is everything a disguise to hide our selfishness?:
Hey, I think your question is certainly something worth evaluating. Often times, in conversations people would purposely and subconsciously divert the focus back to themselves. So we have this drive to get ourselves out there- let ourselves be known over the other people. So maybe you can focus on the conversations we have would support or go against your point.
But in terms of the question itself, I think it's very good, in the sense that it's something provable (at least, supportable) and something that plays a role in almost any relationship that we have.
Part 3:
"How Social Media Affects Relationships." ChaCha. Web. 18 May 2010. n style="">http://www.chacha.com/video/273555965/how-social-media-affects-relationships>.
This is a video, where Matt Titus tries to explain how the social media works, and the what-t0-do's and what-not-to-do's. For the most part, Titus is trying to give advice to people who does , or uses any sort of online social network. However, aside from all that, he says one interesting thing: "People sort of build themselves up on Facebook. They make themselves seem a lot more important and a lot more [is] happening than they actually might be. And this woman is buying the fantasy." Like he said, this particular women is "buying the fantasy," which most of us try to live by. We want to know that there's something better, and that there's this set expectation that we have of a good life, or a good social life. But going past the Facebook updates, where does the fantasy come from? People may be making up these ideal lives that they would have, but the ideal has to come from somewhere. My guess is that it comes from all the that we watch, the books that we see, the videos that we click on, etc.
Ong, Jessica. "Pornography and Internet Technologies - Effects on Relationships." MC Publication (2004): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. style="">http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Pornography_and_Internet_Technologies_-_Effects_on_Relationshipss>.
Jessica Ong briefly talks about the various ways that pornography is harmful and how it can affect any relationship. Of all the points that she made, she had one that pertained to my topic, which is that people go into relationships with the goal of making them sexual relationships. She says that the users' sexual appetites are higher compared to the non-users'. With that, I would assume people that people have different approaches in relationships, based- though not entirely- on their "sexual appetite," which according to Ong, is dependent on whether or not they use pornography.
Kay, David. "Archetypes: What Are They? Can They Be Trusted? Are They Useful?." Research Dimensions (2008): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.researchdimensions.com/article_12.html >
As the title says, this article explains what archetypes are, and whether or not they're useful. For my focus, it's important to know the common archetypes found in movies, books, whatever. So rather than going through each movie, and identifying each character, we have a general idea of how a character with a certain archetype would most likely act. With that, we can draw a connection between those archetypes (with a few specific examples) to the people in our lives, if not, we can prove Andy L. wrong.
"Archetypes 101." Hero Within (2005): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.herowithin.com/arch101.html >.
In addition to the previous article, this website goes deeper with archetypes, specifically listing out the typical characters found in movies, and how he/she might act. This site also explains what each character might represent. The author lists out some archetypes being: The innocent, the orphan, the warrior/hero, the altruist, the wanderer, the destroyer, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. Yeah...
Do we play our roles in relationships according to what we see in the media? How or how not?
Part 2:
Comment for John's Question- What are the factors that can increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship?:
Right now I think that your question would require a listing response. And I think that there are certainly many factors. So for you question, maybe focus on one or a few factors that you think may increase/decrease the intimacy of a friend relationship, and see whether or not those are true. So in other words? Does ______ change the relationship between two people? And if, how does it change the relationship- increase or decrease the relationship?
Comment for Esther's Question- Does Altruism occur or is everything a disguise to hide our selfishness?:
Hey, I think your question is certainly something worth evaluating. Often times, in conversations people would purposely and subconsciously divert the focus back to themselves. So we have this drive to get ourselves out there- let ourselves be known over the other people. So maybe you can focus on the conversations we have would support or go against your point.
But in terms of the question itself, I think it's very good, in the sense that it's something provable (at least, supportable) and something that plays a role in almost any relationship that we have.
Part 3:
"How Social Media Affects Relationships." ChaCha. Web. 18 May 2010. n style="">http://www.chacha.com/video/273555965/how-social-media-affects-relationships>.
This is a video, where Matt Titus tries to explain how the social media works, and the what-t0-do's and what-not-to-do's. For the most part, Titus is trying to give advice to people who does , or uses any sort of online social network. However, aside from all that, he says one interesting thing: "People sort of build themselves up on Facebook. They make themselves seem a lot more important and a lot more [is] happening than they actually might be. And this woman is buying the fantasy." Like he said, this particular women is "buying the fantasy," which most of us try to live by. We want to know that there's something better, and that there's this set expectation that we have of a good life, or a good social life. But going past the Facebook updates, where does the fantasy come from? People may be making up these ideal lives that they would have, but the ideal has to come from somewhere. My guess is that it comes from all the that we watch, the books that we see, the videos that we click on, etc.
Ong, Jessica. "Pornography and Internet Technologies - Effects on Relationships." MC Publication (2004): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. style="">http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Pornography_and_Internet_Technologies_-_Effects_on_Relationshipss>.
Jessica Ong briefly talks about the various ways that pornography is harmful and how it can affect any relationship. Of all the points that she made, she had one that pertained to my topic, which is that people go into relationships with the goal of making them sexual relationships. She says that the users' sexual appetites are higher compared to the non-users'. With that, I would assume people that people have different approaches in relationships, based- though not entirely- on their "sexual appetite," which according to Ong, is dependent on whether or not they use pornography.
Kay, David. "Archetypes: What Are They? Can They Be Trusted? Are They Useful?." Research Dimensions (2008): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.researchdimensions.com/article_12.html >
As the title says, this article explains what archetypes are, and whether or not they're useful. For my focus, it's important to know the common archetypes found in movies, books, whatever. So rather than going through each movie, and identifying each character, we have a general idea of how a character with a certain archetype would most likely act. With that, we can draw a connection between those archetypes (with a few specific examples) to the people in our lives, if not, we can prove Andy L. wrong.
"Archetypes 101." Hero Within (2005): n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. < http://www.herowithin.com/arch101.html >.
In addition to the previous article, this website goes deeper with archetypes, specifically listing out the typical characters found in movies, and how he/she might act. This site also explains what each character might represent. The author lists out some archetypes being: The innocent, the orphan, the warrior/hero, the altruist, the wanderer, the destroyer, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. Yeah...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
"Your Type is: ISTP." Says You [HW #54]
Introverted (I) 66.67% Extroverted (E) 33.33%
Sensing (S) 62.16% Intuitive (N) 37.84%
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%
Perceiving (P) 59.46% Judging (J) 40.54%
ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.
Hearing and seeing all my classmates doing these personality tests, and getting overly excited (and loud) about them, I was very reluctant to taking the test myself. I was never appealed by the idea of being judged from some formulated program, and telling me who I was based on a few questions, restricted by five answer choices. Anyways, I did not find it to be accurate. The test labeled me as an ISTP, which is associated with “Engineer.” Based on their description of ISTP/Engineer, it seems like anybody is this type is some cold-hearted, indifferent, anti-social asshole who views everyone as somebody to use, as he/she is “master of tools” (what a nice way of calling somebody a user). It also said that these people dislike careers in either arts or teaching, but they are all jobs that I have considered in my life. And of the ones that they said ISTPs would favor, I have always said that they were jobs I would never get into, as they appeal to me as boring, and something that does not allow much expression. I think that it might partially be true for me, at least the anti-social part. But for the percentages, I can’t say much about them because I’m not sure what the number really means. Does it just mean that I spend more time doing one over the other? But I feel as though in each of the categories (i.e. Introverted vs Extroverted, Sensing vs. Intuitive, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Peceiving vs. Judging), both of the options are intertwined in each other. Introverted-Extroverted- your comfort with your outer, social environment depends on how comfortable with yourself, as the way you view yourself is dependent on how other people view you. Sensing-Intuitive- sensing is part of our instincts; it is in our nature to observe and to draw connections. Meanwhile our instincts develop base on what we sensed overtime. Thinking-Feeling- fink and theel, enough said. Perceiving-Judging- we judge base on what we perceive, and we perceive with the basis of previous judgments that were made, based on previous perceptions. With that being said, I’m not sure if this test has any accurate meaning to my life. It provides with the experience with taking one of these tests and getting inaccurate results. But I guess that I could be the one who is wrong here. Maybe I am just denying who I am, or that I haven’t introspect enough to know about my underlying personality, or my unconscious thoughts. Although I have to say- just to help out my case that I know more about myself than this test- at least, that the test is less accurate than I am- that during the test my initial response to a lot of the questions was 3. However, I felt a need to pick a side, and so I picked either 2’s or 4’s for a lot of them, keeping a few 3’s around. But I’m guessing that if I could even pick a 2 or a 4 for whatever question, it would show something about who I am.
Looking at all the labels given to my friends and my associates, it seems that I engage in relationships not because I want to “maximize compatibility” but more because I want to “appreciate difference.” Most of the people I hang out with have a good balance within each category, at least a better balance than mine. And for me, that is something I would want to achieve. In addition, one of my friends had the description of: “‘Architect’. Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population,” which is also something that I would want as my identity make-up. So with that, I guess I associate myself with certain people because I want to be like them. I want to adopt their personality, and their ways of doing things. And so by having a relationship with them (i.e. friendships, acquaintances, etc.) I can learn from them, and be influenced by them, as I work towards the type of person that I want to become.
Sensing (S) 62.16% Intuitive (N) 37.84%
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%
Perceiving (P) 59.46% Judging (J) 40.54%
ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.
Hearing and seeing all my classmates doing these personality tests, and getting overly excited (and loud) about them, I was very reluctant to taking the test myself. I was never appealed by the idea of being judged from some formulated program, and telling me who I was based on a few questions, restricted by five answer choices. Anyways, I did not find it to be accurate. The test labeled me as an ISTP, which is associated with “Engineer.” Based on their description of ISTP/Engineer, it seems like anybody is this type is some cold-hearted, indifferent, anti-social asshole who views everyone as somebody to use, as he/she is “master of tools” (what a nice way of calling somebody a user). It also said that these people dislike careers in either arts or teaching, but they are all jobs that I have considered in my life. And of the ones that they said ISTPs would favor, I have always said that they were jobs I would never get into, as they appeal to me as boring, and something that does not allow much expression. I think that it might partially be true for me, at least the anti-social part. But for the percentages, I can’t say much about them because I’m not sure what the number really means. Does it just mean that I spend more time doing one over the other? But I feel as though in each of the categories (i.e. Introverted vs Extroverted, Sensing vs. Intuitive, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Peceiving vs. Judging), both of the options are intertwined in each other. Introverted-Extroverted- your comfort with your outer, social environment depends on how comfortable with yourself, as the way you view yourself is dependent on how other people view you. Sensing-Intuitive- sensing is part of our instincts; it is in our nature to observe and to draw connections. Meanwhile our instincts develop base on what we sensed overtime. Thinking-Feeling- fink and theel, enough said. Perceiving-Judging- we judge base on what we perceive, and we perceive with the basis of previous judgments that were made, based on previous perceptions. With that being said, I’m not sure if this test has any accurate meaning to my life. It provides with the experience with taking one of these tests and getting inaccurate results. But I guess that I could be the one who is wrong here. Maybe I am just denying who I am, or that I haven’t introspect enough to know about my underlying personality, or my unconscious thoughts. Although I have to say- just to help out my case that I know more about myself than this test- at least, that the test is less accurate than I am- that during the test my initial response to a lot of the questions was 3. However, I felt a need to pick a side, and so I picked either 2’s or 4’s for a lot of them, keeping a few 3’s around. But I’m guessing that if I could even pick a 2 or a 4 for whatever question, it would show something about who I am.
Looking at all the labels given to my friends and my associates, it seems that I engage in relationships not because I want to “maximize compatibility” but more because I want to “appreciate difference.” Most of the people I hang out with have a good balance within each category, at least a better balance than mine. And for me, that is something I would want to achieve. In addition, one of my friends had the description of: “‘Architect’. Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population,” which is also something that I would want as my identity make-up. So with that, I guess I associate myself with certain people because I want to be like them. I want to adopt their personality, and their ways of doing things. And so by having a relationship with them (i.e. friendships, acquaintances, etc.) I can learn from them, and be influenced by them, as I work towards the type of person that I want to become.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Initial Theories of Human Relationships [HW #52]
In terms of human relationships, they can broken down into two main categories: familiar relationships, and estranged relationships. Depending on what our relations are with whoever, we can act completely different. When we're at a comfort level with other people, we tend to seek for certain things:
Reassurance- We're constantly looking for people to tell us that we are right- that our sense of the world is correct. Of course, it would be seen as obvious and therefore desperate if we directly ask people, "Hey do you think I'm right when I say____?" for every single thought that we have. We, although not many, like to keep people guessing, and reserve some sort of mystique, and like people to believe that we have a trump card left to reveal, and so we don't do that. Instead, we go to the extreme opposite. We exaggerate in saying all the stuff that we don't believe in, and constantly repeat that opposing view, so that you can lure others into saying our actual thoughts. (e.g. grandparents constantly saying that they're going to die). And it is not only that we're looking for reassurance for our ideas and thoughts, but also we're looking for reassurance for our identities- that there are other people who are similar to us, and are experiencing the same thoughts.
Recognition- This is a fairly common idea: that all people seek for attention. In fact, we touched on this idea during the cool unit. On a day-to-day basis, we live our livings, acting a specific way in order to draw attention from others. By doing so, we have are in other people's lives, and therefore have a place in the world, and sense of importance- a sense that we matter in life. But of course, there are different levels for this desire. There are people who are content with the attention they get from their families and friends. Meanwhile, there are even more people who feel as though they need to broadcast themselves, so that even the strangers in their lives know who they are, and so that the strangers can possibly become a friend and/or more. The typical approach to attaining such attention is to be as loud as possible, and as obvious as possible. There are people who constantly shouts out the words "I" or "me" in attempt for others to know about them. And for some people, they would view this as "cute" or "funny," while others view it as annoying. But regardless, such attempts will certainly give them a slot in people's lives, whether that people one of "the person who are filled with joy" or "the person who is loud and obnoxious."
Empowerment through Familiarity- This is the type of feeling that we get/have gotten as a child when people say something that we can connect to/relate to. This connects to the first point about reassurance. We look for people who agrees with us, not only because we want to know that we're right but also because this common ground would create this family outside our biological family. It creates this clan for us, that would possibly back us up whenever it's needed. Because if someone were to attack you, it would be attacking the whole clan, being that it is one consisted of people with similar views.
Blame Game- Sometimes when we get too familiar with people, we tend to take advantage of them. We use them as a ventilation system for whenever something goes wrong. If anything, involving 2 or more people including yourself, were to go wrong, we often point fingers as a response. By placing the blame on other people, we distract ourselves from the failure that we're all part of. We can momentarily play the game of who's fault it is. And rather than persisting to solve the issue, we divert ourselves to this new issue of who's to blame. By doing so, we are able to place the spotlight of this horrible act onto someone that is not you. But also, we do this as a way to create this fantasy that we have this card in our back pockets. We blame others so that we can lie to ourselves, that we could do better if not for this burden.
For those we do not interact with on a daily basis or know well, we interact with them in a completely different manner.
Enhanced versions who we want to be and not who we are- In a world where there are no ties and nobody to know you well enough to blow off your cover, we can act however we want. The subways, the streets, the restaurants, wherever are the the perfect stage for us to be what we could never people with the people that we know now.
Minimal Interaction- Aside from putting on this (cool) pose, we try to interact with strangers as little as possible. We have a fear of being judged or criticized. We already have to deal with enough people as it is, with our lives and the people in it currently, we wouldn't want to have more people judging us. (Although that does contradict with our desire for attention, but I guess we're always filtering out the people, usually determined by looks, who are worth the risk and who aren't). This fear is one of the reasons why we, at least most of us, need some sort of distractions when we're outside, on the trains or whatever (e.g. iPods, newspaper, books, DRDs, company of an associate). We don't want to risk meeting eyes with someone on the train, and then awkwardly divert them and pretend to be watching something else. However, we are more likely to interact with other people if we are with those we are familiar with, for that there's a sense of backup if anything goes wrong.
Reassurance- We're constantly looking for people to tell us that we are right- that our sense of the world is correct. Of course, it would be seen as obvious and therefore desperate if we directly ask people, "Hey do you think I'm right when I say____?" for every single thought that we have. We, although not many, like to keep people guessing, and reserve some sort of mystique, and like people to believe that we have a trump card left to reveal, and so we don't do that. Instead, we go to the extreme opposite. We exaggerate in saying all the stuff that we don't believe in, and constantly repeat that opposing view, so that you can lure others into saying our actual thoughts. (e.g. grandparents constantly saying that they're going to die). And it is not only that we're looking for reassurance for our ideas and thoughts, but also we're looking for reassurance for our identities- that there are other people who are similar to us, and are experiencing the same thoughts.
Recognition- This is a fairly common idea: that all people seek for attention. In fact, we touched on this idea during the cool unit. On a day-to-day basis, we live our livings, acting a specific way in order to draw attention from others. By doing so, we have are in other people's lives, and therefore have a place in the world, and sense of importance- a sense that we matter in life. But of course, there are different levels for this desire. There are people who are content with the attention they get from their families and friends. Meanwhile, there are even more people who feel as though they need to broadcast themselves, so that even the strangers in their lives know who they are, and so that the strangers can possibly become a friend and/or more. The typical approach to attaining such attention is to be as loud as possible, and as obvious as possible. There are people who constantly shouts out the words "I" or "me" in attempt for others to know about them. And for some people, they would view this as "cute" or "funny," while others view it as annoying. But regardless, such attempts will certainly give them a slot in people's lives, whether that people one of "the person who are filled with joy" or "the person who is loud and obnoxious."
Empowerment through Familiarity- This is the type of feeling that we get/have gotten as a child when people say something that we can connect to/relate to. This connects to the first point about reassurance. We look for people who agrees with us, not only because we want to know that we're right but also because this common ground would create this family outside our biological family. It creates this clan for us, that would possibly back us up whenever it's needed. Because if someone were to attack you, it would be attacking the whole clan, being that it is one consisted of people with similar views.
Blame Game- Sometimes when we get too familiar with people, we tend to take advantage of them. We use them as a ventilation system for whenever something goes wrong. If anything, involving 2 or more people including yourself, were to go wrong, we often point fingers as a response. By placing the blame on other people, we distract ourselves from the failure that we're all part of. We can momentarily play the game of who's fault it is. And rather than persisting to solve the issue, we divert ourselves to this new issue of who's to blame. By doing so, we are able to place the spotlight of this horrible act onto someone that is not you. But also, we do this as a way to create this fantasy that we have this card in our back pockets. We blame others so that we can lie to ourselves, that we could do better if not for this burden.
For those we do not interact with on a daily basis or know well, we interact with them in a completely different manner.
Enhanced versions who we want to be and not who we are- In a world where there are no ties and nobody to know you well enough to blow off your cover, we can act however we want. The subways, the streets, the restaurants, wherever are the the perfect stage for us to be what we could never people with the people that we know now.
Minimal Interaction- Aside from putting on this (cool) pose, we try to interact with strangers as little as possible. We have a fear of being judged or criticized. We already have to deal with enough people as it is, with our lives and the people in it currently, we wouldn't want to have more people judging us. (Although that does contradict with our desire for attention, but I guess we're always filtering out the people, usually determined by looks, who are worth the risk and who aren't). This fear is one of the reasons why we, at least most of us, need some sort of distractions when we're outside, on the trains or whatever (e.g. iPods, newspaper, books, DRDs, company of an associate). We don't want to risk meeting eyes with someone on the train, and then awkwardly divert them and pretend to be watching something else. However, we are more likely to interact with other people if we are with those we are familiar with, for that there's a sense of backup if anything goes wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)