[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.
Monday, May 31, 2010
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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
[HW #51- Draft]
Introduction:
In the Cool unit, one of the conclusions that we made was that we all conform in one way or another. Although, we may not follow the dominant American Way of Life, we all live in our own subcategories that we share with other people. We all conform in our own cliques. But regardless of what clique we are part of, a vast majority of us follow one path- the path that leads us from infantry to school to career to retirement to death. Being that many of us live this life, it would important to understand why we live this life. Magnifying onto the school aspect, we see that there are many options given to us, even though they are there. We have the mentality that institutional schooling is the only way that we can succeed, because that is the only option that others provide for us. However, evaluating our current schooling situation and really looking into our experience in school, as opposed to passive acceptance, causes for some reconsideration of this path. And perhaps school is something that we should escape, as we approach other sources of education.
Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
Amongst the alternatives mentioned thus far, youth work is the most similar to our educational system now. Rather than changing the learning process as a whole, youth work just changes the focal point. This method would still take place in a school with an authority figure, but rather than concentrating on letting the students know what they need to know for the next level, youth work tries to emphasize "focusing on young people," "volunteer participation and relationship," "committing to association," "being friendly and informal, and acting with integrity," and "being concerned with the education and more broadly, the welfare of young people."
Although there are all these options that are available, many of us follow the path in which school is involved- a path which we did not choose. I don’t remember ever given the choice; whether I wanted to go to school, or become and automath, or do unschooling . From my experience, schooling seems to be “the” path- the right path. It is a default in our society, but the default settings aren’t always the preferable setting. So why is that? Of the people I know, a great majority are unsatisfied with their school experience. But if schools are supposedly for the students, then why is it such a nuisance in our eyes?
Argument #1: Breeding Robot Sheep
Following the same routine over and over, our lives have become countless repetitions of the same day with occasional twists. We run through the same cycles on a daily basis, going through one rectangular hole to another to stare and fill blank stripped pieces of paper. School has become (or always was) this institution that goes through the same process everyday, similar to a factory. And as schools are the factories, we the students are the commodities.
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for the majority of our lives.
School is an institutional that dehumanizes us and sets out a path for us. With minimal input, we follow that path, as it is in our perception that it would be the path towards success. However, since it is our lives and our education, shouldn’t we decide on the approach of it? Instead, we are trapped in a routine that requires minimal thinking that prepares us as proletarians. We follow this way of life, created by others. Meanwhile, we could be getting our education through autodidacticism or unschooling, where we would choose our own ways. Rather than being self-directed people, we living a life where we’re sheep being herded, going in whichever direction someone else chooses at whichever pace.
Argument #2: False Sense of Accomplishment
Any student would know that grades is a huge component of schools. We all strive to earn the highest grade we can. The qualification of an elite, or a person who plays his/her role as a student, is that A+ or that 90+ grade on his/her progress report, as they are the indications of somoene being “smart.” So in school, we the students are constantly striving to to get those grades, rather than acquiring knowledge, as those grades have become our definition of success.
In my interviews of family and friends about school, there was an overall motif. Everybody appears to have submitted to our current education system. Not only has everybody accepted it for what it is, but also they're arguing for it. Everyone said something along the lines of: school preparing us for the outside world, and although it may not be completely relevant, the stuff taught in school will create a foundation for us.
Similar to the , “The Class” or “Entre Les Murs,” our situation is one without any resolution. Due to the contradictions in the teacher role, which demands fomality and respect, and the student roles, which often is associated with chaos and attention, it seems like the students and teachers, at least in the films we watched, cannot live in perfect harmony. Being that there are such contradictions, if not for some sort of spark, the students and teachers would continue on playing their roles. And meanwhile, both sides think that they are succeeding, because the job of the teacher is to just go through the material, while the students’ is to listen, or pretend to listen. But just as it is portrayed in “Entre Les Murs,” those issues cannot be ignored. In fact, the whole film is about how the students and the teacher are in a constant brawl to get what they want. And just as it is portrayed in that film, nothing gets solved at the end, and there really are no success stories. Both the teacher and students just go through everyday, pretending like that accomplished their goals, because they did what they had to, and wait until the year is over and can forget about everything.
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. Society is supposedly growing constantly, with humans becoming smarter and smarter everyday. But how much progress can a student make when they can only be as smart as the teacher that taught him or her on that subject, if that? Even so, how many of us are actually trained to transcend all others and invent/re-invent? It seems like we’re more trained to become proletarians. And rather than training us to expand the knowledge of the world, schools seem to be preparing us to expand the wealth of the wealthy. Meanwhile, the whole time we believe that we’re going to school, becoming smarter so that we can prepare for our future, and have our own success stories. For some, that might be true, but for the rest of us, we’re only enhancing another person’s success story.\ Although I am not sure, since I’ve never tried it, autodidacticism and unschooling may be a path that works towards your own success. There are no grades, so the automath’s perception of success may be the actual experience of learning the the knowledge that is gained. And since there are no binding institutions, the automath isn’t really appealing to anyone but himself/herself.
Argument #3: Hierarchy
Yes, school might be teaching us how to be book smart, and each unit it’s something different. But one skill that schools have us develop over the course of our entire schooling career is the ability to follow orders. Ever since we were three years old, going off to Pre-Kindergarten (and even before that, with our parents), we are taught to submit to authority. We learn to do what we are told, and thus we are prepared for the working class. In school, we are
In the Cool unit, one of the conclusions that we made was that we all conform in one way or another. Although, we may not follow the dominant American Way of Life, we all live in our own subcategories that we share with other people. We all conform in our own cliques. But regardless of what clique we are part of, a vast majority of us follow one path- the path that leads us from infantry to school to career to retirement to death. Being that many of us live this life, it would important to understand why we live this life. Magnifying onto the school aspect, we see that there are many options given to us, even though they are there. We have the mentality that institutional schooling is the only way that we can succeed, because that is the only option that others provide for us. However, evaluating our current schooling situation and really looking into our experience in school, as opposed to passive acceptance, causes for some reconsideration of this path. And perhaps school is something that we should escape, as we approach other sources of education.
Background Info:
As I mentioned before, although many of us follow the life of institutional schooling, there are many other paths that most of us are unaware of. Of the less famous options, some of the more famous options are: autodidacticism, unschooling, youth work, or dropping out/getting GEDs. By definition, autodidacticism is: "is self-education or self-directed learning. An autodidact is a mostly self-taught person, as opposed to learning in a school setting or from a full-time tutor or mentor." Automaths are typically more self-motivated. They learn things on their own and whichever pace they’re comfortable with. However, one of the aspects of autodidacticism, that may be perceived as a flaw, is that autodidacticism is often correlated with isolation. Since automaths learn on their own, using books and the internet as their sources, they would not have an education-based, or commitment-based relationships with people, which most of do. So if they were to eliminate school as their source of education, they would also eliminate a main component of their social network.Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
- "Children are natural learners."
- "Children do not all learn the same way (or at the same pace)."
- "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated"
Although there are all these options that are available, many of us follow the path in which school is involved- a path which we did not choose. I don’t remember ever given the choice; whether I wanted to go to school, or become and automath, or do unschooling . From my experience, schooling seems to be “the” path- the right path. It is a default in our society, but the default settings aren’t always the preferable setting. So why is that? Of the people I know, a great majority are unsatisfied with their school experience. But if schools are supposedly for the students, then why is it such a nuisance in our eyes?
Argument #1: Breeding Robot Sheep
Following the same routine over and over, our lives have become countless repetitions of the same day with occasional twists. We run through the same cycles on a daily basis, going through one rectangular hole to another to stare and fill blank stripped pieces of paper. School has become (or always was) this institution that goes through the same process everyday, similar to a factory. And as schools are the factories, we the students are the commodities.
“Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” Gatto’s point is that schooling and education are not the same. The whole point of schools, according to Gatto is that they convert humans into obedient robots that will follow the system, and the path that the system sets out for us. “The truth is that school don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” By going to school, we learn that we’re in a position where there are rankings, and that we are to be subordinate to those who are “higher” than us (e.g. teachers). This arrangement gives us the mentality that we are all followers, hardly ever the ones to lead. And to be a leader would a goal we all try to meet. Gatto also makes the point that school is reinforcing homogeneity. Schools conforms us, being that we are all fed the same thing. When we finally attain that conformity and the obedience, we truly become robots.
One very interesting thing, to me at least, is that we think schools are for our education and us. And to some extent it is as we believe because the fact is that we are learning something, regardless of how efficiently we do it or how arbitrary the materials. But I think that being fed those tiny bits, we have a reasoning to stay in school and to let the school do as they wish, which according to Gatto is transform us into these “formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.” But it’s not that we just follow along, but we passively follow along. The most we do is complain about tiny aspects of the school (e.g. “I hate homework”), but that’s as far as we go in terms of “fighting” the system.” And meanwhile, we are just these tiny sheep that are being herded “from cell to cell at the sound of a gong,” until we just become autonomous sheep, who habitually do what we are told, and follow the same motion that we followed for the majority of our lives.
School is an institutional that dehumanizes us and sets out a path for us. With minimal input, we follow that path, as it is in our perception that it would be the path towards success. However, since it is our lives and our education, shouldn’t we decide on the approach of it? Instead, we are trapped in a routine that requires minimal thinking that prepares us as proletarians. We follow this way of life, created by others. Meanwhile, we could be getting our education through autodidacticism or unschooling, where we would choose our own ways. Rather than being self-directed people, we living a life where we’re sheep being herded, going in whichever direction someone else chooses at whichever pace.
Argument #2: False Sense of Accomplishment
Any student would know that grades is a huge component of schools. We all strive to earn the highest grade we can. The qualification of an elite, or a person who plays his/her role as a student, is that A+ or that 90+ grade on his/her progress report, as they are the indications of somoene being “smart.” So in school, we the students are constantly striving to to get those grades, rather than acquiring knowledge, as those grades have become our definition of success.
In my interviews of family and friends about school, there was an overall motif. Everybody appears to have submitted to our current education system. Not only has everybody accepted it for what it is, but also they're arguing for it. Everyone said something along the lines of: school preparing us for the outside world, and although it may not be completely relevant, the stuff taught in school will create a foundation for us.
“Who is to say that we most definitely will not need outside of school?... Things may come out in conversations amongst intellectuals... We are learning these things because the government or the school system does not know what paths we are going to take in the future, such as career or lifestyle. Therefore it is always better safe than sorry to learn extra things.” (Lily M.)Being that we are/were students, we want to know that by going to school, we were on the path towards success- that our many years spent in school wasn’t for naught. We’re in school, according to these people, because we’re trying to develop our minds and a sense of the world (in enclosed , with a person talking at us for 55 minutes at a time). “Of course not, because a person may have had a life experience but without thinking about it or knowing the significance behind it its useless.” It seems that we believe our success and our intelligence are dependent on school- that until we earn those A’s or that masters degree, we are simpletons we do not understand our surroundings- that we need this institution to affirm us of our intelligence. Without schools, we would not have grades, and without grades that would nothing for us to acquire- nothing to indicate that we’ve done something with our lives as students.
“We learn about things in order to have an understanding of them. We may not use it in our life directly, but the process of thinking that we gain from learning the stuff that we don't need for survival could help in another way.” (Adam W.)
“It helps us when we are in those certain situations. It sets up a certain standard.” (Amanda Y.)
Similar to the , “The Class” or “Entre Les Murs,” our situation is one without any resolution. Due to the contradictions in the teacher role, which demands fomality and respect, and the student roles, which often is associated with chaos and attention, it seems like the students and teachers, at least in the films we watched, cannot live in perfect harmony. Being that there are such contradictions, if not for some sort of spark, the students and teachers would continue on playing their roles. And meanwhile, both sides think that they are succeeding, because the job of the teacher is to just go through the material, while the students’ is to listen, or pretend to listen. But just as it is portrayed in “Entre Les Murs,” those issues cannot be ignored. In fact, the whole film is about how the students and the teacher are in a constant brawl to get what they want. And just as it is portrayed in that film, nothing gets solved at the end, and there really are no success stories. Both the teacher and students just go through everyday, pretending like that accomplished their goals, because they did what they had to, and wait until the year is over and can forget about everything.
As Freire says, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hoping inquiry, human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” However, he argues that schools aren’t like that at all. There is no “invention and re-invention,” just a lot of depositing. It’s just the teachers filling up students with the stuff that they learned as a student. Society is supposedly growing constantly, with humans becoming smarter and smarter everyday. But how much progress can a student make when they can only be as smart as the teacher that taught him or her on that subject, if that? Even so, how many of us are actually trained to transcend all others and invent/re-invent? It seems like we’re more trained to become proletarians. And rather than training us to expand the knowledge of the world, schools seem to be preparing us to expand the wealth of the wealthy. Meanwhile, the whole time we believe that we’re going to school, becoming smarter so that we can prepare for our future, and have our own success stories. For some, that might be true, but for the rest of us, we’re only enhancing another person’s success story.\ Although I am not sure, since I’ve never tried it, autodidacticism and unschooling may be a path that works towards your own success. There are no grades, so the automath’s perception of success may be the actual experience of learning the the knowledge that is gained. And since there are no binding institutions, the automath isn’t really appealing to anyone but himself/herself.
Argument #3: Hierarchy
Yes, school might be teaching us how to be book smart, and each unit it’s something different. But one skill that schools have us develop over the course of our entire schooling career is the ability to follow orders. Ever since we were three years old, going off to Pre-Kindergarten (and even before that, with our parents), we are taught to submit to authority. We learn to do what we are told, and thus we are prepared for the working class. In school, we are
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)