Uniforms.

I remember when I was in elementary school, the topic of uniforms was brought up a few times. Most people didn’t want them. They wanted to wear their own clothes, and have a choice on what they could wear. Personally, I wanted uniforms, because I was made fun of for the clothes that I wore and if we were all forced to wear the same thing, then the classmates would stop making fun. That’s what I had thought, anyway.

Thinking about it now, that probably wouldn’t have stopped them. Besides, our school didn’t have enough money for the uniforms, and no one wanted to pay for them.

I don’t really have anything else to say on this topic. So I guess I’ll keep this journal as a short one.

Low Fertility

Low Fertility

So ... China is overpopulated, and in Canada we have large numbers of elderly people, but small numbers of young people. People in Canada are waiting to have kids and having fewer than in past years. This could be because of the cost to have a child. Some families can only afford to have one, and if they have more, it could put them in a tiny apartment with each parent working two jobs so they can pay for it. People would rather have more luxuries than children, so they decide to have fewer children.

Sicko.

This movie makes me want to move to France.

The end.
:)





Not really.
I don't know why but I never thought that health care was simply a business in United States. For some reason, I just thought that it was the same as Canada. It's hard to believe that the health care is better in a prison than in a hospital, though I think Canada has the same issue with prisons. We're caught between rehabilitation and punishment, and there is no way you can have both. Though I don't understand why the criminals get the rehabilitation, and the sick people get the punishment.

Crazy is as crazy does.

Yesterday during sociology, we had a seminar on “stigma on mental illness”. People are afraid of things they don’t understand, and they don’t know how to react, so they sometimes resort to poking fun.

Just a quick point, during the seminar people had trouble believing that depression was a mental illness. I think this is because the definition may have been misconceived. Yes, people sometimes are in a depressed mood, but someone suffering from depression will have a depressive episode lasting longer than... I believe it is two weeks but I may be mistaken. It's somewhere around two weeks anyway. It's not simply "oh I'm sad" ... it's a bit more complicated than that.

Also, the question was asked what the up side of bipolar disorder (manic depression) was called. [or at least a question to that effect] There's the depressive side, and then the manic side. The mania is the side that is classified as the "highs".

I don’t think the stigma is as bad today as it was a few years ago. Though, I may just think that because I know a lot about mental illness. From personal experience, I know some people are more likely to accept it now. This may be because learning about mental illness is easier now with internet and classes in high school, rather than years ago when we’d simply lock up the “crazies” in an asylum.

The reality is that these days, one of those “crazies” could be right next to you and you’d have no idea until they told you.

Personally, I find people suffering from mental illness interesting. Rather than making fun, I enjoy getting to know them, hearing their thoughts, and comparing them to my own.

It makes me wonder if maybe we’re all a little insane.

The "sexting" ... fad?

A while ago, during class, we read an article on “sexting”. I found this quite interesting because a day or two before that I had watched something about it on Dr. Phil.

A few questions had been brought up in both the article and the show.

The laws are abstract, and don’t focus on “sexting” but rather child pornography, which is different. Child pornography has laws that protect kids from perverted adults. I don’t believe that that should also cover children who give their consent in sending a picture of themselves to other children. When it comes to children forwarding a picture of someone else to all their friends, then I do believe it is against the law. If the person who took the picture didn’t send it to the other kids, then obviously, they didn’t want those people to see it.

Kids make dumb decisions. There’s really nothing we can do about that, and we can’t make a law against it.

“Sexting” has ruined people’s lives, because they never thought that simply pressing send would result in the things that it did. If kids were educated in what could happen, and the consequences that may ensue due to their actions, then most would get the message.

Also, I don’t think that courts should be bothered with something as simple as receiving a text message, I think they should deal with actual laws. In today’s world, if you type in the wrong thing in Google, then you’ll get a semi-nude picture. Why is it against the law if it’s in a text message?

Age Gap

Recently, during class we talked about the age gap between parents and their children. Though I did not input anything into the discussion, I thought it was interesting philosophy.

I decided to write a blog about it, since my parents are 38 and 33 years older than me. This is a rather large gap, considering some parents are only 18 or 20 years older than their children, and mine are nearly double that.

I’m not that close with my parents. I’m not sure if that’s because of the age gap, but I’m sure it could be a factor. I don’t go to them with my problems, which could be because they don’t understand the norms of society today. They know that things have changed, and know that certain things are accepted now that weren’t when they were younger, but they haven’t quite accepted those things themselves. This is rather frustrating for my brother and I.

I have also noticed that my parents don’t quite understand technological advancement. My generation tends to simply accept it without thinking, though we may be the ones at fault there. I didn’t have a microwave up until a couple years ago, simply because my parents didn’t figure that we needed one. We had a stove, why would we need a microwave?

I’ve asked some friends about rules their parents have made, and rules that my parents have made seem to be quite different from theirs. A lot of my friends have no curfew, or a very late one. My parents had to be in before dark when they were younger, and so in today’s society, they figure that 10 is generous. This could be only because of their childhood, but also influenced because of their generation.

Poverty

So.. this doesn't really relate to anything that we've talked about in class specifically. Although it does relate to sociology. It was a random thought that I was simply going to blog about on facebook, but I decided to post it here as well. The topic has been brought up indirectly during class, I believe, therefore I believe it should be an acceptable blog topic.



We’re always told that we have it so good here, and that people in other countries are suffering, starving, living in poverty, etc. It’s a knowledge we have grown to know, but we tend to push it to the back of our minds. Out of sight, out of mind. We would rather not worry about it, because if we did worry about the world’s problems, we’d likely go insane. Therefore, we push it out of reach. If you’ve seen the suffering, then it tends to be an image that haunts the back of your mind, and when someone brings up the topic of people suffering in other countries, the image tends to reappear. It doesn’t leave; it has left its mark.

Think about the roof over your head. Think about the sounds that you hear. Think about the food that you eat. Think about what you smell. Think about the walls you see surrounding you.

When the topic of poverty is brought up, I’m taken back to Peru. I can hear the pigs squealing in my ears. I can feel the wind blowing dirt and sand into my eyes. I can feel the kids running around, tugging at my arms. I can hear the kids laughing, I can see them smiling. I can smell the garbage dump that they live in.

I bring myself back to today, and look around the four walls I’ve lived in for the last 17 years and wonder… what gives me the right to complain?

My morals are not your morals.

Today, during class, we had a debate on religion and morality. I, being too shy to speak up, wrote down some points that I would have liked to say and decided to make it into a journal topic.

People are individuals, who believe different things. This is seen through different people’s views on religion. Then it must be true that people have different morals. For example, if someone withholds the truth from someone else, but is not necessarily asked specifically about that truth, are they lying? Different people will have different answers. Some believe that withholding information is lying, and others believe you must speak untrue words to lie. It’s all about perception and ultimately the person’s beliefs.

People can also perceive religion in the same way. Many religious things, such as verses from the Bible, are left up to interpretation. Especially considering over the years, the Bible has been translated from different languages, and also to modern language, there is bound to be some things that are lost in translation. I remember last year in Mrs. Bright’s sociology class, we went on a trip to the mental hospital in Toronto. There was a man who talked to us about his personal experience with schizophrenia. He mentioned that he believed one voice that he heard to be Jesus, and one was the Devil, so if the voice he believed was Jesus told him to do something, he would do it because he believed it to be Jesus speaking to him. The voice could have easily told him to kill someone, and he may have done it. Therefore morality can be overridden by other beliefs.

This leads into a point that was brought up that I disagree with. It was said during the class that if a religious person swears on the Bible, they will tell the truth. This is an incredibly untrue statement. Religious people lie just as easily as an atheist. They shouldn’t be held up to a higher standard simply because they believe that something happens when they die. In the Bible, women were stoned if they had sex before marriage, does that mean that religious people should kill all women who have pre-marital sex? To my knowledge, most do not do this, because times have changed and things are different. Who is to say they can’t bend other rules, and ask for forgiveness afterwards?

Also, the death penalty was brought up. I just want to note that I don’t believe that the death penalty is an effective punishment. Why would we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? It doesn’t seem logical, in my opinion. Then again, who doesn’t contradict themselves these days?

Conformity

Anti-Conformity

Why do individuals feel the need to conform? We are individuals after all, right? That’s what we would like to believe anyway. The truth is that we all follow basic social norms, and when we don’t, the consequence tends to be alienation.

People tend to think that if they dress a certain way, then they no longer conform to the society’s trends. It may have been a sign of anti-conformity when the idea was first shown to society, but now it is simply another trend, and another way to conform. A basic social norm that we follow is wearing clothes. Changing the way that you dress seems more like modifying the norm. If you really wanted to make a statement, then you would probably go without clothes. Although, then you would join a nudist colony, and that’s just conforming with nudists, so you’re still conforming.

That statement may make it seem like you can’t escape conformity. That is untrue. When an idea is first brought to society’s attention, and judged by society, then the idea can be considered as unique. If someone chooses to put that idea to use, regardless of what others think, then it can be considered anti-conformity. Once society starts to recognize the idea as a trend, then it simply becomes part of society’s norms. Again, I don’t mean to say that trying to go against conformity is impossible, because this is what brings social change, and broadens the mind of society.

I’ve never quite understood why people have conformed to the knowledge of trusting doctors, police officers and teachers without question. It’s probably very likely that the doctor doing your brain surgery could be hungover. He’s just a regular person. I’m sure I’ve seen people hungover at the place where I work, and therefore it isn’t any different for a doctor to do the same. For some reason, we set them to a higher standard and figure they are better humans than regular people. The police officer coming to your assistance because there was a robbery at your house very well could be a robber himself. The teacher seeing your kids for a longer period of time in the day than you do very well could be a pedophile. So why we trust them without thinking, then tell our kids not to talk to strangers?

Yes, we actually bag our milk.

Yes, it is true that in Canada, milk comes in bags. To those who live in Canada, the knowledge is rather seem-less. It can be compared to kids being born now, who don’t know a world without computers. It’s a sheltered perspective, but rather inevitable.

People tend to think that things are the same around the world as where they live. It’s hard to change this perspective unless one goes to another place in the world. For example, from personal experience, I know that Peru is very different from Canada. Luckily, living in Canada, we are exposed to many cultures inside of our own Canadian culture.

It’s quite interesting to see the surprise to Canadians when they learn that not everywhere has bagged milk. Though, it is more interesting to see people’s reactions from other countries to the fact that we have bagged milk.

This was a reply to a online board topic which was titled: "In Canada, Milk Comes In Bags"



And another:



And yet another:



And others questioned it:


And yes, I did just write a blog about bagged milk.

Why should we study how society functions?

In class so far, we’ve learned that it is important to understand how the society works. If we didn’t know, then we wouldn’t have sociology classes. If we did not study how society functions, then we would live in a very different place.

It is important to study past events and patterns in respect to society so that future events can be predicted based on those patterns. For example, in “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore knew about global warming but society wasn’t willing to listen. Therefore he had to find a way to make them listen. In “An Inconvenient Truth”, viewers are able to see his slideshow that gives the facts about global warming while portraying his powerful message. Now, society knows about global warming and is reacting.

If leaders in governmental positions didn’t understand society then they wouldn’t be able to make effective rules and laws to control society. It would be hard to control something you don’t understand. There is a saying that goes something like: “You must know your enemy to defeat your enemy”, and it is completely true, in other instances than enemies.

Also, if we know how society interacts, then we can solve problems and conflict that arise in society.

Sociology is not simply a course that you take because your career involves it. Sociology is part of everything. People interact everywhere. Therefore it is important to study how society functions.

Theorists

Harry Harlow and B.F. Skinner were both born in the early 1900s. Both of them made significant contributions to psychology. Harry Harlow became a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. B.F. Skinner became a professor at Harvard. Both of them experimented with animals to prove their theories. Harry Harlow experimented with rhesus monkeys, and B.F. Skinner experimented with pigeons and rats.

As for Harry Harlow’s and B.F. Skinner’s theories, they start to differ. Harry Harlow proved that children not only need food and shelter, but they also need love and affection. He proved this with his experiments on rhesus monkeys, where he created surrogate mothers, and it was shown that the monkeys preferred the mother that was soft and that they could cuddle with. B.F. Skinner developed operant conditioning, and also proved that the environment plays a significant role in shaping a being’s behaviour. Though B.F. Skinner’s theory is seen in Harry Harlow’s experiments as well. B.F. Skinner proved his theories through his experiments on pigeons and/or rats in his Skinner Box. Although Harry Harlow and B.F. Skinner proved different theories and used different experiments, there is a commonality in what they proved that they were more oriented to child psychology.

Some differences between the two psychologists are that Harry Harlow’s experiments were a lot more cruel than B.F. Skinner’s. B.F. Skinner’s experiments were a bit cruel as well though. Harry Harlow had a more chaotic social life, as he was married 3 times and had two children with two wives. B.F. Skinner was married once and had two children. I find it interesting that they were living in the same time, and I think it would have been interesting if the two of them had met.

Some theories that were proven many years ago are still used today. Sigmund Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind is still thought of. Although, his theory of the Oedipus complex isn’t used as much. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still thought of today, I’m not sure if it is used. Harry Harlow’s theory that children need love and affection is still used. People today still believe that they should hug and kiss their child and show affection. B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is still used today with parents and their children, and also with teachers and their students. Pavlov’s theory of classical conditioning is still used today.

Note: When I wrote one response, it wasn’t long enough, so I decided to do both. Hope that’s okay? :/

Are humans inherently violent?

It’s possible that we all have a violent gene, but it is also possible that we are made violent. There are arguments to suggest both, which was seen in the presentation on Friday.

In regards to improvements, I feel that I could have spoke more. Though when Adam and I were working on the presentation, he did the powerpoint and I did the video, and there isn’t much you can say about a video considering you watch it, not present it. Anyhow, also there was some opinion in our presentation, but that is likely due to the fact that there are arguments to suggest both sides and one would naturally pick a side.

Part of the video included clips of a video game where humans were killing zombies. During the presentation the point was brought up that; “but in the video, you showed humans killing zombies, that’s different”. Is it really different? It doesn’t matter whether you’re killing aliens or zombies instead of humans; it is still violence. The video game establishes the moral that as long as your life is in danger, it’s okay to kill. This moral is also seen in history when people fought over food or would kill one another just to survive. So if your life is at stake, violence is okay?

This moral isn’t put inside our heads through video games. Back in time, they didn’t have video games, but still fought to survive anyway. Why? Simply because humans are violent creatures. Without even thinking about it, if someone hits us, we hit back. An eye for an eye, after all. Even in the Bible, people were stoned. I don’t think there was a people-stoning video game in those times to give them the idea.

Although, in situations such as school shootings or terrorism in airplanes, no one had the idea until they saw it on the news. When one person decided to go into a school with a gun, it was on the news and in the newspaper. It was tragic and no one could believe that it happened. After someone else sees the news report, the idea floats around their mind and they decide to bring a gun to school. So maybe the violent gene needs to be triggered? It makes sense with the idea that people raised in abusive families are violent as well.

If there is some violent gene that all humans are born with, I believe that it can be controlled. After all, we’re not all murderers, right? Of course, that’s just my opinion.

Hierarchy

On Friday, hierarchy was discussed. In particular, the question of what certain people playing certain roles in society should wear was discussed. This is an interesting topic, which we didn’t really get into much, and so I wish to explore it a little further.

Teacher’s attire was brought up during the class discussion. Professionalism shown through dress became more of the debate. Does dress influence someone’s opinion of another? Is someone seen as more professional if they are wearing a suit and tie? Is someone seen as being better at their job if they are wearing more professional attire?

It is true that people wear fancy, clean-cut outfits to interviews to impress their potential boss. What if one person’s outfit is more clean and tidy than someone else’s? Does that change the opinion of the employer, even if the one wearing the tie with the ketchup stain is better suited for the job? I suppose it depends on the employer on the job, since appearance is key for some jobs. It is unfair in cases where one cannot afford to wear expensive, nice clothes to interviews. If one were to show up to an interview in a sweater and ripped jeans, immediately their appearance would be judged, and their abilities to do the job would be seen second. In my opinion, that isn’t fair.

Specifically for teachers, it is nice to walk down the halls and see teachers wearing ties and dresses, but is it necessary? People can look the part, and act like they know what they’re doing, but that may not be necessarily true. If the way someone looks does not come into question, then one’s interior qualities will be looked at closer because there are no other factors getting in the way of that.

Therefore, I don’t see the need in playing dress up to teach students.