In our discussion on altruism in class, the act of holding doors for others was brought up. I had never really thought anything of it, except I obviously knew that to let the door slam in the face of the person behind you is generally considered rather rude. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the reason why individuals do it is because they expect others to do it for them in return. This makes perfect sense, in that we are engaging in an "altruistic" act in order to benefit ourselves further down the line. America is such an individualistic country compared to many of the Asian nations, though. So, if we put such stress on personal blame and doing things independently, why do we have such strict moral rules as to often wait a minute for the person behind you to catch up and walk through the door you are holding?
All of this also reminds me of the concept of chivalry. For some reason, over time an expectation has developed that men should always be very kind and respectful to women, and do such things as hold doors for them, and pull out a chair for them when they sit down. Obviously, many claim that "chivalry is dead," and men do these things no longer, but how did the expectation for them to do it develop in the first place? As with many instances in history, it seems just as likely that men's and women's positions could have easily been switched in regards to chivalry. But, history took its course, and things are what they are. Needless to say, ever since our class discussions, I have chuckled to myself as I see the person ahead of me rush to hold the door open as I approach!
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
To Donate or Not To Donate...That Is The Question...
In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Who is more inclined to donate money, people who have a lot of it or people who have just enough to get by?"...
In my experience, it seems that those who give the most are those who do not have that much at all. It seems somewhat ironic that the "poor" would help the "poor" so to speak, but it makes perfect sense. Those who do not have much understand that it is very difficult to be in that position, and therefore are motivated to help to the best of their ability. It is kind of how a person is likely to give to a cancer research foundation if they have a family member who has had, or has, the disease. However, it appears that they are usually more apt to help causes in other ways that giving cash directly. Many people who start and run organizations volunteer their time to help raise money through certain events, or help to plan fundraising strategies. Those who can barely get by might offer to cook a meal or provide shelter to someone who needs it desperately. Thus, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize that those who barely have enough are not so likely to give money, but rather donate their time, love, and services.
So, it seems that those who have a great deal of money are the ones who donate it, though the phrase "a lot of money" can mean many things. It can mean the middle class disposable income, or the funds of the rich. From my observations I have found that it is truly the middle class that donates money the most. This is probably because they are close enough to the working class to understand hardships with money, but close enough to the upper class as well to understand the concept of disposable income. In class, someone mentioned that the rich are very unlikely to give money because of their stinginess. But, I learned something different in my Introduction to Sociology course last semester. The rich are very likely to give large amounts to charities because it is built into the societal expectations of what the rich should do. They are expected to make connections and build business ties through private clubs, donate to charity, and go to prestigious schools. This is why huge charity benefits are often thrown by extremely rich families - they have the money to do so, and the community they reside in expects that of them. So, are you more likely to donate to a cause if you have been through such a situation yourself? Why does it always seem that though you may help others while they are in need, when the time comes for you to get help, no one will give it to you? Are you more likely to be more "charitable" after such a thing happens?
In my experience, it seems that those who give the most are those who do not have that much at all. It seems somewhat ironic that the "poor" would help the "poor" so to speak, but it makes perfect sense. Those who do not have much understand that it is very difficult to be in that position, and therefore are motivated to help to the best of their ability. It is kind of how a person is likely to give to a cancer research foundation if they have a family member who has had, or has, the disease. However, it appears that they are usually more apt to help causes in other ways that giving cash directly. Many people who start and run organizations volunteer their time to help raise money through certain events, or help to plan fundraising strategies. Those who can barely get by might offer to cook a meal or provide shelter to someone who needs it desperately. Thus, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize that those who barely have enough are not so likely to give money, but rather donate their time, love, and services.
So, it seems that those who have a great deal of money are the ones who donate it, though the phrase "a lot of money" can mean many things. It can mean the middle class disposable income, or the funds of the rich. From my observations I have found that it is truly the middle class that donates money the most. This is probably because they are close enough to the working class to understand hardships with money, but close enough to the upper class as well to understand the concept of disposable income. In class, someone mentioned that the rich are very unlikely to give money because of their stinginess. But, I learned something different in my Introduction to Sociology course last semester. The rich are very likely to give large amounts to charities because it is built into the societal expectations of what the rich should do. They are expected to make connections and build business ties through private clubs, donate to charity, and go to prestigious schools. This is why huge charity benefits are often thrown by extremely rich families - they have the money to do so, and the community they reside in expects that of them. So, are you more likely to donate to a cause if you have been through such a situation yourself? Why does it always seem that though you may help others while they are in need, when the time comes for you to get help, no one will give it to you? Are you more likely to be more "charitable" after such a thing happens?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Your Hatred of Math...Explained!
I hate math. I have never liked it, and though I took numerous honors math courses in high school (including calculus), I still do not understand it the majority of the time. But, it is not very strange for me to have such an aversion to the subject, for the majority of students and even adults I encounter share this dislike. Why do people hate math though? It was raised in class that hatred is rooted in, more than anything else, fear. We tend to say, "oh, I hate that..." because it is easier, less personal, and more socially acceptable than to say, "I really have a great fear of that". But what exactly is it that humans fear about math? It certainly is not the symbols on the piece of paper. They are fearful of the embarrassment or frustration that might come out of their interaction with it. It is very similar in fact to the reason why people will say that they "hate" learning languages. The further the symbols appear from English, and therefore, familiarity, the more people fear it. This is evinced by the fact that people are much more likely to attempt to learn Spanish or French which uses mostly the same alphabet as English, rather than to learn Chinese or Russian which employs an entirely unfamiliar alphabet.
But, are humans helpless in the fact that they will always fear the embarrassment that comes with unfamiliarity? One suggestion was that if you increase an individual's understanding of the subject, they will be less fearful, or as the case may be, less hateful of it. However, I do not agree with this. As aforementioned, I took many high level math classes in high school, and one in college. I also took four years of Spanish in high school. Nevertheless, I still dislike the subjects. Is this because I still do not understand them enough after four years, or because my hatred is truly rooted in something else? Perhaps I will never know, and will just keep trying to further my education in the matters despite all of this. It just leads me to wonder, if humans are the ones who "invented" math, or at least "discovered" most of its concepts, then why is it that the majority of humans claim to hate or fear it? Besides the fear, what is it that humans truly hate about the subject? Also, do you believe there are any other animals who are truly capable of understanding and preforming mathematical problems?
But, are humans helpless in the fact that they will always fear the embarrassment that comes with unfamiliarity? One suggestion was that if you increase an individual's understanding of the subject, they will be less fearful, or as the case may be, less hateful of it. However, I do not agree with this. As aforementioned, I took many high level math classes in high school, and one in college. I also took four years of Spanish in high school. Nevertheless, I still dislike the subjects. Is this because I still do not understand them enough after four years, or because my hatred is truly rooted in something else? Perhaps I will never know, and will just keep trying to further my education in the matters despite all of this. It just leads me to wonder, if humans are the ones who "invented" math, or at least "discovered" most of its concepts, then why is it that the majority of humans claim to hate or fear it? Besides the fear, what is it that humans truly hate about the subject? Also, do you believe there are any other animals who are truly capable of understanding and preforming mathematical problems?
Friday, March 4, 2011
Love, Love, Love!
In response to Jenny Beers' question, "Do you believe in love at first sight? Or lust at first sight? Or neither?"...
I highly doubt that anyone can fall in love at first sight. Lust however, is a different story. As humans, it is very easily trick ourselves into thinking we like someone more than we actually do. My friends and I like to call this our "shiny new toy theory." Often, one may meet someone and think that they are incredibly attractive. Ask that same person about a week later after they have gotten to know the person, and chances are that they will not see that person in the same light as they first did. Love though, is enduring. Humans love their families, friends, and pets, and will usually do anything for them. Love takes a long time to develop, and for that reason, it is not something one can have instantly. So, lust at first sight is definitely possible, but as for love at first sight, it may only be very rare. Love at first sight most likely occurs when someone finds another instantly attractive, and then their attraction continues, not diminishes, the more they get to know the person. Do you believe that everyone has a "soulmate"? If so, what do you think the chances are that everyone will meet their soulmate at some point in their life?
I highly doubt that anyone can fall in love at first sight. Lust however, is a different story. As humans, it is very easily trick ourselves into thinking we like someone more than we actually do. My friends and I like to call this our "shiny new toy theory." Often, one may meet someone and think that they are incredibly attractive. Ask that same person about a week later after they have gotten to know the person, and chances are that they will not see that person in the same light as they first did. Love though, is enduring. Humans love their families, friends, and pets, and will usually do anything for them. Love takes a long time to develop, and for that reason, it is not something one can have instantly. So, lust at first sight is definitely possible, but as for love at first sight, it may only be very rare. Love at first sight most likely occurs when someone finds another instantly attractive, and then their attraction continues, not diminishes, the more they get to know the person. Do you believe that everyone has a "soulmate"? If so, what do you think the chances are that everyone will meet their soulmate at some point in their life?
Digging in the Past
Religions have existed for thousands of years, and it just seems that people have always believed in some sort of higher power. But, when did the idea of religion first begin? In "caveman times," I do not think they had a concept of a god, and perhaps this was because their minds had not evolved enough to think of the unknown on that level. Even then, I still wonder how humans came to believe in a god. People claim that they witnessed truly fantastic actions preformed by religious figures who really did exist such as Jesus and Buddha. Sometimes though, many cannot help to wonder if the accounts of the parting of the Red Sea, turning water into wine, and resurrection from the dead actually happened. Historical accounts are often inaccurate, for they become stories passed down through generations of individuals. However, if religions have such a huge following, one must figure that some of these events really did happen. I have expressed before how I want to be an archaeologist once I finish with my schooling. I just find biblical archeology, just as any other type of archeology, incredibly riveting, for it is a way to uncover answers. So much is burried in the past, and by sifting through the dirt, what can be uncovered is almost more incredible and enlightening than any scientific discovery.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Stress and Societal Pressure
In response to Katie Russell's question, "Why do humans put so much pressure on ourselves it makes us sick?"...
It seems that since this week is midterms, this is quite an appropriate question to answer! This week, my friends and I have truly been feeling the pressure. Homework is piling up, people are getting frustrated and lashing out at each other, and when we finally collapse in bed at night, it is evident we need much more sleep than the few hours we are actually getting. Stress. This seems to be a part of everyones lives, and I will admit that I have never met a person who was not stressed whatsoever. But, as Katie said, why is it that people put so much pressure on themselves? It most certainly has to do with the ideals of the society people are a part of. The United States for instance, is a very individualistic nation. If you mess up, it is your fault and not the fault of any other. Time is money. A constant state of stress is necessary in order to perform efficiently. So, it is clear that when there is no one to blame except for oneself, the pressure can become overwhelming, often resulting in serious health issues. Eastern, or Asian cultures however, have an entirely different view as a nation. They are what one could call collectivist, and have much more group responsibility for the actions of every individual. This takes quite a bit of pressure off of individuals, and results in somewhat less stress.
Still, these people do get stressed, and I do not quite understand why humans need to push themselves to such limits. Personally, I am what some would consider a hard-worker and an over-achiever. The past few years of my life especially, have been nothing but memories of stress from schooling. I push myself as hard as I can, but why is it that some people are incapable of this? What is it that makes some people work extremely hard and others be extremely lazy? Despite this, it even appears that the lazy ones in society still get stressed, often as a result of their laziness. This leads to the conclusion that it is truly within human nature to "stress out" about things. People worry, and there does not seem to be any method to stop this. What animals are capable of worrying? Does their stress and worry lead to illness, as it does in humans?
It seems that since this week is midterms, this is quite an appropriate question to answer! This week, my friends and I have truly been feeling the pressure. Homework is piling up, people are getting frustrated and lashing out at each other, and when we finally collapse in bed at night, it is evident we need much more sleep than the few hours we are actually getting. Stress. This seems to be a part of everyones lives, and I will admit that I have never met a person who was not stressed whatsoever. But, as Katie said, why is it that people put so much pressure on themselves? It most certainly has to do with the ideals of the society people are a part of. The United States for instance, is a very individualistic nation. If you mess up, it is your fault and not the fault of any other. Time is money. A constant state of stress is necessary in order to perform efficiently. So, it is clear that when there is no one to blame except for oneself, the pressure can become overwhelming, often resulting in serious health issues. Eastern, or Asian cultures however, have an entirely different view as a nation. They are what one could call collectivist, and have much more group responsibility for the actions of every individual. This takes quite a bit of pressure off of individuals, and results in somewhat less stress.
Still, these people do get stressed, and I do not quite understand why humans need to push themselves to such limits. Personally, I am what some would consider a hard-worker and an over-achiever. The past few years of my life especially, have been nothing but memories of stress from schooling. I push myself as hard as I can, but why is it that some people are incapable of this? What is it that makes some people work extremely hard and others be extremely lazy? Despite this, it even appears that the lazy ones in society still get stressed, often as a result of their laziness. This leads to the conclusion that it is truly within human nature to "stress out" about things. People worry, and there does not seem to be any method to stop this. What animals are capable of worrying? Does their stress and worry lead to illness, as it does in humans?
A Few Questions...
Why are humans so often resistant to believe that which they cannot see? I have discussed this before in my blog, and it only seems fitting to raise this issue again given the recent debates over naturalism and supernaturalism that have taken place recently in our class. For hundreds of years humans have debated whether or not they should believe in the supernatural beings of gods. Some have held firm in their beliefs and do not question the existence of a divine being. Others have been incredibly adament that we can only prove what we can see, and well, there is no way to "see" a god. What makes a person prefer one side over the other? How can some people have such "faith" in the unknown while others have such strong "faith" in science? I simply wonder if there are psychological characteristics that "determine" in a sense, which belief a person will lean towards. For instance, can people be genetically predisposed to having a faith in God? As I mentioned in a previous blog post, there are certain "thrill-seekers" who love chasing the unknown, so this seems entirely possibly. If this is the case, are people who believe in a god more inclined to believe in entities like ghosts? I believe they are, for if a person has the tendency to hold true one invisible being, they most likely do so with others as well. Additionally, is it possible for a person to believe in ghosts and not believe in a god?
It may seem like I am raising more questions than I am answering, but that is because the world is such a mysterious place. There are so many things we are not meant to understand, and it is questionable if it is even worth our time trying to find the truth. It would be a much different world after all, if humans were simply not that inquisitive. Nevertheless, we are, and we need to learn how to deal with things when we do not find the answers. So, in regards to religion, unlike Thomas Clark, I do not believe supernaturalism and naturalism can coexist peacefully. They never have, and they never will, no matter how much individuals may want them to.
It may seem like I am raising more questions than I am answering, but that is because the world is such a mysterious place. There are so many things we are not meant to understand, and it is questionable if it is even worth our time trying to find the truth. It would be a much different world after all, if humans were simply not that inquisitive. Nevertheless, we are, and we need to learn how to deal with things when we do not find the answers. So, in regards to religion, unlike Thomas Clark, I do not believe supernaturalism and naturalism can coexist peacefully. They never have, and they never will, no matter how much individuals may want them to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)