IntenseDebate - Ipuwer

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - "Lifer" · 0 replies · +1 points

[Continued from above]
We have to categorize things, and that includes other people. Those labels fuel the creation of stereotypes (or are they the same thing?). It gives us a sense of stability and satisfaction when we can give a definite name to something or someone. We humans find it disconcerting to be unable to categorize something. This might be a bit of a tangent, but when humans encounter something that our brains cannot place either “human” or “nonhuman” labels onto, we find it disturbing. That effect is called the “uncanny valley.” It seems that we are hardwired to create labels and categories. Looking at it sociologically, it seems that labels, for better or worse, will always be a part of society. Of course, this can have negative effects, as I said before. Not all labels are good, or positive. Labeling someone as a “felon” or “criminal” can have an impact on how a person views themselves. The longer one wears the “mask,” the more they come to resemble it.

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - "Lifer" · 0 replies · +1 points

I found this article especially relatable and relevant. I’ve always had an aversion to labels of any sort; I didn’t want to give anyone the ability to categorize me. Though my appearance does not convey such an impression; I look fairly “average,” I suppose. Perhaps that in itself is a way of eschewing labels. I’ve noticed the same tendency in a friend of mine. For the longest time, my friend was uncomfortable with calling himself an atheist. He did not believe in a god or gods, so “atheist” seemed to be the only logical term to describe his position. However, he was reluctant to take on the label, precisely because it was a label. My friend did not want to be categorized, especially in a society where people with that label (atheist) are seen as “immoral” or “evil” by far too many of the general public. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case among many other people who identify as nonbelievers. There are certain labels that can be unpleasant to carry. I think humans, and societies of humans, feel a deep-seated need for labels.
[Continued in Next Comment]

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - War Vets and PTSD -- 0... · 0 replies · +1 points

[continued from above]
We are not accustomed to killing one another. In a way, it goes against our biological and psychological programming. When we see another in pain, our brains automatically activate the mirror neurons, making us “feel” their pain as well. Empathy is a natural inhibitor against the very actions that we expect soldiers to perform, and as such it could become a barrier to many. If we expect soldiers to commit acts that we ourselves would be unwilling to do, we should also expect there to be psychological repercussions with sending our citizens off to the battlefield. Reacting to their traumatic experiences with callous accusations of cowardice seems a poor way to repay their services. These soldiers are not week, nor are they cowards. They are human, nothing more or less, and they put their lives on the line for us. Society should make a greater effort to understand and respond to this issue.

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - War Vets and PTSD -- 0... · 0 replies · +1 points

I thought the video we watched today in class was indeed powerful and moving. The psychological and emotional effect of war on soldiers is a subject that we rarely here about. Sure, most of us have heard about PTSD, but how many stations cover it on the evening news? How many soldiers’ stories go untold? Watching videos like the one we saw today helps us to understand what these men (and women) are going through. I think if more soldiers are taking their own lives than dying in the field, we have a serious problem. Even more serious is the response their struggles evoke from their fellow soldiers. When a person is going through a psychological breakdown, the last thing they need is antagonism. I can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a soldier, much less one who must endure a harrowing inner battle with PTSD. I do think the military, and the country at large should take these cases of soldiers with PTSD very seriously. Treating their struggle as “weakness” or “cowardice” is an ignorant response. It shows a lack of understanding about the mind, and about human nature in general.
[continued in next comment]

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Family · 0 replies · +1 points

[Continued from above comment]
I will briefly say that I think plenty of them do deserve their sentences, and prison is an effective tool for keeping the general public safe. There is more to it than that, but that is not the subject this letter brought to mind. What may be most interesting, sociologically, is the way this prisoner has attained a type of freedom. He appears to have found freedom both through relationships with others, and through the recognition of his mistakes. As he says here: “I believe that we have to make sure our mistakes aren’t worthless. There’s always an underlying message that if we choose to ignore it, we will be repeating the same errors time and time again.” That is a profound message we could all apply, in my opinion. Would this person have reached such a conclusion if he hadn’t made his “stupid decision?” Possibly. But, prison appears to be a transformative experience for him, in a way that few other experiences are not. If individuals like this can be so transformed when they are removed from society, how can we who are within society seek to change ourselves? How can we find that inner freedom?

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Family · 0 replies · +1 points

All of these “Lifer” letters are intriguing and moving, and it’s difficult to chose just one to respond to. I decided to respond to this one, “Family,” because ideas simply began flowing while I was reading it. First, the author challenges our preconceptions and says that “Most of these people are of good nature, they just made poor choices somewhere along the way.” In class, Sam made reference to the “Old Testament morality” that we tend to follow in our justice system. According to that system, morality and justice are black and white matters. The person who commits a crime is evil, the one who does not is righteous and “upright” to borrow the term used in the Bible. This system might be useful for us, but I think it does cause us to forget the shades of gray. More importantly, it makes us forget about the worth of the person we are judging. I’m not going to delve into the question of whether the prison system is right or wrong, or whether people belong in prison.

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Religion in the future? · 0 replies · +1 points

[Continued from Above]
From a sociological standpoint, organized religion is just too valuable to a society to disappear for long. People love to form groups, especially exclusive groups. Organized religion does just that. It gives people a sense of belonging to a privileged contingent of humanity, whether it is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism. Though I do not think organized religion will fade completely, I do think we will continue to see a rise in “unaffiliated” people. In our modern age, people are more willing to express their individuality. Part of that expression would include the pursuit of a personal spiritual belief system. “Spiritual” instead of “religious.” The three Abrahamic religions are not exactly conducive to this sort of self-exploration. Dogma, doctrine, and holy texts do not offer much in the way of “finding your own path.” We may see a rise in religions that do foster such exploration. Perhaps religions such as Buddhism will grow in number and expand into the west. At any rate, I do not think organized religion will end completely. But, I do think that we will see significant changes in the spiritual and religious attitudes of society.

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Religion in the future? · 0 replies · +1 points

This is the kind of article that my friends and I could discuss for hours on end. I would say that I am agnostic, though I disagree with the definition Sam uses. An agnostic isn’t someone who “doesn’t give a shit,” though that might be true of some agnostics. An agnostic is someone who either claims that the existence of a god is unknowable, or who personally does not know whether or not a god exists. I would consider myself part of the former category. The findings and predictions in this article are certainly fascinating. It makes me wonder what Europe would look like without organized religion. It is, after all, the continent where the Holy Roman Empire once held sway. Without that empire, Christianity probably would have remained a minor cult, and Islam might well have ruled Europe in its stead (If that were the case, I wonder if we would see people leaving Islam today?). I think if organized religion “dies” in Europe, it might not remain dead for long. It would probably re-emerge (“resurrect?”), though perhaps with some significant changes.
[Continued in Next Comment]

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Rethinking Education · 0 replies · +1 points

Also, I would like to address Robinson’s comments regarding ADHD and education. I’m not sure what to think regarding the perceived “ADHD epidemic.” But, in my experience, students diagnosed with ADHD usually struggle with the current educational system. They simply don’t “fit in” with the current paradigm, and as a result, society judges them. Such students are labeled as “less intelligent” than students without ADHD. Sadly, many of the students start to believe what society says about them, and their drive to succeed is hindered. It is tragic that so many potentially successful, intelligent students are being marginalized due to flaws in the educational system. So, I’m not sure what kind of paradigm shift we will be capable of, but I hope it leads us to a better future.

15 years ago @ World In Conversation - Rethinking Education · 0 replies · +1 points

[Continued from above]
I’m all for education reforms, but I’m not sure how practical changing the structure of schools would work. Our society has simply become too used to the current system, it won’t change. Unless the reforms happened slowly, of course. If we could gently edge our educational system into a new paradigm, a real shift might occur. Though, as a side note, I disagree with Robinson’s criticism of schools’ grouping children together by age. I think that is actually a good way to educate. At different ages, children are at different stages in their physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development. There are children who progress to higher levels than is typical of their age group, but in general, the ages match key developmental stages. We could change everything else, but educating children in groups based on age is a fitting, useful method.
[Continued in Next Comment]

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Ipuwer

People I'm following

Ipuwer