Showing posts with label position paper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label position paper. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 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.
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.
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.
The Good Side of Psychopaths
Babies are sometimes described as self-absorbed or aggravating but the fact is that they know the difference between right and wrong at merely three months old. Suppose I have presented your six-month-old child with a scenario, a little girl is struggling to, let’s say, open a box. One character will come along and help the little girl to open the box but another one will pass her kicking the box over. Research from Yale University shows that your child will have an undeniable preference towards the ‘good character.’ Children as young as three-month-olds show a preference for the ‘good guys’ as opposed to ‘bad guys.’ Today, when someone participates in an action that is considered wrong, for example, murders, parents are blamed for that action just as much as the individual is. They are blamed ‘for not raising their child correctly.’ While that can be true to a certain extent, as parents are essentially role models for their children, from a young age, they have a sense of morality, So when psychopaths or someone participate in unethical behaviours it is a brain development problem. Therefore, nobody should be blaming the parents of psychopaths or the individual themselves for the immoral actions.
Every individual develops a sense of wrong and right before they even turn one year old. Research is stating that no matter the gender or age they show signs of empathy, compassion, and equality. According to David Derbyshire in the article “We’re born to be moral.” states that after an experiment was done by Yale University where children are shown two characters - a good one and a bad one and the ‘five-month-olds preferred the good guy [...] the one who rolled the ball back.’ (Derbyshire, 2010) This shows that even when they are young they can distinguish the difference between right and wrong, most likely based on the actions they observe society practices. Essentially, this shows as that, as a sense of morality is embedded in them from birth, it is not likely to simply grow out of that and as a result, start performing immoral actions. However, immoral actions can be triggered from a lack of care received from a parent. Christopher Bergland from Psychology Today states that “childhood neglect increases the adult risk for morbidity and mortality” (Bergland, 2013) However, this doesn’t mean that they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Anyone, psychopath or not, committing these unethical actions is sure to feel guilt and a feeling that they have done something wrong. This brings us back to the point that babies have a sense of morality since birth, and that is built on while growing up. Take a maternity ward as an example. It is loud because all of the babies are crying but it is not necessarily because they miss their mother. Paul Bloom says that ‘babies cry when others do out of compassion. It isn’t a dumb reaction to noise.’ (Bloom, 2013) None of those babies are even slightly aware of what they may be in the future, a psychopath or psychologist. Logically it makes sense too. If I put you in a situation with one other person, let’s call them Person A. You see Person A in pain; you want Person A’s pain to go away; then your pain, for Person A will go away too. So, the reality is that psychopaths aren't cold-blooded and they can and do know the feeling of remorse regardless of a parent's presence in their life.
As we have seen, babies are born with a sense of morality, so why do psychopaths go around performing actions that are considered immoral? The fact is that they have a brain development problem and they simply are not able to feel associated with the emotions that the aftermath of committing a crime. A researcher from Yale University - Paul Bloom, author of Just Babies : The Origins of Good and Evil states that ‘psychopaths may understand the difference between right and wrong but doesn’t feel any connection between those emotions.’ (Bloom, 2013) This is the reasoning behind their absurd actions and the lack of guilt they feel after committing a crime. Ultimately this is why psychopaths continue to do iniquitous things without thoroughly understanding that what they are doing is hurting others. In fact, ‘psychopaths can’t recognize fear let alone react to it.’ This is essentially another reason as to why psychopaths act the way they do. Fear is a triggering emotion for many. If someone is afraid of them in a given situation, chances are they will feel guilty and be much more empathetic and compassionate towards that one person. So, how do you expect to react and empathize with the fear or distress of others if you have never experienced it? Christian Keysers from Psychology Today in the article ‘Inside the Mind of a Psychopath’ proves this after showing evidence after an experiment was done on psychopaths. The results showed that ‘their empathy [in certain brain regions] was reduced, [which explains] why they committed such terrible crimes without feeling guilt.’ (Keysers, 2013) On the other hand, this doesn’t justify the actions psychopaths perform which are undoubtedly wrong. They can, in fact, empathize with people if they choose too. It’s like they have a switch which nobody can control. How exactly does that work? Just like we feel more empathetic towards our friends feeling as opposed to someone’s feeling across the globe. It just goes to show that a parent has little impact on what their child becomes when their child already does not feel associated with emotions that should determine who they become. And that they can’t control the ‘switch’ between their child’s emotions.
Taken as a whole, it is important for society to stop seeing psychopaths as monsters and stop blaming parents for the actions of any individual. Everyone should start to understand the psychological aspect of the actions of our own. It must be understood that parents are not responsible for one’s belief system. The situation I have put your baby in and the choice they make is entirely up to them. After I have shown your six-month-old child with the scenario, I’ll ask you to cover your eyes as to not have an impact on which character your child will choose. Despite the lack of guidance, your six-month-old will receive, they will still choose the good character ; the one who help open the box. In addition, when your child grows up and sees Person A in pain they will want their pain to go away as a natural human feeling. Yet, they are similar to psychopaths in a slight way as they can use their ‘switch’ to change the level of empathy they are giving people. All in all, psychopaths are not responsible for their emotions as it is something they can not control. They also do not have a strong moral core so their parents have nothing to do with their actions and should not be blamed for the things they do. Instead, society needs to start understanding these people who, at the end of the day, are still human and we should be willing to help them reach a better place because it is a problem that can be fixed.
- MailOnline, David Derbyshire for. "We're Born to Be Moral: Babies 'can Tell Good from Evil at Six Months'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 10 May 2010. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Bergland, Christopher. "Parental Warmth Is Crucial for a Child's Well-Being."Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Keysers, Christian. "Inside the Mind of a Psychopath – Empathic, But Not Always." Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Bloom, Paul. Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Every individual develops a sense of wrong and right before they even turn one year old. Research is stating that no matter the gender or age they show signs of empathy, compassion, and equality. According to David Derbyshire in the article “We’re born to be moral.” states that after an experiment was done by Yale University where children are shown two characters - a good one and a bad one and the ‘five-month-olds preferred the good guy [...] the one who rolled the ball back.’ (Derbyshire, 2010) This shows that even when they are young they can distinguish the difference between right and wrong, most likely based on the actions they observe society practices. Essentially, this shows as that, as a sense of morality is embedded in them from birth, it is not likely to simply grow out of that and as a result, start performing immoral actions. However, immoral actions can be triggered from a lack of care received from a parent. Christopher Bergland from Psychology Today states that “childhood neglect increases the adult risk for morbidity and mortality” (Bergland, 2013) However, this doesn’t mean that they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Anyone, psychopath or not, committing these unethical actions is sure to feel guilt and a feeling that they have done something wrong. This brings us back to the point that babies have a sense of morality since birth, and that is built on while growing up. Take a maternity ward as an example. It is loud because all of the babies are crying but it is not necessarily because they miss their mother. Paul Bloom says that ‘babies cry when others do out of compassion. It isn’t a dumb reaction to noise.’ (Bloom, 2013) None of those babies are even slightly aware of what they may be in the future, a psychopath or psychologist. Logically it makes sense too. If I put you in a situation with one other person, let’s call them Person A. You see Person A in pain; you want Person A’s pain to go away; then your pain, for Person A will go away too. So, the reality is that psychopaths aren't cold-blooded and they can and do know the feeling of remorse regardless of a parent's presence in their life.
As we have seen, babies are born with a sense of morality, so why do psychopaths go around performing actions that are considered immoral? The fact is that they have a brain development problem and they simply are not able to feel associated with the emotions that the aftermath of committing a crime. A researcher from Yale University - Paul Bloom, author of Just Babies : The Origins of Good and Evil states that ‘psychopaths may understand the difference between right and wrong but doesn’t feel any connection between those emotions.’ (Bloom, 2013) This is the reasoning behind their absurd actions and the lack of guilt they feel after committing a crime. Ultimately this is why psychopaths continue to do iniquitous things without thoroughly understanding that what they are doing is hurting others. In fact, ‘psychopaths can’t recognize fear let alone react to it.’ This is essentially another reason as to why psychopaths act the way they do. Fear is a triggering emotion for many. If someone is afraid of them in a given situation, chances are they will feel guilty and be much more empathetic and compassionate towards that one person. So, how do you expect to react and empathize with the fear or distress of others if you have never experienced it? Christian Keysers from Psychology Today in the article ‘Inside the Mind of a Psychopath’ proves this after showing evidence after an experiment was done on psychopaths. The results showed that ‘their empathy [in certain brain regions] was reduced, [which explains] why they committed such terrible crimes without feeling guilt.’ (Keysers, 2013) On the other hand, this doesn’t justify the actions psychopaths perform which are undoubtedly wrong. They can, in fact, empathize with people if they choose too. It’s like they have a switch which nobody can control. How exactly does that work? Just like we feel more empathetic towards our friends feeling as opposed to someone’s feeling across the globe. It just goes to show that a parent has little impact on what their child becomes when their child already does not feel associated with emotions that should determine who they become. And that they can’t control the ‘switch’ between their child’s emotions.
Taken as a whole, it is important for society to stop seeing psychopaths as monsters and stop blaming parents for the actions of any individual. Everyone should start to understand the psychological aspect of the actions of our own. It must be understood that parents are not responsible for one’s belief system. The situation I have put your baby in and the choice they make is entirely up to them. After I have shown your six-month-old child with the scenario, I’ll ask you to cover your eyes as to not have an impact on which character your child will choose. Despite the lack of guidance, your six-month-old will receive, they will still choose the good character ; the one who help open the box. In addition, when your child grows up and sees Person A in pain they will want their pain to go away as a natural human feeling. Yet, they are similar to psychopaths in a slight way as they can use their ‘switch’ to change the level of empathy they are giving people. All in all, psychopaths are not responsible for their emotions as it is something they can not control. They also do not have a strong moral core so their parents have nothing to do with their actions and should not be blamed for the things they do. Instead, society needs to start understanding these people who, at the end of the day, are still human and we should be willing to help them reach a better place because it is a problem that can be fixed.
- MailOnline, David Derbyshire for. "We're Born to Be Moral: Babies 'can Tell Good from Evil at Six Months'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 10 May 2010. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Bergland, Christopher. "Parental Warmth Is Crucial for a Child's Well-Being."Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Keysers, Christian. "Inside the Mind of a Psychopath – Empathic, But Not Always." Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
- Bloom, Paul. Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Does Hardwork Trump Education?
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” - Nelson Mandela. Throughout our lives, our parents have told us, time and time again, on the importance of education, the importance of college and that of studying. But does the amount of schooling you do really matter? Most job opportunities look for degrees rather that personality and determination and leave it up to your SAT score to see whether you will get the job or not. But what for the people who haven’t taken their SATs, or have never been to college because of their family’s low income. Do they not stand a chance to survive out in the real scary world. Is the world owned by the upper class who can afford such education? But most of all, do we take our lovely education for granted. Although some say education should be the identity of a person in the real world, I feel that people with less education and job experiences should be given the same opportunities as their more well-educated counterparts because they think our of the box, are more appreciative of their opportunities and are more likely have a growth mindset.
Think outside the box. That’s what your parents tell you when playing a board game or solving a tricky riddle. But how many of us would really apply this to the real world? Unlike a riddle, where we have nothing to lose, a gamble in our life could cost us everything, our home, our family and maybe our lives. I think that people with nothing to lose are more likely to take risks, even though it may result in financial hardship at first. But, what if you have nothing to lose, what if you are the underdog, would you be more likely to take that leap of faith and put your life in someone else’s hand. Well, statistics say yes. An experiment carried out in Harvard reflected just this, two people were placed against each other in a rigged game of monopoly. One person was given more money than the other, there were clear signs of aggression and arrogance from the richer person, but what went unnoticed for a while was the tactics of their poor counterpart. They had a higher tendency of taking financial risks, including unfair trading and border lining bankruptcy. Yes, they lost most of the time, but when the stuck gold, they struck a mine. This shows that if you have nothing to lose, you are more likely to dive into risks head first with the prospect of coming out a winner. A real life example of this is Chris Gardner, who was a door to door salesman, with a dream to get a Ferrari, a dream to become a millionaire. He took his goal of becoming a stockbroker head first without any qualifications or college education, a risk most of us wouldn’t even dream of. He recalls that “My baby and I were homeless. On occasion, we found ourself in the public bathroom of an Oakland BART station… But as long as I kept my mental focus on destinations that were ahead, destinations that I had the audacity to dream high, hold a red Ferrari of my own.” Fighting homelessness, Gardner powered on and, yes, did clinch his dream of getting a Ferrari. This shows us that risks won’t let you prosper in the short term but in the longer, if you put in hours, you will find yourself successful. A study conducted in 2008 by Sang Hyun Kim, and asst. professor at the School of Business and Administration in South Korea, showed that a person with (3 or 4 jobs worth) more job experience was 63% more likely to get a high paying job than someone with little or no job experience. This shows that thinking outside the box won’t always get you what you want, you need to get experience to get good job security. Owners feel that people with more experience are more calculated and are less likely to take risks that seem callous. But, are these the risks that help you strike gold?
“Trade your expectation for appreciation and the world changes instantly.” - Tony Robbins. The value of something is only as much as you appreciate it, education is one of those things. I think that we, more privileged people, have the tendency to take our education for granted, almost as an obligation. However, I feel like less fortunate people value their education as a luxury, and that they feel more fortunate about whatever card they are dealt, even if it may seem insignificant. ‘The Boy who Harnessed the Wind’ is an autobiography written by William Kamkwamba, now an inventor. It follows the story of his struggles to find his dream, his dream of education. Falling at the feet of the Malawian famine, he was robbed of schooling but was still persistent to learn. And to keep up with his goals he, “began a rigorous course in independent study, visiting the library in the mornings and spending the afternoons reading in the shade.” Many disagree with this point and say that the more educated you are, the more you learn about the value of education and a good job, and how it corresponds to a better life. A survey that was conducted in 2013 showed that 66% adults with no college education deemed it important, however, on the other hand, 77% of people with a college degree thought of college as a kick-starter in life. This showed that the more privileged people surprisingly showed more appreciation to the college education than the others. But, I think that you can never fully appreciate something until you experienced the struggle without it.
To be successful in life you need to physically and mentally prepare. You need to be able to adapt and grow as a person, learn from your mistakes and persevere. This is called having a growth mindset. I think people who come from financially and educationally poor backgrounds are more susceptible to have a growth mindset, rather than a fixed one. Carol Dweck, a Psychology teacher at Stanford University described having a growth mindset as, “people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point.” This is a trait seen in both William Kamkwamba, and Chris Gardner, they persevere and develop their skills, although they were different they shared one thing a love of education. Dweck mentioned this love of education in her book Mindset, stating that it is an attribute of people with a growth mindset. Having a growth mindset can help you cope and come to terms with defeat and failure in life. Many, however, feel that a fixed mindset can prove more helpful in life, many of these people are business owners. They feel that working on your strengths and ignoring your weaknesses is the way to go, having a fixed mindset makes you more worried about outcomes rather than processes. But, it cannot help turn liabilities into assets.
Many of the time people with high education protest, they say, “Why should someone with less education than me have the same job I have.” And in a way they have a point when it comes to on paper, quantitative data, they have a clear cut advantage. I mean, a Harvard degree looks good on your company’s VP or CFO. But, there are things that you can’t measure. Things that are qualitative. Things like hard work should never be ignored, personality should never be overlooked. I think that the looking for employees companies should take their eyes off the numbers, make it a more levelled playing field, give a chance. If we don’t give poverty stricken people jobs, how can we ever get rid of poverty, how can we ever take the first step towards equality.
Bibliography
Calderon, Valerie J., and Susan Sorenson. "Americans Say College Degree Leads to a Better Life." Gallup.com. N.p., 7 Apr. 2014. Web. 09 June 2016.
Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House, 2006. Print.
Gardner, Chris, Quincy Troupe, and Mim Eichler. Rivas. The Pursuit of Happyness. New York: Amistad, 2006. Print.
Kamkwamba, William, Bryan Mealer, and Elizabeth Zunon. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. N.p.: Harper Perennial, 2010. Print.
Kim, Sang Hyun. "Moderating Effects of Job Relevance and Experience." The School of Business Administration, n.d. Web.
Sivers, Derek. "Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset | Derek Sivers." Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
Think outside the box. That’s what your parents tell you when playing a board game or solving a tricky riddle. But how many of us would really apply this to the real world? Unlike a riddle, where we have nothing to lose, a gamble in our life could cost us everything, our home, our family and maybe our lives. I think that people with nothing to lose are more likely to take risks, even though it may result in financial hardship at first. But, what if you have nothing to lose, what if you are the underdog, would you be more likely to take that leap of faith and put your life in someone else’s hand. Well, statistics say yes. An experiment carried out in Harvard reflected just this, two people were placed against each other in a rigged game of monopoly. One person was given more money than the other, there were clear signs of aggression and arrogance from the richer person, but what went unnoticed for a while was the tactics of their poor counterpart. They had a higher tendency of taking financial risks, including unfair trading and border lining bankruptcy. Yes, they lost most of the time, but when the stuck gold, they struck a mine. This shows that if you have nothing to lose, you are more likely to dive into risks head first with the prospect of coming out a winner. A real life example of this is Chris Gardner, who was a door to door salesman, with a dream to get a Ferrari, a dream to become a millionaire. He took his goal of becoming a stockbroker head first without any qualifications or college education, a risk most of us wouldn’t even dream of. He recalls that “My baby and I were homeless. On occasion, we found ourself in the public bathroom of an Oakland BART station… But as long as I kept my mental focus on destinations that were ahead, destinations that I had the audacity to dream high, hold a red Ferrari of my own.” Fighting homelessness, Gardner powered on and, yes, did clinch his dream of getting a Ferrari. This shows us that risks won’t let you prosper in the short term but in the longer, if you put in hours, you will find yourself successful. A study conducted in 2008 by Sang Hyun Kim, and asst. professor at the School of Business and Administration in South Korea, showed that a person with (3 or 4 jobs worth) more job experience was 63% more likely to get a high paying job than someone with little or no job experience. This shows that thinking outside the box won’t always get you what you want, you need to get experience to get good job security. Owners feel that people with more experience are more calculated and are less likely to take risks that seem callous. But, are these the risks that help you strike gold?
“Trade your expectation for appreciation and the world changes instantly.” - Tony Robbins. The value of something is only as much as you appreciate it, education is one of those things. I think that we, more privileged people, have the tendency to take our education for granted, almost as an obligation. However, I feel like less fortunate people value their education as a luxury, and that they feel more fortunate about whatever card they are dealt, even if it may seem insignificant. ‘The Boy who Harnessed the Wind’ is an autobiography written by William Kamkwamba, now an inventor. It follows the story of his struggles to find his dream, his dream of education. Falling at the feet of the Malawian famine, he was robbed of schooling but was still persistent to learn. And to keep up with his goals he, “began a rigorous course in independent study, visiting the library in the mornings and spending the afternoons reading in the shade.” Many disagree with this point and say that the more educated you are, the more you learn about the value of education and a good job, and how it corresponds to a better life. A survey that was conducted in 2013 showed that 66% adults with no college education deemed it important, however, on the other hand, 77% of people with a college degree thought of college as a kick-starter in life. This showed that the more privileged people surprisingly showed more appreciation to the college education than the others. But, I think that you can never fully appreciate something until you experienced the struggle without it.
To be successful in life you need to physically and mentally prepare. You need to be able to adapt and grow as a person, learn from your mistakes and persevere. This is called having a growth mindset. I think people who come from financially and educationally poor backgrounds are more susceptible to have a growth mindset, rather than a fixed one. Carol Dweck, a Psychology teacher at Stanford University described having a growth mindset as, “people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point.” This is a trait seen in both William Kamkwamba, and Chris Gardner, they persevere and develop their skills, although they were different they shared one thing a love of education. Dweck mentioned this love of education in her book Mindset, stating that it is an attribute of people with a growth mindset. Having a growth mindset can help you cope and come to terms with defeat and failure in life. Many, however, feel that a fixed mindset can prove more helpful in life, many of these people are business owners. They feel that working on your strengths and ignoring your weaknesses is the way to go, having a fixed mindset makes you more worried about outcomes rather than processes. But, it cannot help turn liabilities into assets.
Many of the time people with high education protest, they say, “Why should someone with less education than me have the same job I have.” And in a way they have a point when it comes to on paper, quantitative data, they have a clear cut advantage. I mean, a Harvard degree looks good on your company’s VP or CFO. But, there are things that you can’t measure. Things that are qualitative. Things like hard work should never be ignored, personality should never be overlooked. I think that the looking for employees companies should take their eyes off the numbers, make it a more levelled playing field, give a chance. If we don’t give poverty stricken people jobs, how can we ever get rid of poverty, how can we ever take the first step towards equality.
Bibliography
Calderon, Valerie J., and Susan Sorenson. "Americans Say College Degree Leads to a Better Life." Gallup.com. N.p., 7 Apr. 2014. Web. 09 June 2016.
Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House, 2006. Print.
Gardner, Chris, Quincy Troupe, and Mim Eichler. Rivas. The Pursuit of Happyness. New York: Amistad, 2006. Print.
Kamkwamba, William, Bryan Mealer, and Elizabeth Zunon. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. N.p.: Harper Perennial, 2010. Print.
Kim, Sang Hyun. "Moderating Effects of Job Relevance and Experience." The School of Business Administration, n.d. Web.
Sivers, Derek. "Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset | Derek Sivers." Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.
Power
Power. It has the ability to ignite change and unite people but in the wrong hands, power corrupts, creates death, distorts the truth and brings sorrow. Throughout history, power has been used to create empires but also to raze them. There is always a struggle for power, no matter who, what, when or where. Those who have no power want it, and those who have power want more. “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” Said Edmund Burke, and he is not wrong. People with large amounts of power, such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, abused their power, killing millions and starting a war across nations.
Holocaust. When you see this word, you often think of the Jewish holocaust during the Second World War. But this was not the only mass killing during WWII. Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR, ordered the mass killing of 111,000 Polish ‘spies’ by the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs/ НКВД) according to Nikolai Yezhov. These Polacks were only 1.6% of the USSR, but this attack had huge consequences. In a few months, the USSR was lacking in food and workers. This lead to the mass starvation of over 6 million Ukrainians.
The NKVD raided houses and took any form of grain or other foods that they could find. All this food went to Moscow. Ukrainians were forbidden from travelling to Russia or Germany, so many turned to drastic measures. Cannibalism became common but it was still a taboo. School children would drop dead in class. Wives prostituted themselves for grain. Ukraine was so quiet, ‘if we heard a crow, we were alarmed by our own happy reactions.’ (Maria Łouinska, 1932) In the spring of 1933, people died at a rate of 10,000 per day and yet Stalin did nothing. His abuse of power had brought death and famine to his union, but he was blind to the atrocities.
Secrets. We all have them, but some are bigger than others. During the Second World War, secrets were a huge part of what empires rose and what empires fell. Ever heard of ‘loose lips, sink ships’? This was an American-English idiom that meant ‘don’t have unguarded conversation.’ People became masters of secrets. One of these masters of hiding the truth was the Japanese army in Nanking. When Japanese General Matsui Iwane (松井 石根) came to visit the Chinese city of Nanking (南京市), the Japanese soldiers cleaned the streets of the thousands of dead bodies of innocent Chinese. The amount of bodies piled up by the Yangtze River caused it to go red from the blood that poured into it. Yet Matsui did not see any of this, and he believed that the citizens of Nanking had peacefully surrendered to the Japanese. This was further from the truth. The Japanese army killed over 4 million men and raped over 3 million girls and women. The people of Nanking were told to surrender by the Chinese government, which they did, but the Japanese ignored them and took over. They lit houses ablaze and tortured people until they die
This ability to conceal can be compared with Joseph Stalin’s Kiev clean-up. When the French prime minister, Édouard Daladier, announced that he was going to Kiev in Ukraine, Stalin ordered a mass clean up. People were to remove the dead from the view of the main street. Shops were restocked for appearance, but if a Ukrainian dared to eat anything from the store, they were shot. Fancy cars were driven down from Moscow and men wore new suits. Daladier was kept away from German and Polish diplomats during his stay, as they knew what was going on behind the scenes. Daladier returned to France saying that the USSR had ‘honoured the socialist spirit and Ukrainian nation pride.’ He did not realise that he’d been tricked by Stalin and his men. This meant that the USSR was able to continue in their crimes against humanity.
Gain. When you gain something, it’s often through hard work or doing a good deed. Sadly, it’s not always like this. In the 1940s, Russia was starving but Ukraine wasn’t as much. So Stalin ordered the NKVD to raid houses and farms for all forms of food. Within 8 months, Russia had enough food for at least 4 years. Ukraine, on the other hand, had fallen into famine. People dropped dead in the streets and other prostituted themselves for grain. Stalin had gained power and food but at the cost of 14 million people.
Japan was determined to take over the East, starting with Korea (Chōsen) and Qingdao. Slowly they progressed, removing the USSR from Manchuria (Manchukuo) and then taking over Inner Mongolia, parts of China, Thailand (Siam), Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam (French Indo-China), Malaysia (Malaya), Singapore (which was also part of Malaya), Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) and the Philippines. To gain land and power, the Japanese killed off anyone who opposed them. The people of Nanking were just a small amount of the almost 10 million people killed by the Japanese. They killed all these people just for power. The only way that they could be stopped was by the dropping of the American atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Although power can be used to make a change for the better or ignite hope in the hearts of the weary, it’s much more likely to create problems. Without power, people are more submissive and will listen to those with power. But give these people power and they will rise above others and become egotistical and abusive towards others. More people use power for bad rather than good.
Power can be used to unite people and make a change. But only in the hands of a few. When in the wrong hands, power corrupts, causes widespread death, conceals the truth and brings sorrow. As shown throughout history, especially during WW2, power almost always goes to your head. As William Pitt said ‘Unlimited power corrupts the possessor.’ Men like Stalin and Hitler were given unlimited power and they committed mass murder and other crimes. Power truly corrupts all.
Holocaust. When you see this word, you often think of the Jewish holocaust during the Second World War. But this was not the only mass killing during WWII. Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR, ordered the mass killing of 111,000 Polish ‘spies’ by the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs/ НКВД) according to Nikolai Yezhov. These Polacks were only 1.6% of the USSR, but this attack had huge consequences. In a few months, the USSR was lacking in food and workers. This lead to the mass starvation of over 6 million Ukrainians.
The NKVD raided houses and took any form of grain or other foods that they could find. All this food went to Moscow. Ukrainians were forbidden from travelling to Russia or Germany, so many turned to drastic measures. Cannibalism became common but it was still a taboo. School children would drop dead in class. Wives prostituted themselves for grain. Ukraine was so quiet, ‘if we heard a crow, we were alarmed by our own happy reactions.’ (Maria Łouinska, 1932) In the spring of 1933, people died at a rate of 10,000 per day and yet Stalin did nothing. His abuse of power had brought death and famine to his union, but he was blind to the atrocities.
Secrets. We all have them, but some are bigger than others. During the Second World War, secrets were a huge part of what empires rose and what empires fell. Ever heard of ‘loose lips, sink ships’? This was an American-English idiom that meant ‘don’t have unguarded conversation.’ People became masters of secrets. One of these masters of hiding the truth was the Japanese army in Nanking. When Japanese General Matsui Iwane (松井 石根) came to visit the Chinese city of Nanking (南京市), the Japanese soldiers cleaned the streets of the thousands of dead bodies of innocent Chinese. The amount of bodies piled up by the Yangtze River caused it to go red from the blood that poured into it. Yet Matsui did not see any of this, and he believed that the citizens of Nanking had peacefully surrendered to the Japanese. This was further from the truth. The Japanese army killed over 4 million men and raped over 3 million girls and women. The people of Nanking were told to surrender by the Chinese government, which they did, but the Japanese ignored them and took over. They lit houses ablaze and tortured people until they die
This ability to conceal can be compared with Joseph Stalin’s Kiev clean-up. When the French prime minister, Édouard Daladier, announced that he was going to Kiev in Ukraine, Stalin ordered a mass clean up. People were to remove the dead from the view of the main street. Shops were restocked for appearance, but if a Ukrainian dared to eat anything from the store, they were shot. Fancy cars were driven down from Moscow and men wore new suits. Daladier was kept away from German and Polish diplomats during his stay, as they knew what was going on behind the scenes. Daladier returned to France saying that the USSR had ‘honoured the socialist spirit and Ukrainian nation pride.’ He did not realise that he’d been tricked by Stalin and his men. This meant that the USSR was able to continue in their crimes against humanity.
Gain. When you gain something, it’s often through hard work or doing a good deed. Sadly, it’s not always like this. In the 1940s, Russia was starving but Ukraine wasn’t as much. So Stalin ordered the NKVD to raid houses and farms for all forms of food. Within 8 months, Russia had enough food for at least 4 years. Ukraine, on the other hand, had fallen into famine. People dropped dead in the streets and other prostituted themselves for grain. Stalin had gained power and food but at the cost of 14 million people.
Japan was determined to take over the East, starting with Korea (Chōsen) and Qingdao. Slowly they progressed, removing the USSR from Manchuria (Manchukuo) and then taking over Inner Mongolia, parts of China, Thailand (Siam), Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam (French Indo-China), Malaysia (Malaya), Singapore (which was also part of Malaya), Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) and the Philippines. To gain land and power, the Japanese killed off anyone who opposed them. The people of Nanking were just a small amount of the almost 10 million people killed by the Japanese. They killed all these people just for power. The only way that they could be stopped was by the dropping of the American atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Although power can be used to make a change for the better or ignite hope in the hearts of the weary, it’s much more likely to create problems. Without power, people are more submissive and will listen to those with power. But give these people power and they will rise above others and become egotistical and abusive towards others. More people use power for bad rather than good.
Power can be used to unite people and make a change. But only in the hands of a few. When in the wrong hands, power corrupts, causes widespread death, conceals the truth and brings sorrow. As shown throughout history, especially during WW2, power almost always goes to your head. As William Pitt said ‘Unlimited power corrupts the possessor.’ Men like Stalin and Hitler were given unlimited power and they committed mass murder and other crimes. Power truly corrupts all.
Are Video Games Bad For People?
Although games can cause problems in people,who are either have epilepsy or mental issues or people,who play for very long 2 hours + sessions,video games aren’t bad,as they can help to develop some skills,such as more developed thinking and problem solving in some games,simulate jobs and can also help to develop confidence in introverts.
Nowadays,gaming industry is huge,with lots of innovations,simulators,tournaments and online gaming with friends.There are driving wheels for racing games,which will contribute to an immersion and feel,VR(virtual reality) headsets,which are out of the world and also awesome gaming gear to help to win players.But does this awesome innovation harm us?A lot of parents and teachers don’t like video games,as they think that video games prevent the students from normal learning,and also contribute to low grades in school.In some cases it is true,however there are lots of students,who play a lot,but still get all A’s and 7’s.So what does it mean?Well there are 2 groups of students.First one is the group of students,who don’t care about studies and are just addicted to video games.The second one,is the group of people who balance studies with games and are successful. So the key,is that people shouldn’t play for long sessions of 2+ hours.This may affect their thinking,also get them addicted to games.There is one terrible case,when a teen from Russia,who was addicted to a game called “Defence of the Ancients”,had a 22 day session,and after that he died,because of thrombosis syndrome.This case shows,that the parents should control their kids’ amount of time spent in the virtual world.However there are also lots of good things in video games,which may overweigh the bad things,if played for a reasonable amount of time.
There are plenty of strategy games like Total War,Clash of Clans and Starcraft.These are actually one of the most useful games,as they require a lot of thinking,due to their nature.There was a case study where “72 volunteers play 2 different games for 40 hours over the time of 8 weeks,and one of them was the Starcraft.The results showed,that the students after playing this game had better cognitive flexibility”,which helps our brains to process lots of information simultaneously.Also there are the action games.”These games help at decision making Action video games are fast-paced, and there are peripheral images and events popping up, and disappearing. These video games are teaching people to become better at taking sensory data in, and translating it into correct decisions.”
Also video games,help the new workers.Two of the most relevant examples are aircraft simulator and surgeon simulator.This can really help new pilots or surgeons,to put their knowledge to the test,without risking anyone’s life, and also with an opportunity to retry the test,or perfect their skills.So simulators are really good trainers.There are also car simulators and many more...People can also even make astronaut simulators.Our current technologies as mentioned earlier,are really advanced,and a lot of companies and people make awesome simulations.To summarise the simulators can help people to try out the job,or train.
Introverts.What do we know about them?There aren’t really sociable,shy and closed people.Well video games can help.As seen in the gaming community people are very sociable.There are thousands of games,there are streams,YouTube videos and also teams.And actually introverts feel much more comfortable in this environment.They talk with people in game chat,make connections,assemble teams and are much more sociably engaged.It is very good.This can also translate in real life interactions.”Researchers from three different institutions in the UK and Canada recently did their own studies to find out how common antisocial behaviour is among gamers.What each one discovered,is that gamers who partake in live social environments are actually the most friendly and communicative people there.While observing gamers he even went on to admit that they formed stronger relationships than non-gamers due to their matching love of games.”
The conclusion,is that games are not bad for people.They are only bad if played for exceedingly long sessions,and also if played a lot each day.So the point here,people should play a bit everyday around an hour per day,2 hours at max.With this graphic,players will not only benefit from games,but will also have all the normal real world attributes,skills and will have a normal happy life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)