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.