I asked everyone that I interviewed the same question: What do you think we expect of school (or specifically the public school system) and how does that differ from what it actually delivers?
I first interviewed my mother, Nancy, who is a social worker. She said that we expect school to educate, socialize, and discipline children. For its actual function, however, she felt that it more often beat the creativity out of students and institutionalized racism and sexism, and mechanized the learning process. She added that schools still do succeed in teaching, but the methods used are more often dampening to intellectual curiosity.
I then interviewed my aunt Joanie, who is a public school social studies teacher. Her idea of our expectation of school was the same as Nancy's, but she said that they actually serve as training camps to brainwash children into not seeing the injustices of society. She also felt that they marginalize children by race and class, and even serve to weed out children of different backgrounds.
Next I interviewed my mother's friend, Ro. She said that we expect schools to educate students enough to go to a good college and/or do well in their career. She said that what they actually do is fill students with adequate knowledge in the "classic subjects". She added that while it may not be intentional, schools often favor males in math and science and females in the more artistic subjects.
The next person I interviewed was my other mother, Paula, who manages a day care center. She said that the goal of schools is to socialize children, educate them in the basics that will enable them to lead happy, productive lives, and teach them to problem solve. She said that most schools probably try towards this goal, but some fail.
Last I interviewed my uncle David, who is a photographer. He said that schools are supposed to educate you, adding "everybody knows that!" He said that they also aim to civilize or socialize children to meet the standards of society. He said that the main downside to the current schooling system is the marking system, which makes children care more about passing than learning. It also trains people to be reward/punishment driven, instead of teaching them to think for themselves. Although, he added, that works fine for some.
What I get from this is that a lot of people see something wrong with the school system, mainly that certain children are favored and that it discourages creativity, but only some think this can be fixed. Those that think it can be fixed see it as an intentional attempt to let only the children that fit into society's mold be successful, while those that say it will just slowly make itself better see it as an unplanned defect in the system. I personally don't really think of it as an intentional attempt to keep children down, just because I don't think people are organized enough to pull that off. Discrimination and brainwashing definitely happens in some schools, but I don't think of it as a product of the school itself as much as the teachers. If a single teacher wants to discriminate then they will do so, and that will be a problem within their classroom, but I honestly don't think that there is any conspiracy for the purpose.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
2 kool 4 skool (a segway)
My main questions about school:
~What are the benefits of the modern structured school system?
~What are the downsides?
~How did this system originate?
My main thoughts on school:
My main problem with school as we know it is that the level of specification seems a little limiting. I, for example, would like to be a scientist. In the 1500s, "science" was a job. But nowadays, there isn't to be involved in more than one field.
Another thing I have a problem with in school is the perception of the relevance of the topics. At least once a month in math class Beatrice raises her hand and asks when we are ever going to use anything we are learning. But actually, I intend to use that stuff a lot. In fact, if I'm learning anything I'll never use I'm learning it in this class (sorry Andy, but my thing is objective evidence. I'm not big on the idea that 19 high-schoolers can come up with much accurate information by sitting around and pointing out stuff that bothers them.).
Overall, I view school in two ways: As something that needs to be done and dealt with no matter how annoying, and as a source of information or a stepping stone. I have some big ideas, but I know I'm not getting anywhere with them without education.
~What are the benefits of the modern structured school system?
~What are the downsides?
~How did this system originate?
My main thoughts on school:
My main problem with school as we know it is that the level of specification seems a little limiting. I, for example, would like to be a scientist. In the 1500s, "science" was a job. But nowadays, there isn't to be involved in more than one field.
Another thing I have a problem with in school is the perception of the relevance of the topics. At least once a month in math class Beatrice raises her hand and asks when we are ever going to use anything we are learning. But actually, I intend to use that stuff a lot. In fact, if I'm learning anything I'll never use I'm learning it in this class (sorry Andy, but my thing is objective evidence. I'm not big on the idea that 19 high-schoolers can come up with much accurate information by sitting around and pointing out stuff that bothers them.).
Overall, I view school in two ways: As something that needs to be done and dealt with no matter how annoying, and as a source of information or a stepping stone. I have some big ideas, but I know I'm not getting anywhere with them without education.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The coolest phony bastard on the planet
Ta-dah, my long awaited art project!
click for full size and better quality, or go here.
Guess who it is! Hint: check the title. That's right, it's everyone's favorite teen-angst-er, Holden Caulfield! I originally intended to make a video of someone dressed up as Holden in front of the museum of natural history singing this song (actually, I've been intending to make that video for a while), but I didn't have time.
What I wanted to address in this piece was our cool unit's interest in being "real". In Catcher in the Rye Holden is partially so depressed because of his failure to find anyone "real", and we discussed in our cool unit how in fact being 'real' doesn't seem to be possible. Holden supposedly gave a personality to the flavorless, phony generation from whence he came, so he seemed like an important figure in the history of "cool". In the video I also wanted to draw attention to the complete conflict of taste communities-- as seeing a white literary character preforming this would be ridiculous.
There wasn't much of a process to making this, other than looking up different interpretations of what Holden looked like and trying to put them together. I went to a lot of effort to make him seem tired and grimey, because that was the vibe that I got from him reading the book, but I still wanted him to look young, because him being a teenager is the only thing that made his angst cool.
Making art seems to be cool in society right now, but I think it really depends. I'm all for expression and art as a vector for that, but to me personally it doesn't matter unless you have something worthwhile to say. screaming is still screaming no matter the finesse, it's saying something important that makes it worth the noise.
click for full size and better quality, or go here.
Guess who it is! Hint: check the title. That's right, it's everyone's favorite teen-angst-er, Holden Caulfield! I originally intended to make a video of someone dressed up as Holden in front of the museum of natural history singing this song (actually, I've been intending to make that video for a while), but I didn't have time.
What I wanted to address in this piece was our cool unit's interest in being "real". In Catcher in the Rye Holden is partially so depressed because of his failure to find anyone "real", and we discussed in our cool unit how in fact being 'real' doesn't seem to be possible. Holden supposedly gave a personality to the flavorless, phony generation from whence he came, so he seemed like an important figure in the history of "cool". In the video I also wanted to draw attention to the complete conflict of taste communities-- as seeing a white literary character preforming this would be ridiculous.
There wasn't much of a process to making this, other than looking up different interpretations of what Holden looked like and trying to put them together. I went to a lot of effort to make him seem tired and grimey, because that was the vibe that I got from him reading the book, but I still wanted him to look young, because him being a teenager is the only thing that made his angst cool.
Making art seems to be cool in society right now, but I think it really depends. I'm all for expression and art as a vector for that, but to me personally it doesn't matter unless you have something worthwhile to say. screaming is still screaming no matter the finesse, it's saying something important that makes it worth the noise.
Monday, January 25, 2010
The fashionably late Cool Paper
Cool is, by definition, elusive. If it was easy to get than everybody would have it, and then, as we all know, it wouldn't be cool. That's how we think of "cool": something ever-changing, something new and different. On the other hand, too different and you're shunned. 'Cool' is a delicate balance between standing out and fitting in-- As Jake says in his blog:
In 1967, an experiment took place. A high school teacher, unable to explain to his class why Germany had been so yielding to the Nazi movement, decided to start his own movement for the purposes of demonstration. He called this movement The Third Wave. He lectured on the strength that came through discipline, community, action, and pride. He gave his students special seating exercises, and assigned each a role. The experiment was designed to show that in the face of a strong leader and a large supporting group, the majority of students would feel somewhat compelled to partake in a fascist system. Instead, 100% of the students, and even some 170 extra that were not in the original class, formed a force for the imaginary cause with such dedication that it took an admission from the teacher and a direct comparison to Nazi Germany to snap them out of it. They had been told that the movement's aim was to eliminate democracy and that they would soon rise up in an attempt to reshape the world. They were fine with that. The teacher, Ron Jones, explains that even he was beginning to succumb to the experiment:
The subjects of The Third Wave's brutal reality check knew full well that they wanted to fit in. They had the feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves, and they relished it. But it turns out that humans are even more susceptible to the opinions of others than that. As it turns out, the reactions of others serve as a major determining factor in the most basic and necessary of our own responses, such as interpreting an emergency. One study on the bystander effect found that while a situation may be deemed hazardous by a person on their own, a group is far less likely to react to it, and when some members of the group were told not to react the naive participant became unlikelier still to take action. The experiment had three conditions: one where the participant was alone, one where there were three participants, and one where there was one participant and two confederates who had already been told how to act. In each condition the participants were told to take a survey, and in each condition smoke was slowly added to the room. When subjects were alone, 75% left the room to report the smoke. When the number of participants increased to three, the number dropped drastically to 38%. Finally, when one subject was joined by two passive confederates, only 10% deemed the situation worth reporting. Say experimenters Latane and Darley: "Most subjects had similar initial reactions. Those that didn't report it all concluded that the smoke wasn't dangerous or was part of the experiment. No one attributed their inactivity to the presence of others in the room." (Latane, and Darley) The subjects were obviously influenced by the presence of others, and yet it did not occur to them that this might have effected their behavior. The subconscious tendency to agree with the judgements of others led subjects to come to a conclusion that could have put their own lives in danger, without even realizing that they were being influenced.
So why exactly are we so susceptible to the influence of others? Why do we care so much if we fit in? What makes a group so appealing that it would shatter a lifetime of conditioning to think the opposite way, why can we be persuaded to unintentionally put ourselves in dangerous situations merely by the presence of a calm bystander? Perhaps this is a good time to remember that human psychology didn't just happen on its own. It was molded and shaped by millions of years of evolution, of dying if we made the wrong choice or upset the group. We come from a long line of creatures that had to fit in to survive, and the complex social structure once thought to be so essentially human may not be unique after all. The chameleon effect (or unconscious mimicry of others), one of the things once studied as being distinctly human, has now been proven to exist in capuchan monkeys (Yong). Furthermore, it seems to play an essential role in their society, as capuchans seem to have a deeper bond with those that imitate them than those that don't. Humans seem to feel the same way, reporting taking a greater liking to those that imitate them. But the article warns against using the method intentionally: "'If a person thinks he is being mimicked, it will backfire," warns Chartrand. "He will like the mimicker less.'" Sounding familiar? 'Cool' is a delicate balance between fitting in and standing out. We strive for it, and ridicule ourselves for doing so. But perhaps 'cool' isn't a societal construct imposed upon us against our will. It seems that in fact, 'cool' was already in our nature.
Works cited:
"Part of being a renegade, is also being accepting and nonchalant. Being nonchalant seems to be one of the coolest personality traits that one can have. It puts forth the image that you are capable of something, but choose not to do it. For example, a "nerd" and a smart person differ on the simple principle of appearance. A "nerd" comes across as socially inept, while a smart person can compete mentally with the "nerd", and also maintain a social grace that the "nerd" simply cannot compete with." (Jake F.)This social aptness is worth a great deal to us, whether we know it or not. We long to fit in, even as we may be claiming the opposite. So deeply rooted is the fundamental desire to fit in with others, to believe their judgments and their ideas, that with only the presence of a strong leader and a devoted group of peers 200 high-school students were turned into fascist soldiers in just four days, and people who would normally assess their situation as an emergency can be convinced to remain calm merely by the presence of a bystander. This essay intends to show that the desire to fit in is rooted far more deeply in the human mental state than we are consciously aware of.
In 1967, an experiment took place. A high school teacher, unable to explain to his class why Germany had been so yielding to the Nazi movement, decided to start his own movement for the purposes of demonstration. He called this movement The Third Wave. He lectured on the strength that came through discipline, community, action, and pride. He gave his students special seating exercises, and assigned each a role. The experiment was designed to show that in the face of a strong leader and a large supporting group, the majority of students would feel somewhat compelled to partake in a fascist system. Instead, 100% of the students, and even some 170 extra that were not in the original class, formed a force for the imaginary cause with such dedication that it took an admission from the teacher and a direct comparison to Nazi Germany to snap them out of it. They had been told that the movement's aim was to eliminate democracy and that they would soon rise up in an attempt to reshape the world. They were fine with that. The teacher, Ron Jones, explains that even he was beginning to succumb to the experiment:
"I was exhausted and worried. Many students were over the line. The Third Wave had become the center of their existence. I was in pretty bad shape myself. I was now acting instinctively as a dictator. Oh I was benevolent. And I daily argued to myself on the benefits of the learning experience. By this, the fourth day of the experiment I was beginning to lose my own arguments. As I spent more time playing the role I had less time to remember its rational origins and purpose. I found myself sliding into the role even when it wasn't necessary." (Jones)Even he, who knew full well what the experiment was a parody of, found it hard to face the group's overwhelming enthusiasm without becoming swept up in it. Not only the desire, but the instinct to fit in left the group with no option other than to gladly follow the terrible illusion that had been set up for them.
The subjects of The Third Wave's brutal reality check knew full well that they wanted to fit in. They had the feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves, and they relished it. But it turns out that humans are even more susceptible to the opinions of others than that. As it turns out, the reactions of others serve as a major determining factor in the most basic and necessary of our own responses, such as interpreting an emergency. One study on the bystander effect found that while a situation may be deemed hazardous by a person on their own, a group is far less likely to react to it, and when some members of the group were told not to react the naive participant became unlikelier still to take action. The experiment had three conditions: one where the participant was alone, one where there were three participants, and one where there was one participant and two confederates who had already been told how to act. In each condition the participants were told to take a survey, and in each condition smoke was slowly added to the room. When subjects were alone, 75% left the room to report the smoke. When the number of participants increased to three, the number dropped drastically to 38%. Finally, when one subject was joined by two passive confederates, only 10% deemed the situation worth reporting. Say experimenters Latane and Darley: "Most subjects had similar initial reactions. Those that didn't report it all concluded that the smoke wasn't dangerous or was part of the experiment. No one attributed their inactivity to the presence of others in the room." (Latane, and Darley) The subjects were obviously influenced by the presence of others, and yet it did not occur to them that this might have effected their behavior. The subconscious tendency to agree with the judgements of others led subjects to come to a conclusion that could have put their own lives in danger, without even realizing that they were being influenced.
So why exactly are we so susceptible to the influence of others? Why do we care so much if we fit in? What makes a group so appealing that it would shatter a lifetime of conditioning to think the opposite way, why can we be persuaded to unintentionally put ourselves in dangerous situations merely by the presence of a calm bystander? Perhaps this is a good time to remember that human psychology didn't just happen on its own. It was molded and shaped by millions of years of evolution, of dying if we made the wrong choice or upset the group. We come from a long line of creatures that had to fit in to survive, and the complex social structure once thought to be so essentially human may not be unique after all. The chameleon effect (or unconscious mimicry of others), one of the things once studied as being distinctly human, has now been proven to exist in capuchan monkeys (Yong). Furthermore, it seems to play an essential role in their society, as capuchans seem to have a deeper bond with those that imitate them than those that don't. Humans seem to feel the same way, reporting taking a greater liking to those that imitate them. But the article warns against using the method intentionally: "'If a person thinks he is being mimicked, it will backfire," warns Chartrand. "He will like the mimicker less.'" Sounding familiar? 'Cool' is a delicate balance between fitting in and standing out. We strive for it, and ridicule ourselves for doing so. But perhaps 'cool' isn't a societal construct imposed upon us against our will. It seems that in fact, 'cool' was already in our nature.
Works cited:
F., Jake. "Jake's Personal Free Political." Blogspot. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Jan 2010.
Jones, Ron. "The Third Wave." 1972. Web. 23 Jan 2010.
Latane, B., and J. Darley. "Latane, B., & Darley, J. Bystander "Apathy", American Scientist, 1969, 57, 244-268.." Web. 23 Jan 2010.
Yong, Ed. "Monkey do, human do, monkey see, monkey like ." ScienceBlogs. 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 24 Jan 2010.
Barco, Tony. "We're All Copycats." Psycology Today 1 Nov. 1999: n. pag. Web. 25 Jan 2010.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Triangle partner help
For Amber (sorry it's kinda late)
Thesis rewrite: I'm not exactly sure what your thesis is, but it sounds like it could be something like "In our attempt to be cool we claim to be different, but in actuality we only adapt the ideas of others to our own needs."
Paragraph: Sorry, I don't have a lot of evidence to contribute to this. An idea though: Going with the re-written version of the thesis it would make a pretty convincing historical example if you could talk about copycat art. I would say that a forgery would make a good example, except that forgers take pride in their mimicry.
Suggestions: the main thing I was confused about in your paper was exactly what your thesis is. To make the focus clearer, you could:
-State your thesis and your arguments in the beginning of the paper, just so we know what we're expecting.
-make sure your arguments relate directly to a strong central point. Your writing is good and I understand each paragraph individually, but I'm not sure what they have to do with the reworking of things already deemed cool you talked about in your intro.
Otherwise, nice paper, I'm sorry if this doesn't help!
Thesis rewrite: I'm not exactly sure what your thesis is, but it sounds like it could be something like "In our attempt to be cool we claim to be different, but in actuality we only adapt the ideas of others to our own needs."
Paragraph: Sorry, I don't have a lot of evidence to contribute to this. An idea though: Going with the re-written version of the thesis it would make a pretty convincing historical example if you could talk about copycat art. I would say that a forgery would make a good example, except that forgers take pride in their mimicry.
Suggestions: the main thing I was confused about in your paper was exactly what your thesis is. To make the focus clearer, you could:
-State your thesis and your arguments in the beginning of the paper, just so we know what we're expecting.
-make sure your arguments relate directly to a strong central point. Your writing is good and I understand each paragraph individually, but I'm not sure what they have to do with the reworking of things already deemed cool you talked about in your intro.
Otherwise, nice paper, I'm sorry if this doesn't help!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A cool outline
My thesis or central idea is that the human desire to fit in is rooted far more deeply in the human mental state than we are consciously aware of.
Intro:
-how people typically think of the desire to fit in (It is important to fit in, but to look like you're not trying (Jacob's blog, HW 25 pt 2 paragraph 4)
-but in fact the instinct to fit in is far more fundamental to us than we may realize (mention points)
Body 1:
-THE WAVE (article)
++with only the presence of a strong leader and a devoted social group, a school full of typical high-school students were transformed into fascist soldiers in just four days. The sense of belonging and purpose the movement offered them was overwhelming, and they were unable to think poorly of the experiment despite the fact that they were suddenly going against everything that they were conceptually committed to.
Body 2:
-THE BYSTANDER EFFECT (where there's smoke, there's (sometimes) fire)
++despite the presence of something considered by 75% of people with no outside influence to be potentially dangerous and worth reporting, the overwhelming majority of people could be convinced that it is not worth paying attention to merely by the presence of two other people who do not seem to care about it.
Conclusion:
-Why do we do it?
++Evolution (capuchins and the chameleon effect)
Intro:
-how people typically think of the desire to fit in (It is important to fit in, but to look like you're not trying (Jacob's blog, HW 25 pt 2 paragraph 4)
-but in fact the instinct to fit in is far more fundamental to us than we may realize (mention points)
Body 1:
-THE WAVE (article)
++with only the presence of a strong leader and a devoted social group, a school full of typical high-school students were transformed into fascist soldiers in just four days. The sense of belonging and purpose the movement offered them was overwhelming, and they were unable to think poorly of the experiment despite the fact that they were suddenly going against everything that they were conceptually committed to.
Body 2:
-THE BYSTANDER EFFECT (where there's smoke, there's (sometimes) fire)
++despite the presence of something considered by 75% of people with no outside influence to be potentially dangerous and worth reporting, the overwhelming majority of people could be convinced that it is not worth paying attention to merely by the presence of two other people who do not seem to care about it.
Conclusion:
-Why do we do it?
++Evolution (capuchins and the chameleon effect)
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The cool pose
The question that I found most interesting in the Cool Pose assignment was 'should we blame the people that make bad choices, or try to give them new choices?'
I personally think (as I almost always do) that this is a much more complex issue than meets the eye. Typically, however, I feel that people are being too absolute in their thinking with too little evidence to support it; while on this issue I believe that the base human decision making mechanisms aren't really enough to consider all the factors at play here.
Let's say someone has committed a crime. Let's say they killed someone. What now?
One typical view is that when someone does something wrong they should be punished. When people are asked why they think this they will probably answer that the person needs to understand what they've done, or that they just plain deserve it. The other side will point out that the criminal is just the product of their society, and what they really need is to be re-educated and given more opportunities, so that they can become a better person.
So let's say we go with the more thought out of the two, and try to change them. And it might work, they might decide that what they did was wrong and try to make up their debt to society (or something like that). But it might not. They might not just be a product of their society, they might be a made-to-order assembly line part. To them, these losers trying to change them are funny. What now?
So, you go to the source. You try to start with the youth, you give them better opportunities, and fund their schools and afterschool specials, and bring in important people to tell them they should go to college. But when they go home their parents beat them for wanting to spend the extra money, and less important but more famous people on TV and the radio and billboards tell them that they should be proud of being part of a subculture where people aren't given opportunities. You've changed the landscape, but the map is still the same, and that's what they'd rather follow. What now?
What now?
I personally think (as I almost always do) that this is a much more complex issue than meets the eye. Typically, however, I feel that people are being too absolute in their thinking with too little evidence to support it; while on this issue I believe that the base human decision making mechanisms aren't really enough to consider all the factors at play here.
Let's say someone has committed a crime. Let's say they killed someone. What now?
One typical view is that when someone does something wrong they should be punished. When people are asked why they think this they will probably answer that the person needs to understand what they've done, or that they just plain deserve it. The other side will point out that the criminal is just the product of their society, and what they really need is to be re-educated and given more opportunities, so that they can become a better person.
So let's say we go with the more thought out of the two, and try to change them. And it might work, they might decide that what they did was wrong and try to make up their debt to society (or something like that). But it might not. They might not just be a product of their society, they might be a made-to-order assembly line part. To them, these losers trying to change them are funny. What now?
So, you go to the source. You try to start with the youth, you give them better opportunities, and fund their schools and afterschool specials, and bring in important people to tell them they should go to college. But when they go home their parents beat them for wanting to spend the extra money, and less important but more famous people on TV and the radio and billboards tell them that they should be proud of being part of a subculture where people aren't given opportunities. You've changed the landscape, but the map is still the same, and that's what they'd rather follow. What now?
What now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)