Body Improvement, or Body Destruction?

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do you think acceptance for different body modifications will continue to grow for the work environment?"...

     Ironically, we have been talking about tattoos and other forms of body modification in my Culture and the Body class recently. By what I have learned and observed, I think that acceptance of tattoos and piercings will definitely grow in the future as our generation becomes older. What I mean by this is that right now, it is the older generation of our parents and grandparents who are unaccepting of the younger generation's body modifications. So, it is possible that over the next thirty to forty years acceptance will increase more and more, and after the older generation is completely replaced by those who are now my peers, tattoos might be finally fully accepted.
     Personally, I think that it is unfortunate that the older generation is so unaccepting of what some people choose to do with their bodies. I have no tattoos, but I do have five ear piercings. My parents were very against me getting any more than two piercings, no matter how much I tried to convince them. I eventually just waited until I turned eighteen and did not need parental consent in order to get it done. For me, I like my piercings for aesthetic reasons, but many of my friends who are tattooed see their tattoos as being highly symbolic and meaningful. I do understand why there is a stigma attached to body modification because of its origins in the working class. However, this old working class notion of tattoos is being replaced with middle class values and artwork. Today people are much more likely to go into a middle class custom shop rather than a working class street shop and choosing a design off the wall as they used to. The conceptions of tattoos are changing now that more people of the middle class are using it as a form of self expression. Tattooing and piercing are not nearly as rare as they once were, and now much more artwork is involved in the process. I believe there always will be a lingering stigma against these body modifications, but in the future, it will most likely not be nearly as severe and prevalent as it is now. Do you have any tattoos or piercings? Do people ever judge you because of your body modifications? Has the stigma against tattoos and piercings discouraged you from getting more that you would want if it was seen as acceptable?

Time...A Benefit, or a Curse?

In response to Brittany Guntor's question, "If your life were suddenly free from a constricting time schedule, do you think you would get more done? Would your stress level decrease or increase?"... 

     I am one of those people who so incredibly relies on time. I get very anxious if I am ever late going somewhere, I live off of my agenda which has everything I need to do penciled out in front of me, and if I do not have enough time to get something accomplished, I get very frustrated. The most valuable thing I ever learned in taking five Advanced Placement courses while in high school was time management. This has helped me tremendously when I look at myself and my academic standing compared to some people I know who never seemed to learn these skills. To function in today's society, we do all need to truly master time, and often you hear people complaining that there is "not enough time in the day". I completely agree with this. We bog ourselves down so much with everything we have to do, where we have to be, and for how long we must remain there. We feel as if we never get to truly relax, for there is always something that needs to be done. It seems to me that this stress is taking a great toll on all of our bodies.
     If my life were free of such a time schedule, I do not think I would get much done. The closest to this state I have ever gotten is summer break, when for the most part, students are free from most of their stressful committments they had during the school year. But, in the summer I still use a calendar to write down important days or things I need to remember to do. I believe this is because I am so fearful of forgetting to do something important. So, if such an event as described by Brittany happened, my stress level might decrease for a while, but then increse when I realize what still needs to be done. Additionally, quite frankly, I do not think I would get much done without a time schedule. All school year I stress myself out so much that by the time summer or winter break rolls around and I do not have many committments, I do nothing. And it feels good to do nothing. Do you think our lives are too structured by time? If so, is there any possible way to change this?

Psychics, Palm-readers, and E.S.P... Oh My!

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "How do you think psychics work?"...

     In many places I have read that psychics are frauds, and that they essentially appear to "work" by reading off the body signals of their client. I have never visited a psychic, but I would think that to be able to read off someones reactions that well is an incredible skill, even if it is not a "psychic" one. My mother actually went to a palm-reader/psychic when she was younger. The woman told her she was going to have three children, two girls and one boy - and she did! But, was this woman simply guessing, or was an extra sense helping her?
     It just is interesting to think about how much people can push themselves and their minds to do. A show I really liked a couple years back was called Kyle XY, and the basic premise was that there was this boy who was genetically engineered and stuck in a tube to incubate for sixteen years. In the scientific experiment, they figured the longer his gestation period, the smarter he would be, and the more super-human abilities he would have. He eventually escaped this place, and he did have strange powers, such as being able to walk on hot coals, climb walls extremely well, jump off buildings without being hurt, have super hearing, and make objects move with his mind. Basically, he was capable of E.S.P. It was an enjoyable show to watch, for it had a pretty interesting concept. But, people are able to do things such as walk on hot coals without being burned. They say, "mind over matter," but is that even possible? Do you think people who do things such as this are actually capable of it, or is it just a big ruse, like the shows of illusionists and magicians?
     I think that psychics are just like any other career field, there are those who do have the ability, and then there is an overwhelming amount of frauds which leads people to believe that no psychics are legitimate. Some people are capable of crazy things, from being able to manipulate their body in strange ways, to being able to communicate with the dead. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, and I may be a fool to think so, but I believe there is at least one psychic out there, that is blessed with powers that basically no one else has.

Agnostics...Halfway in Between, Or Just Another Side?

      As humans, everyone holds numerous beliefs covering a broad range of subjects. Perhaps one of the most controversial of these areas is religion. But, why is this the case? Why is it that even after thousands of years humans are still trying to find which religion can be proven to be the "correct" one? And how does one even go about proving to the world that there religion is justified? The way I see it, religion is essentially based off stories that are passed down through hundreds of generations. Those who believe these stories are considered to be following that particular religion. Many would argue that this "game of telephone" with regards to religious experiences incredibly unreliable...but is it? After all, stories do originate somehow. I just get the feeling that though certain aspects of the Christian stories from the time of Jesus might be exaggerated, they probably do still have some truth in them.
     So, considering all of this, why do some people thing negatively of agnostics, who simply assert that they have no idea if there is a god or not, and that it is most likely impossible to prove either way? I have a couple friends who identify themselves as agnostic, and they basically assert that they do not know what to believe, though they admit it there is a possibility of a god, just as there is the possibility that there is not one. This beliefs seem rather reasonable, seeing as navigating the world of religion is often very confusing and strenuous. But, I have heard other Christian friends of mine make certain comments to the agnostics such as, "oh that's just a cop-out isn't it, so you don't have to choose to believe in anything?" It is just rather ridiculous how these things work. If you identify yourself as a Christian, people will attack you for believing in a higher power so blindly. If you identify as an atheist, people think of you as being a negative, pessimistic person who does not feel the need to go along with society's ideas of religion. Finally, if you identify yourself as somewhere in between, such as an agnostic, you get attacked for not choosing a side. When will this ever stop? It is within human nature to have a diversity of opinions, but people need to try harder to recognize that though someone may not know what to believe, that does not mean they need to be forced into choosing a side.

"Very Superstitious" (like the Stevie Wonder song)

In response to Mariah Key's question, "Talking about ghosts makes me think about superstitions; what truth do you think is behind superstitions?"...

     Last semester I took Logic and Critical Reasoning, and when we were studying fallacies, superstitions came up. I forget the exact name of the fallacy, but there is one in which one event follows another, and individuals assume that the two events are connected. In other words, an example Professor Nnodim used in class is, cheerleaders always wear a blue ribbon in their hair, and for the most part, the football team has a very good season. For one game, for what ever reason, they decide to all wear yellow ribbons. The team suffers an uncharacteristic, brutal loss. Many of the cheerleaders may then swear to never wear the yellow ribbons again, in fear that it might make the team loose.
     It may seem obvious that it is "stupid" to make such an assumption. But, if you examine your life a little closer, you might realize that you adhere to superstitions unintentionally quite often. Do you believe any of these things?

*Friday the 13th is an unlucky day
*to find a 4-leaf clover is incredibly lucky
*to blow out all of the candles on your birthday cake in one breath will make your wish come true
*crossing your fingers makes your wish come true
*to find a penny heads-up brings good luck
*a drowned woman floats face-up, a drowned man floats face-down
*to ensure a happy marriage, a bride must wear something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue
*washing a car will bring rain
*a beginner will always have good luck (beginner's luck)

source: http://www.csicop.org/superstition/library/common_superstitions/

     Many may say that they do not believe in superstitions, as I do myself, but when they walk under a ladder or see a black cat, they still might remember such a superstition, even if they do not believe it has any truth. Does acknowledging or remembering a superstition mean you do somewhat believe in it?
     Nevertheless, in response to Mariah's question, I do not think there is truth to superstitions. People come to believe crazy things all the time, and like the example I first mentioned, they falsely attributed two events to be connected, when in reality, they are not at all. But, if you believe in determinism (all events follow causally from the one before it), are you more likely to believe superstitions (two events are connected in a certain way)?

Yes, Let Me Get That Door For You!

     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!

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?