Go out, shoot, be fed drugs, repeat, be killed in the process or be freed, only to meet the uncomfortable bars of a jail cell. This is the life of most child soldiers. Once finally freed out of this brutal system they are punished for murder and have to spend the beginning of a proper life, locked up. Most child soldiers are forced into fighting and have no control over their actions. However some believe that child soldiers should be punished because if they are not then the number of child soldiers will continue growing. Rehabilitation should be the aim not punishment.
Almost all the time child soldiers are forced into fighting, by the adult commanders or by themselves. A lot of the time they have no say in becoming a soldier. If a war is going on in the country and soldiers are needed to fight, children are often recruited. Because their brain has not fully developed, they can easily be shaped to think new things. Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier states that a way the commanders ‘brainwash’ you is to “Feed you drugs and then kill people in front of you to desensitize you and then be fed more drugs”. Is forcing them to take drugs and then shooting someone right in front of their eyes really how we want to raise a generation of children? Children often apply to become child soldiers as well. Even though they choose to apply, they are not necessarily ‘forced’ into joining but there can be huge pressure to that it almost feels as though they are being forced to. Because war is almost always in 3rd world countries and countries that have a lot of poverty, children think that going to a military camp will provide food and shelter, something they don’t have. “Children go to military camps because the don’t know what to do with their life anymore”. Most of the child soldiers no longer have families because they were killed and have no idea what to do. Some of these children who have witnessed their families being killed join military camps to get revenge. People think that fighting is a way that people can take their anger out but once out on the field everything changes and ideas of revenge seem to slip away as fear comes flooding in. By the time children realize that it’s not what they want, it’s too late and they’d probably be dead.
In order to stay alive in the battle field they need to do whatever the adult commanders say, this means that they don’t have much control over their actions. The commanders usually control the children using fear and ‘brainwashing’ them. Fear is easily used to control the child soldiers because most of them have had a very difficult past. “Because you have lost everything that is there to you, this is how you bring children to war, you destroy their towns, their families...”. They haunt the children using their past’s and because they don’t have anything left they listen. “and then you can manipulate them and drug them so they do whatever you want them to do”. It is human nature to attach on to something, a group of people that you can call family. So when children are left without any thing, they look to the group of other child soldiers and commanders. They have no control over who they get to be with and it’s not their fault that they want someone to call family. “[You] Become so removed from exhibiting human emotion so this becomes your life, your reality, the group becomes your family”
Some people think that child soldiers should be punished as they are dangerous after have being known nothing but killing. Omar Khadr, a former child soldier who was put into jail for killing Army Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer. For most people this seems like a normal war crime or that Omar would be the victim as he was forced to kill. But because “when Khadr was angry at his guards, he would recall how he had killed a U.S. soldier and that would make him happy” it makes you wonder about how dangerous he really is. Because he feels pride in killing Speer it can be scary to let him back out when he thinks it is okay to kill. When child soldiers get to this stage they then start to become child criminals.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Education is the Key to Success.
EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS
Education is a fundamental human right which must be provided by the national government under the decree of the UN. It should be provided in the most rural parts of a country and have appropriate fees so anyone can participate in developing a better future for themselves and others. It is impossible to not think Education is the key to success, and just like Peter Dalglish, a very prominent figure in humanitarian acts said, education is the most important and best thing a child can possess. It has been proven to pave way too long lasting success, a wide array of opportunities and most of all the logic needed to thrive in life. However, all of this does not come easy. If the effort required to acquire these skills is not met, the scenario which I mentioned before is always a possibility. Regardless of this, on the contrary for almost anyone, as long as they are willing to put in the effort a bright future is also a possibility nonetheless.
In life, opportunities are not normally gifted, they are made and in most cases, education contributes to the increase of these opportunities. The reason for this is, education paves the way for people to go to university so they can continue their education but to a harder extent, eventually getting people ready to specialise in a certain skill and become of a high-quality standard. When looking for a job, companies always look for people who have a good education and have gone to university to become a master in the skill they chose to specialise in. Education essentially acts as an enhancement for your future. In addition to that, generally, people who have an education make smarter decisions, especially in times when good decisions are vital.
Have you ever heard of Brain Drain? Well...Brain Drain refers to the emigration of highly trained or qualified people for better living conditions, pay, quality of life and a few other factors, consequently, the country of origin loses these highly skilled people. When these people leave, the country of origin may suffer, particularly in the area of their own development. That is why if there are more people with education, the chances of them leaving will decrease because all the good jobs will have been taken by the increased amounts of skilled workers, forcing them to reside in their country of origin and contribute to their countries development. Essentially, although there is a chance of educated people leaving their own country for a better life, the ones that do stay will indubitably contribute to their countries development as well as theirs, primarily because they will have more opportunities to do so.
Education is not always at someone's doorstep, in fact, in some countries kids have to walk miles just to get to a school whose infrastructure is so bad, they can't gain the full education they deserve. Regardless of this, any education is a good one nonetheless. An example of this is William Kamkwamba. The boy who harnessed the wind was born in Malawi to some not so wealthy farmer parents and resided in a small shack which he had to share with several others. “Before I discovered the miracles of science, magic ruled the world” - William Kamkwamba said in his book. Magic was a big part of his life until he started his education. However, like many he had to drop out to help his dad in the fields. But that did not pull him down. He went to his local library read a few books and then managed to build a windmill that provided electricity and clean water for his village. There are much more examples like William, ones that have used education to pave the way to a better life, and promote it for the better good of mankind.
Education is the pinnacle of what someone can possess. It probably surpasses money and the many other tempting objects which one could desire. Education acts as a person's key to success, as it can pave the way to a better life. For example, William Kamkwamba, Malala Yousafzai, and the so much more people have used education to escape their past and be able to receive jobs that have allowed them to remain above the poverty line, and live life to its fullest. In fact, education is a fundamental human right which must be provided by the national government. Although it is true in some parts of countries, primarily less developed ones, the amount of schools and the standard of the education decreases, any education is a good one, and just like William Kamkwamba said “Before I discovered the miracles of science, magic ruled the world” science, one of the many subjects provided in an education can present opportunities to help for the better good of mankind as well as yourself.
Bibliography
- "Education for the 21st Century." UNESCO. N.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 June 2016.
- "Education." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 June 2016.
The Prosperity of Nations
Have you ever wondered how Japan is one, if not the only asian country to be considered a developed first world nation. Some might argue that the assistance of the USA after World War II was the primary factor. On the contrary, the only reason was the open mind’s the Japanese had to new change during Europe’s colonization period. When foreigner’s arrived at their shores in 1543, the Japanese eventually “threw the doors open.”However with the rise of christianity, the Japanese ended relations with Europe and closed the country, but not 250 years after, witnessing and being victim to the awesome industrial power of the new USA, the country was once again opened up. “The Japanese turned out to be the best students in all the history of the world” and “learnt all that Europe could teach them about machines for war and for peace,” before being able to level on the same playing field as the Europeans and develop their nation in nearly every aspect of society. This example is significant because it shows us that being open to change is beneficial for every nation and society. The societies that will thrive in terms of growth, prosperity and development in different aspects of society and make their mark on the world would appear at first glance to be the most powerful, influential, biggest and wealthiest societies. While this may be true in certain situations in history, these factors alone are not enough. They are the societies most open to change and different thinking in most if not all aspects of their society. This can be showed in different situations including the Pre/Early Hellenic Age in Greece, the rise of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Agriculture and Settlements.
Nations can thrive with influence and wealth, by ‘learning from other societies’.We shall start, by looking at the Greeks, about 2500 years ago. The Greeks were truly a society that “almost every year they came up with something new” as explained in E.H Gombrich’s award winning book, A Little History of the World. The author states that a prime example of Greek style change came in 594 BC, with the introduction of Direct Democracy in the city of Athens. The first example of practice of democracy, Athenian society and politics was completely altered with this new policy, leading to multiple political reforms and one of the most advanced forms of debating the world had ever seen. The Greeks were also unique in their practice of reflection “on what the world was actually made of, and what might be the cause of all events and experiences. This sort of reflection is what we call philosophy.” This debating and philosophy helped the greeks become the true intellectuals and scholars of the world and to think about topics well beyond their time.
However the Greeks weren’t just changing the culture and politics of their society. They were constantly looking to expand their horizons and that was just what happened. With new advancement in naval technology they colonized and expanded their influence beyond the Greek peninsula. However Gombrich goes on to explain that, another civilization called the Phoenicians, a maritime trade nation, heard about these Greeks and sailed to trade in the new colonies. In due time, the Greeks “learnt so much from the Phoenicians that they, too, sailed onwards.” With the new naval technology and policy of expansion and influence the Phoenicians have as well as their use of writing, another new revolutionary concept, the Greeks expanded their influence and culture just as it was changing. “It was at this point that history started to progress” as change became more common, with the Greeks “constantly changing,” that lead to them creating a thriving culture and society that spread from India to Spain. The Greeks would cease to be the learners in the future and become a model for other nations, ‘the teachers.’
Sure the nations that were the biggest and most powerful thrived but they had stronger contenders in the first place in their enemies and themselves. While Greece was starting a period of change and prosperity during the expansion of greek culture with Alexander the Great, one of the many peoples in Italy was also commencing a period of correlated change and expansion. The Romans, a small “tribe of stubborn and unruly peasants” that changed the course of history by conquering most of ‘the known world’. However “as all stories go, they had to start somewhere”. The Romans by the time of the birth of Jesus thrived in terms of their power, influence splendour and culture through multiple political, social, cultural and militaristic changes. “They loved their native city and its soil and would do anything and everything to increase its prosperity and power,” which was their own way of thriving as a society. However, to achieve power and prosperity came with multiple reforms in all aspects of their society as they grew bigger and faced new problems and dilemmas. First and foremost residing in their enemies, who many of which were stronger, bigger, wealthier and influential.
Though through multiple changes in military, they were able to ‘rise to the challenge’ as seen with their conflict against the wealthy Carthaginians, offspring of the far-ranging Phoenicians whose naval power was already advanced and powerful on it’s own. “But one day a Carthaginian ship ran aground off Italy. Using it as a model, and working in furious haste, the Romans managed to build a whole fleet of identical ships within two months.” By learning from their foes and changing, the Romans turned out to be the victors and at the same time their navy became a force to be reckoned with. The changes in military that took place throughout the span of Rome made it the most powerful and influential army force in the known world. Another major change for the Romans happened twice, concerning their government and political system. During the beginning of Rome in 509BC, the political system was a kingdom, run by kings, but with many political and social issues facing the system, Rome was reformed by the people and made into the first Republic in the world. This allowed social and public stability. Other changes came including the gained rights of the common people of Rome, the professional military reform all of which lead eventually to the transformation of the Republic to an Empire, as the growing society and borders demanded. Through these changes, Rome lasted for over 1500 years and influenced the culture and society of Europe even until today. Growing from the change they underwent and experienced, the Romans met every challenge they faced and eventually, they would be the biggest and strongest of societies.
Nevertheless, big change can bring about big growth and prosperity. Change in almost every single aspect of society. If you were to look at Europe, many would attribute the word to power, wealth and privilege. Many would argue that this is only because of their intelligent minds and superior culture, or because of their ability to learn from nations including China and the Arabs. While this may be true, what Jared Diamond thinks, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel is that is was only because of their open minds to change sooner rather than later back before permanent shelters even existed when it came to the introduction of agricultural based societies. Societies in China, Europe and the Middle East when they were still hunter gatherers altered their system of acquiring food with the idea of agriculture anywhere from 10,000 BC to 7,000 BC, for most early agricultural communities. With this in mind, the author states that “by selecting and growing those few species of plants and animals that we can eat,” agricultural communities then “can feed many more herders and farmers- typically, 10 to 100 times more- than hunter gatherer tribes.” This lead to population booms in many societies that opened up to this change. This is also elaborated on in John Green’s crash course video on the agricultural revolution which explicitly divulges the fact that complex society including jobs in commerce like merchants and political roles like officials and monarchs, cities and settlements as well as culture and entertainment would not be possible if the agricultural revolution did not take place. The increased efficiency of food production meant people could do other jobs as stated above. This preaches the benefits to those who opened to the change of the agricultural revolution, as many others did not for a long time, because they gained the ability to focus on anything else besides survival and instinct.
With the importance of crops in new agricultural society also came the importance of livestock and animals. By opening up to agriculture, you also experience the change of animal domestication which has its own advantages.“In addition, the largest domestic mammals interacted with domestic plants to increase food production by pulling plows” among many other farming uses. Also “Big domestic mammals further revolutionized human society by becoming our main means of land transport until the development of railroads in the 19th century. The advantages of opening up to the new change the agricultural revolution and the domestication of animals brought lead to the thriving of many peoples in political, social, economic and cultural aspects of society and gave these communities the ‘head start’ that lead them to advance and grow far beyond and before the rest of the world. These new systems of food production lead to world wide development, with whole societies changing and evolving in “machines for peace and machines for war.”
In many of the most famous nations and powerful nations in terms of either wealth, influence, power and size, you can view societies that were open to change and development. They might be the most powerful, influential, biggest and wealthiest societies until you consider that they had to start somewhere and face many challenges to get there. Being the most powerful isn’t enough. Societies that grow and evolve, thrive and prosper are the societies most open to change and different thinking in most if not all aspects of their society. Overall, societies that can change in their given circumstance tend to thrive into the future. However, of late I have been thinking about how long a powerful society that has developed and grown due to change it has experienced might last. Also, when thinking about modern societies, our current situations when it comes to topics like climate change, limited stock resources, pollution and poverty also urge me to consider a few things. These historical examples of societies that have thrived due to experienced new change in their different aspects of society prompts the questions of how we could adapt more change into our modern world. As the Romans did, we should confront the challenges we face stated above by opening and implementing change and adapting to our situation. Instead of thriving for a short period like so many historical societies did, we want to extend and expand the lifespan of our modern society, not just prosper. The solution is in our hands. Implementing things such as sustainable policies and infrastructure with worldwide co-operation might just be the answer to our problems and help us move forward in progress, to thrive as a society. We need to embrace change to face our challenges, not for society but for all humanity.
Introverts, Extroverts, and Collaboration: What is the best way learn, work and play?
Antisocial, reclusive, rude, boring, simple: these are some words people use to describe introverts. We live in a society where many think that being introverted is a liability. This idea started when Americans became more aware of what others thought of them. “They became captivated by people who were bold and entertaining,” as Susan Cain says in her book “Quiet.” These sort of people were extroverts. People started to realise different personalities: introverts and extroverts. An extroverted personality was idealized when it seemed that extroverts interacted more with other humans. Introverts were seen as less social and don’t contribute to group work. Due to the “extrovert ideal,” introverts started to act more like extroverts. Currently, introverts are very undervalued and not many realise the benefits they bring to society. It would be in the interest of societies to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both personality types. Respecting introvert’s boundaries and perspectives on group work as well as learning to offer positions of leadership to introverts would work to the advantage of the community as a whole. In addition, extroverts may even desire to become more like introverts in some aspects.
Introverts and extroverts have different strengths and weaknesses, and although most people think that extroverts are the perfect type of people for developing relationships and are excellent role models, this is not always the case. Sumathi Reddy, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, claims that “introverts, who are more withdrawn in nature, will feel a greater sense of happiness if they act extroverted.” Some people think it might be because “being talkative and engaging influences how people respond to you, especially if that response is positive” (Reddy). Others may think that being talkative makes people feel like they belong. It’s true that extroverts are more outgoing than introverts. They can be “warm, funny, energetic, the life and soul of any party… they can be charming and good company” (Hilling). Extroverts meet people and talk to crowds and groups easily. Their idea of a good time is inviting at least five or six friends or family and they have a wide circle of friends. Introverts usually “don’t like attention from a crowd unless they are very familiar with everyone” and “it can be a real drain to have to pay attention to other people for any length of time” (Hilling). According to Sumathi Reddy, “Dr. Fleeson, of Wake Forest University, reported in a 2012 article in the Journal of Personality the results of an experiment that found introverts experience greater levels of happiness when they act more extroverted.” This could possibly be because being around other people normally makes you happy. But “it is perfectly possible for an introvert to feel more alone in a crowded room than on their own” (Hilling) What determines whether we are introverted or extroverted is “the way we respond to the neurotransmitter dopamine” (Cain). Therefore, acting like an extrovert would definitely tire an introvert out because it would be going against their genetics. Having said that, introverts would probably benefit from sharing their feelings and express their opinions.
On the other hand, extroverts might also want to think about the benefits of introverted behaviour. Despite being outgoing and social, extroverts can be “demanding, liking center stage, and prepared to do almost anything to keep the spotlight on them” (Hilling). Introverts are mainly the ones listening quietly, so they would most likely be better friends for sharing your feelings with. In this way, although extroverts can make many social connections and there may be many advantages to that, introverts will create stronger, more trusting bonds that will last for a longer time’ this also has many advantages. Extroverts are also “happy to share their thoughts, even if they have not been thought through fully” (Hilling). Extroverts normally say what pops into their mind without thinking about it. Introverts might overthink things and not say or do them and regret it later. However, saying whatever you think may cause damage to relationships, especially if it’s something that could potentially hurt someone else.
On another note, “extroverts need stimulation or they become very bored. Repetitive tasks will be a turn off unless they are fun or have some kind of payoff – like attention. Their concentration span, particularly in solitary pursuits, tends to be shorter than introverts” (Hilling). Extroverts lack a vital part of learning a skill: patience. They always want to be with others and attract attention. Susan Cain said that according to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a psychologist who studied the lives of numerous exceptionally creative people, extroverts don’t usually “cultivate their talents because practicing music or studying math requires a solitude they dread” (Cain, 83). In this way, extroverts may benefit from being more like extroverts.
Many have heard of the saying “collaboration kills creativity.” Many may not agree with it. However, there is some evidence that this saying might hold some truth. Firstly, it’s important to realise that group work can be essential in some situations. Missy Kurzweil on “Identities.Mic” says that “collaboration is an essential part of problem-solving.” For most types of issues, an individual would benefit from having a variety of people to brainstorm solutions. Groups can help with the development of ideas and usually helps if something is too much work for one person. On the other hand, research has shown that in the first creative stages, groups can hinder an individual’s creativity. According to Missy, “once [an] idea is conceived, it’s passed around like a hot potato, subject to everyone’s red pens. And that can be worse.” Sometimes, when there are many people working on an idea, the idea could be changed to a point that is beyond recognition. This is not always a bad thing, but some original ideas are better than the ones that were subject to input by others. Likewise, according to Susan Cain, in Stephen Wozniak’s, co-founder of the Apple computer, memoir, he said that most inventors and engineers are like artists, “and artists work best alone where they can control an invention’s design without a lot of other people designing it or marketing or some other committee” (Cain, 73). Stephen Wozniak was one of many inventors who were successful, mostly because he worked on his own. Having said that, sometimes people want help or advice or feedback on their work. These types of people are most likely extroverts. But studies show that being alone provides the best creative space.
Susan Cain is the writer of Quiet, an inspiring book for introverts and an eye-opening book for extroverts that received the Goodreads Choice Award for best nonfiction. She studied at Princeton University and Harvard Law School as well. She puts forth another insight into creativity in Quiet. She says that “if you’re in the backyard sitting under a tree while everyone else is clinking glasses on the patio, you’re more likely to have an apple fall on your head” (75). While this might seem like an absurd thing to say, what she means is that if you’re alone, you would be more aware of your surroundings and more likely to notice and question things than if you were focused on talking to people and socialising. Isaac Newton is recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time, and he was an introvert too.
Groups are also a place where everyone is exposed to peer pressure. Group members are subject to something called “evaluation apprehension, meaning the fear of looking stupid in front of one’s peers” (Cain, 89). People are more afraid to voice and offer their ideas for fear that their groupmates wouldn’t approve or would make fun of them. Another example is that occasionally, intelligent people mask their intellect so that they can blend in with their friends.
Offices have been creating places where all the workers can see each other, however, “open-plan offices have been found to reduce productivity and impair memory… Open-plan workers...argue more with their colleagues; they worry about coworkers eavesdropping on their phone calls and spying on their computer screens” (Cain, 84). Open-plan workers are also subject to loud noises that come with having many people in one room. Although some managers may believe that when people are given their own personal workplace, they tend to get distracted more easily and do things that they are not supposed to be doing because nobody can see their computer screen, the noise of people talking may reduce their productivity more. Also, privacy is very important in work that requires personal connection, like writing. In schools, especially international schools, tables are set up in ways that people can interact with each other in ‘learning groups’. The students can normally see each other’s computer screens or notebooks if they’re sitting together or if someone’s back is towards them. This may not be a problem in subjects like math or science where the learning is very factual. In math, students sitting in groups encourages them to ask each other if they need help with solving a problem. But for subjects like English, Art and occasionally Humanities, generally subjects and topics that are based on creativity and personal involvement, others potentially seeing their work makes people insecure and not want to express themselves. In addition, teachers normally organise seating arrangements so that people don’t sit next to their friends. However, friends are usually the people an individual trusts the most. So with a person who they don’t know very well sitting next to them, they would feel more self-conscious. This works the same way with partnerships. Furthermore, teachers like walking around the classroom, checking up on students and looking over their shoulder at what they’re working on. Although some students may need someone reminding them to stay on task, teachers should know their students well enough to know who needs disciplining and who needs privacy so that they can release their potential.
As a student in an international school, when asked to offer ideas, I don’t normally offer mine because I am afraid of being wrong or being humiliated for my thoughts and ideas. For English, I prefer to work in the privacy of my room. I’ve been in quite a few situations where I’ve written something meaningful and my friend sitting beside me questioned it and sometimes laughed, saying that I was being ‘so deep’. I then deleted what I wrote. If table arrangements were different so that students couldn’t see what others were writing, many would be much more comfortable engaging in their work.
However, many inventions required interaction. Therefore, as Susan Cain wrote, “the way forward...is not to stop collaborating face-to-face, but to refine the way we do it… We should actively seek out symbiotic introvert-extrovert relationships, in which leadership and other tasks are divided according to people’s natural strengths and weaknesses. The most effective teams are composed of a healthy mix of introverts and extroverts, studies show, and so are many leadership structures” (93).
Introverts are normally viewed as the antisocial people whereas extroverts are role models. This idea is put into the minds of students and children by adverts, parents, and teachers. It’s important for teachers to realise that both introverts and extroverts have strengths and weaknesses and advertise the practice of the strengths of both personalities rather than focusing on the strengths of extroverts and the weaknesses of introverts. Also, it would benefit the student’s learning if they were partnered with people that they trust and if table arrangements in creative classes like Art and English were rearranged so that students who needed it were given more private spaces.
Introverts and extroverts have different strengths and weaknesses, and although most people think that extroverts are the perfect type of people for developing relationships and are excellent role models, this is not always the case. Sumathi Reddy, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, claims that “introverts, who are more withdrawn in nature, will feel a greater sense of happiness if they act extroverted.” Some people think it might be because “being talkative and engaging influences how people respond to you, especially if that response is positive” (Reddy). Others may think that being talkative makes people feel like they belong. It’s true that extroverts are more outgoing than introverts. They can be “warm, funny, energetic, the life and soul of any party… they can be charming and good company” (Hilling). Extroverts meet people and talk to crowds and groups easily. Their idea of a good time is inviting at least five or six friends or family and they have a wide circle of friends. Introverts usually “don’t like attention from a crowd unless they are very familiar with everyone” and “it can be a real drain to have to pay attention to other people for any length of time” (Hilling). According to Sumathi Reddy, “Dr. Fleeson, of Wake Forest University, reported in a 2012 article in the Journal of Personality the results of an experiment that found introverts experience greater levels of happiness when they act more extroverted.” This could possibly be because being around other people normally makes you happy. But “it is perfectly possible for an introvert to feel more alone in a crowded room than on their own” (Hilling) What determines whether we are introverted or extroverted is “the way we respond to the neurotransmitter dopamine” (Cain). Therefore, acting like an extrovert would definitely tire an introvert out because it would be going against their genetics. Having said that, introverts would probably benefit from sharing their feelings and express their opinions.
On the other hand, extroverts might also want to think about the benefits of introverted behaviour. Despite being outgoing and social, extroverts can be “demanding, liking center stage, and prepared to do almost anything to keep the spotlight on them” (Hilling). Introverts are mainly the ones listening quietly, so they would most likely be better friends for sharing your feelings with. In this way, although extroverts can make many social connections and there may be many advantages to that, introverts will create stronger, more trusting bonds that will last for a longer time’ this also has many advantages. Extroverts are also “happy to share their thoughts, even if they have not been thought through fully” (Hilling). Extroverts normally say what pops into their mind without thinking about it. Introverts might overthink things and not say or do them and regret it later. However, saying whatever you think may cause damage to relationships, especially if it’s something that could potentially hurt someone else.
On another note, “extroverts need stimulation or they become very bored. Repetitive tasks will be a turn off unless they are fun or have some kind of payoff – like attention. Their concentration span, particularly in solitary pursuits, tends to be shorter than introverts” (Hilling). Extroverts lack a vital part of learning a skill: patience. They always want to be with others and attract attention. Susan Cain said that according to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a psychologist who studied the lives of numerous exceptionally creative people, extroverts don’t usually “cultivate their talents because practicing music or studying math requires a solitude they dread” (Cain, 83). In this way, extroverts may benefit from being more like extroverts.
Many have heard of the saying “collaboration kills creativity.” Many may not agree with it. However, there is some evidence that this saying might hold some truth. Firstly, it’s important to realise that group work can be essential in some situations. Missy Kurzweil on “Identities.Mic” says that “collaboration is an essential part of problem-solving.” For most types of issues, an individual would benefit from having a variety of people to brainstorm solutions. Groups can help with the development of ideas and usually helps if something is too much work for one person. On the other hand, research has shown that in the first creative stages, groups can hinder an individual’s creativity. According to Missy, “once [an] idea is conceived, it’s passed around like a hot potato, subject to everyone’s red pens. And that can be worse.” Sometimes, when there are many people working on an idea, the idea could be changed to a point that is beyond recognition. This is not always a bad thing, but some original ideas are better than the ones that were subject to input by others. Likewise, according to Susan Cain, in Stephen Wozniak’s, co-founder of the Apple computer, memoir, he said that most inventors and engineers are like artists, “and artists work best alone where they can control an invention’s design without a lot of other people designing it or marketing or some other committee” (Cain, 73). Stephen Wozniak was one of many inventors who were successful, mostly because he worked on his own. Having said that, sometimes people want help or advice or feedback on their work. These types of people are most likely extroverts. But studies show that being alone provides the best creative space.
Susan Cain is the writer of Quiet, an inspiring book for introverts and an eye-opening book for extroverts that received the Goodreads Choice Award for best nonfiction. She studied at Princeton University and Harvard Law School as well. She puts forth another insight into creativity in Quiet. She says that “if you’re in the backyard sitting under a tree while everyone else is clinking glasses on the patio, you’re more likely to have an apple fall on your head” (75). While this might seem like an absurd thing to say, what she means is that if you’re alone, you would be more aware of your surroundings and more likely to notice and question things than if you were focused on talking to people and socialising. Isaac Newton is recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time, and he was an introvert too.
Groups are also a place where everyone is exposed to peer pressure. Group members are subject to something called “evaluation apprehension, meaning the fear of looking stupid in front of one’s peers” (Cain, 89). People are more afraid to voice and offer their ideas for fear that their groupmates wouldn’t approve or would make fun of them. Another example is that occasionally, intelligent people mask their intellect so that they can blend in with their friends.
Offices have been creating places where all the workers can see each other, however, “open-plan offices have been found to reduce productivity and impair memory… Open-plan workers...argue more with their colleagues; they worry about coworkers eavesdropping on their phone calls and spying on their computer screens” (Cain, 84). Open-plan workers are also subject to loud noises that come with having many people in one room. Although some managers may believe that when people are given their own personal workplace, they tend to get distracted more easily and do things that they are not supposed to be doing because nobody can see their computer screen, the noise of people talking may reduce their productivity more. Also, privacy is very important in work that requires personal connection, like writing. In schools, especially international schools, tables are set up in ways that people can interact with each other in ‘learning groups’. The students can normally see each other’s computer screens or notebooks if they’re sitting together or if someone’s back is towards them. This may not be a problem in subjects like math or science where the learning is very factual. In math, students sitting in groups encourages them to ask each other if they need help with solving a problem. But for subjects like English, Art and occasionally Humanities, generally subjects and topics that are based on creativity and personal involvement, others potentially seeing their work makes people insecure and not want to express themselves. In addition, teachers normally organise seating arrangements so that people don’t sit next to their friends. However, friends are usually the people an individual trusts the most. So with a person who they don’t know very well sitting next to them, they would feel more self-conscious. This works the same way with partnerships. Furthermore, teachers like walking around the classroom, checking up on students and looking over their shoulder at what they’re working on. Although some students may need someone reminding them to stay on task, teachers should know their students well enough to know who needs disciplining and who needs privacy so that they can release their potential.
As a student in an international school, when asked to offer ideas, I don’t normally offer mine because I am afraid of being wrong or being humiliated for my thoughts and ideas. For English, I prefer to work in the privacy of my room. I’ve been in quite a few situations where I’ve written something meaningful and my friend sitting beside me questioned it and sometimes laughed, saying that I was being ‘so deep’. I then deleted what I wrote. If table arrangements were different so that students couldn’t see what others were writing, many would be much more comfortable engaging in their work.
However, many inventions required interaction. Therefore, as Susan Cain wrote, “the way forward...is not to stop collaborating face-to-face, but to refine the way we do it… We should actively seek out symbiotic introvert-extrovert relationships, in which leadership and other tasks are divided according to people’s natural strengths and weaknesses. The most effective teams are composed of a healthy mix of introverts and extroverts, studies show, and so are many leadership structures” (93).
Introverts are normally viewed as the antisocial people whereas extroverts are role models. This idea is put into the minds of students and children by adverts, parents, and teachers. It’s important for teachers to realise that both introverts and extroverts have strengths and weaknesses and advertise the practice of the strengths of both personalities rather than focusing on the strengths of extroverts and the weaknesses of introverts. Also, it would benefit the student’s learning if they were partnered with people that they trust and if table arrangements in creative classes like Art and English were rearranged so that students who needed it were given more private spaces.
Organic Food: Yay or Nay?
Do we know what goes into our food? The answer to that is no. We only know what goes into our food if we grow it ourselves or if it’s organic. But the thing is, nowadays things that say organic on the packaging are probably not 100% organic. All foods have some kind of connection with the industrial food chain. The industrial food chain is a chain in which food products with artificial chemicals and fertilizers are incorporated into our food. It’s not the healthiest option but it is a lot cheaper. Personally, I think we should move away from the industrial food chain and start aiming towards organic food. Although some people can argue that too expensive and not worth the money, organic food is healthier and reduces our carbon footprint.
Some people can argue that there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods but they have been proven wrong. Organic food is much more healthier for your body than non-organic foods. Non-organic foods have been coated in pesticides spray so the bugs didn’t eat the mass amounts of food being produced at the time so now, when you eat a non-organic apple, you are intaking a chemical compound called Organophosphorus which from scientific data proves that this chemical can lead to autism and ADHD. Organic food can also increase your heart health as cows grazing on grass leads to an increase CLA which is a heart healthy fatty acid that boost cardiovascular protection which makes your heart generally stronger and much healthy. From seeing all the benefits of organic food, why would people want to buy non-organic foods? Artificial chemicals are dangerous to us and the environment.
Non-organic foods have been created with artificial chemicals and fertilizers. Some chemicals from artificial fertilizers can be toxic to the environment. An example of this would be the pollution of streams, rivers, ponds and lakes. When we spray our crops with different chemicals and fertilizers because we don’t want bugs to eat them, all the excess nutrients from the fertilizer runs off into our waterways, this cause algae to bloom that is sometimes big enough to make waterways impassable. When this algae dies, it sinks to the bottom of the waterway and decomposes in a process that removes all oxygen from the water. This means that all aquatic species can’t survive in certain water areas called ‘dead zones’, so they either die or move to greener underwater spaces with more oxygen. From reading this you might think that this won’t affect you in any way but you are wrong. When the chemicals from the fertilizers get into the waterways, the fish ingest them and become infected with the chemicals. Humans who eat these infected fish can become ill and infected, completing the circle that started from pollution from the fertilizers. These fertilizers that are keeping these crops from being eaten, is making a massive impact on the environment.
Even though organic foods are much better in many ways, people still seem to be bying non-organic producers rather than organic. The answer is simple. Non-organic foods are much cheaper as they haven’t been made with a lot of effort and are made in larger quantities. Imagine you had two apples, one in each hand. One was organic and one wasn’t. The organic apple was 3 dollars and the non-organic apple was a dollar. Which one would you choose? They look the same, taste the same, are the same weight and are the exact same size, why would you want to spend 2 more dollars on the exact same product? People usually choose the cheaper products because they feel there is either they feel like they are wasting money or they don’t think there is any difference but the truth is they are eating toxic chemicals and are not getting the proper nutrients. Most people in the world are not in that top 1% that can afford more and are very privileged. Most can’t afford to buy organic products because they are more expensive. Most people have families to feed and don’t have enough money to buy their kids organic apples so the simple solution would be to buy the cheaper products.
To sum this up, organic foods has it’s positives and negatives but I think that if we overlooked the price of organic foods and saw all the benefits organic food had on our body and the environment, we would want to stop buying cheap, unhealthy non-organic foods and switch to organic. Even though it would be very hard to stop the industrial food chain, maybe we could prevent the use of chemicals and fertilizers and switch to a more organic farming method, meaning it won’t have an impact on our bodies and the environment. Next time you go into your local supermarket, try and buy more organic, healthy and sustainable products so you know that in your heart, you helped the environment and your body become more healthy.
Some people can argue that there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods but they have been proven wrong. Organic food is much more healthier for your body than non-organic foods. Non-organic foods have been coated in pesticides spray so the bugs didn’t eat the mass amounts of food being produced at the time so now, when you eat a non-organic apple, you are intaking a chemical compound called Organophosphorus which from scientific data proves that this chemical can lead to autism and ADHD. Organic food can also increase your heart health as cows grazing on grass leads to an increase CLA which is a heart healthy fatty acid that boost cardiovascular protection which makes your heart generally stronger and much healthy. From seeing all the benefits of organic food, why would people want to buy non-organic foods? Artificial chemicals are dangerous to us and the environment.
Non-organic foods have been created with artificial chemicals and fertilizers. Some chemicals from artificial fertilizers can be toxic to the environment. An example of this would be the pollution of streams, rivers, ponds and lakes. When we spray our crops with different chemicals and fertilizers because we don’t want bugs to eat them, all the excess nutrients from the fertilizer runs off into our waterways, this cause algae to bloom that is sometimes big enough to make waterways impassable. When this algae dies, it sinks to the bottom of the waterway and decomposes in a process that removes all oxygen from the water. This means that all aquatic species can’t survive in certain water areas called ‘dead zones’, so they either die or move to greener underwater spaces with more oxygen. From reading this you might think that this won’t affect you in any way but you are wrong. When the chemicals from the fertilizers get into the waterways, the fish ingest them and become infected with the chemicals. Humans who eat these infected fish can become ill and infected, completing the circle that started from pollution from the fertilizers. These fertilizers that are keeping these crops from being eaten, is making a massive impact on the environment.
Even though organic foods are much better in many ways, people still seem to be bying non-organic producers rather than organic. The answer is simple. Non-organic foods are much cheaper as they haven’t been made with a lot of effort and are made in larger quantities. Imagine you had two apples, one in each hand. One was organic and one wasn’t. The organic apple was 3 dollars and the non-organic apple was a dollar. Which one would you choose? They look the same, taste the same, are the same weight and are the exact same size, why would you want to spend 2 more dollars on the exact same product? People usually choose the cheaper products because they feel there is either they feel like they are wasting money or they don’t think there is any difference but the truth is they are eating toxic chemicals and are not getting the proper nutrients. Most people in the world are not in that top 1% that can afford more and are very privileged. Most can’t afford to buy organic products because they are more expensive. Most people have families to feed and don’t have enough money to buy their kids organic apples so the simple solution would be to buy the cheaper products.
To sum this up, organic foods has it’s positives and negatives but I think that if we overlooked the price of organic foods and saw all the benefits organic food had on our body and the environment, we would want to stop buying cheap, unhealthy non-organic foods and switch to organic. Even though it would be very hard to stop the industrial food chain, maybe we could prevent the use of chemicals and fertilizers and switch to a more organic farming method, meaning it won’t have an impact on our bodies and the environment. Next time you go into your local supermarket, try and buy more organic, healthy and sustainable products so you know that in your heart, you helped the environment and your body become more healthy.
Schools Should Alter Their PSE Program
I walk in on the first day of school. My new school. I can feel all of these eyes on my back. Judging me. This is what determines my life in middle school.
School. This is where children spend at least 7-8 hours a day; where they learn everything. Not only about academic subjects but this is where they are taught social skills. School is where every child makes their first social interaction, their first friend, their first enemy. If schools play such a big part in a child’s life why are they not putting enough effort into teaching students how to make the right friends, choosing the right people to work with. This is what will benefit them in the long run. Knowing the people you work best with making your life a lot more successful than it would have been without them. UWCSEA has developed the PSE program, which focuses on providing a safe, secure educational environment for all of its students. But they are not able to focus this learning, making sure that students actually benefit from their program. UWCSEA is ineffectively using student's time by having programs like “Mentor Time” that don’t easily apply to adolescents. Instead, this time, should be used to put students into situations where they reveal their emotions and vulnerability to other students that they trust and spend long periods of time with a specific group of people. However in some circumstances, this can be a bit much for students as they are still trying to come out of their shell. Nevertheless, students need to grasp the fact that they will do a lot better in life when they are able to form instant connections.
Think back, who are the people that care for you the most? Why is it those specific people and not anyone else? This is because you have shown this specific person or group of people your vulnerable side. The side that isn’t always perfect. “Most of us think that when we make ourselves vulnerable we are putting ourselves in a susceptible, exposed or subservient position.” (Click, pg 32) Many also feel that they are letting others influence them. But when creating connections self-disclosure accelerates the ability to connect with people around us. When we show our vulnerable side to someone it helps other people trust because you are putting yourself “at an emotional, psychological or physical risk.”(Click, pg 32) The fact that the both of you are letting your guard down helps to lay a foundation for a fast, close personal connection. This is a really important part of making that instant connection, to be able to understand that specific person on a different level from the start.
Police officers like Greg Sancier a crisis intervention specialist, deal with people in distress. He was called in to help with the situation of a man breaking into a house in San Jose, California, and was holding the hostages at gunpoint. Sancier knew that if he failed today many people would lose their lives. He says “There’s an art to establishing a relationship.” whether it be “relating man to man or that we both like fishing.” (Click pg25) Any instant connection like this can be the basis of a deeper one. The man - Jones was a “three strike gang member” who had nothing more to lose. Sancier tried to connect with Jones by saying “Once I went through a tough situation myself - like when my mother died.” Jones responded saying Your mother died?”(Click pg 26) This is when Sancier knew that he had broken through Jones’s Barrier he was in, and that's all it took for Jones to give up. Being willing to show other people the person you really are, to drop your shield just for a moment is what can lead to forming instant connections.
Alternatively, this is easy to say but a lot harder to do. Especially for adolescents as showing people their vulnerable side is really tough. They are trying to figure out themselves at this time too, the best version of themselves, who they feel most comfortable with and with all the added pressure of school, Adolescents tend to close themselves off from other. So how are they going to open up about themselves when they are not fully sure of who they are, or how they feel either. Especially when this is also the time that they are learning to become independent. Studying the article “Secrets of the teenage brain” by Katie Forster. She claims that “teens are at an age of self-discovery.” They are exposed to so many different things and have to make up their mind about it. Why should we share this experience with someone as it is so dreading in the first place?
Skye is finding it especially hard to make friends at her new school. You might think that she should know by now how to make friends quickly and effectively, but the truth is that Skye does not have one person she can rely on.
Recollect - Which of your grade school classes did you feel most comfortable with? Which one did you feel most in place with? Now, why is it that we feel this was only with a specific group of people? Spending prolonged periods of time with a person or a specific group of people creates deep bonds. We don’t give it much thought but the people you sit next to at work, or on the bus to work. “But in fact, a couple of feet of space can make a world of difference.” (Click Pg 61) This circumstance is called “exponential attraction.” You are unknowingly spending extra time with these people, even if it is just the ten minutes you sit next to someone every day on your way to somewhere or the person you sit next to every meeting. That extra time together creates a mutual understanding between the both of you. Slowly growing through the years.
Four young sophomore basketball players - Corey , Taurean, Al and Joakim all share an apartment. Corey would later tell New York Times the roommates “clicked immediately.” They called themselves the “oh-fours” till 2004 when they started university (Click pg 55). When they played together they played amazingly. But as each of them branched off, different NBA teams chose them leading to their split. They never played the same again. “Talented as they were as a group, individually the oh-fours were just not superstar caliber.” (Click pg 59) People who instantly click rely on each other. When even one is missing it is still not the same, proving that they work a lot better in team situations.
Although this can also lead to believing that by putting students in these situations they can become heavily reliant on one another and won’t be able to work by themselves, always looking for that support that their friendship provides them with. But spending these prolonged hours with the wrong people can be hurtful as you are not getting anything out of it. For instance, if students move up through grades with the same classes students might be in a situation where they do not feel comfortable, where they are being bullied but are still forced to move up with this class. Teachers should notice when a student is not feeling comfortable and address their parents about this or do something about it. Whether it be talking to the student that is causing the trouble or making sure the student feels safe in their learning environment.
Now we have come this far, and you might be thinking what does it mean to make the right friends? Everyone needs friends in their life. Someone that will support you no matter what, someone who won’t judge you, someone who doesn't only talk but listens. Taking a look at the article “11 secrets to choosing the right friends” by Stacia Pierce a life coach and CEO of Ultimate Lifestyle Enterprise. We should look for people who we share the same values with. While I agree that diversity within friends is great but “when it comes to to general values and beliefs, it’s best to keep core friendships with like-minded people.” We tend to look for people who we look at as a role model. Someone who has aspects to them that we lack. We are drawn to them for this very reason, we see someone we want to be in them. This is fantastic as both of you will complement each other. Helping each other out in the places that are needed. Taken as a whole finding the right friends is a necessary task in order to be the best version of yourself.
Right now UWCSEA does have systems in place to help support their students. For instance, mentor time gives students an opportunity to spend time with a group of approximately 20 other students for more than two hours a week. This time is meant to be spent interacting with one another but instead is taken for granted and is spent by students doing their own thing or catching up on missed homework. UWCSEA’s aim it to build strong knit classes where everyone is supportive and understands one another. However, this is not working in most cases. Instead, all mentors should plan fun activities - team building activities that will force students to interact with one another. This also adds an extra factor of excitement to it as students will come into school excited to start the day off with a fun activity putting them in a light mood. Especially for adolescents like Skye who are in grade 8 and most of their time is spent worrying about when the next assignment is due. The activities planned should take into account the fact that they should lead students into sharing their emotions with one another, showing each other their vulnerable side, as this is what will help create those deep, meaningful bonds that help students become a lot more successful in life.
Most people right now would think that what is the point? Some people are successful and some people are not and that is just how it is. But is this really going to benefit us? As citizens of a country? Or even as the world. Yes, life is a lot easier for people who are able to form instant connections. Not only in your school and college life but as a lawyer, business official, sales person. All of these people have skills that help them form connections with people even if they don’t mean anything, they mean something for that moment, and this is what makes successful people. If people are taught how to do this everyone can be successful not just a few people out of the millions in our world today. This won’t only help them but benefit their whole community teaching them how to create these bonds. Spreading this knowledge can eventually change the world. Change the way people act, change it for the better. I believe that people should be taught this from the very beginning, ingraining it into their system, making it normal. If this can become a part of a school's curriculum they will produce a lot more successful students. Isn’t that what a school aim for, to create successful people. After Skye’s school implemented this system it was a lot easier for her to form connections with people even if she was moving around a lot and this led to her becoming an extremely successful business woman in the future. It;s with the greatest respect that I ask you to consider altering our PSE program adding in activities that teach students to show their vulnerable side and helping students spend long amounts hole. Just by putting a little extra thought into UWCSEA’s mentor time it can change someone's future or even everyone's future.
Bibliography
- Brafman, Ori, and Rom Brafman. Click: The Magic of Instant Connections. New York: Broadway, 2010. Print.
- Forster, Katie. "Secrets of the Teenage Brain." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 12 June 2016.
- "Personal and Social Education." Www.uwcsea.edu.sg. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Pierce, Stacia. "11 Secrets to Choosing the Right Friends." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 12 June 2016.
The Indirect Gun Pressure From The Media On Society
The clock strikes 8pm the pendulum moves from left to right, families emerge out of their rooms, kids get off their phones, parents turn off the news, and they all gather in the living room to watch a family movie. All of these family members leave one media just to move onto the next.
Media. It's a powerful thing, especially in the 21st century we see everyone being influenced by the media in some sort, not only parents, but even young kids and adolescents. Kids these days have phones where they are on social media apps, parents who are watching TV everyone is on some sort of media, may it be social media, regular media (news), movies, and video games. But with so many people being on so many different types of media’s starts raising questions such as how are these different types of media having an effect on us the audience of this? And the answer is not what many expect and I sure did not think the answer is true but as a matter of fact it is true, media does have an impact on our lives, the level of impact may differ from person to person but it definitely has an impact on us, but the impact it has on us is more of a pressure, somewhat like peer pressure but in this case it is media pressure. Media is one of the most controversial topics, and along with that is the issue of gun violence but what many fail to notice is that both these issues are interconnected, in our day and age we notice a rising gun violence rate, and at the same time there are more and more people exposed to the media they are correlated. Although some might think that the rising rate of gun violence is due to our population increasing they fail to notice that most gun violence cases involve the gunner exposed to violent media they are pressured into getting these guns and use them because different medias give them different reasons to use guns. The three biggest media contributors pressuring our society into getting guns are the video game industry, social media industry, and movie industry. But these media’s don't have to stop they just have to be controlled and monitored by governments so that the public citizens are not pressured into getting guns.
“Alex!” called his mom. He got off his couch and turned off his console he way playing Call of Duty on and headed downstairs for dinner.
First of the violent video game industry is one of the most entertaining media industries and has over 40 million violent video gamers. Let's get some context violent shooters have always been a fun thing even when it's not video games, many adults have played with toy guns such as nerf etc, and while those were all fun and games, but as the earth started revolutionizing we started to simulate these games through a TV or a computer, and as the years have gone on the aim of these games is no longer to have a fun experience and provide entertainment, it's become more serious but what the gamers don't often understand is that the new level of seriousness these games have reached is not real anymore, it's fiction, many don't understand this distinction fully thus getting pressured into getting guns. The violent video games industry have slowly yet steadily been moving away from the traditional World War battles from showing how brutal guns, and how much of harm it can do not only to a person or family, but to an entire nation, they are now more fictional but portray guns in a serious way. According to Columbine the mass shooters of the school were big fans of the game “Doom” this is a FPS game where your status rank increases as you kill people. David Cullen (author of Columbine) describes them as “acting out dark digital fantasies” This suggests that these students were acting out a dark fantasy from the game “Doom” that David Cullen mentions later on in the book. But how did they get this dark fantasy is the real question, and this was through the pressure the game put on Eric. Cullen described Eric as “one that always wanted to go with the flow and be the cool kid in school” and this game's story implied just that, if you have a gun and kill people you are “cool” not only did this mislead Eric and change his personality but Eric then pressured Dylan, not only with developing dark fantasies but also Dylan's personality, the way he dressed up etc (page 154) All of this evidence can implies that teenagers are pressured by the new fictional violent games, they don't understand the true abuse the guns cause, and when they don't understand that they do shooting like Eric and Dylan did. Not only are video games pressuring teenagers and sometimes even adults, but sometimes once one person is pressured and manipulated they spread the same pressure to others around them we can see this from the way Eric manipulated and pressured Dylan to change his thinking.
On the other hand there are many that say that these new fictional violent video game approaches actually make the games more fun, and addictive and some articles even suggest that if fun fictional violent games keep on being sold it could keep gamers hooked on their consoles/computers and reduce the pressures to buy or use guns. Though this is true and these new fictional games are infact more entertaining and addictive what is it too stop one from doing it in real life, infact we did see the Columbine shooters who were “addicted” to games such as these come out and cause shootings. At the end we must understand that the video game industry is making millions of dollars from these new fictional games that promote owning a gun indirectly, and if more and more people start believing and learning from video games we might see an increased number of gun users, eventually causing more shootings, may it be by “accident” or on purpose the government should keep a watch on the video game industry. It is a powerful one.
The next big media industry that pressures people into getting guns is social media. Social media is a great thing, infact I am sure than many including me could not imagine their lives without social media! It is a great thing, in connects people from one end of a country all the way to the other, actually it can connect someone from one side of the world to the other side as well! Now that's quite fascinating but on social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter there are many strangers. And one of the great powers of the social media platforms in our day and age is to change someone's identity and this is what many of the strangers on social media do, especially to the young teenagers out there. Often we are scrolling down the notifications area on our Twitter page or Instagram page and notice maybe a “trending now” post or something to that matter, and many times we see guns present in the photo, and captions on the photo such as “love this thing, had so much fun” but for many teenagers this may be misleading. As many know the teenage ages are when you are at your most curious, and coming across pictures like this can tempt or pressure you to own a gun, so you can feel the same experience they are feeling, but you don't know what type of person they are and this could be super powerful because these strangers who post photos of guns could drastically change your personality. Seeing others using guns could make you want to try using them as well, and well if you don't have proper supervision or use it at the wrong time there could be many problems caused. Nonetheless social media is a great place to promote your interests, I know that many of my friends and I post or tweet pictures of me doing things I love. And for some shooting with guns in a firing range may be their hobby, but when images like this surf the internet where there are millions of active kids, it could raise many eyebrows and instigate many to try using guns. Social media is also great for connecting with friends and many kids don't connect with anyone but their friends as their school teaches them which is great but for those that do go outside their friend circle they notice that social media has many trends that people act on, gun is one of the small but powerful trends in the social media world that could influence/pressure people to join in on. We see that when there is something new on social media (a trend) many start to follow it especially teenagers, an example of this is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, it was a small trend that started but as it surfed social media more and more, kids kept on trying it. This could be the same case with guns, right now it just a small trend but if governments don't watch over social media this trend could catch onto many young teenagers and cause worldwide issues.
The last big form of media that pressures the public into owning guns is Movies and/or TV shows. Nearly everyone at some point in their life have watched a movie or a tv show with friends or families, and about 50% of the time movies or tv shows portray guns. Often the cool or the big men in the movies have guns.This can make many young viewers of the movie or tv show think a certain way, and many times it makes the public think that if you have a gun you are “cool”, though not one movie make this change in people, this change comes over time as you watch more movies spreading the same message (having guns makes you cool) Examples of such messages can be found in movies such as fast and furious, and tv shows such as arrow. However on the other hand sometimes movies do show that people who think they are cool with guns etc show the downfall of that person. Though that is true and is good that some movies are spreading the message that guns can sometimes lead to downfall we notice more that owning a gun is associated with your status and how “cool” you are. What the movie industry should do is make more movies and tv shows that are aimed at kids and show how sometimes having guns is bad and how much harm it can cause to the owners of the guns and people around them.
Though there are many that think the rising rate of gun violence is related to the growing population, and media is a innocent platform that does not have an impact on people's on people's perspective on guns but media is one of the biggest influences that force people to get guns. Everyday we see stories of young people using guns, killing innocents around us, people who are kids and can't defend themselves, people who are too scared to fight back. And about 70% the time these serial killers don't really meant to do it, it's not them acting out on their behalf, it's the repeated influence that these people get from media and we can see evidence of this from nearly every news site that reports on what influenced the murders to perform actions that they did. Now the media does not need to be stopped but it does need to be controlled, and this is critical, if you want your kids and their family to grow up in a safe environment where they are not given exposure to this, we need to start controlling the media. Because if we don't change the media now, it will be too late, there will be too many murders on the loose to stop, and nothing we can do, but that's the future of us doing the wrong thing, if we however work together and and make petitions to control media we can live in our dream world. As for video games, we must have a team of professionals that carefully evaluate the violent video games before the hit the markets and have millions playing them, we must ask violent video games to go back to their roots and once again show how harmful guns are through video games like they did back in the day. As for social media’s we must start to restrict pictures of guns or any hazardous items. For instance if there is a picture of a gun posted it should be striked and taken down, we should give each account 3 strikes and if they exceed the strike limit we shall permanently ban their account. This will encourage people to not post photos of guns that will influence others to get them because no one wants their account permanently banned. Lastly we need to change Hollywood, we must stop showing guns and power together, instead maybe show how guns give temporary power but in the long term we should show the harsh consequences, when doing this we should target the the younger audience, so that from an early age we can start to teach kids that these guns are bad if this done people will have that idea engraved in their heads. I strongly believe that if these actions are taken as soons as possible we can still have a sustainable, safe future. But what we should not do instead is ban media. Media is a great resource and we have come to the day and age where we kind of need it in our life, it provides entertainment, connects people and much more. If we can control media we can have a sustainable tomorrow.
Change starts with us, let's start now.
Media. It's a powerful thing, especially in the 21st century we see everyone being influenced by the media in some sort, not only parents, but even young kids and adolescents. Kids these days have phones where they are on social media apps, parents who are watching TV everyone is on some sort of media, may it be social media, regular media (news), movies, and video games. But with so many people being on so many different types of media’s starts raising questions such as how are these different types of media having an effect on us the audience of this? And the answer is not what many expect and I sure did not think the answer is true but as a matter of fact it is true, media does have an impact on our lives, the level of impact may differ from person to person but it definitely has an impact on us, but the impact it has on us is more of a pressure, somewhat like peer pressure but in this case it is media pressure. Media is one of the most controversial topics, and along with that is the issue of gun violence but what many fail to notice is that both these issues are interconnected, in our day and age we notice a rising gun violence rate, and at the same time there are more and more people exposed to the media they are correlated. Although some might think that the rising rate of gun violence is due to our population increasing they fail to notice that most gun violence cases involve the gunner exposed to violent media they are pressured into getting these guns and use them because different medias give them different reasons to use guns. The three biggest media contributors pressuring our society into getting guns are the video game industry, social media industry, and movie industry. But these media’s don't have to stop they just have to be controlled and monitored by governments so that the public citizens are not pressured into getting guns.
“Alex!” called his mom. He got off his couch and turned off his console he way playing Call of Duty on and headed downstairs for dinner.
First of the violent video game industry is one of the most entertaining media industries and has over 40 million violent video gamers. Let's get some context violent shooters have always been a fun thing even when it's not video games, many adults have played with toy guns such as nerf etc, and while those were all fun and games, but as the earth started revolutionizing we started to simulate these games through a TV or a computer, and as the years have gone on the aim of these games is no longer to have a fun experience and provide entertainment, it's become more serious but what the gamers don't often understand is that the new level of seriousness these games have reached is not real anymore, it's fiction, many don't understand this distinction fully thus getting pressured into getting guns. The violent video games industry have slowly yet steadily been moving away from the traditional World War battles from showing how brutal guns, and how much of harm it can do not only to a person or family, but to an entire nation, they are now more fictional but portray guns in a serious way. According to Columbine the mass shooters of the school were big fans of the game “Doom” this is a FPS game where your status rank increases as you kill people. David Cullen (author of Columbine) describes them as “acting out dark digital fantasies” This suggests that these students were acting out a dark fantasy from the game “Doom” that David Cullen mentions later on in the book. But how did they get this dark fantasy is the real question, and this was through the pressure the game put on Eric. Cullen described Eric as “one that always wanted to go with the flow and be the cool kid in school” and this game's story implied just that, if you have a gun and kill people you are “cool” not only did this mislead Eric and change his personality but Eric then pressured Dylan, not only with developing dark fantasies but also Dylan's personality, the way he dressed up etc (page 154) All of this evidence can implies that teenagers are pressured by the new fictional violent games, they don't understand the true abuse the guns cause, and when they don't understand that they do shooting like Eric and Dylan did. Not only are video games pressuring teenagers and sometimes even adults, but sometimes once one person is pressured and manipulated they spread the same pressure to others around them we can see this from the way Eric manipulated and pressured Dylan to change his thinking.
On the other hand there are many that say that these new fictional violent video game approaches actually make the games more fun, and addictive and some articles even suggest that if fun fictional violent games keep on being sold it could keep gamers hooked on their consoles/computers and reduce the pressures to buy or use guns. Though this is true and these new fictional games are infact more entertaining and addictive what is it too stop one from doing it in real life, infact we did see the Columbine shooters who were “addicted” to games such as these come out and cause shootings. At the end we must understand that the video game industry is making millions of dollars from these new fictional games that promote owning a gun indirectly, and if more and more people start believing and learning from video games we might see an increased number of gun users, eventually causing more shootings, may it be by “accident” or on purpose the government should keep a watch on the video game industry. It is a powerful one.
The next big media industry that pressures people into getting guns is social media. Social media is a great thing, infact I am sure than many including me could not imagine their lives without social media! It is a great thing, in connects people from one end of a country all the way to the other, actually it can connect someone from one side of the world to the other side as well! Now that's quite fascinating but on social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter there are many strangers. And one of the great powers of the social media platforms in our day and age is to change someone's identity and this is what many of the strangers on social media do, especially to the young teenagers out there. Often we are scrolling down the notifications area on our Twitter page or Instagram page and notice maybe a “trending now” post or something to that matter, and many times we see guns present in the photo, and captions on the photo such as “love this thing, had so much fun” but for many teenagers this may be misleading. As many know the teenage ages are when you are at your most curious, and coming across pictures like this can tempt or pressure you to own a gun, so you can feel the same experience they are feeling, but you don't know what type of person they are and this could be super powerful because these strangers who post photos of guns could drastically change your personality. Seeing others using guns could make you want to try using them as well, and well if you don't have proper supervision or use it at the wrong time there could be many problems caused. Nonetheless social media is a great place to promote your interests, I know that many of my friends and I post or tweet pictures of me doing things I love. And for some shooting with guns in a firing range may be their hobby, but when images like this surf the internet where there are millions of active kids, it could raise many eyebrows and instigate many to try using guns. Social media is also great for connecting with friends and many kids don't connect with anyone but their friends as their school teaches them which is great but for those that do go outside their friend circle they notice that social media has many trends that people act on, gun is one of the small but powerful trends in the social media world that could influence/pressure people to join in on. We see that when there is something new on social media (a trend) many start to follow it especially teenagers, an example of this is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, it was a small trend that started but as it surfed social media more and more, kids kept on trying it. This could be the same case with guns, right now it just a small trend but if governments don't watch over social media this trend could catch onto many young teenagers and cause worldwide issues.
The last big form of media that pressures the public into owning guns is Movies and/or TV shows. Nearly everyone at some point in their life have watched a movie or a tv show with friends or families, and about 50% of the time movies or tv shows portray guns. Often the cool or the big men in the movies have guns.This can make many young viewers of the movie or tv show think a certain way, and many times it makes the public think that if you have a gun you are “cool”, though not one movie make this change in people, this change comes over time as you watch more movies spreading the same message (having guns makes you cool) Examples of such messages can be found in movies such as fast and furious, and tv shows such as arrow. However on the other hand sometimes movies do show that people who think they are cool with guns etc show the downfall of that person. Though that is true and is good that some movies are spreading the message that guns can sometimes lead to downfall we notice more that owning a gun is associated with your status and how “cool” you are. What the movie industry should do is make more movies and tv shows that are aimed at kids and show how sometimes having guns is bad and how much harm it can cause to the owners of the guns and people around them.
Though there are many that think the rising rate of gun violence is related to the growing population, and media is a innocent platform that does not have an impact on people's on people's perspective on guns but media is one of the biggest influences that force people to get guns. Everyday we see stories of young people using guns, killing innocents around us, people who are kids and can't defend themselves, people who are too scared to fight back. And about 70% the time these serial killers don't really meant to do it, it's not them acting out on their behalf, it's the repeated influence that these people get from media and we can see evidence of this from nearly every news site that reports on what influenced the murders to perform actions that they did. Now the media does not need to be stopped but it does need to be controlled, and this is critical, if you want your kids and their family to grow up in a safe environment where they are not given exposure to this, we need to start controlling the media. Because if we don't change the media now, it will be too late, there will be too many murders on the loose to stop, and nothing we can do, but that's the future of us doing the wrong thing, if we however work together and and make petitions to control media we can live in our dream world. As for video games, we must have a team of professionals that carefully evaluate the violent video games before the hit the markets and have millions playing them, we must ask violent video games to go back to their roots and once again show how harmful guns are through video games like they did back in the day. As for social media’s we must start to restrict pictures of guns or any hazardous items. For instance if there is a picture of a gun posted it should be striked and taken down, we should give each account 3 strikes and if they exceed the strike limit we shall permanently ban their account. This will encourage people to not post photos of guns that will influence others to get them because no one wants their account permanently banned. Lastly we need to change Hollywood, we must stop showing guns and power together, instead maybe show how guns give temporary power but in the long term we should show the harsh consequences, when doing this we should target the the younger audience, so that from an early age we can start to teach kids that these guns are bad if this done people will have that idea engraved in their heads. I strongly believe that if these actions are taken as soons as possible we can still have a sustainable, safe future. But what we should not do instead is ban media. Media is a great resource and we have come to the day and age where we kind of need it in our life, it provides entertainment, connects people and much more. If we can control media we can have a sustainable tomorrow.
Change starts with us, let's start now.
Lord of the Wonder
Two books, two characters, two different physical problems, one problem being faced, two different outcomes. That is the comparison between two famous young adult books; Wonder by RJ Palacio and Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Two characters, Auggie Pullman from Wonder and Piggy from Lord of the Flies are characters much different to their counterparts. The reason being they are physically different. Piggy being fat and unfit and Auggie having a birth defect to his face. Because of this, they have the consequence of getting bullied a lot. Though at the end, they are treated differently and remembered differently. Auggie was a hero and was accepted in the community while Piggy fell to his death and the others in regretted not using him and treating better. So because of this my claim is that other characters should accept others for who they are and not judged and that it can lead to different consequences.
Now both Auggie and Piggy are similar in terms of having a physical feature different to the other characters in their respective books because of having a birth defect and being fat respectively. Because of this, they face the problem of being bullied. A lot. For example on page 24 in Lord of the Flies, some of the boys were doing a task and Piggy offered to help but then Ralph (another boy) replied strictly that he is “no good for a job like this”. Jack, another boy replies to Piggy, “We don’t want you”, “Three’s enough.” In the meantime just after that, light flashed on Piggy’s glasses and replied to the others, “I was with him when he found the conch. I was with him before anyone else was.” Though after that statement, the others did not pay any attention. This is a great example as this is scene happens early on and that this scene directly goes back to the claim as Piggy is not accepted to do a job because of being fat. Wonder shows a similar example to this too. On page 30 in Wonder, Palacio wrote: I started to follow her, but Julian cut right in front of me, which actually made me stumble backwards. “Oops, sorry about that!” Said Julian. But could I tell you from the way he looked at me that we wasn’t really sorry at all. Though Julian did a little thing to Auggie, this scene is a great comparison to the previous scene stated in Lord of the Flies. In the Wonder scene, Auggie gets tripped on purpose like Piggy getting told off on purpose in that scene. Both get targeted because of their physical differences to their counterparts. Also something both authors do in those scenes is that they use these sorts of scenes in the beginning to hint a problem in the relationship between characters in their books. In other words it means that the authors are giving a trace of evidence to the reader on how fierce the relationships can get. In both books, Piggy and Auggie do not get along with somebody in the book with Piggy not getting along with Jack at all and Auggie continuing to get troubled by Julian. So to conclude both books have similar scenes were a character does not get accepted into being themselves early on in the book.
Now there were hints of bullying on the character because of who they are. But authors like Golding and Palacio can pull of tricks of their sleeves. See even though Auggie and Piggy get bullied at the start, they have different ending to how they are treated. Let’s start with Piggy. Piggy is not accepted throughout the book even though he fought his heart out but fell to his death. In that scene Golding wrote: Ralph sat down and reflected. “Think” he said. What was the sensible thing to do?, there was no Piggy to talk sense. There was no solemn assembly for debate nor dignity in the group. Now though it is not the death scene of Piggy, it is a scene where one of the characters regret not using Piggy to his potential and not accepting who he was. Wonder has a direct scene that has the complete opposite turn around to how the Lord of the Flies ended. This was the emotional ending from one: Without further ado, this year I am very proud to award the Henry Ward Beecher award medal to the student whose quiet strength has carried up most hearts. “So will August Pullman please come up to receive this award.” This was a more jubilant ending to the book but most importantly this was the the most emotional scene as Auggie fought his heart out throughout the book and then has finally won hearts. This scene at the end is also completely opposite to the ending of the Lord of the Flies though the foundation came from the issue of bullying as I explained in the first paragraph. Coming back to the claim on how characters should accept each other, we need to realise even though both characters get bullied, there can be changes and those changes can lead to different consequences like the ones we see in these examples. From what we could see with the beginnings and ends we can clearly see that the way the others in the Lord of the Flies treated Piggy stayed constant throughout the book and the way the others in Wonder treated Auggie changed positively throughout the book. If it weren't for that change then Auggie would have not even won that award. Also something that can take into account when comparing the endings are the other characters. In Lord of the Flies, all of the other boys had the goal of just surviving and believed the strongest people are needed to do so also since they were stuck on a deserted island during World War II, there could have been a lack of education the boys had got so that is why Piggy was not accepted. In Wonder how ever I feel that most characters just accepted who Wonder was and because of their education experience even though they might have not accepted him at their first impression, they did accept him afterwards because they got used to it. So to finish of even though two characters faced the same problem, they way they are treated and accepted can impact the consequence at the end.
So in conclusion, other characters in books should accept other characters for who they are and their differences and the way they act with them can lead to different consequences. Positive or Negative.
Sexism In The Modern World
Misogyny is definitely not a new problem in society. It has been around for millennia. In today's day and age women are able to get jobs, occupy positions of power and be independent but however, the increasing cases of mistreatment and violence against women make this a cause for alarm. Sexism is still a problem in the modern world, although women have spoken up about sexism being an issue with movements in the 1960’s and 70’s, women today are still facing unequal pay, objectification and sexual harassment.
An example of sexism in the modern world is that most women are being paid substantially less than men. Congress passed the equal pay act in 1963. However major gender pay disparities still exist more than 50 years after that act was passed. Although there are great variations among individual salaries, on average women are being paid just 79 cents to every dollar a man makes. This makes things like paying off student debt harder for most women. Men and women both pay the same amount of money for tuition, automobiles, houses, and yet women are being paid substantially less than men, this makes it more difficult for women to gain financial independence. Some politicians argue that equal pay acts already made it illegal to discriminate on gender, and that any further legislation is unnecessary. Others also argue that women are taking lower paying jobs than men so this statistic is misleading.
Another reason that sexism is still a problem is that women are being objectified. An actress dressed in a black crewneck and jeans videoed herself walking around New York City for ten hours. “Over one hundred instances of verbal street harassment took place within ten hours, involving people of all backgrounds. This doesn’t include the countless winks, whistles, etc.” After the video was uploaded the actress received numerous rape threats online.
The Huffington post interviewed New Yorkers about their experiences with verbal street harassment and being harassed. Some men in the video tried to justify their verbal assault, saying “If you have a beautiful body, why can’t I say something?” The women in the video explained how uncomfortable and how unsafe being verbally assaulted makes them feel. One woman commented “I think there should be a more respectful way to approach women”. While they were interviewing a young women about being verbally harassed on the streets, an older man came up and grabbed her shoulder, the women responding “Sorry sir” and trying to get loose from his grip. Only after one of the interviewers went up to the old man, he let go of her.
Verbal harassment on the streets is an under researched topic but it’s clear from the few studies that exist that it is a significant and prevalent problem. In 2014, SSH had commissioned a 2,000 person survey in America. The survey found that over 99 percent of the female respondents said that they had experienced some form of verbal street assault and or harassment - only three women out of the 916 respondents said they had not.
Many women are being taken advantage of and are raped. The death of the gang rape victim in Delhi on December 2012 had sparked a collective outrage against sexual violence in india, with month long protests wide spread around the region. Even after all the protests and laws against sexual harassment women and girls are still at risk. A new campus sexual assault survey from the Association of American Universities finds that one in four female undergraduates in a new survey of 150,000 students at 27 colleges reported being a victim of sexual assault or misconduct.
Does a women deserve to get raped because of the way she dresses? Photos of scantily dressed women on Facebook were accompanied with accusatory comments. One of the many were: “She’s asking to get raped… don’t blame the rapists” and “Most of the time, the victims asked for it”. This shows that the people leaving these comments have the mentality that rape is acceptable, as long as the victim was “asking for it”, it reinforces the notion that it is not the rapist's fault for raping girls but it’s the victim's fault. In parts of the world victims of rape are being blamed and punished. The fact that not only some people, but some countries have this ignorant mindset is unbelievable. A victim of rape is not responsible for the rapists actions, and should not be held accountable.
An example of sexism in the modern world is that most women are being paid substantially less than men. Congress passed the equal pay act in 1963. However major gender pay disparities still exist more than 50 years after that act was passed. Although there are great variations among individual salaries, on average women are being paid just 79 cents to every dollar a man makes. This makes things like paying off student debt harder for most women. Men and women both pay the same amount of money for tuition, automobiles, houses, and yet women are being paid substantially less than men, this makes it more difficult for women to gain financial independence. Some politicians argue that equal pay acts already made it illegal to discriminate on gender, and that any further legislation is unnecessary. Others also argue that women are taking lower paying jobs than men so this statistic is misleading.
Another reason that sexism is still a problem is that women are being objectified. An actress dressed in a black crewneck and jeans videoed herself walking around New York City for ten hours. “Over one hundred instances of verbal street harassment took place within ten hours, involving people of all backgrounds. This doesn’t include the countless winks, whistles, etc.” After the video was uploaded the actress received numerous rape threats online.
The Huffington post interviewed New Yorkers about their experiences with verbal street harassment and being harassed. Some men in the video tried to justify their verbal assault, saying “If you have a beautiful body, why can’t I say something?” The women in the video explained how uncomfortable and how unsafe being verbally assaulted makes them feel. One woman commented “I think there should be a more respectful way to approach women”. While they were interviewing a young women about being verbally harassed on the streets, an older man came up and grabbed her shoulder, the women responding “Sorry sir” and trying to get loose from his grip. Only after one of the interviewers went up to the old man, he let go of her.
Verbal harassment on the streets is an under researched topic but it’s clear from the few studies that exist that it is a significant and prevalent problem. In 2014, SSH had commissioned a 2,000 person survey in America. The survey found that over 99 percent of the female respondents said that they had experienced some form of verbal street assault and or harassment - only three women out of the 916 respondents said they had not.
Many women are being taken advantage of and are raped. The death of the gang rape victim in Delhi on December 2012 had sparked a collective outrage against sexual violence in india, with month long protests wide spread around the region. Even after all the protests and laws against sexual harassment women and girls are still at risk. A new campus sexual assault survey from the Association of American Universities finds that one in four female undergraduates in a new survey of 150,000 students at 27 colleges reported being a victim of sexual assault or misconduct.
Does a women deserve to get raped because of the way she dresses? Photos of scantily dressed women on Facebook were accompanied with accusatory comments. One of the many were: “She’s asking to get raped… don’t blame the rapists” and “Most of the time, the victims asked for it”. This shows that the people leaving these comments have the mentality that rape is acceptable, as long as the victim was “asking for it”, it reinforces the notion that it is not the rapist's fault for raping girls but it’s the victim's fault. In parts of the world victims of rape are being blamed and punished. The fact that not only some people, but some countries have this ignorant mindset is unbelievable. A victim of rape is not responsible for the rapists actions, and should not be held accountable.
Being Gifted is Actually a Disadvantage
“You’re so smart!” “You worked so hard!” Which of these do you think feels better? The former proves to be a popular choice. However, it may not actually be the best thing for you or your children.
Many believe that praising qualities like smartness or cleverness will motivate children to perform better, it actually might not. Children without natural academic ability can actually benefit from feedback from teachers and parents that don't promote innate traits. This type of feedback causes a growth mindset and benefits children by making them more hardworking and perseverance, teaching them to learn from criticism and their mistake, and overall having a higher level of achievement.
Practice makes perfect, but you don’t need practice if you’re born perfect.
And there are these children, who are born ‘perfect’. Born with natural academic ability so they don’t even have to try to succeed. Compliments of their smartness and natural talent follow them around but these are only going to hurt these ’gifted’ kids in the long run. In fact, praising children for their persistence or strategies (rather than for intelligence) emphasises hard work and the continuation of these behaviours in the future. If you praise children for their hard work and perseverance now it will motivate them to keep having these behavioural patterns in the future which is exactly what will benefit them the most. When faced with challenge they will be less likely to give up and will believe with more time and effort they can overcome these struggles.
Now, some may claim that anyone can be hard working, what difference does praising this in specific over other traits, like cleverness, make? However, attributes like intelligence, smartness and cleverness provide negative connotations and the, “implication that such traits are innate and fixed. [This] leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unmotivated to learn.” (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015) What this evinces is that praising traits like smartness and intelligence, in naturally academically talented or when success occurs for non-academically talented kids, can actually demotivate students.
This can cause children praised on their smartness to be, “much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective performers as a result. (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011) This all comes down to the fact that improvement and mastery instinctively comes down to, “intense commitment for extended lengths of time in the face of obstacles (Carol S. Dweck, Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective, 2008),” It’s about working hard and being resilient when things don’t go well for you and this simply doesn’t happen in schools to kids who naturally excel. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that academically gifted and naturally academically talented kids won’t succeed, it just means praising qualities that can be improved with time and effort and learning from criticism.
Learning from criticism is one major advantage of a growth mindset. Children without natural academic talent often feel like they have many disadvantages and weaknesses but these can all be solved with a growth mindset which promotes learning from mistakes and criticism.
Children with natural academic talent are usually the ones who worry about how much intelligence they possess and compare themselves to others. They are, “often afraid to make mistakes and reveal inadequacies (Carol S. Dweck, Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective, 2008),” and will, “[avoid] failure at all costs [to maintain] the sense of being smart or skilled (Maria Popova, Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape Our Lives, .” These youngsters are so accustomed to being praised for their smartness and intelligence that they will actually look for easier tasks instead of a challenge because they want to keep up the impression of themselves being smart. This happens because they believe that, “you’re either naturally great or will never be great (Derek Sivers, Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset, 2014),” and that ability is innate and natural. This signifies that if youth with fixed mindsets don’t succeed at first, they assume they have failed and will never be able to succeed.
This boils down to the fact that children with a fixed-mindset want to prove that they have certain qualities and, “mistakes crack their self-confidence,”(Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015) and take away their chance to prove and showcase their ‘natural gifts’. This contrasts to how youth with a growth mindset react to feedback and the judgement that, “flaws are just a TO-DO list of things to improve (Derek Sivers, Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset, 2014).” With students who are not naturally ‘smart’ or gifted, they have to work harder to do as well as the gifted kids so when they are praised for their hard work they understand that qualities like intelligence can be improved with effort and that, “attributing poor performance to a lack of ability depresses motivation (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” simply because they themselves have experienced a boost in their intelligence through hard work.
Praises oriented towards effort and hard work are more beneficial because these attributes are seen as things that can be changed. Intelligence and other qualities that are often seen as innate can be improved with effort which eventually leads to a higher level of success.
“Our society worships talent and many people assume that possessing superior intelligence or ability - [...] is a recipe for success (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” This is a myth. Children without natural academic talent are actually more likely to have a higher level of success and fulfilment in the future.
In fact, children with so-called superior intelligence usually stay away from challenge and stick to what they already know thus lessening their overall skill and reducing their chance of a high level of success. This is primarily caused because naturally academically talented kids can often feel even more pressure to perform and live up to their ‘smart’ impression. These leads to them tending to, “avoid challenges because [they] make mistakes more likely and looking smart less so (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” This happens solely because they, “see their abilities as innate and unchangeable (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011).”
A growth mindset provides the perspective that your abilities can be improved if you try hard enough. The problem with the fixed mindset is that these kids grow up to be, “far too hard on themselves and [...] give up too soon. (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011)” They start believing that if they fail at something once, they will never be able to do it. Leading to them inescapably trying out fewer things and taking on minimum opportunities causing them to have less success and decreased amount of fulfilment.
Praising children and especially non-naturally gifted children on things that they did rather than something they are supposedly born with will inevitably give them a higher level of success in the future.
Carol S. Dweck and Claudia M. Mueller ran an experiment where they gave children 3 tests. The first with easy problems, the second with difficult and the third with easy problems again. After the first set, they praised half the kids on their smartness and half the kids on their hard work. The students then did a set of challenging problems where most of the kids couldn’t even solve one of the problems. Then the students completed another round of easier problems similar to the first set. From their experiments, Dweck and Mueller concluded that, “children who were praised for their smartness did 25% worse compared to the group who was praised for their hard work.” This proves that even one simple comment and challenging problems could alter these children’s beliefs in their own skill and make them question their ability.
If there are all these downsides to this type of feedback, why are parents and teachers still doing it? Simply because they don’t know. For generations of students and teachers, praising smartness, cleverness and teaching kids to aspire to be geniuses has been assumed to be the best way to ‘motivate’ students. But recent research has proved that the supposed best type of feedback might actually be the worst. Instead, parents and teachers should compliment skills that correlate with a growth mindset.
Many believe that praising qualities like smartness or cleverness will motivate children to perform better, but it actually doesn’t. Children without natural academic ability can actually benefit from feedback from teachers and parents that don't promote innate traits. This type of feedback causes a growth mindset. A growth mindset has many benefits and ensures success in the future. So, the next time you have to give praise or feedback to a student don’t opt for the easier, shallow comment, “You’re so smart” or “You’re so clever”. These remarks are trivial and serve only one purpose. To hurt these children’s abilities. The preferable and superior method would be to praise qualities that can be acquired through time and effort. Qualities that can be improved. These are the things that will lead to a growth mindset and cause students to become more hardworking and perseverant, to learn from criticism and overall having a higher level of achievement and success.
Bibliography:
Popova, Maria. "Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape Our Lives." Brain Pickings. N.p., 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/29/carol-dweck-mindset/>.
Dweck, Carol S. "Duke TIP." Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective. N.p., 21 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://tip.duke.edu/node/888>.
Halvorson, Heidi Grant. "The Trouble With Bright Kids." Harvard Business Review. N.p., 21 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://hbr.org/2011/11/the-trouble-with-bright-kids>.
Dweck, Carol S. "The Secret to Raising Smart Kids." Scientific American. N.p., 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 12 June 2016.
Many believe that praising qualities like smartness or cleverness will motivate children to perform better, it actually might not. Children without natural academic ability can actually benefit from feedback from teachers and parents that don't promote innate traits. This type of feedback causes a growth mindset and benefits children by making them more hardworking and perseverance, teaching them to learn from criticism and their mistake, and overall having a higher level of achievement.
Practice makes perfect, but you don’t need practice if you’re born perfect.
And there are these children, who are born ‘perfect’. Born with natural academic ability so they don’t even have to try to succeed. Compliments of their smartness and natural talent follow them around but these are only going to hurt these ’gifted’ kids in the long run. In fact, praising children for their persistence or strategies (rather than for intelligence) emphasises hard work and the continuation of these behaviours in the future. If you praise children for their hard work and perseverance now it will motivate them to keep having these behavioural patterns in the future which is exactly what will benefit them the most. When faced with challenge they will be less likely to give up and will believe with more time and effort they can overcome these struggles.
Now, some may claim that anyone can be hard working, what difference does praising this in specific over other traits, like cleverness, make? However, attributes like intelligence, smartness and cleverness provide negative connotations and the, “implication that such traits are innate and fixed. [This] leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unmotivated to learn.” (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015) What this evinces is that praising traits like smartness and intelligence, in naturally academically talented or when success occurs for non-academically talented kids, can actually demotivate students.
This can cause children praised on their smartness to be, “much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective performers as a result. (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011) This all comes down to the fact that improvement and mastery instinctively comes down to, “intense commitment for extended lengths of time in the face of obstacles (Carol S. Dweck, Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective, 2008),” It’s about working hard and being resilient when things don’t go well for you and this simply doesn’t happen in schools to kids who naturally excel. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that academically gifted and naturally academically talented kids won’t succeed, it just means praising qualities that can be improved with time and effort and learning from criticism.
Learning from criticism is one major advantage of a growth mindset. Children without natural academic talent often feel like they have many disadvantages and weaknesses but these can all be solved with a growth mindset which promotes learning from mistakes and criticism.
Children with natural academic talent are usually the ones who worry about how much intelligence they possess and compare themselves to others. They are, “often afraid to make mistakes and reveal inadequacies (Carol S. Dweck, Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective, 2008),” and will, “[avoid] failure at all costs [to maintain] the sense of being smart or skilled (Maria Popova, Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape Our Lives, .” These youngsters are so accustomed to being praised for their smartness and intelligence that they will actually look for easier tasks instead of a challenge because they want to keep up the impression of themselves being smart. This happens because they believe that, “you’re either naturally great or will never be great (Derek Sivers, Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset, 2014),” and that ability is innate and natural. This signifies that if youth with fixed mindsets don’t succeed at first, they assume they have failed and will never be able to succeed.
This boils down to the fact that children with a fixed-mindset want to prove that they have certain qualities and, “mistakes crack their self-confidence,”(Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015) and take away their chance to prove and showcase their ‘natural gifts’. This contrasts to how youth with a growth mindset react to feedback and the judgement that, “flaws are just a TO-DO list of things to improve (Derek Sivers, Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset, 2014).” With students who are not naturally ‘smart’ or gifted, they have to work harder to do as well as the gifted kids so when they are praised for their hard work they understand that qualities like intelligence can be improved with effort and that, “attributing poor performance to a lack of ability depresses motivation (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” simply because they themselves have experienced a boost in their intelligence through hard work.
Praises oriented towards effort and hard work are more beneficial because these attributes are seen as things that can be changed. Intelligence and other qualities that are often seen as innate can be improved with effort which eventually leads to a higher level of success.
“Our society worships talent and many people assume that possessing superior intelligence or ability - [...] is a recipe for success (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” This is a myth. Children without natural academic talent are actually more likely to have a higher level of success and fulfilment in the future.
In fact, children with so-called superior intelligence usually stay away from challenge and stick to what they already know thus lessening their overall skill and reducing their chance of a high level of success. This is primarily caused because naturally academically talented kids can often feel even more pressure to perform and live up to their ‘smart’ impression. These leads to them tending to, “avoid challenges because [they] make mistakes more likely and looking smart less so (Carol S. Dweck, The Secret To Raising Smart Kids, 2015).” This happens solely because they, “see their abilities as innate and unchangeable (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011).”
A growth mindset provides the perspective that your abilities can be improved if you try hard enough. The problem with the fixed mindset is that these kids grow up to be, “far too hard on themselves and [...] give up too soon. (Heidi Grant Halvorson, The Trouble With Bright Kids, 2011)” They start believing that if they fail at something once, they will never be able to do it. Leading to them inescapably trying out fewer things and taking on minimum opportunities causing them to have less success and decreased amount of fulfilment.
Praising children and especially non-naturally gifted children on things that they did rather than something they are supposedly born with will inevitably give them a higher level of success in the future.
Carol S. Dweck and Claudia M. Mueller ran an experiment where they gave children 3 tests. The first with easy problems, the second with difficult and the third with easy problems again. After the first set, they praised half the kids on their smartness and half the kids on their hard work. The students then did a set of challenging problems where most of the kids couldn’t even solve one of the problems. Then the students completed another round of easier problems similar to the first set. From their experiments, Dweck and Mueller concluded that, “children who were praised for their smartness did 25% worse compared to the group who was praised for their hard work.” This proves that even one simple comment and challenging problems could alter these children’s beliefs in their own skill and make them question their ability.
If there are all these downsides to this type of feedback, why are parents and teachers still doing it? Simply because they don’t know. For generations of students and teachers, praising smartness, cleverness and teaching kids to aspire to be geniuses has been assumed to be the best way to ‘motivate’ students. But recent research has proved that the supposed best type of feedback might actually be the worst. Instead, parents and teachers should compliment skills that correlate with a growth mindset.
Many believe that praising qualities like smartness or cleverness will motivate children to perform better, but it actually doesn’t. Children without natural academic ability can actually benefit from feedback from teachers and parents that don't promote innate traits. This type of feedback causes a growth mindset. A growth mindset has many benefits and ensures success in the future. So, the next time you have to give praise or feedback to a student don’t opt for the easier, shallow comment, “You’re so smart” or “You’re so clever”. These remarks are trivial and serve only one purpose. To hurt these children’s abilities. The preferable and superior method would be to praise qualities that can be acquired through time and effort. Qualities that can be improved. These are the things that will lead to a growth mindset and cause students to become more hardworking and perseverant, to learn from criticism and overall having a higher level of achievement and success.
Bibliography:
Popova, Maria. "Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape Our Lives." Brain Pickings. N.p., 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/29/carol-dweck-mindset/>.
Dweck, Carol S. "Duke TIP." Giftedness: A Motivational Perspective. N.p., 21 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://tip.duke.edu/node/888>.
Halvorson, Heidi Grant. "The Trouble With Bright Kids." Harvard Business Review. N.p., 21 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 June 2016. <https://hbr.org/2011/11/the-trouble-with-bright-kids>.
Dweck, Carol S. "The Secret to Raising Smart Kids." Scientific American. N.p., 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 12 June 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)