gdp's Comments

World In Conversation : War Through the Ages -- 001 blog

Sat, 23 Apr 2011 02:21:28 +0000

This video portrayed something that does not come as a surprise, but I am glad to have seen this visual representation of it. The movie is long but as you can see the both the frequency and intensity of each battle has grown almost exponentially. This is easy to explain in that in earlier times, civilizations were smaller, weapons were more primitive and combat tactics were more of a “gentlemen’s” game. Back in the day, weapons were more direct and could only injure one person at a time, and battles were fought face to face with the opposing army. Now with our modern technology our weapons can kill hundreds at a time, and we fight with guerrilla tactics and interdispersed with the civilian population. That explains why each battle has more casualties, but then why do we fight with such frequency in modern times? And why does it seem like this frequency is only going to increase in the coming years? The motive for resources has been the same for modern times as it has been for wars hundreds of years before. However in those times I think that while the wars were for resources, the world was not yet overcrowded so these conflicts were not about urgent and dire problems, but more for convenience. Now however, the earth is overpopulated and too many nations are developing far enough to demand resources to run their modern societies. Oil is currently the one resource that is necessary for modern society, that every developed nation wants, but there is simply not enough to go around, and it is running out fast. So clearly the need to control oil is on the agenda of many world giants. This is where the United States comes in, we use an incredible proportion of the worlds oil compared to our proportion of people in the world. The United States is in a crisis for oil and because we have a huge military presence, we will use that military force and find any excuse we can to go over seas and fight for the remaining oil left in the world. Many other countries are joining in on these conflicts and thus we have been seeing conflict after conflict as we fight for “freedom” or to really make sure we have access to the oil for the future. From what I can see, until we see a viable alternative to oil or until oil finally runs out, conflicts are just going to get worse and more frequent.

World In Conversation : Transgendered Complications

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:46:22 +0000

This article reflects heavily on the reading we recently had on “The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough.” The reading described how our society has a black and white view on gender when really it is more of a spectrum. This article provides a real life example of how it is a spectrum and why you cannot view it as black and white. It is like trying to fit a square into a circular hole. It just doesn’t work. It may have worked in the past when we forced people from young ages to adopt the gender “role” that was appropriate for their body. Maybe in the past there was such a strong socialization of the young to adopt the appropriate role that in the past there really was only a “male” and a “female”. But now as society changes, there is a less strict socialization of the young, that we are more free to develop into a more natural spot in the Male to Female spectrum. Unfortunately, even though society may have unknowingly loosed up on how it socializes its people, the people itself are not yet ready to accept the change in society. I feel like a great deal of society today is still clinging onto the past and not actually viewing the present and/or the future. I feel that this is the case with many issues in politics and about gender issues such as gay marriage as well. This parallels what the book said about the issue. In order for society to more forward, we unfortunately need more people of an unconventional gender to come out and take the brunt of the criticisms so that they and others like them can work and fight to dispel the uncertainties and push for greater understanding of them. It seems as though that process is starting too, as little by little we hear more stories about this issue. Same can be said about gay rights. As gay members took a stand and withstood the criticisms of society, things are finally looking better for them, and more gay members of the community are coming out to continue the push for understanding them. So I think, that while it is unfortunate that society still sees in Black and White, I think that in time things will get better.

World In Conversation : War Vets and PTSD -- 001 Blog

Sat, 9 Apr 2011 02:05:00 +0000

I am actually horrifyingly surprised by the fact that more soldiers are opting to take their own lives than are actually killed in the line of duty. I am surprised, but I really shouldnt be surprised that this is occuring. Perhaps I am surprised by how wide spread the problem is. We have learned a great deal about socialization and group think, and how the United States military have become experts at achieving this goal. We have seen how boot camp sucessfully socializes civilians into a strong obedient soldier who works like clockwork within his or her unit. They are socialized to obey orders, to leave their feelings, and second guessing concious behind. They are socialized to get rid of their former self. However, they can not completely erase the former self from the soldiers identity, their humanity and concious is still there, just hiddin underneath the loyal instincitive soldier. Therefore it should not come to be a surprise hat when these soldiers kill humans beings, and see the horrers or war, they start to succumb to the horrifying reality of what they are are doing to other human beings. Some soldiers do well to stay in the mindset of the soldier, but for many the shock of war experiences is enough to cause their humanity to resurface and they simply can not handle what they are experiencing. No one should be made to experience what they are when they are at war. I also believe that the US military was trying to portray these symptoms of post traumatic stress dissorder as merely cowardace or trying to persuade the populace that these occurances were simply personal troubles within the individual soldiers. However, the reality is that PTSD is not a personal trouble, but rather a public issue. The army needs to recognize this (and I think they finally are starting to) and realize that they can not force a soldiers identity onto a person, and expect them to always be ok with the horrers that they are exposed to, especially when the soldiers are then returned to civilian life and are expected to regain the humanity that they “left behind”. They can not be resocialized to normal civilian life without their experiences of war following them.

World In Conversation : So what your take on those "inequality classes"?

Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:59:03 +0000

The money distribution of our society is continually growing, with the gap separating the middle class from the upper class getting larger and larger. This is a problem for society as the middle class and lower start to struggle with finances. It is easy for people with vast amounts of money to find the loopholes in society’s laws in order to find more ways to hold on to their wealth. My family has some family friends who would classify themselves as upper class and they are always finding ways to write off expenses as business expenses and thus avoiding taxation. The poor do not have the ability to write off parties at their house as business events. Then there is the super rich who can lobby and hire the best lawyers to find even more ways. No matter how unfair and unethical these practices may seem, it has to be understood that this is just simply how things are, and probably will be. It is just human nature to do things that are in your interest. So for the rich they see an easy path in which they can save a couple dollars here and there, sure they will take it. And to them when they do it, each small thing doesn’t seem like they are saving a whole lot, and so it must not be a big deal. Even if they were to look at all the money they avoided giving up in taxes for the entire year… it must still be ok. I mean it is only one rich family doing it right? This is could be equated to a personal trouble. However this is NOT a personal trouble, this is a public issue. This is because not only does family A take thake all these short cuts, but so does Family B, Family C, D, etc… So the result is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (especially during times where the poor are taxed more heavily to make up for the deficit). Unfortunately, that is just the way it works out. I am sure if the poor were the rich ones, and rich were the poor, the same thing would happen. The only way I can see for remedying the situation is for stricter laws and eliminating the series of loops holes that benefit the rich.

World In Conversation : Managing Crowds - SOC 001

Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:44:48 +0000

If we were to shove a large group of people into one area and call upon them to make a decision that would benefit them all, it would surely be almost impossible. It is extremely difficult to get a group of people to do something when they do not have someone else telling them what to do. In unexpected situations, no one wants to be the leader because they probably think that they do not know enough to make the best decision, or that there is someone else in the group that would probably make a better leader. Everyone is unsure of the capabilities or even the needs of the people they are surrounded with. Too much uncertainty, and so they would rather have someone else become the leader. This may not be the case if this group of people were say a class of 30 after a whole year together, because they know each others capabilities. This problem arises when the group members are strangers, as in say an evacuation attempt of a city, and no one is telling them how to evacuate specifically. The only way that I can really think of alleviating the situation is to actually have some one step up to be a leader and provide direction. But then we go back to the original problem of no one wanting to take up that position. Perhaps then, the most efficient way of deciding upon an action as a group, which would then actually be beneficial to the entire group, is to find a way to get people to speak their ideas one at a time. Assuming this is a manageable group size, of say a typical classroom, if people are respectful of others opinions, and let people say their full thoughts and not cut them off, the idea started by one person can be molded by every subsequent voice as with every issue a person may have, the idea will be molded slightly to accommodate their needs to a degree. If the group gets too large, I do not think this method would work out, and in those cases, I think there needs to be a leader of some sort, or some sort of direction from an outsider if anything. ( An example of this would be the emergency exit signs, it tells a large group who do not know what to do, where to go)

World In Conversation : LGBT families. There's a lot of fear out there.

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:19:41 +0000

I remember watching this exact video a couple of weeks ago when it 1st appeared. Even then I was astonished at Zach’s persuasive argument. I feel he that he is a perfect example towards the argument that gay parents have do not have a detrimental influence on their kids. If we were to only look at his case, we may even say that gay parents are better at raising kids than the traditional parent, but that would be just as bad. It may be true however that in a gay household, gay children may feel more comfortable to come out of the closet if that happens to be the case, but as he said, and as I believe, there is really no difference between kids from straight and gay households. From earlier in the semester I have come to view the family structure more as a form of socialization, which was confirmed by our previous class. This socialization is important in raising a child from a blank slate up to an adult who can think and interact with those around them in order to get through life. Just how school socialized kids to become good citizens and to ultimately become good employees in the workforce, the home environment socialized kids all the necessities in life. That includes everything from learning the language or “symbols” to communicate, how to properly maintain their general health, how to walk, and general values and morals such as right vs wrong. All of these lessons are essential, even more so than those taught in class, for without those, it is simply almost impossible to live in our society. But clearly, none of these lessons need to come from a mother and a father, it just needs to come from someone who loves you, and is willing 100% of the time to help these lessons and teach you the essentials in life. This is why a gay couple is just as capable of this role as anyone. This is also why when you are part of any tight knit group in which you learn lessons from each other, you may even in turn call them a “family”.

World In Conversation : Rethinking Education

Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:53:24 +0000

This lecture provided a lot of interesting insights into the academic culture that we have in our society today. To be honest, I would never have thought about why our system is the way it is until after I viewed this video. It seems to me that the entirety of school is form of socialization with a goal of producing the ideal member of society. But in order to make that ideal member accessible to most people, the ideal member has to lose it’s self thought about exploration or “divergent thinking” and thusly think in a manner that can be accessible to anyone who goes through the process of academic life. I find that this is a problem because now school seems to be just a factory where we go in as individuals ,with as the video said, genius levels divergent thinking, and come out with some level of being the ideal generic member of society. And not everyone comes through the process so smoothly. Some may have issues and not fully transform into that ideal member and they are ones that cause “trouble” for the system. These are the students that are required to take drugs like Ritalin and other focus inducing drugs, because conformity in how students thinks is what the academic system wants. No wonder it is hard to find students that are truly interested in research and exploration in their respective fields of study. Most of us just want the grade and go straight into making the money. I believe that the socialization of us as students by the schools, has actually done us a disservice, by effectively wiping away our spark for imagination and wonder, which I believe is attributed to Divergent Thinking. As well from this last lecture, I have come to realize that I myself am a victim of not having divergent thinking. I think that I am one of those students that have now become a grade oriented student. I am pressured by the school, culture in general, and even job employers to get as good of a grade as possible in my classes, that I miss the point of being in class. I don’t come to learn or explore anymore, I come to get a grade. I think that needs to change.

World In Conversation : Social Structure Shapes Free Will

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 03:34:53 +0000

Watching this video was quite enlightening, in that it has shown me a perspective at marriage that I have never considered in my life. In our western society, we have been socialized into the culture that we are all well familiar with. We have been socialized so much that we have internalized the rules and norms that are laid out in front of us by society. In this case that norm is the norm of having only one wife, or one husband. We would never question marrying another, because that is what we have come to accept. It is clear now that what one sees as marriage is something that socialization plays a big part in. In the Himalayas, the small group of people was isolated from our western culture for a long time, therefore their culture was shaped and sculpted with minimal interaction and influence from the outside world. This meant that the people of the small village were socialized into their world in a different manner than what we have experienced. To their culture, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to take on multiple husbands. In fact, their culture almost demands that they do so in order to preserve their wellbeing in terms of land and food. The needs of the people, shape the culture, and in turn shape the people as they grow in that environment. Unfortunately however, I agree with the video in that I do not see the current customs with marriage lasting much longer with the greater integration with western cultures. Now there is going to be an increase in the influence by the western community, especially by the television. Now the TV is going to play a role in the socialization of future generations as they grow up to be adults in their village. This new generation is going to see that the western society does not agree with multiple spouses and this will have an effect in how they internalize the rules for marriage. My money is on the western culture gaining dominance on the traditional Himalayan culture, and thus future socialization will lean more towards a society that we in the United States are familiar with. Unfortunately this may have an ill outcome with future dividing of land among more smaller families.

World In Conversation : The not-so-invisible structure that shapes us

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:41:31 +0000

Upon reading the article, and from the insights gained from class, I would have to say that the article exemplifies what sociology has taught us about freedom and how society shapes exactly how “free” we really are. There is a reason why only 30% of Americans have passports as opposed to like the 75% in Great Britain. While yes every American has the “option” to travel abroad, we rarely exercise this “option”. It is almost as if we have sociological strings tugging us away from traveling outside of the country. But, this is exactly the truth; our society is increasing our probability on visiting other countries. There are a few strings that you can easily see and track to their origins, such as; The media in the United States seems to really only focus on events within the U.S. and about celebrities, instead of trying to get an in depth view of world news. This lack of exposure towards other countries on the news means there are no strings being made to compel us to visit those countries, while every time a news segment is on a celebrity or other event, it is creating or making stronger the strings that tell us that “America has everything we need and we don’t need to venture outside the border”. As a nation, I believe we have such a poor knowledge about other cultures and worldly events, and I attribute this to the media, and this ignorance as whole is what pulls us away from traveling, because we are missing the strings to make it otherwise. The other factor to look at is our view on how life should be. The article touched on this subject, and I full heartedly agree. In the united states, the view is that we go to school, go to college, get a job right after, and finally work until we are too old to work. We do not value leisure time as much as other countries do. In the world, the united states has the LEAST amount of governmentally enforced paid vacations with a total of ZERO days allotted to us. Check out this chart I found which shows just how different our work minded culture is different from others: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/0... Society has told us that work is important, traveling and relaxing is not. There are multitudes more sociological strings that compel us to not travel, but for me the most prominent are the media and our society’s beliefs on work.

World In Conversation : Conformity Rules the Day

Sat, 5 Feb 2011 04:55:02 +0000

After attending class and gaining a new perspective on the sociological factors surrounding human conformity, this video makes perfect sense and if I were put in the same place, I would probably have done the exact same thing. We learned in class that humans are inherently social creatures, and therefore we find comfort in the interactions we have with those around us. However, since we have this inherent need for group interactions, we will almost always do everything in our power to make sure these interactions are favorable, in order to gain the approval of everyone around us. What this means is that we will join the “band wagon” of what are considered the norms of the group just so the group will find the individual agreeable and therefore just like the rest of the group. As humans, our need to want this approval is so strong that, even when do not understand the action or custom, or even if we think the action is absurd or just unnecessary or even wrong, the sociological strings are pulling on us so much to just forget our individual thought and just simply do what the group is doing. This reasoning explains why group mob mentality can lead to terrible decisions, such as looting a store, or burning cars in the street. If you were to then ask a single person in the mob why they did a certain act, they would probably not know a single good reason, besides because everyone else was doing it. If you really think about it, just about everything we do as humans is based on this idea of conformity. We wear clothes because everyone else does it, we speak using a certain vocabulary because everyone else does it. In the case of clothes, and language, conformity is not really a bad thing. The term may get a bad rep, due to the stigma of mob mentality or just being a sheep in a flock, but in the end it can be beneficial to how we interact as humans. With conformity in many of our morals, and even rules and laws, we as humans are able to function as a society and generally get along well.

World In Conversation : How "free" are these 90 students?

Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:50:14 +0000

After viewing the video on the school in memphis, I would be inclined to say that while yes, the students have the ability to make up their own minds, it is not fully in their control about what their tendencies or probability for choosing a certain decision will be. It is not a coincidence that of all the decisions nationwide to have unprotected sex, which lead to having a kid, is at a greater concentration at this one school than say my own high school of over 2000, where maybe there was 1 or 2 max pregnant girls in my grade. There are sociological factors involved that are guiding these high school students closer towards the decision to have unprotected sex. From reading the article, I am under the impression that this particular school does not promote safe sex, but merely abstinence only. This taboo nature of sex in the school is a sociological factor that sometimes pulls at people in the opposite way that is intended. That along with the obvious of sex being glamorized in tv, movies, and advertisements and no experiences around the topic of safe sex, the culmination of all the sociological experiences are probably not tugging via invisible strings towards the option of safe sex, but more likely toward just sex. The students still make the ultimate call between to have sex, or not to have sex, but the invisible strings from society are pulling for sex. There is another thing to address from the video. Mentioning that nearly 100% of the students are eligible for free food means they probably do not come from financially secure families. I am afraid of making a generalization on this, but I would say that for some poor families, the parents might not be making sound decisions of their own in regards to their own actions towards “respectable” behavior and sex. The parents influence on the kids ever since birth create a multitude of invisible strings that are attached quite strongly to the kids and only grow throughout their childhood and these strings are then tugging at the kids to make similar decisions that their parents examples have showed are alright. Therefore, the inclusion of all these invisible strings make it difficult to say that these students had the complete freedom to “choose” to have kids.

World In Conversation : Last Name “F” – Intense Debate

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:07:08 +0000

SOC 001

World In Conversation : Suicide in Japan - 001 Blog

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:56:53 +0000

As a sociologist I feel inclined to tell you are not alone in how you feel.. Suicide may seem like the only logical choice and you are all alone in this, but you are not alone, and suicide is not the only choice you have. As a sociologist I urge you to take a step back from your life for a moment so your current situation of having just lost your job is not influencing your view. From this angle on your life you will see that with all things considered, suicide is not a logical choice that you would consider at this fork in the road. I hope that you cans see, just as I do, that your sociological factors have influenced the thought of suicide to pop into your head. But if you look at others with your same sociological factors, you see that you are not alone in your thought. You see? You share a multiple of factors that lead to you and others like you to be predisposed to the possibility of suicide. This is not just your choice, but it is something that is out of your control. But you do not have to let these sociological factors make this choice for you. In the end it is still your choice. There is always a bright side to any situation. Do not dwell on the down turns in your life, think of all the good that has occurred. Maybe in recent times everything seemed to go in a downward spiral leading to the loss of your job, but I urge you to see the bright side to this situation. I urge you to see this not as the end, but instead as a new beginning, as a chance to rebuild and modify those sociological factors, so those invisible puppet strings will lead you away from your current situation and into something better. Remember you are never truly alone. Don't let your sociological factors influence you into thinking that you are. Whenever you start to feel yourself slip into thoughts of lonesomeness and suicide, remember to take that step back and view your world from the outside and then your choices will become more clear.