I took the first semester of university as a transition period. I hadn't known what work load to expect or how hard the material covered would be. It turns out that not everything is hard and overwhelming and that most things are manageable provided I put the time into them.
This week I have noted the changes in lifestyle that I appreciate.
1. Attending debates. I had posted that I attended a debate on Christianity last week. Since then I have made a commitment to not only attend debates but also to debate and speak myself. I have never been a great speaker as my heart raises when I go to speak and I find myself unable to say what I want to.
This week I attended a debate on whether or not press leaks or a freedom of information act is a better way for the public to receive its information. The opposition, pro freedom of information act, presented a better and coherent argument saying that if the press can't release information then making it legally mandated to be published would be better. The pro press leak side failed in its continuity and structure. The speaker who presented the introduction ailed to stay relevant to the argument and rather argued if press leaks were valid at all (against his own team). Smart man.
2. Sports. I got lazy my first semester of university. After swimming, running, and weightlifting over the summer I slacked off and didn't exercise much. After inter-semester break I changed my habits. I now do badminton, run, yoga and more. These are all big time commitments in my week, but they pay off quickly.
When I first started badminton here I realized that I was not as good as I thought I was. Badminton at CJHS is not like badminton abroad. Kids here have been playing and competing in badminton since they were seven. Some members I play with are ranked equally to the third ranked man in the USA. Given that I was now in a badminton society I took it as my personal goal to make it to a competitive level. I am still working on getting there and I have confidence that I am making progress.
I have learned that I know I am getting better when in stead of watching a shuttlecock fall, thinking it is out of reach, I do my best to get to the right position to hit it and shuffle back to be ready to block a smash that may be traveling at me at over 120mph. It feels good to see my abilities to increase and to be able to give someone who has been playing for years a fair fight.
3. More friends. Living in halls the first years means that in order to hang out with someone I never have to go more than a few feet. Due to this I hadn't made as many friends as I would have liked to. Now that I know I will be living with fewer people next year I have made sure to branch out and make more friends.
Friends come from all over the place. You have people you play badminton with, people you take classes with, debate people, lunch people, baking people, pool society people, Jewish society people. These are all made through balancing and reaching out.
Just some updates. :)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
This house believes Christianity has been a force for good in the world."
Last night I attended a debate held by the University's debating society. The debates topic was the title of this post.
Going to this debate I wondered how this topic was to be debated. Christianity, like Judaism, does not have one single definition. The people who consider themselves Christian may only be Christian through upbringing and not through personal belief. Given this I expected the debate to struggle to answer the question.
The debate did not follow my expectations. The pro debaters opened with an attempt to describe Christianity. Their speaker used a lot of quotes from the New Testament and history found elsewhere. The against debaters opened with vicious attacks on people who were Christians. As pointed out in the debate and afterwards, they opened with cheap shots.
The second debaters for each team focused on the topic directly by defining and analyzing what "for good" meant. The pro debaters said that Christianity in its beliefs is a force for good, however, it has not always been a force of good. The against debaters stated that Christianity was a theocracy in which it is good if you are taking part in it; not a force for good, but a force for a specific good.
The closing arguments were made attempting to convince the crowd to their side. The pro debaters concluded with that Christianity really is attempting good through its foundation and practice. The speaker asked the attendees to imagine a world without Christianity. The against team closed again by taking a shot on the past of Christianity.
Both sides had their strong and weak arguments. At the end I chose to abstain. Both teams had valid points and both teams had debaters that either succeeded at staying relevant or went off track. Confidence and presentation also equaled out on both sides.
Afterwards, talking with my friends, some of us agreed that the problem with this debate was the nature of the topic itself. Without a definition of Christianity it is hard to say whether it is a force for good or evil. Also, as brought up in the debate, is it Christians who are doing the good/bad or people in general. What is the Christian influence in ones actions? Is it just that one is a follower of Christ or how he/she has been taught what Christ's teachings were?
I plan to attend more debates now as the format and topics of the debate society are captivating and challenging.
Going to this debate I wondered how this topic was to be debated. Christianity, like Judaism, does not have one single definition. The people who consider themselves Christian may only be Christian through upbringing and not through personal belief. Given this I expected the debate to struggle to answer the question.
The debate did not follow my expectations. The pro debaters opened with an attempt to describe Christianity. Their speaker used a lot of quotes from the New Testament and history found elsewhere. The against debaters opened with vicious attacks on people who were Christians. As pointed out in the debate and afterwards, they opened with cheap shots.
The second debaters for each team focused on the topic directly by defining and analyzing what "for good" meant. The pro debaters said that Christianity in its beliefs is a force for good, however, it has not always been a force of good. The against debaters stated that Christianity was a theocracy in which it is good if you are taking part in it; not a force for good, but a force for a specific good.
The closing arguments were made attempting to convince the crowd to their side. The pro debaters concluded with that Christianity really is attempting good through its foundation and practice. The speaker asked the attendees to imagine a world without Christianity. The against team closed again by taking a shot on the past of Christianity.
Both sides had their strong and weak arguments. At the end I chose to abstain. Both teams had valid points and both teams had debaters that either succeeded at staying relevant or went off track. Confidence and presentation also equaled out on both sides.
Afterwards, talking with my friends, some of us agreed that the problem with this debate was the nature of the topic itself. Without a definition of Christianity it is hard to say whether it is a force for good or evil. Also, as brought up in the debate, is it Christians who are doing the good/bad or people in general. What is the Christian influence in ones actions? Is it just that one is a follower of Christ or how he/she has been taught what Christ's teachings were?
I plan to attend more debates now as the format and topics of the debate society are captivating and challenging.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Decision Revisited
My past break, inter-semester break, was great. I spent it, once again, in London. I got to go to Camden Town, a market as colorful as the ones in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, and to London Zoo. London Zoon is much more about experiencing than looking when compared to what I remember of Brookfield Zoo and Lincoln Park Zoo. At London Zoo there are monkey areas and a butterfly area. In these areas a person walks around while the animals roam free; the person is limited to a path while the animals have the full room/are to explore freely. Monkeys approached the group of us as did butterflies which would land on any colorful person.
During this break I also had a lot of time to think on what, so far, I have thought about going away from home. My conclusions. . .
I do not regret going to Scotland and I do not plan on turning back soon. This country has shown me a lot of new culture and has provided me with a chance to see parts of the world I would not have otherwise been able to see or would not have had the confidence to see.
I believe I am the same person that left Des Plaines just a few months ago. However, I have began to appreciate technology and my friends more. I enjoy every skype date I have with someone and wait for more news from America to find out what's going on. I miss a lot of CJHSers, but have made plans to see them in Israel and in the USA; I never quite lose touch.
When I first got here I lost a lot of motivation to workout and run. As of second semester I have begun to change this. I go to the gym more and plan to join sports teams in the future. I was offered a spot on the frisbee team in the beginning year and should have taken it. I won't let that opportunity pass me by again.
Overall, I am happy I and enjoy where I am. I encourage people to go abroad, but warn them of who and what they will miss (parents, friends, walks to synagogue and relaxed shabbatot).
I am reminded of what a home is and where my home is.
During this break I also had a lot of time to think on what, so far, I have thought about going away from home. My conclusions. . .
I do not regret going to Scotland and I do not plan on turning back soon. This country has shown me a lot of new culture and has provided me with a chance to see parts of the world I would not have otherwise been able to see or would not have had the confidence to see.
I believe I am the same person that left Des Plaines just a few months ago. However, I have began to appreciate technology and my friends more. I enjoy every skype date I have with someone and wait for more news from America to find out what's going on. I miss a lot of CJHSers, but have made plans to see them in Israel and in the USA; I never quite lose touch.
When I first got here I lost a lot of motivation to workout and run. As of second semester I have begun to change this. I go to the gym more and plan to join sports teams in the future. I was offered a spot on the frisbee team in the beginning year and should have taken it. I won't let that opportunity pass me by again.
Overall, I am happy I and enjoy where I am. I encourage people to go abroad, but warn them of who and what they will miss (parents, friends, walks to synagogue and relaxed shabbatot).
I am reminded of what a home is and where my home is.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Opening Skinner's Box
With the free time I had over the past week or so I read a book titled Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century by Lauren Slater. The book tells of what the author considers to be the ten most important experiments of the twentieth century. Slater describes each experiment and then tells the tale of the experimenter and their story that led them to do their work. She is very critical and asks a lot of questions, a skeptic. She writes in such a way that the personal lives of each experimenter is key to their experiment. She is keen to show both sides, the good and the bad, while acknowledging the greatness of the experiments and sometimes the horror of their findings. I have written up a little bit about each experiment she tells about.
B.F. Skinner: Skinner was known for his boxes. These boxes were used to condition and raise animals and Skinner's own daughter. Often, people criticized Skinner for being a radical behaviourist and a person wanting to condition people into robots. Slater makes a case for Skinner based on some of his novels and papers. Skinner didn't want a world where people would be robots; rather, Skinner wanted to condition and positively encourage good behavior. He was a fan and user of operant conditioning. If you reward good behaviour enough, it would become the standard.
Stanley Milgrim: Milgrim is famous for his experiment on authority and how people react to it. He had students and locals shock the other participants, but did not tell them it had been acted out until the end. He discovered that 65% of his participants would deliver harmful shocks to a person as long as a person in a lab coat was behind them telling he/she to do so. Milgrims worked was challenged and praised. It showed how people could be come subjected to authority and it opened up questions about ourselves. 65% of people gave harmful to deadly shocks. 65% of people you know may do the same to you and you might do the same Slater states. Milgrim's experiment created awe, fear, and doubt.
David Rosenhan: Rosenhan had done an experiment to disprove psychiatry and mental institutions. He had people pretend to have problems, yet act normal, in order to enter in an institution. In essence, he proved that the people giving drugs and administering people did not know what they were doing. His experiments hit the institutions hard and caused a stir. Slater repeated the experiment and says that while Rosenhan's participants had an average stay of seven days, she was never admitted and always greeted warmly (no abuse and Rosenhan's participants witnessed).
Darley and Latane: These two researchers studied the bystander effect. What prompted this was a a murder committed over many attacks and many minutes. It was recorded that lights in the surrounding windows went on and off as the attacks continued, but no one came down to help the screaming woman. Society was shocked and wanted an answer as to how such an event could happen. Darley and Latane conducted experiments showing that the more people present at an incident the less likely someone present would help. We inhibit each other, more likely to help by ourselves than in a group.
Leon Festinger: Festinger investigated cognitive dissonance. People think in order to justify their actions. He showed this by telling two groups of people to lie. In compensation, participants in one group were given one dollar for their lie and in the other they were given 20 dollars. The people given 20 dollars were more likely to admit they lied because they said they did it for the money. The people given one dollar tended not to admit they lied because it is hard to justify lying for just one dollar.
Harry Harlowe: Harlowe studied attachment and how it affected the monkeys he was raising. He discovered that attachment is very important; monkeys only develop correctly and normally when raised with others and with a parental figure. Harlowe also went on to discover that monkeys raised abnormally would not raise their children or would harm then. He invented a cruel restraining devise that allowed other male monkeys to impregnate the female monkeys raised abnormally. He called it the rape rack. Despite what I see as the dark side of Harlowe, Harlowe did show that caring and touching your baby is important. One needs attention to grow normally and to be able to interact acceptably
Bruce Alexander: Alexander experimented with rats and addictions to drugs. He created two situations. In one situation the rats were in a paradise and given an option between drugged water and normal water. In the other situation rats were put in a cage and given the same choices of water. It turned out that in paradise the rats did not want or take the drugged water, but in the caged situation the rats became addicted to the drug water. Alexander tried to prove that it was culture and surroundings that influenced addictions, not the drug itself.
Elizabeth Loftus: Slater says this is one of the more disliked researchers of our time. She proved that you can implant or alter memories in a person. She helped criminals on trial to show that maybe people recalled the wrong incident or memory. One thing I noticed throughout the description of her experiments and Slater's telling is that no one recalled a memory from their teens or twenties or had a memory implanted that was said to happen in their twenties. Rather, all memories were implanted or recalled from their early years when memory isn't so clear.
Eric Kandel: Kandel investigated memory enhancing drugs. Discovered that when given certain drugs rats could perform better. He showed their was a mechanism for memory and therefore helped challenge Loftus. Also, while discovering the brain had ways to monitor what it remember he also discovered that their are monitors to forget. Tampering with either could cause problems; a person could recall what he or she doesn't wish to recall or forget more than necessary. Slater, in 2004, said the drugs to enhance memory were not yet marketed due to ethical issues. I do not know if the drugs are still not sold. Apparently scientists thought this would create a competition and a requirement for the drugs, a scary competition.
Antonio Egas Moniz: Moniz studied and practiced lobotomies. He discovered that by snipping a nerve or so in the brain or taking infected pieces out one could lose the psychosis and regain their self. However, some the patients were not helped, some died, and some say that after the surgery they were better but lost some part of their self. Lobotomies are still practiced as the majority of the patients have been cured of their problem. So far, the loss of a little bit of self is worth the depression or issue taking place in the brain.
A good read and very interesting for any psychology person. I found that Slater often doubts more than necessary, but the stories she relays are good and made me think more about my self and how I interact with the world.
B.F. Skinner: Skinner was known for his boxes. These boxes were used to condition and raise animals and Skinner's own daughter. Often, people criticized Skinner for being a radical behaviourist and a person wanting to condition people into robots. Slater makes a case for Skinner based on some of his novels and papers. Skinner didn't want a world where people would be robots; rather, Skinner wanted to condition and positively encourage good behavior. He was a fan and user of operant conditioning. If you reward good behaviour enough, it would become the standard.
Stanley Milgrim: Milgrim is famous for his experiment on authority and how people react to it. He had students and locals shock the other participants, but did not tell them it had been acted out until the end. He discovered that 65% of his participants would deliver harmful shocks to a person as long as a person in a lab coat was behind them telling he/she to do so. Milgrims worked was challenged and praised. It showed how people could be come subjected to authority and it opened up questions about ourselves. 65% of people gave harmful to deadly shocks. 65% of people you know may do the same to you and you might do the same Slater states. Milgrim's experiment created awe, fear, and doubt.
David Rosenhan: Rosenhan had done an experiment to disprove psychiatry and mental institutions. He had people pretend to have problems, yet act normal, in order to enter in an institution. In essence, he proved that the people giving drugs and administering people did not know what they were doing. His experiments hit the institutions hard and caused a stir. Slater repeated the experiment and says that while Rosenhan's participants had an average stay of seven days, she was never admitted and always greeted warmly (no abuse and Rosenhan's participants witnessed).
Darley and Latane: These two researchers studied the bystander effect. What prompted this was a a murder committed over many attacks and many minutes. It was recorded that lights in the surrounding windows went on and off as the attacks continued, but no one came down to help the screaming woman. Society was shocked and wanted an answer as to how such an event could happen. Darley and Latane conducted experiments showing that the more people present at an incident the less likely someone present would help. We inhibit each other, more likely to help by ourselves than in a group.
Leon Festinger: Festinger investigated cognitive dissonance. People think in order to justify their actions. He showed this by telling two groups of people to lie. In compensation, participants in one group were given one dollar for their lie and in the other they were given 20 dollars. The people given 20 dollars were more likely to admit they lied because they said they did it for the money. The people given one dollar tended not to admit they lied because it is hard to justify lying for just one dollar.
Harry Harlowe: Harlowe studied attachment and how it affected the monkeys he was raising. He discovered that attachment is very important; monkeys only develop correctly and normally when raised with others and with a parental figure. Harlowe also went on to discover that monkeys raised abnormally would not raise their children or would harm then. He invented a cruel restraining devise that allowed other male monkeys to impregnate the female monkeys raised abnormally. He called it the rape rack. Despite what I see as the dark side of Harlowe, Harlowe did show that caring and touching your baby is important. One needs attention to grow normally and to be able to interact acceptably
Bruce Alexander: Alexander experimented with rats and addictions to drugs. He created two situations. In one situation the rats were in a paradise and given an option between drugged water and normal water. In the other situation rats were put in a cage and given the same choices of water. It turned out that in paradise the rats did not want or take the drugged water, but in the caged situation the rats became addicted to the drug water. Alexander tried to prove that it was culture and surroundings that influenced addictions, not the drug itself.
Elizabeth Loftus: Slater says this is one of the more disliked researchers of our time. She proved that you can implant or alter memories in a person. She helped criminals on trial to show that maybe people recalled the wrong incident or memory. One thing I noticed throughout the description of her experiments and Slater's telling is that no one recalled a memory from their teens or twenties or had a memory implanted that was said to happen in their twenties. Rather, all memories were implanted or recalled from their early years when memory isn't so clear.
Eric Kandel: Kandel investigated memory enhancing drugs. Discovered that when given certain drugs rats could perform better. He showed their was a mechanism for memory and therefore helped challenge Loftus. Also, while discovering the brain had ways to monitor what it remember he also discovered that their are monitors to forget. Tampering with either could cause problems; a person could recall what he or she doesn't wish to recall or forget more than necessary. Slater, in 2004, said the drugs to enhance memory were not yet marketed due to ethical issues. I do not know if the drugs are still not sold. Apparently scientists thought this would create a competition and a requirement for the drugs, a scary competition.
Antonio Egas Moniz: Moniz studied and practiced lobotomies. He discovered that by snipping a nerve or so in the brain or taking infected pieces out one could lose the psychosis and regain their self. However, some the patients were not helped, some died, and some say that after the surgery they were better but lost some part of their self. Lobotomies are still practiced as the majority of the patients have been cured of their problem. So far, the loss of a little bit of self is worth the depression or issue taking place in the brain.
A good read and very interesting for any psychology person. I found that Slater often doubts more than necessary, but the stories she relays are good and made me think more about my self and how I interact with the world.
Schooling The World: The White Man's Last Burden
This movie was shown to me through the Social Anthropological Society of the Uni. I recommend it to anyone interested in people and the world change to becoming global rather than local.
The film is a long discussion between anthropologists and people from around the world discussing what it means for a country to enter in to the global market and Western society. Often criticizing the USA's past, the movie looks into how the Western culture has taken over and how it influences the countries it enters. It presents two views often seen by people. The first is that Westernization of a culture is good as it brings both income and development into a country. The second is that Westernization harms the life that was there and steady. The movie provides an example of how one views the world and what is actually happening. The example is similar to what follows.
If you were told that 20,000 people just got jobs, household income increased by 40% , and universities were opening up in a country you would probably think these are great things happening to a country. However, as the movie points out, this means that now many of the country's people are now unemployed and in poverty. Many of the people are being told they're failures and having to find poor paying job even though hey spent a lot of money on a degree. More are going away from their homes to get a degree rather then help their families. Included in the Western success is terror as now many will commit suicide from the pressure and many will lose their land. What we see as good isn't always good for everyone. Poverty didn't exist until the rich were made and were making the standards.
Watch the film. Schooling the World: The White Man's Last Burden
The film is a long discussion between anthropologists and people from around the world discussing what it means for a country to enter in to the global market and Western society. Often criticizing the USA's past, the movie looks into how the Western culture has taken over and how it influences the countries it enters. It presents two views often seen by people. The first is that Westernization of a culture is good as it brings both income and development into a country. The second is that Westernization harms the life that was there and steady. The movie provides an example of how one views the world and what is actually happening. The example is similar to what follows.
If you were told that 20,000 people just got jobs, household income increased by 40% , and universities were opening up in a country you would probably think these are great things happening to a country. However, as the movie points out, this means that now many of the country's people are now unemployed and in poverty. Many of the people are being told they're failures and having to find poor paying job even though hey spent a lot of money on a degree. More are going away from their homes to get a degree rather then help their families. Included in the Western success is terror as now many will commit suicide from the pressure and many will lose their land. What we see as good isn't always good for everyone. Poverty didn't exist until the rich were made and were making the standards.
Watch the film. Schooling the World: The White Man's Last Burden
The UK's Signs
During my family's road trip in December it was noted by my brother that the UK has a lot more signs than neccesary . Not only is this true, but it also has signs that would appear silly or confusing to a foreigner. Here are some of the signs we saw on our road trip and some I have seen exploring the country.
"Road Chef": This sign is often seen on motor ways and A roads. Until we stopped we never knew what they were, but it turns out they are a chain of restaurants. We were hoping for something...different.
"Ecclefgechan": After living here for some time now, even I have no idea how to pronounce this town.
"Welcome Break": To a traveler or someone new to the country like me this sign may sound like the nicest thing ever. I imagined a building with people there to help you and welcome to your destination. However, Welcome Breaks appear every 20 or so miles and our just a building complex with restaurants and convenience stores.
"Scotland's Secret Bunker": A sign saying the location was just a few miles away. Apparently it's not too secret anymore.
"Elderly People": It's complimented with a sign of a man and a women, the man using a cane.
"Sign Not In Use": I think this is my favorite sign. This sign appeared below a similar sign. Just letting you know what's going on in case you didn't notice, right?
"Road Chef": This sign is often seen on motor ways and A roads. Until we stopped we never knew what they were, but it turns out they are a chain of restaurants. We were hoping for something...different.
"Ecclefgechan": After living here for some time now, even I have no idea how to pronounce this town.
"Welcome Break": To a traveler or someone new to the country like me this sign may sound like the nicest thing ever. I imagined a building with people there to help you and welcome to your destination. However, Welcome Breaks appear every 20 or so miles and our just a building complex with restaurants and convenience stores.
"Scotland's Secret Bunker": A sign saying the location was just a few miles away. Apparently it's not too secret anymore.
"Elderly People": It's complimented with a sign of a man and a women, the man using a cane.
"Sign Not In Use": I think this is my favorite sign. This sign appeared below a similar sign. Just letting you know what's going on in case you didn't notice, right?
Witnessing a Car Crash
Many of you will remember that I crashed my family's Toyota two years ago. I still remember the accident and it sticks with me this day. It was raining hard and using my brakes I skidded into the car in front of me. I remember losing my senses a moment. Closing the eyes to a car intact and opening them to puffed out airbags, cake pieces everywhere and smoke, lots of smoke.
On January 3rd I had also witnessed an accident. My brother, a friend, and I were coming back to my dorm from seeing a film. Approaching an intersection, a taxi began to cross what I remember as slowly. Then, from the cross street, a car came and hit the driver's side door. The taxi moved a bit and within seconds the driver was out of the cab telling angrily the other driver of her mistake; she was going down the cross street the wrong way, it was one way, and she blew the equivalent of a stop sign.
Witnessing the accident, I remember it happening in both slow motion and yet too fast to be sure. The taxi appeared to be moving slowly through the intersection, taking his time. The other driver appeared to move so quickly that it almost looked as if the taxi driver had stopped in the intersection prior to the crash.
Shock stayed with us for a few minutes, waiting to see that both drivers could walk and settle out the dispute.
On January 3rd I had also witnessed an accident. My brother, a friend, and I were coming back to my dorm from seeing a film. Approaching an intersection, a taxi began to cross what I remember as slowly. Then, from the cross street, a car came and hit the driver's side door. The taxi moved a bit and within seconds the driver was out of the cab telling angrily the other driver of her mistake; she was going down the cross street the wrong way, it was one way, and she blew the equivalent of a stop sign.
Witnessing the accident, I remember it happening in both slow motion and yet too fast to be sure. The taxi appeared to be moving slowly through the intersection, taking his time. The other driver appeared to move so quickly that it almost looked as if the taxi driver had stopped in the intersection prior to the crash.
Shock stayed with us for a few minutes, waiting to see that both drivers could walk and settle out the dispute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)