As someone who has spent close to 15 years (out of 19) living in Islamic countries, I have to say that I find all of this ridiculous. I have thus far lived in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, which is an Arabic country, and although it is very liberal for being such, is still more conservative than Jakarta, Indonesia, where I have also lived. Indonesia also happens to be the world’s largest Muslim nation.

The thing that these videos and such propaganda fail to point out is that these ‘jihad’ members are religious fanatics, essentially the Islamic equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, Hutaree, etc. It’s like Sam mentioned in his TED talk, the ‘Children’s training camps’ and the acts of hate such as Koran burning occur on both sides.

For the most part the majority of Muslims are very much like us, and I can say this from personal experience. Heck, Indonesia has already had it’s first female president, while the US is probably still a while away from reaching that level of equality, and this is not only a one-off case as the same has occurred in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and others. The majority of Islamic youth do the same things that we do, they like video games, magazines, movies, facebook, cars, they go clubbing, want to travel, and in general just want the best for themselves and their families. Muslim girls on the other hand, don’t all wear burkas, but often, even if they do, trust me when I say that underneath the burkas they are wearing the latest brands and fashions. The problem is that the media doesn’t want to show that, that’s not interesting, no one wants to see a normal family leading a normal life and being happy, they want to show the crazy people screaming ridiculous things and such. If you ask me it even goes the other way quite a bit, I mean the way Americans are portrayed in the media is as ignorant, obnoxious, loud, nationalistic people, when (in most cases at least) that’s absolutely not true.

Being a non-Muslim I think something that is very interesting is that the video claims that the Jihad movement is looking to take over the world, but in all my years of living in Islamic countries, people trying to recruit for Islam have never once approached me. I cannot, however, say the same for Christianity, and both in State College and in the three years I lived in Switzerland, people trying to push Christian ideologies on me have approached me countless times. I do not mean to insinuate that perhaps Muslims don’t do the same; they just seem to be far subtler in doing so if they do.

I think the fact that the US and, for the most part, the world as a whole needs to find new sources of power (as like it or not, oil is going to run out at some point) is undeniable. That said, of course, as much as we all wish that the new source would be to generate power through burning garbage or eating steaks or something, whatever new power source that we move to would have issues with it as well.

If it is worth doing, odds are it has some risks. This is the same thing as with nuclear power, there are the negatives, but there are also positives to it, and in some countries the negatives outweigh the positives, and in others vice-versa, but eventually, all that matters is how desperate the energy needs are.

I think we can all agree that at some point, we would end up being willing to deal with the fact that someone else, somewhere else, is going through a harder life just to power our plasma TVs and refrigerators. Heck, that happens already, with how much blood has been spilt over oil. The only difference is, that, in this case, it’s Americans that have to deal with the problems that this new form of power generation causes. No longer is it far off countries and far off people, its people here in America.

I think it’s very easy to simply hate ‘the big guy’ and say “oh, these ‘rich’ people want to do this”. Well, I mean, they didn’t become rich just by sitting around, they became rich because there are people paying for the power, and at the end of the day, they wouldn’t be there unless there was money to be made. What’s the only way to stop this? Stop buying power from them, everyone should build their own solar panels and windmills and such. But no one wants to do that, and so until we’re able to come up with an alternative, it’s a matter of when ‘they’ get to do what ‘they’ want to do, not if.

Having lived in Dubai for almost 10 years (in total) of my life I understand the concept of inequality better than most. Dubai is a city of great riches, with the tallest building in the world, a number of man-made islands, the world’s largest mall, aquarium, etc. etc. but it is also a city with a huge gap in the distribution of wealth.

Of course, money doesn’t just transform into these things, foreign laborers (typically from nearby countries) are the ones who build everything and keep it all working and in shape and looking pretty, but will never be the ones that the buildings and other creations are used by. This is a fact of life in Dubai, and in much of the developing world, sadly.

I realized early that the only reason I’m sitting in an air conditioned Porsche while I can see a guy, whose probably similar in age, out working in the harsh desert sun, is because I was born to one family and him another. It’s like we discussed in class, it was simply a matter of chance that I was born into my family and not another. That said, I mean, inequality is a part of life, there’s simply no easy way around it. Of course, that’s not to say that it has to exist at this level.

I have also lived in Zurich, Switzerland, and being in Europe, the distribution of wealth is very different there. I mean, construction workers do not drive the same cars or wear the same clothes as say business executives, but the gap is far smaller than what it is in Dubai. This is because taxes are much higher and the government provides a lot more for their people in these countries. Of course, it can be argued that this is the same in Dubai, but since only 5% (as of 2010) of the population is Emirati, it’s not really the government’s job to look after those from other countries.

Having lived in Switzerland I can say that although religion in terms of going to church and such may go away, it’s holidays and celebrations probably will not. The Swiss take Christmas and such very seriously, and so does much of Europe. Of course, that doesn’t mean that they will necessarily continue to celebrate it as a religious holiday.

Another interesting aspect of the survey’s results is that the people call themselves ‘unaffiliated’, not atheists. That doesn’t mean that they do not believe in anything, it simply means they either do not believe the same as anyone else or alternatively they do not wish to have a publically known connection to any religion. I feel that this most probably is the way that things will go, as in an increasingly connected world, religion only seems to add complications. I think that instead of being public about religion or instead of being social about it, it may become a more internal thing, and people may turn to the internet or some such for their faith, as they can anonymously take part in whatever religion they wish to.

As to whether or not religion as a whole will end I cannot say, but I have no doubt that many religions that exist now will not in the future. I think the only way a religion can last is being able to adapt to the times. I, being a Hindu know this, as Hinduism is the oldest religion that is still practiced. This, in my opinion can largely be attributed to the fact that Hinduism has adapted to the times, and, for instance, is not afraid to abolish practices that are no longer acceptable or do not make sense. That isn’t to say it’s better than any other religion, or that it will not fade away, but I think these things do contribute to the longevity of any religion.

At the same time I do also believe that new religions will continue to form, as cult ideology will never cease to exist and attract others. This is because people will never stop asking the questions about why we’re here, and other such unanswerable questions. As we have seen with the Internet, technology only makes this evermore possible. As we discussed in class, millions of cults have existed throughout time, and I think that they won’t stop being formed in the future.

The speaker is indeed a very powerful orator. To me, if parents can raise a child who is able to be so passionate, about anything, in these days, that seem to largely be filled by apathetic teenagers, that’s a miracle.

As we discussed in class, love and marriage have very little to do with each other, yet marriage is generally considered to be a way of formalizing love. If then, we have marriages where love is not present, then why is it that we cannot have two people who are, genuinely in love, married?

We discussed the key functions of the family, and I think that there are probably a much larger percentage of traditional families that do NOT serve these functions than there are non-traditional families.

In a world in which overpopulation is such a problem, I think it’s probably even beneficial to have less straight couples, and instead have gay couples who are adopting, and making up for the unwanted babies that straight couples are having.

Coming from a culture in which arranged marriages have been the norm for centuries, love marriages have only become popular in the past few decades, and I anticipate in such cultures, gay marriages and other non-traditional families will take even longer to be accepted, but I think eventually it is inevitable, as with each generation we lose at least a sliver of the discrimination that our parents before us have.

Of course, on the flip side, there obviously are some disadvantages. I mean, on a smaller level, children of gay couples are likely to be mocked at some point. Additionally, I think one of the key parts of having parents is learning to deal with the opposite sex. This may sound strange, but I think a large number of how boys learn to understand women is through their mothers and the same goes for daughters and their fathers. This is why you see “Daddy’s girls” and “Mama’s boys”, and I think that, obviously, in non-traditional families, children miss out on this.

The case can also be seen in children raised by parents of the opposite gender, as I think they lack the guidance of what the role of their gender is in society, ie a girl raised by two male parents is not going to have their mothers’ guidance on how to deal with boys or periods or make-up or whatever else, and there’s only so much that can be compensated for by friends and/ or counselors. That said, in the case of orphans, I think any parent is probably better than no parent.

I think there are a lot of reasons why people end up far worse off when they win the lottery as opposed to when they actually earn a large amount of money over time. Wealth is one of the biggest ‘strings’ that controls our lives, and also one of the most significant.

I’m currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” and one of the things he analyzes it the difference between “poor kids” and “rich kids”, and how their upbringings differ. He talks about how the “rich kids” generally feel entitled to things and so are less afraid to ask for the things they want and to speak up for what they feel they have the right to. This is a trait that helps them get far further ahead in modern day society.

Now when it comes to income, if a person EARNS the money, they have actually worked for it, and so are less happy to part with it, so will actually think about what their doing. In the cases like the lottery or other similar cases in which people earn huge sums at once, they haven’t really done anything to receive it and so easy-come, easy-go. This is why you see the nouveau-rich in Maseratis and such while someone like Warren Buffett drives an old, far less flashy car.

It’s what I’ve noticed is the difference between a place like Dubai (in the United Arab Emirates) and a place like Zurich (in Switzerland). Zurich is a city of people who have been rather well-off for most of it’s (rather long) existence, but Dubai has only been a city of the rich for a decade or less. Hence you see people driving Rolls-Royces, Bugattis and Lamborghinis in Dubai, but people driving Audis and Mercedes in Zurich. It’s not a matter of those in Zurich not being able to afford the former, but simply that they realize that having a flashy car does not necessarily bring them more happiness than having a good car. It’s why Zurich prides itself on churches and lakes and buildings that have history and such, while Dubai prides itself on having the biggest and the largest.

Another problem is that once they have the cash, the world looks at them differently; they’re expected to conform to the way that the upper class or upper-middle-class lives and does things. It’s very much like the bank robbing couple we talked about in class, they got the money overnight almost but then stuck out like a sore thumb in their posh neighborhood and replaced wine with beer and intricate paintings with posters and such. As a result they don’t fit in with the people who are well off, but they also still don’t fit in with the lower class, so they’re also less happy cause they no longer fit in anywhere.

The video was very interesting, but what it brought most to mind was something my vice-principal told me around the beginning of high school. While seeing him for guidance in my courses he said “Well, odds are the profession you end up working in doesn’t even exist right now”. And that’s an interesting concept, because I think we are among the first few generations who are going to grow up to probably be working in fields that don’t even exist. The problem with that is that it means that more or less any degree we get is a slight gamble.

This is also the reason that these days many people argue that liberal arts degrees are worth almost as much as any other degree, if not more, because they train critical thinking, which is almost more useful than anything else.

But all of this is relative, because a degree is more or less a construct of society. Realistically it’s not really possible to say that someone with a degree is necessarily smarter or better suited towards any profession, as it just means that they’ve had different ‘strings’ that pulled on them to allow them to be able to attend college. Despite this, society has yet to develop a better method of deciding who is allowed to do what, and so for now we maintain this outdated system.

This also reminds me of what Sam said early on to us “I’ve been trying to come up with a better way to grade than exams… but eh, I haven’t come up with anything, so we’re just going to have exams”. This seems to be more or less the attitude that most educators take towards the matter, and not because they’re lazy or couldn’t come up with a better method, but simply because exams are the way that we do things in our society. Although we all know on most levels exams are a very flawed way of examining knowledge, no one’s really come up with another, even mildly better way, and because of that we simply fall back on exams. Our society is built around the concept that education has to mean exams, and therefore that’s the only socially accepted method of testing aptitude.

One could argue that this is an example of groupthink, but on a simply massive scale, where we all shun the people who decide not to pursue degrees. Another thing that this kind of also shows is how we’re all socialized into believing that college will make us more successful and that if we go to college we’ll be able to achieve more in life. It’s not necessarily true, but for most of us who are here, we don’t know what else to do, and so since society tells us that it’s true, or because society requires us to get a degree if we want to be in a certain field, here we are.

I mean, at the end of the day, it’s the training that we’ll receive once we actually have a job that will be what really teaches us what to do once we are working, but society has set up these hoops that we have to jump through first to get to where we want to be, and so again, here we are.

First of all I absolutely loved the song, this guy is hilarious and some of his other songs are also really funny. That said, I think he makes a very good point. The concept of us having the ‘perfect’ anything is a somewhat ridiculous notion, as it is very highly unlikely.

As some one who’s currently taking a statistics-related course I found his analogy of his wife simply fitting in a bell curve a very humorous but somewhat accurate metaphor. I find this accurate as although there isn’t a perfect match for any of us, there is still a certain range of people who fit better than others.

In this, as in all other things in society, the strings affect us, and even the smallest thing can make a difference, and in this case, us not landing up with our soul mate is less likely than us actually ending up with them, assuming this hypothetical soul mate exists. Further, there are a multitude of social and other barriers that could keep us from meeting them.

The notion of one person who is perfect for us is very satisfying romantically, and makes love much simpler of a concept to conceive, but in reality it is simply unrealistic. Pragmatically, the odds of meeting your soul mate is almost next to nothing, as for all we know, our soul-mate is an impoverished person in Indonesia, but because we decide to cancel our trip there due to us being sick the day of the flight, we don’t meet them, and so they instead end up marrying someone else. All this because of the string being that you got sick that day.

Love, or rather, the lack of it is generally thought of it as a personal trouble, when in reality it is very much so a public issue. Much as we in college seem to think that others are having a lot more sex than we are, in life we seem to think others are far happier with their love life than us. We tend to notice more couples walking around than single people and this is especially true in the media, but in reality, most people suffer from loneliness.

Conformity is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For some people it's listening to a type of music or wearing a certain type of clothes, for others it's talking in a certain way or behaving a certain way.

The lack of willingness to break from conformity is visible in many every day situations, for example, when your walking and all of a sudden you realize your going the wrong way, very often people will continue until a turn or some such, to avoid standing out of the crowd by turning in the middle of the street. It’s a silly thing to do and it makes no sense, as by walking any further your only wasting time and energy, but doing so makes you not have to break from the norm.

The fact that we as humans by nature value conformity is most visible in those who try to stray from it, for instance in the ‘hipster’, ‘emo’, or other such anti-conformist sub-cultures, where in the end members of the sub-culture conform in looking and behaving like each other, although are supposedly ‘anti-conformity’. This shows that even among those who claim to hate conformity, they still can’t help but conform in someway, as otherwise they would not be able to relate.

All of the above are examples of Group Think, including the elevator scenario. It’s impractical to look towards the back of the elevator as there is nothing to see, but the 'victim' does not want to stick out from the rest.

A great example of Group Think is the Amish, as from a young age they are made to understand why a life without technology is better. As a result, when they are allowed to go into 'normal' society to try out technology as teenagers, they are so biased against it that it is very unlikely that they would stay. As we discussed in class with the example of the politicians, their mind is already made up and so they have pre-conceived notions about most of the things.

This is an example of one of the things that I find so stupid in America. Here security is used as an excuse to do inane things that ultimately achieve nothing. It’s not having zero tolerance that will solve the problem; it’s about actually proactively solving the problem, I mean if a kid already has a gun at school for malicious purposes, confiscating it isn’t going to keep him from harming anyone, it will only make him try harder. Instead of forbidding children from bringing anything moderately violent to school, why not train teachers to notice when children seem likely of committing physical violence (or otherwise disturbed) and focus on those children?

By pulling crap like this the child will begin to distrust police, as they will assume that the cops are out to get them even if their not doing anything wrong, but as long as their doing something the cops don’t like. This mentality is a dangerous one, as children should be made to value police officers and the work they do. The reason you see so many teenagers with ideologies like “Fuck the Police” and stuff like that is because of things like this, police officers not doing their job but instead wasting their time and inadvertently making kids not feel safe around them. In this case it’s clearly the parents who are wrong and not the kid. All the cops should be doing is confiscating the gun and then going after the kid’s parents, whereas the child shouldn’t even know that anything out of the ordinary happened.

A five-year old may not be able to tell what he did wrong, but he would definitely be able to feel fear, which would then be the emotion that he would relate to police officers. This could lead to him wanting to lash out at some point in the future, and that is not something that anyone would want. This alone is an example of a string that WILL affect this child in some way or the other in the future; we can only hope that it will be in a positive way.