en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2456129 Comments by Ipuwer http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143274334 [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. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:47:08 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143274334 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143274204 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] Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:46:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143274204 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141161376 [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. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 03:58:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141161376 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141161257 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] Sat, 9 Apr 2011 03:57:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141161257 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/27/family/#IDComment139286390 [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? Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:50:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/27/family/#IDComment139286390 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/27/family/#IDComment139286281 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. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:49:11 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/27/family/#IDComment139286281 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137628708 [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. Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:50:08 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137628708 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137628646 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] Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:49:31 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137628646 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358411 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. Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:15:17 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358411 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358218 [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] Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:13:56 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358218 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358040 How efficient is our educational system, really? That question, I think, effectively sums up the major question that this video left me with. I think any student who has had to sit through seemingly endless hours of school would agree with Sir Ken Robinson’s assessment of the system. It fails to capture the attention of many students. I think Robinson is right to point out that an educational system based around the Industrial Revolution is probably not relevant to modern times. How could it be? It’s interesting to think about how that structure has shaped our society today. The average workday in the Industrial Revolution roughly matches the time span of a typical school day. We still carry this legacy today in American society. Parents arrive home from work at around the same time that the school buses return their children. This paradigm is deeply ingrained into society. So, if we need a paradigm shift, as Robinson suggests, how could we do that? [Continued in Next Comment] Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:12:42 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment134358040 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765490 In society, it’s highly unlikely that anyone nearby is an abductor of children. Therefore, one of the smartest things a child could do when lost is ask a person nearby for help. But, instead, we tell our children to never talk to strangers. In the long run, that could, ironically, contribute to more child abductions. If a child waits around for a police officer or another authority figure, it gives them more opportunities to come into contact with dangerous people. Granted, it’s still unlikely, but it’s more probable than the scenario commonly featured in news stories. Again, those news stories are popular because they represent a parent’s worst nightmare. It’s not a rational fear, but as the woman in the video said, “Who knows? Anything can happen anywhere.” And, we think of “anywhere” as being right where we are. Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:54:57 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765490 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765455 As a child, I vividly remember being separated from my mother on a hospital elevator. Once the elevator stopped, I immediately told an old man nearby what had happened. In my moment of panic, I forgot one of the most “basic rules” I had been taught. The old man told me to calm down, and said that he would help my find my mother. Together we rode the elevator back up several floors, where my mother was waiting. If I had not broken the old “don’t talk to strangers” rule, I would not have gotten out of that situation so easily. [Continued in Next Comment] Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:54:39 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765455 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765337 It’s true that child abduction by strangers is rare. As Sam pointed out in class, the chances of a child being abducted by a stranger are about the same as the chances of that child being struck by lightning. Of course, we typically don’t let children run around outside during lightning storms either. Our fears of the possibilities, however slim, influence our decisions. News stories such as the one above breed fear in the public because they rely on parents’ worst fears. Because of those types of broadcasts, we constantly hear warnings about strangers, it’s one of the first fears children learn in safety programs. However, the “don’t talk to strangers” rule is, in my experience, not very effective in the real world. [Continued in Next Comment] Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:53:42 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130765337 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941623 I suppose this sort of concept could be disconcerting to many people. After all, the idea that we each have a “soulmate” out there is uplifting and reassuring. But, I think it’s more likely to be a comfortable fiction. Like I said, that might be an uncomfortable idea for people to acknowledge. However, I’m quite all right with it. Personally, I’d rather believe things that are likely to be true, rather than ideas that make me feel good. But, fortunately, the mind can adapt and find comfort in the randomness of partner-finding. As a single guy, I can take some comfort from the statistical likelihood that someday, somewhere, I will find someone. She won’t have been hand-picked by fate; but our love will be a free choice between us. The chance factors didn’t make Minchin love his wife any less, and I see no reason why they should hinder us either. I for one find it extraordinary that a bunch of Homo sapiens on one tiny planet spinning around one tiny star can find love within the chance and uncertainty of it all. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:06:33 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941623 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941541 I remember a conversation between my parents, my uncle, and several family friends. My uncle pointed out that who people end up falling in love with and marrying is largely contingent on chance factors. Where we’re born, for example, or where we happen to be at a certain time period in our lives. My uncle said, “If you were in Libya during your college years, you would’ve probably married a Libyan woman.” After considering the idea for a moment, my dad agreed. Those invisible strings are undeniably present. As Minchin’s song says “If I didn’t have you/ I really think that I would/ Have somebody else.” Then he goes on to point out all of the other possibilities, the other women he might have met. [Continued in Next Comment] Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:06:12 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941541 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941345 This song reminded me that I don’t listen to nearly enough Tim Minchin. I found it amusing, especially in the wake of Valentine’s Day. In our culture, our views about love and relationships are often tied to notions such as “fate.” We’re told that there is one person out there we are destined to be with, a “soulmate.” So, our struggles and triumphs in relationships are thought of as personal issues. If problems finding that special person or dating someone arise, we tend to see it as our fault. We think “We just aren’t meant to be” or “maybe they’re not the person I’m supposed to be with.” On some level, these statements could be correct. After all, some people simply aren’t compatible. Still, that doesn’t really lend credence to the “destiny” idea. In reality, there are forces out there, shaping our love lives in ways we can’t see. At least…I can’t see them, not clearly. [Continued in Next Comment] Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:05:39 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128941345 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472793 And why not? Every one of us is connected by the biological strings of evolution, after all. (As an aside, I find it interesting that I’m watching a video that showcases some positive and profound implications of evolutionary biology the day before “Darwin Day”). I also liked Rifkin’s idea that empathy arises due to our concept of mortality. That is something that seems unique to humankind, in a way that precious few things are. Monkeys can empathize, dogs can dream, but humans can contemplate our own deaths. Tiny bits of matter capable of pondering their dissolution. I would agree with Rifkin that our “Empathy is grounded in the acknowledgement of death, and the celebration of life.” I hope to take that message to heart, and value each moment as infinitely meaningful, though it is actually finite. If I accept what he is saying, I want to live as much of my life as I can in a state of wonder and joy. This is one “invisible string” (or hand, as he calls it) that I am very thankful for. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:27:10 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472793 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472746 On that note, I suppose I should answer the main question posed in this blog entry, “If you truly accepted what this man is saying, how might you change the way you live?” That is an important question indeed. It’s one thing to know about my mirror neurons, it’s another to respond to them. Recognizing that we have an empathic drive, a basic drive to belong, does change things. Instead of putting material interests at the forefront of my priorities, I would instead have to place attachment and companionship among the first ones. If our basic drive to belong is just as integral as our drives for food, shelter, and sex, we should foster our empathic nature. That could shift the focus from material things to the necessity of other people. In addition, as the video explains, our sense of empathy can extend to all people, across the world. This would lead to true globalization, a human family; even a biosphere-family. [Continued in Next Comment] Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:26:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472746 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472585 This video was amazing. After viewing it, I immediately posted it on Facebook. I hope others will read it and think about it as well. I found it remarkably thought-provoking. I’ve heard and read about mirror neurons, and the development of empathy in children. At the time, I did not think about the implications that information could have on humanity as a whole. To me, it simply meant, “Oh, cool, empathy is tangible, that’s good to know.” But, this video took so many things that I find meaningful, and put them into one cohesive whole. I like how the man used evolution, which connects us all, and neuroscience, which reveals our inner selves. We really are all part of one greater whole, and we should remember that. [Continued in Next Comment] Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:25:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127472585