From the same textbook:
"According to Freud, although all dreams represent unfulfilled wishes, their contents are disguised. The latent content of the dream (from the Latin word for "hidden") is transformed into the manifest content (the actual storyline or plot). Taken at face value, the manifest content is innocuous, but a knowledgeable psychoanalyst can recognize unconscious desires disguised as symbols in the dream. For example, climbing a set of stairs might represent sexual intercourse. The problem with Freud's theory is that it is not disprovable; even if it is wrong, a psychoanalyst can always provide a plausible interpretation of a dream that reveals hidden conflicts, disguised in obscure symbols.
Many sleep researchers - especially those who are interested in the biological aspects of dreaming - disagree with Freud and suggest alternative explanations. For example, Hobson (1988) suggests that the brain activation that occurs during REM sleep leads to hallucinations that we try to make sense of by creating a more or less plausible story. As you learned in this chapter, REM sleep occurs when a circuit of acetylcholinergic neurons in the peribrachial region becomes active, stimulating rapid eye movements and cortical arousal. The visual system is especially active. So is the motor system - in fact, we have a mechanism that paralyzes and prevents activity of the motor system from causing us to get out of bed and doing something that might harm us. (As we saw, people who suffer from REM without atonia actually do act out their dreams and sometimes injure themselves. On occasion they have even attacked their spouses while dreaming that they were fighting with someone.)
Research indicates that the two systems of the brain that are most active, the visual system and the motor system, account for most of the sensations that occur during dreams. Many dreams are silent, but almost all are full of visual images. In addition, many dreams contain sensations of movements, which are probably caused by feedback from the activity of the motor system. Very few dreamers report tactile sensations, smells, or tastes. Hobson, a wine lover, reported that although he has drunk wine in his dreams, he has never experienced any taste or smell. Why are these sensations absent? Is it because our "hidden desires" involve only sight and movement, or is it because the neural activation that occurs during REM sleep simply does not involve other systems to a very great extent? Hobson suggests the latter, and I agree with him."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
more on dreams...
I found this in a textbook on biological psychology:
"The fact that our brains contain an elaborate mechanism whose sole function is to keep us paralyzed while we dream - that is, to prevent us from acting out our dreams - suggests that the motor components of dreams are as important as the sensory components. Perhaps the practice our motor system gets during REM sleep helps us to improve our performance of behaviors we have learned that day. The inhibition of the motor neurons in the spinal cord prevents the movements being practiced from actually occurring, with the exception of a few harmless twitches of the hands and feet."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
"The fact that our brains contain an elaborate mechanism whose sole function is to keep us paralyzed while we dream - that is, to prevent us from acting out our dreams - suggests that the motor components of dreams are as important as the sensory components. Perhaps the practice our motor system gets during REM sleep helps us to improve our performance of behaviors we have learned that day. The inhibition of the motor neurons in the spinal cord prevents the movements being practiced from actually occurring, with the exception of a few harmless twitches of the hands and feet."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Book review
Shipler, David. The Working Poor: Invisible in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
David Shipler, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his novel: “Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land,” turns his focus to “the working poor” in the United States in his new book: “The Working Poor: Invisible in America.” He examines the lives of the working class and the forces which keep these people living in poverty. The impoverished population is just as diverse as the entire nation. Shipler shatters our notion of two classes of the poor—the deserving poor who work full time jobs, but still cannot rise above the poverty line, and therefore, deserve government assistance; and the undeserving, who should not receive government assistance since their fate is due to personal failings. Distinctions between these two groups are truly nonexistent; the impoverished in each group suffer from poor health conditions, family sickness/death, inadequate housing, poor budgeting skills, and layoffs or terminations. These factors create a vicious circle in their lives that restrains them from rising above poverty.
Through case-studies, Shipler analyzes the lives of about a dozen individuals and their families. Their stories are depressing, yet poignant; however, their accurate representation of the population is sometimes questionable. He incorporates quotes from the interviews he has with these people, and in some cases purposely makes them seem ignorant and uneducated. By describing their demeanor and laugh, he presents an image of those in the working class. Another failing of Shipler’s, is his portrayal of economic law. In an interview with a garment factory employer, Shipler does not criticize the employer’s claim that if the wages of the working class were increased, prices would also increase. Economic law tells us that if wages increase, so would prices, but it would not offset the gain that people earning minimum wage would make. Shipler fails to make the point that there is not a one-to-one relationship between prices and wages.
Also disappointing is Shipler’s portrayal of a young, unaffectionate single-mother. He describes one woman and her situation: “…a nineteen-year-old who already had three children, one a boy who was three years and four months but weighed only twenty-two and a half pounds…Now she was working at McDonald’s at just above the minimum wage, supplemented by $72 a month in food stamps” (pgs. 211-212). Shipler expands on this by saying that while the young mother worked her mother would watch the youngsters, and her immature, defiant-looking boyfriend occasionally helped, as well. His goal is to convince the reader that teenage mothers who are forced to work at minimum-wage jobs cannot properly raise children. He also describes the woman’s disinterest in her children’s eating habits. Shipler places blame on the young woman for her disinterest, rather than calling for more help by the government.
With criticism aside, Shipler is loyal to his initial promise to keep the novel politically unbiased. He claims that neither Democrats nor Republicans know the solution to poverty in America. He also never portrays a hero versus villain dilemma; he simply describes the power of many employers and how they display such characteristics—sometimes in the interest of their employees, and sometimes not. He dismantles the American Myth, which tells people that if they work hard enough, they will someday achieve adequate financial status. Moreover, he alerts us to the American Anti-Myth, which claims: due to the system, it is impossible for the poor to rise. Through his writing, Shipler makes his reader feel admiration for “the working poor,” disgust for unsympathetic individuals who are uninterested in the plight of others, and disappointment in our government. It is by creating these reactions that he challenges us to change society.
David Shipler, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his novel: “Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land,” turns his focus to “the working poor” in the United States in his new book: “The Working Poor: Invisible in America.” He examines the lives of the working class and the forces which keep these people living in poverty. The impoverished population is just as diverse as the entire nation. Shipler shatters our notion of two classes of the poor—the deserving poor who work full time jobs, but still cannot rise above the poverty line, and therefore, deserve government assistance; and the undeserving, who should not receive government assistance since their fate is due to personal failings. Distinctions between these two groups are truly nonexistent; the impoverished in each group suffer from poor health conditions, family sickness/death, inadequate housing, poor budgeting skills, and layoffs or terminations. These factors create a vicious circle in their lives that restrains them from rising above poverty.
Through case-studies, Shipler analyzes the lives of about a dozen individuals and their families. Their stories are depressing, yet poignant; however, their accurate representation of the population is sometimes questionable. He incorporates quotes from the interviews he has with these people, and in some cases purposely makes them seem ignorant and uneducated. By describing their demeanor and laugh, he presents an image of those in the working class. Another failing of Shipler’s, is his portrayal of economic law. In an interview with a garment factory employer, Shipler does not criticize the employer’s claim that if the wages of the working class were increased, prices would also increase. Economic law tells us that if wages increase, so would prices, but it would not offset the gain that people earning minimum wage would make. Shipler fails to make the point that there is not a one-to-one relationship between prices and wages.
Also disappointing is Shipler’s portrayal of a young, unaffectionate single-mother. He describes one woman and her situation: “…a nineteen-year-old who already had three children, one a boy who was three years and four months but weighed only twenty-two and a half pounds…Now she was working at McDonald’s at just above the minimum wage, supplemented by $72 a month in food stamps” (pgs. 211-212). Shipler expands on this by saying that while the young mother worked her mother would watch the youngsters, and her immature, defiant-looking boyfriend occasionally helped, as well. His goal is to convince the reader that teenage mothers who are forced to work at minimum-wage jobs cannot properly raise children. He also describes the woman’s disinterest in her children’s eating habits. Shipler places blame on the young woman for her disinterest, rather than calling for more help by the government.
With criticism aside, Shipler is loyal to his initial promise to keep the novel politically unbiased. He claims that neither Democrats nor Republicans know the solution to poverty in America. He also never portrays a hero versus villain dilemma; he simply describes the power of many employers and how they display such characteristics—sometimes in the interest of their employees, and sometimes not. He dismantles the American Myth, which tells people that if they work hard enough, they will someday achieve adequate financial status. Moreover, he alerts us to the American Anti-Myth, which claims: due to the system, it is impossible for the poor to rise. Through his writing, Shipler makes his reader feel admiration for “the working poor,” disgust for unsympathetic individuals who are uninterested in the plight of others, and disappointment in our government. It is by creating these reactions that he challenges us to change society.
The Dream Debate
In this debate, Hobson is most convincing. I agree with Hobson in that Freud’s dream theory is not psychological theory since he did not follow the scientific method; Freud did not form a hypothesis nor collect data. Without doing this, justifiable theories cannot be made. Using one’s own dreams as the sole subject to be analyzed is not sufficient. Psychoanalysis is unscientific since many of its theories are incapable of being tested. Many individuals must realize that claims must be demonstrated to be valid and reliable before they are defended, published, or accepted by the public.
I agree with Hobson’s claim that the randomness of dreams is due to the level of activation of specific brain structures; during sleep, there is chaotic activation of various structures, such as the brain stem. This contributes to the unpredictable nature of dreams. Therefore, dreams are not representative of repressed childhood desires or emotions.
Furthermore, Soames discusses Freud’s dream theory as “proven” and goes on to defend it. Nothing can be proven. By conducting many experiments that have been tested and deemed valid and reliable, we are occasionally able to demonstrate causality between two variables. However, more often than not, it is impossible to establish causation. Many factors/variables are correlated but not cannot be said to cause one another. This is relevant to this debate because many brain structures were mentioned to be involved with dreams. The activation of these structures may be correlated with the occurrence and/or remembering of dreams but they are not causing dreams.
Discussion Questions:
How did Freud demonstrate that dreams are driven by basic motivational states?
Soames claims that the “dream-thought is turned into a concrete picture and this is one of the reasons why dreams require interpretation.” By “concrete picture” does he mean memory? If so, it is a common misconception that “memories” are constructs.
I agree with Hobson’s claim that the randomness of dreams is due to the level of activation of specific brain structures; during sleep, there is chaotic activation of various structures, such as the brain stem. This contributes to the unpredictable nature of dreams. Therefore, dreams are not representative of repressed childhood desires or emotions.
Furthermore, Soames discusses Freud’s dream theory as “proven” and goes on to defend it. Nothing can be proven. By conducting many experiments that have been tested and deemed valid and reliable, we are occasionally able to demonstrate causality between two variables. However, more often than not, it is impossible to establish causation. Many factors/variables are correlated but not cannot be said to cause one another. This is relevant to this debate because many brain structures were mentioned to be involved with dreams. The activation of these structures may be correlated with the occurrence and/or remembering of dreams but they are not causing dreams.
Discussion Questions:
How did Freud demonstrate that dreams are driven by basic motivational states?
Soames claims that the “dream-thought is turned into a concrete picture and this is one of the reasons why dreams require interpretation.” By “concrete picture” does he mean memory? If so, it is a common misconception that “memories” are constructs.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
repost: My stance on the moral status of nonhuman animals
Moral status is based on sentience, which refers to whether a being can neurologically and physiologically suffer or experience satisfaction. Most animals are sentient beings and, therefore, humans have direct moral obligations to them. We do not yet know if insects are sentient; however, we should first focus on the sentient animals that we exploit daily, which include cows, pigs, rodents, and chickens.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Are Zoos Pornographic?
Ralph Acampora describes our current means of cross-species encounters, specifically zoos, as pornographic in his essay Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices. I agree with his position for many reasons: first, many humans want to observe nonhuman animals behaving in their natural setting, or in an environment that closely approximates their natural habitat. However, these humans also wish to remain safe while observing these animals. In reality, if many animals encountered a human, they would attack, and possibly kill, it since the animals perceive the intruding human as a threat to its own safety. But in zoos, animals encounter humans everyday and they are restricted from exhibiting natural behaviors (i.e. protecting themselves by attacking the unknown being).
Furthermore, in zoos, animals are given food which they would typically consume in the natural environment. However, it is the means by which they obtain this food that they are deprived; they are restricted from searching and fighting for food. These natural and daily behaviors are denied because many humans wish not see predatory behaviors while visiting a zoo. Therefore, humans who work at zoos decide the events that the captive animals may encounter as well as the environment in which they live. Additionally, many humans are, above all else, consumers. Their desire for control and possession overrides many other aspects of their lives. Some individuals express this control through their interest in pornography, and others in their blatant denial of animal rights.
What are the implications of the creating such a zoo like Animal Kingdom? And what does its name imply? Who is the king/ruler of these animals?
Does the television channel Animal Planet promote accurate views of animals? What sorts of relationships do hosts of shows on Animal Planet create with the animals they encounter?
Furthermore, in zoos, animals are given food which they would typically consume in the natural environment. However, it is the means by which they obtain this food that they are deprived; they are restricted from searching and fighting for food. These natural and daily behaviors are denied because many humans wish not see predatory behaviors while visiting a zoo. Therefore, humans who work at zoos decide the events that the captive animals may encounter as well as the environment in which they live. Additionally, many humans are, above all else, consumers. Their desire for control and possession overrides many other aspects of their lives. Some individuals express this control through their interest in pornography, and others in their blatant denial of animal rights.
What are the implications of the creating such a zoo like Animal Kingdom? And what does its name imply? Who is the king/ruler of these animals?
Does the television channel Animal Planet promote accurate views of animals? What sorts of relationships do hosts of shows on Animal Planet create with the animals they encounter?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Why Work?
After reading Sean Sayers article, entitled “Why Work? Marx and Human Nature,” my opinions on why people work have changed. I originally believed that most people are motivated to work; they have an internal drive to go work. Some people enjoy working and they might feel bored if they did not have a job. Therefore, they may be no such thing as “luxurious indolence” for many individuals.
This article made me realize the labor and work are not synonymous even though some individuals use them interchangeably. The words “labor” and “work” may be associated with one another since some people believe that work is laborious. However, this is not necessarily true. Some jobs may be physically intensive but the people in these fields may not describes their work as laborious.
Many people enjoy going to work each day if their coworkers are also their friends. Also, when people are at work, they are typically away from family; this daily break/distance from family is mentally beneficial. Working may give an individual a sense of worth and involvement in his/her community. Some individuals see themselves as working for the greater good of society while also earning money to provide for their families. In some workplaces, creativity and individuality are inspired and recognition is gained through accomplishments.
Going to work each day and working to one’s fullest potential is reinforced weekly or biweekly by receiving a paycheck, but it also receives long-term reinforcement. Retirement accounts and pensions are just a couple examples of long-term reinforcement. I agree with Marx in that for many individuals work is a fulfilling activity and for others it is simply a means to an end.
If work is always viewed as a means to an end, how would one describe community service? When someone participates in community service, he/she is working without being paid. Why do people volunteer their time if they are not being paid for it?
-According to Locke, how is working against our nature? I think very few people would enjoy “luxurious indolence.”
Curiosity
I found Kate Berardo's article on curiosity interesting and insightful. Curiosity is a trait that we exhibit and sometimes suppress throughout our lives. It is through these experiences that we learn about the world. It is understandable that many adults look down upon curiosity because the way in which many individuals express curiosity can sometimes lead to dangerous consequences for themselves or others. Many adolescents and young adults use illegal drugs to reach a certain level of excitement or achieve some desired mental and physical state. Often, these behaviors lead to injury or death.
On the other hand, many individuals express their curiosity in more adaptive ways, sometimes intellectually, and other times physically. One can gain knowledge through intellectual curiosity, such as attending a conference on something he/she knows little about, and also through physical curiosity, such as hiking a mountain. By considering the possible consequences of our behaviors, we can appropriately decide how to pursue our curiosity.
On the other hand, many individuals express their curiosity in more adaptive ways, sometimes intellectually, and other times physically. One can gain knowledge through intellectual curiosity, such as attending a conference on something he/she knows little about, and also through physical curiosity, such as hiking a mountain. By considering the possible consequences of our behaviors, we can appropriately decide how to pursue our curiosity.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
More on Bertell Ollman's Writing
http://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/ollman.html Excerpts from How to Take an Exam . . . and Remake the World, Black Rose Books, Montreal Canada (2001), by Bertell Ollman
I think grades are usually valid measures of someone’s ability in various subjects. Grades are not merely used as a means of communication between professors and employers. The letters we see on someone's transcript represent their accomplishments, or lack thereof, and their mastery of the material.
I disagree with many of Ollman’s statements mainly because they are pessimistic, negative, and overly critical of our culture and society. While I do believe approaching every issue with a critical eye is important, we, at some point, need to look past our opinions and work for the good of the community at present. I understand how Ollman is attempting to enlighten his readers by drawing connections between exam-taking and changing the world, but some suggestions seem radical. I may have perceived his suggestions as radical since I felt overwhelmed reading these excerpts; after multiple readings and further analyses I may feel less bombarded with his ideas.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bertell Ollman Reading
http://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/ollman.html Excerpts from How to Take an Exam . . . and Remake the World, Black Rose Books, Montreal Canada (2001), by Bertell Ollman
I do not believe that “those who run our society and determine our socialization (including [my] education) would prefer” that I not understand capitalism. I also don’t believe that they are aware of the connections and patterns of capitalism that Ollman’s describes. I believe Ollman’s statement that capitalism “is virtually invisible in the social sciences” since I’ve never discussed capitalism in my psychology, anthropology, and political science courses at MCLA. However, it is quite possible that professors of social science courses at other colleges discuss capitalism; I cannot speak for every undergraduate.
I also believe that it is natural for humans to fear alienation or isolation; we are social and communicative beings. Being deprived of attention or interaction with other humans negatively affects our development and physical well-being. The drive to become powerful, knowledgeable, and well-known is natural.
Additionally, I do not believe the board of trustees at MCLA, nor at most other colleges, does not value student input; they do not operate selfishly. However, I do agree with Ollman in that salary is a valid indicator of success. People who are successful (i.e. have higher salaries) have, typically, earned degrees from various institutions and have displayed useful skills. On the other hand, there are many individuals who “make a lot of money” who do not have the credentials to justify their salaries. This is our society; if we want to change it, we first need to express our opinions.
But not all power is gained through money. One can feel empowered by teaching children with autism and another person may feel powerful if he/she is elected into a government position. The definition and idea of “power” and of being “powerless” is subjective and varies among individuals. Therefore, we cannot generalize how these subjective states may affect various individuals.
Do most students really feel “disconnected, isolated, and powerless”?
I do not believe that “those who run our society and determine our socialization (including [my] education) would prefer” that I not understand capitalism. I also don’t believe that they are aware of the connections and patterns of capitalism that Ollman’s describes. I believe Ollman’s statement that capitalism “is virtually invisible in the social sciences” since I’ve never discussed capitalism in my psychology, anthropology, and political science courses at MCLA. However, it is quite possible that professors of social science courses at other colleges discuss capitalism; I cannot speak for every undergraduate.
I also believe that it is natural for humans to fear alienation or isolation; we are social and communicative beings. Being deprived of attention or interaction with other humans negatively affects our development and physical well-being. The drive to become powerful, knowledgeable, and well-known is natural.
Additionally, I do not believe the board of trustees at MCLA, nor at most other colleges, does not value student input; they do not operate selfishly. However, I do agree with Ollman in that salary is a valid indicator of success. People who are successful (i.e. have higher salaries) have, typically, earned degrees from various institutions and have displayed useful skills. On the other hand, there are many individuals who “make a lot of money” who do not have the credentials to justify their salaries. This is our society; if we want to change it, we first need to express our opinions.
But not all power is gained through money. One can feel empowered by teaching children with autism and another person may feel powerful if he/she is elected into a government position. The definition and idea of “power” and of being “powerless” is subjective and varies among individuals. Therefore, we cannot generalize how these subjective states may affect various individuals.
Do most students really feel “disconnected, isolated, and powerless”?
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Qualities every Honors student should possess
Every honors student should be motivated, skeptical, creative, helpful, open-minded and eager to learn. A student must be skeptical of everything he/she reads or hears and also be able to critically evaluate the subject matter. An honors student should be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to succeed at every task. And to be successful, an individual must be creative enough to pursue knowledge from various arenas, rather than simply from books. Honors student must keep an open mind when approaching and evaluating all ideas. Additionally, every honors student should be eager to aid in the success of his/his peers. It is through cooperative learning that we truly learn and can also recognize this accomplishment. Not only should honors student be eager to learn about the world in which they live, but also about themselves and others. In sum, an honors student should be a well-rounded individual with clearly recognizable strengths. Yet, despite all of his/her strengths, the honors student still possesses weaknesses. These weaknesses may be improved with help from one's peers.
Friday, November 9, 2007
"Murder in American Society"
In Jack Levin’s presentation on “Murder in American Society,” he discussed a few possible causes of juvenile violence, trends, and ideas for reducing school violence. In the 1960s and 1970s, many baby-boomers were adolescents and adults acted like adolescents. Levin described this era as the “Cult of Youth,” in which frustrated and disaffected teenagers became violent activists; these sentiments contributed to the rise in murder rates. Additionally, 14 to 17 year olds began to imitate murders that 18 to 24 year olds were committing. This trend became apparent in the 1990s when there was an increased rate in handgun use as a murder weapon.
In hopes of combating these climbing rates of murder, Boston officials implemented the Partnership Model and New York City officials implemented the Zero Tolerance Policing plan. In New York City, police officers began arresting adolescents for smaller crimes such as graffiti; they believed that teenagers who committed small crimes were likely to commit murder. A drop was seen in the murder rates in NYC. In Boston, the Partnership Model was a grassroots community project, involving the participation of clergy, teachers, police, and parents. The city provided adolescents with more after-school programs, tutoring opportunities, more lifeguards at pools, and more summer jobs. This model is likely to have contributed to the drop in murder rates committed by adolescents.
Levin also discussed how adolescent murderers behaved and felt before they committed their crimes. He described them as humiliated, motivated to feel important, wanting revenge against other students for their personal miseries, and feeling trapped in their school and community. He listed a few warning signs that are seen in teenagers who eventually murder someone: hating school, playing violent video games, an interest in alternative music, and being bullied. Even though these interests and beliefs may be seen in many individuals who have committed murders, we cannot draw a causal conclusion. Additionally, Levin discussed how many adolescent murderers abused animals when they were children. This, along with other violent behaviors and a lack of guilt/compassion, is commonly seen in children and adolescents with conduct disorder. It is probable that many adolescent murderers have conduct disorder.
A few ideas Levin had for reducing school violence were: bringing back more classes on art, music, physical education, reducing school size, increasing staffing in schools, teaching conflict resolution skills, reduce bullying, provide alternative programs, early intervention for violent behaviors, and teaching children impulse control and empathy. Red flags for future violent behavior can sometimes be seen in many children; it is crucial to intervene immediately and to help a child who is crying out for attention or help. Levin discussed many behaviors that may be correlated with juvenile violence; however, we must be cautious when drawing causal conclusions on this issue.
Theses on Feuerbach
The Theses on Feuerbach are eleven philosophical ideas written by Karl Marx in 1845. These statements are a critique of Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophical writings. Marx criticized Feuerbach’s materialism and idealism. Marx wanted to inspire people to act, rather than simply talk. He believed that if philosophers want to talk about change, they should also attempt to do it. In comparison to Feuerbach’s materialism and idealism, Marx promoted activism in changing the daily lives of many individuals, as well as changing their beliefs on many matters. Despite the challenge it is to read and comprehend his writings, Marx makes useful and appropriate inferences that can be applied to today’s society.
Are Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach relevant to today’s society? If so, what can we learn from his writing?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Nature versus Nurture
The primary determinant of human nature is the interaction between an individual’s genes and his/her environment. The nature versus nurture argument supports this relationship. Virtually any trait in an individual possesses results from the interaction of environmental and genetic factors. Many genes have been implicated in psychological disorders, but very rarely is one gene a single cause of a disorder. It is fair to say that many genes influence much of our development and most of our behavior, personality, and even intelligence. Specific genes are sometimes associated with certain psychological disorders such as some forms of mental retardation. Genetic endowment influences behavior, emotions, and thoughts; environmental events are necessary for this influence to be expressed.
Might our past experiences influence our view of determinants of human nature?
More on torture
After consulting http://terrorism.about.com/od/humanrights/a/TortureDebate.htm, my opinion on the "ticking bomb" scenario is slightly stronger. I agree with Luban in that no person can have absolute certainty that the individual he/she has in custody knows the location of the "ticking bomb." There is always some room for error. What if the individual truly does not have any information regarding the whereabouts or creation of the bomb? Torturing him/her is evil and, certainly, unethical.
If persons decide to torture an individual whom they believe has information that they are seeking, for how long will these persons torture their captive? If the supposed bomb isn't scheduled to explode for months, then is the person in custody likely to be tortured for months if she/he does not reveal any information?
Furthermore, if we deem torture of a person whom we believe may have information regarding the location of a ticking bomb acceptable, then might we also view torture of this individual's loved ones also permissible? Some persons may find this acceptable since it is even harsher and may elicit information. This notion creates a slippery slope of irrational and unethical thoughts/behaviors. Personally, I find it all quite sickening.
If persons decide to torture an individual whom they believe has information that they are seeking, for how long will these persons torture their captive? If the supposed bomb isn't scheduled to explode for months, then is the person in custody likely to be tortured for months if she/he does not reveal any information?
Furthermore, if we deem torture of a person whom we believe may have information regarding the location of a ticking bomb acceptable, then might we also view torture of this individual's loved ones also permissible? Some persons may find this acceptable since it is even harsher and may elicit information. This notion creates a slippery slope of irrational and unethical thoughts/behaviors. Personally, I find it all quite sickening.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
"Ticking bomb" scenario
What’s the proper response to a “ticking bomb” scenario?
When discussing the “ticking bomb” scenario, we have to consider the lives and rights of the terrorist in custody and the innocent beings that may be killed or severely injured from the bomb. We must weigh the value of each group: the terrorist and the innocent beings in the area of the bomb. Some philosophers may say that the value of a group of individuals outweighs the value of one individual; whereas, others may say that each human life has equal value. If the group of innocent beings have a higher value to society than the terrorist, then we may think that these individuals deserve to remain unharmed by the terrorist’s activities. To maintain their safety, some individuals would support torturing the terrorist for information regarding the bomb. Others may say that torture is always unethical and may never support its use. Nevertheless, torture is illegal and the officials who have the terrorist in custody would be committing a crime if they tortured the terrorist.
Do you think reported rates of torture are much lower than actual rates of torture?
Torture
I agree with Erica’s position that we must respect the autonomy of every individual. When a suspected terrorist is in custody and officials think that he/she may have information, torturing the individual may be considered a means to obtain the information needed. However, no one actually knows if this individual has such information. Secondly, if we presume that the terrorist has such information, he/she may not share it before the “ticking bomb” explodes. Therefore, if the terrorist is tortured and remains silent until the bomb explodes, innocent beings are killed and the terrorist was tortured without any benefit to society. We never have reason to torture an individual for information because there is no way that we could know, for certain, that the individual has such information.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Moral status
Moral status is based on sentience, which refers to whether a being can neurologically and physiologically suffer or experience satisfaction. Most animals are sentient beings and, therefore, humans have direct moral obligations to them. We do not yet know if insects are sentient; however, we should first focus on the sentient animals that we exploit daily, which include cows, pigs, rodents, and chickens.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Do animals display emotions?
That's a difficult question to answer. During Monday's class discussion some individuals argued that they have seen their pet animals display certain emotions after specified events. Many people generalize the overt behaviors of certain emotions that are displayed by humans to animals. These individuals believe that if a dog is not playful, sits around the house, refuses to eat, and moans after one member of the family has left for a vacation, that the dog is sad/unhappy/depressed. All of the behaviors the dog exhibited are typical of a depressed human. But how do we really know that the dog is sad? Can we attribute human-defined emotive states to nonhumans?
The moral status of nonhumans
Since humans are moral agents, they must not cause any intentional or unintentional pain to any moral patient. A moral agent is something that is capable of exhibiting behaviors which can be classified as “right” or “wrong.” Actions that are deemed “wrong” cause pain to a moral patient. Additionally, a moral patient is an organism that is affected by a moral agent’s behavior. If a human kicks a dog it is considered “wrong” because the human, the moral agent, is inflicting pain on the dog, the moral patient.
Consequently, humans must recognize that nonhumans, as well as humans, have moral status. Nonhumans, which are usually moral patients of humans, are capable of sensing pain and fearing whatever may have caused it such pain. Nonhumans have moral status due to their ability to experience pleasure and pain. Humans need to, not only, recognize the moral status of nonhumans, but also cease inflicting pain on nonhumans.
By discussing these moral questions, are we promoting awareness of the moral status of nonhumans? Or are we changing the behavior of humans, in regards to their treatment of nonhumans?
Might some individuals assign more moral status to their pets than to wild animals?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Can naturalism and supernaturalism "coexist peacefully"?
Many people may hope to achieve such peaceful coexistence, but it is impossible to fully achieve. There will always be at least a few individuals who are intolerant of other sides of the debate who will pursue coercive and violent means to defend their views and crush their opponents. As humans, we have the innate ability to accept and agree with certain views and, also, the ability to disagree with others. It is natural for humans to attempt to spread (both consciously and unconsciously) their views to others.
Thomas Clark, the author of "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to survive the culture wars," is arguing for the existence of a public space in which naturalists and supernaturalists can debate peacefully. Additionally, he encourages science and critical thinking to be taught in the classroom. He also offers some advice on reassuring the supernaturalists that by teaching science in the classroom we will not be disregarding religion. I understand and agree with Clark's recommendation, but I also find it interesting that he is the director of the Center for Naturalism. He might be subconsciously encouraging the acceptance of his own views.
I support the creation of an ideologically-neutral public space where individuals are free to encourage others to accept their beliefs and to promote awareness of such beliefs. In creating this space, we are also allowing for debate. So long as the debate remains peaceful, it should continue. And if an individual, or group of individuals, pursue(s) violent measures, legal consequences must be implemented. The legal system acts as a protective system that encourages debate.
If you had known that Thomas Clark was the director of the Center for Naturalism before reading this article, would you have approached it more critically? Or if he was the director of the Center for Supernaturalism might that have affected your approach to the material? If so, doesn't that already introduce bias into your comprehension/analysis of the text?
If such bias is so easy to introduce in just reading this essay, do you think that we bring our beliefs to every conversation we have? Regardless of whether or not we are advocating our views? Might this spark debate? Does peaceful debate occasion learning?
Thomas Clark, the author of "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to survive the culture wars," is arguing for the existence of a public space in which naturalists and supernaturalists can debate peacefully. Additionally, he encourages science and critical thinking to be taught in the classroom. He also offers some advice on reassuring the supernaturalists that by teaching science in the classroom we will not be disregarding religion. I understand and agree with Clark's recommendation, but I also find it interesting that he is the director of the Center for Naturalism. He might be subconsciously encouraging the acceptance of his own views.
I support the creation of an ideologically-neutral public space where individuals are free to encourage others to accept their beliefs and to promote awareness of such beliefs. In creating this space, we are also allowing for debate. So long as the debate remains peaceful, it should continue. And if an individual, or group of individuals, pursue(s) violent measures, legal consequences must be implemented. The legal system acts as a protective system that encourages debate.
If you had known that Thomas Clark was the director of the Center for Naturalism before reading this article, would you have approached it more critically? Or if he was the director of the Center for Supernaturalism might that have affected your approach to the material? If so, doesn't that already introduce bias into your comprehension/analysis of the text?
If such bias is so easy to introduce in just reading this essay, do you think that we bring our beliefs to every conversation we have? Regardless of whether or not we are advocating our views? Might this spark debate? Does peaceful debate occasion learning?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Cultural and National Division?
We have two massive colliding forces. One is rural, Christian, religiously conservative. [The other] is socially tolerant, pro-choice, secular, living in New England and the Pacific coast. Republican pollster Bill McInturff, as quoted in "One Nation, Fairly Divisible, Under God," The Economist, January 20, 2001: 22.
Do we live in a fractured nation? McInturff's choice of words may make us think so, but do they truly represent the people?
If any of these quotes sounded interesting, you should read: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina. There may be some copies left in the MCLA bookstore.
Do we live in a fractured nation? McInturff's choice of words may make us think so, but do they truly represent the people?
If any of these quotes sounded interesting, you should read: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina. There may be some copies left in the MCLA bookstore.
Is the country polarized?
We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. Barack Obama, Keynote Speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Are there evident differences between "red states" and "blue states"? Is it possible that we may not be as polarized in our political positions as some may think?
Are there evident differences between "red states" and "blue states"? Is it possible that we may not be as polarized in our political positions as some may think?
Does the media promote division?
[Bush and Cheney]. . . know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. . . . red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. Jane Smiley, "The unteachable ignorance of the red states," slate.msn.com/id/2109218.
Does harsh and accusatory language, such as this excerpt, create polarization? And is it necessary to use such emotionally-charged language to get your point across?
Does harsh and accusatory language, such as this excerpt, create polarization? And is it necessary to use such emotionally-charged language to get your point across?
Consider this...
Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying roadkill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts? -Dave Barry, "Can't we all just get along?" www.herald.com, December 12, 2004.
Might some people really believe these caricatures? How can we establish a peaceful coexistence if even a few people buy into these stereotypes?
Might some people really believe these caricatures? How can we establish a peaceful coexistence if even a few people buy into these stereotypes?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Determinism and ABA
I find it necessary to define a few terms that I frequently refer to. A short, simple definition of behavior analysis is: the science of behavior change. This definition separates behavior analysis from other fields (i.e. cognitive psychology, anthropology, sociology). Behavior analysts are interested in how and why behavior changes. A better definition of behavior analysis is: the study of the functional relations between behavior and environmental events. This is a more formal definition that any behavior analyst would provide if asked to explain his/her field.
I'm concentrating in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) within the Psychology program and I'm applying for graduate programs in ABA. So let me define ABA; it is the attempt to solve behavior problems by providing antecedents and/or consequences that change behavior. Problem behaviors include self-injurious behavior, aggression, and environmental/property destruction. Many children diagnosed with mental retardation, autism, and other developmental disabilities frequently exhibit these behaviors.
Since it is possible to change many behaviors, we can determine another person's behavior.
I'm concentrating in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) within the Psychology program and I'm applying for graduate programs in ABA. So let me define ABA; it is the attempt to solve behavior problems by providing antecedents and/or consequences that change behavior. Problem behaviors include self-injurious behavior, aggression, and environmental/property destruction. Many children diagnosed with mental retardation, autism, and other developmental disabilities frequently exhibit these behaviors.
Since it is possible to change many behaviors, we can determine another person's behavior.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Free will vs. Determinism
I'm interested in examining behavior and the environmental events that precede and follow behavior. The effects of antecedents and consequences are cumulative on an individual's behavior. Behavior is affected by what an individual experiences in a given situation, and also by what he/she has experienced prior to that situation. Every individual brings his/her unique learning history to any given situation. This learning history determines how the individual will behave in response to whatever stimulus is presented. Therefore, we can say that our future behaviors are determined by what we have learned from behaviors we exhibited in the past and how we react in given situations.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Hello!
I'm glad you've found my blog...now let's hope you find it interesting. This blog is designed to examine the nature of human nature from a psychology student's perspective. But not only do I recognize that my background in psychology will influence the way in which I view the material covered in the course, I also understand that my race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, and gender may influence my approach to the subject matter. This can easily be said for everyone in the class. Our environment has shaped the way we react to, approach, and think about everything that confronts us and also everything we freely chose to ponder. I'm already referring to the nature vs. nurture debate! Once I've read the assigned article for the first Q & A, I'll discuss free will and determinism here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)