It does not. There is more to a person's identity than meets the eye. If asked what constitutes someone's identity, people can give a wide variety of answers. Here are a few that I can come up with on the spot: race, country of origin, area someone was raised in, socioeconomic standing, languages spoken, religion, social groups, school, sports participation, and many, many more.
To accuse someone of being a 'poser' you are basically arguing that their behavior is inconsistent with who they really are. But how would anyone really know who someone is? I think figuring out who you are is a big part of life, and it changes over time. To reduce someone's identity to a singularity such as appearance is shallow and ineffective.
I will give a personal example of why it makes no sense for appearances alone to be a whole view of someone's identity. I went to school for 10 years in an International school in Prague. There was no racial majority in the school. It was almost a three-way split between kids from east Asia, central Asia and Europe. There were a lot of Japanese and Indian kids at my school, as well as many Germans, Russians, and many of the Balkan ethnicities. In terms of who hung out with whom, there was almost no division among race lines in my school (except when kids came in with a language barrier and therefore only felt initially comfortable talking to those that could speak their language). The divisions mostly came along what extracurricular activities you were a part of. For example, I was a member of the soccer team. We once counted and found that our team represented somewhere close to 14 different nations. We would often joke that we were a perfect model for the "United Colors of Benetton" soccer team. Since race was not a divisive issue, we eventually became barely aware of it.
I want to make one final point on how we perceive things and how this relates to race. When we see something, we immediately associate it to what we can relate it to most closely in our lives (I believe these are called schemes in psychology, and they represent patterns of thought, but I am not sure), this is a mechanism for survival. So if all we know about a certain race is the stereotypes we have heard, we are unlikely to imagine a person of that race to be any different. It is only after we delve deeper and get to know someone or something that we broaden our associations. That is an important thing to strive for.

Stereotyping is an insurmountable obstacle. For everyone. Always. Our brains are structured in a way that cause us to make associations between things based on our experiences/memories. If we grew up watching Disney movies where the darker-skinned characters in Aladdin are portrayed as underhanded, devious and cruel, with bigger noses and beards, then, until proven otherwise, we will continue to believe that is the case for all darker-skinned, bigger-nosed, bearded men. This isn’t to say that we will never overcome our stereotypes, but it takes time and effort to overcome a cognitive process that has become habitual over time.
One of the major stereotypes about women that has been reinforced through time, and in many different societies throughout history, is that they are (or should be) innocent and gentle. I don’t know the entire history of why there is an association between innocence and women, but I can take a guess. As mothers, women are associated with care and nurturing. There is implicit trust in the relationship between a mother and her child. That may be a cause.
As for the question of race and innocence, I think my initial observation might point to the answer. If throughout our life we have always associated a particular race/particular physical characteristics to a specific behavior, then we will continue to do so until proven otherwise. Therefore, certain races are more “innocent” because I do not associate them with anything violent, dangerous or criminal.
What interests me more, however, is the question of attractiveness. I know from research that I read in the past that relatively good-looking people are more likely to get away with less punishment. I wonder to what extent this is true. I also would like to know which of the 3 different types of stereotypes is most powerful when dealing with innocence. Will gender, race or attractiveness matter the most when judging how guilty someone is? I suppose the gravity of the situation is also an important factor. Stealing a car or hurting someone is hardly an experiment that can be tested. But it would be interesting to do an experiment where people of different races, gender and levels of attractiveness try to shoplift a candy bar. Hmm....

If asked what race I believe President Obama belongs to, I would answer multiracial - as I believe most of us are. As we discussed in class, race is a very loaded and ambiguous term which usually boils down to obvious visual characteristics. As such, Obama is considered to be “the first black president”. While I can’t really deny that label very easily, I would still argue that he is multiracial. I disagree with the “one drop” issue.
As to whether or not his race affected my view of him, I would have to say, no. Obama impressed me with his eloquence and his intellect. I liked that he ran a more inclusive campaign and that he did not resort to negative advertising and attempts at character assassination the way that many of the other candidates did. Being a Poli Sci major, I tend to really try and look past the images and ostentatious displays that are presented to us on an almost regular basis by politicians (especially around election time), and focus on the messages being delivered and on the individual delivering them.
I have seen pundits on television talk about how Obama was so overly impressive because no one expected a black politician to be so influential and eloquent. That is blatant racism, and completely untrue. When I heard that I didn’t immediately dismiss it as total racism (though by all rights I should have). It made me think about whether or not I would react to Obama differently if he looked white or looked like a member of another race. The answer was no. The reason I think about Obama the way I do is because of who he is politically, not what he looks like.
On the political stage, I am able to overlook and negate racial stereotyping much more easily than in everyday life. I think this has to do with my stereotypes of politicians. I think that my stereotypes of politicians overrides some of my deeper (perhaps subconscious) racial stereotypes. I am not saying that I have strongly formed racial stereotypes (in fact I believe I have much less than most given my background growing up and looking at my group of friends), but I respect that I still may have some.

If you were to ask me what my religious beliefs are, I would ask you to define the word ‘religion’. Are you asking me if I subscribe to a specific religious doctrine such as Christianity or Buddhism, or are you interested to know if I believe that there is a higher power (something we may not be able to perceive) which governs all action in our reality? Or are you asking me to extrapolate on my system of beliefs, whether it be clear-cut or convoluted, and how that helps me deal with all the craziness in life around me and lets me keep moving forward?
To answer the first question, I would say not entirely. To the second part of that question I would say, maybe. To answer the third question, the one I believe is the most inclusive and the one that makes the most sense, you would need to get to know me better and I would have to give it some good thought before answering. If I were to name my own religion, I would call it the religion of ‘You say “tomato, I say “tomato”’ (pronounce the second “tomato” in a British accent).
So now I’ve given it a name. I have labeled my religion. But to understand what it is, you really have to get to know me a little better. Here’s a start:
I think that within what I perceive as the next 50-60 years I will likely die. I think that this applies to most people my age (life expectancy may vary).
I believe in relativity. To paraphrase a quote by Einstein: “Spending 1 hour with a person you like can feel like a minute, spending 1 minute with a person you dislike can feel like an hour.”
I think life is beautiful, and that no matter how dismal a place or time you can always find a way to be happy - as long as you are willing to be honest with yourself and you are able to keep perspective.
I believe in live and let live. Pretty self-explanatory.
I believe in the here and now. Whatever I have already done, is done. Whatever may come in the future I cannot know (though sometimes I can predict it with a great likelihood), and so all I can do is deal with the present. I believe I am getting better and better at that, and that makes me happy.
I believe having a sense of humor is one of the most important things in the world. I also believe that having a sense of humor ties in closely with having a good grasp on perspective.
All the things that I have mentioned above are important factors when trying to get a more complete view of my identity.
So why the name? Why ‘You say “tomato", I say “tomato”’? Because I believe that any two people can look at the exact same thing and see it two different ways. Did that person walk away from that car wreckage unscathed because of a miracle of God, or by statistical chance? You say “tomato”, I say “tomato”.
Oh, and just to be clear, I don’t think organized religion is bad. Not all bad, anyway. I think it can be harmful if taken too literally and if seen as the ONLY option. That’s where discrimination, indoctrination and hate come into play. That doesn’t help anyone. I think a religion should help people coexist. We are all just a bunch of crazy people stuck in a small room trying to work it out - give each other a chance.

When it boils down, managing crowds and other large groups of people comes to two crucial factors: authority and infrastructure.
Due to its relative simplicity, I'm going to start by talking about infrastructure. The way I define infrastructure is in terms of physical means of transportation, and in terms of being able to deliver information to a large number of people quickly. Without the proper roads and other means of transportation, it is impossible to mobilize large crowds quickly or get them to physically do anything (whether rally for a cause or to evacuate a hazardous area). More importantly, if you can't quickly and effectively get your message out to all of the people in question, then it wont matter how much physical infrastructure you have available to support them. And it is the manner in which people perceive this information or instruction that brings up the next crucial issue: authority.
When you are trying to manipulate a crowd (no negative connotation meant here), I believe it is imperative for the crowd to truly accept the legitimacy of the source. So lets say that a government wants to evacuate a nuclear fallout contaminated zone, given that they have the available infrastructure to accomplish the act, they need for the people to have complete trust in their judgment and authority. The people need to believe that what the government is telling them to do is in their best interest, and that the way the government is telling them to do it is the best possible course of action. I don't know exactly how a government would go about doing this, but there are some examples in history to draw on.
Many of the worlds greatest dictators and authoritarian governments were masters at crowd control - to a point of fault of course, but masters nonetheless. They were able to deliver their messages to large groups of people effectively, and have the people act out on their message.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not condoning an authoritarian regime by any means. All I'm saying is that given how little I personally know about crowd manipulation and control, I naturally default to some of the most famous examples in history (which happen to be some of the most successful...and depressing examples).
If I had more space, I would also bring up Gandhi, who mobilized an entire nation but through entirely different means from say Stalin or Mussolini.

What does this poem tell me about the author? I feel that the author feels alone. 'Cold', as mentioned in the poem, is the absence of human empathy. Without human empathy, you feel alone and cold. My question to the author would be this: are all the souls around you cold? Or just the ones that are in your proximity? What I mean by this is to ask whether the author believes that all of humanity is displaying a general lack of empathy, or just those that the author is currently surrounded by.
I think it was Ernest Hemingway who once said something along the lines of: 'if you are truly intelligent, you can't be happy.' What he meant by this is that if anyone is cognizant of all the suffering and injustice going on in the world, they cannot feel at peace. While I disagree with the statement, because I think that human suffering is an inevitable part of existence, I do believe that sometimes humans act 'colder' to one another than they should. If someone is in need, I think that the truly meaningful thing to do would be to reach out and help. Poems like this are a perfect example of the suffering that people go through without being helped. Humans are a social animal. John Donne got it right - no man is an island, entire of itself.
So what am I going to take away from this poem? I am going to acknowledge that there is pain and suffering in the world. I know that I can't change all of it, but I can stay on the right pursuit and get fulfillment in my life that way.

As opposed to some of the other child abduction stories I have seen on the news, the way this story is presented is on the slightly more reasonable end. I understand the point that some people are making, that awareness is in many cases the most effective means of combating certain social issues, particularly this one. My problem with the awareness approach, as already alluded to by Prof. Richards, is that more often than not, today's news networks blow stories out of proportion for the sake of ratings. Some of you may refute and say, "there is no such thing as blowing a story about child abduction out of proportion because it is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed, therefore any kind of coverage is justified." I disagree, and I'll tell you why.
First of all, when I say "blown out of proportion" I am referring to the tendency for news networks to fill their stories with speculation as opposed to fact. The purpose of news is not to spread hearsay but to report fact. News organizations should strive toward an ideal that involves as little bias as possible (though it is virtually impossible to avoid some bias) so that we can make our own decisions based on the best information available. Unfortunately, unbiased, factual news doesn't get the ratings. All news organizations are competing for viewers at any given time, and sadly competition has in this case not has not advanced the quality of our news - it has cheapened it. Any news channel practicing journalistic integrity will ultimately lose viewership to another channel which uses phrases like this: "...and that is why you always need to be watchful of your neighbors. Next: the public school system - are they trying to kill your children? Find out after this commercial break."
As I already mentioned though, this video does not have as much speculation as some other news stories. I do find the comment about the suspect "smiling perhaps" unnecessary. It doesn't add to the core significance of the story in any way. Instead, maybe the the story could have included some RESEARCH. What are the statistics on child abduction in the U.S.? Rural vs. Urban? What are the best precautions to take to make sure your children are safe in public and in their homes? But all this video (and indeed many news stories like it) is suggesting is that parents should be paranoid at all times and pursue an isolationist policy.
The media is a powerful social mechanism that shapes our behavior and conditions us. It is particularly powerful because messages sent through the media immediately reach such a broad audience, thereby being able to make impressions which lead to changes in behavior seamless. That is a huge responsibility which is sadly being misused.

This video was instantly both controversial and fascinating. I have never previously
heard of the counterpart to polygamy - polyandry. Historically, most societies have
been patriarchal, which would usually lead to more polygamous tendencies.
Based on the facts the video presented, polyandry did seem to have merits for the
Tibetan societies described in the video. The three main pros the video pointed out
were: 1. Polyandry as a form of birth control. This makes complete sense since there
is only one wife for several husbands. 2. Polyandry allows for males to share
responsibilities throughout the house. 3. Polyandry ensures that inheritance estates
are not split up between several brothers, thereby splitting up the already sparse
arable land.
While this type of family structure works for these communities right now, it will
likely lose popularity - as mentioned by the video. Education will replace polyandry
as a form of birth control because of effective family planning. This will also likely
ensure that there is an even ratio of men to women. Outside media is also beginning to
influence the culture of the villagers, which is part of the process of socialization
with different norms and behaviors.
Prof. Richards mentioned in his commentary on the video that it might be feasible that
areas in China could start to see a rise in polyandry. While some of the conditions
are present for this practice to start in China (these including overpopulation and
an abundance of males), I do not think that it will for several reasons. First, unlike
these villages, China has never had a history of polyandry. In fact, the opposite is
true. China has had a history of polygamy. Confucian ideals that have dominated
Chinese society for the longest time have always created a more patriarchal system.
Given this history, it is inconceivable that polyandry would even be considered.
Second, China, just like the villages in the video, is having increasing exposure to
the West and western ideology. As far as I know, polyandry has never been popular in
any western civilization.
In any case, I am not criticizing. I think that the idea of polyandry, while strange
to me, is a much better alternative than a potentially violent outcome resulting from
confusion about inheritance or frustrated young males unable to find a spouse.

The article outlines a few very plausible reasons that might discourage overseas travel for many Americans. An inflexible and demanding job market, skepticism and ignorance are all factors that could contribute to the decision of travel. Lets break them down one at a time.
This claim is straightforward enough: The demanding and competitive work culture of the U.S. discourages prolonged travel for its citizens. It's a reasonable claim, and it may be true. But it is certainly not the only "invisible string" causing such a low rate of overseas travel. The fact is that only 30% of Americans have a passport, and it can't just be our jobs causing that. In Japan, for example, the work culture is just as (if not more) competitive starting at a very early age. Companies also give fewer days off on average than American ones. And yet, the number of Japanese with passports is significantly higher than Americans with passports. You could always then bring up the argument that Japan is a smaller country, with less to see. This brings up the next point.
The U.S. is such a rich and beautiful country - why would you want to go anywhere else? Yes, I believe the U.S. has on average a much richer geography than many other countries, and it is one of the largest. But travel is not only about geography, it is about the culture that arose in that geography. And I think crossing the border from France to Germany is much more fulfilling than crossing from Oklahoma to Texas. Sadly, that fact is lost on many Americans because of lack of familiarity with the rest of the world. Sometimes European countries aren't differentiated at all. "Europe" seems to sum them up just fine. And this brings up the last, and I believe most important, point.
The world is populated with an amazingly diverse array of cultures and some unique natural wonders. To go out and see them and experience them is both enriching and life-changing. But you'd never know it watching our media. School and work culture aside, our media is also greatly at fault for the lack of awareness and understanding of the rest of the world. Most of our news centers around the U.S., and that's fine. But we have 24-hour news networks. How much damn material can these guys fill in one day? I can only hear about the death of some celebrity or the horrific actions of some deranged citizen only so many times. There are other events going on around the world, shaping our world (which we must SHARE, as we are part of it) and I think that it is our right and duty to stay well-informed. It would be like sitting on the couch and intently picking at the lint between the cushions as your roommates remodel your house around you. At one point you look up and notice that its all changed, and you are confused and pissed.
But instead of keeping us well-informed, what we often get (to borrow a phrase from the media) "shoved down our throats" by some news networks is that the outside world is filled with freedom-hating terrorists (who we must kill), exploited peoples (who we must liberate) and those that sneer at us (the French). Instead of second guessing this and realizing that its not that black and white, we pull out our flags, raise our fences a little higher and just ignore it altogether. Screw it, run another Michael Jackson funeral re-run.

'Learning through observation' is a concept that is almost ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, and it does not skip over our species either. As we develop, we have learning mechanisms that allow us to observe and imitate our perceived kin. This is a survival instinct. By imitating those that are older and wiser than us, and have (presumably) mastered their environment enough to reproduce, we are ensuring that their survival techniques get passed on to us, thereby giving us a better chance to survive and reproduce. I believe that this is the instinct that conformity arises from, but we have to make a distinction between the two.

The instinct to learn through observation and imitate actions is an effective primitive survival tool, but it is not commensurate with conformity - at least not in the sense that many people use the word. In order to avoid confusion, I'm going to define conformity as: the act of foregoing individualism, whether consciously or subconsciously, in favor of adopting a similar behavioral pattern as a certain group of individuals. And I think that this can happen for a variety of reasons: 1. People conform to avoid the attention of others. 2. People conform when they are unsure about how to act. 3. People conform when they are pressured to do so. Overall, I think it is an enormous concept that usually transcends our self-awareness.

Despite the enormity of the concept, I find that most people use conformity in a pejorative sense. To be 'conformist' is seen as weak. But in my mind, conformity is much too broad of a concept for people to truly have a grip on all the time. Anyone reading this blog entry for our Soc class is, in a sense, a conformist. So is anyone in this University. To be completely non-conformist is to be outside of society. Total freedom. But anyone who breaks too many of societies rules is eventually stamped out. It's very rare not to conform in one sense or another. I guess another definition of conformity could be: adhering to another's rules.

In any case, conformity does also have something to do with experience. The more experience you have, the more options you know of and have at your disposal. If a person is familiar with different kinds of behaviors, they can choose among them for what works best for them. It isn't always as simple as that, however, since it takes perspective (which we don't always have - as evidenced by the people in the elevator) to understand why we acted a certain way and not another.