The Cardinal Assumption is Reforming

Prior to reading this article I knew that culture molds our habits of thoughts, however I never expected it to also mold how we think in the first place. Before the article I had agreed with the cardinal assumption: that the same basic processes underlie all human thought, no matter where someone is. Now I agree with most of the scholars who presented studies in the article. The article proved to be one of my favorites so far and I think that is because I was able to understand it through connection.
                Dr.Richard Nisbett found that people who grow up in different cultures do not just think about different things: they think differently. I knew that there is some variation on how people process things and think about them, but I had no idea how different people actually were.  In one of the studies it said that:

“Easterners, appear to think more ‘holistically,’ paying greater attention to the context and relationship, relying more on experience-based knowledge than abstract logic and showing more tolerance for contradiction. Westerners are more ‘analytic’ in their thinking, tending to detach objects from their context, to avoid contradictions and to rely more heavily on formal logic.”

                WOW.  After reading this I was astonished because I realized that all those things are true and I never really thought about how different we were. I now can understand why Asians are more holistic and take after their experience whether that be their own or their families pasts. Their culture influences all of this because of the strictness and how connected they are with their past causes them to become more holistic. While the American culture influences how we are more analytic and rely on formal logic. This is because our culture is revolved around independence and we have grown up being taught that we need to use our logic and analyze situations thoroughly.

                Another study showed Japanese and American students an animated underwater scene, in which one larger “focal” fish swam among smaller fishes and other aquatic life and they were required to describe what they saw.  Dr.Nisbett did a very good job, in my opinion, of telling how the “Americans were much more likely to zero in on the biggest fish, the brightest object, the fish moving the fastest because that’s where the money is as far as they’re concerned.” This gives a very good example of how the American culture of money and gaining power molds a person’s mind into picking out things where those are.

Describe what YOU see...



One of the paragraphs and studies I thought was the most interesting was how East Asians and Americans responded to contradiction. “Presented with weaker arguments running contrary to their own, Americans were likely to solidify their opinions, Dr.Nisbett said, ‘clobbering the weaker arguments,’ and resolving the threatened contradiction in their own minds. Asians, however, were more likely to modify their own position, acknowledging that even the weaker arguments had some merit.” Immediately I felt connected because I noticed that in my own life I do the same thing that Dr.Nisbett said Americans do. I almost always use weaker arguments to my advantage by making my argument stronger and I rarely reconsider my argument. This has inspired me to change, from now on I will try to think the way that East Asians do and use those weaker arguments to modify my position.

Eating Your Friends Is the Hardest

This week’s article brings up how our world is socially constructed, and that nothing contains built-in meaning. Some may argue that some things contain a built in meaning, but ultimately they do not. The article about the Uruguayan rugby team is a perfect example of this. Prior to the plane crash, the world (for the most part) considered cannibalism as an out of this world idea. That idea everyone inherited from their uprising, which is why it may seem like it already has a built in meaning because we are so used to it. However after the plane crash of F-227 and the events necessary to survival, the world (mainly media) transformed the idea of cannibalism as an act which was formerly unconceivable to something that was, and could be necessary in times.

                Immediately after reading the article I made a connection to what we had talked about in class a few days ago. We were discussing how the world is socially constructed and whatever meaning something has, it’s arbitrary. We brought up the idea of saliva/spit. Normally we think of spit as that disgusting liquid in our mouth that we spit out. Our outlook on it changes under different circumstances like when we are kissing someone. The spit is no longer “spit” and isn’t disgusting, its saliva and something that is part of kissing and is desirable (to some).

                These two things tie in to one another because spit will always be spit, but is only socially acceptable when kissing. While eating a peer is not okay to normally choose and is only acceptable if it is under complete necessity.

                On another note about the article, I thought it was very interesting and a few of the parts were pretty hard to imagine but caught my attention. One of the paragraphs talked about how a survivor was sleeping inside the fuselage and a frozen hand rubbed against his face because someone had “gotten a late night snack.” Besides it being already hard enough to eat a friend, I imagine it must have been even harder to be the first one to take a bite of human flesh. I also thought it was interesting how they ultimately decided on cannibalism, which was they determined the bodies were no longer people because their souls had left them. Overall I enjoyed reading the article and the author’s social connection’s at the end of it and I will probably watch the movie again sometime soon.

I have seen the movie about the flight of F-227 and I remember starting the book and seeing a disturbing picture, which also relates to how it is only socially acceptable to eat a friend when it is absolutely necessary for survival. Here is the picture, notice the human spine and ribs next to the guys on the right. Yet they are still smiling because they are surviving because they ate their friends because it was necessary to survival.

Addicted to Danger

A couple of months ago I read a book called Addicted to Danger by the famous, and one of the best high altitude climbers, Jim Wickwire. In the book he travels the world in search of the new best high, which he gets by putting himself at risk. I was thinking one day during class about climbing mountains and that’s when I remembered about how I read this book a couple of months ago. One of the questions the book had asked was “where is the line between climbing in high altitude for your own personal glory or for publicity?” As an avid climber, I feel this question is attached to any climbers back when it comes to a dangerous climb. I would consider myself “addicted to danger” because I like that thrill of being on the edge. At the same time, that addiction to danger for me also stems from sociological ideas. Some of these ideas being that climbing something so dangerous is equivalent to being a god among mortals and that idea is what drives the addiction to danger.

            In most cases with regular mountaineering that is truly just for pleasure (no sponsors, no Sherpa’s, etc.), there are little to none of these sociological pressures I think of. However when you get to higher altitude and more risk climbs, the personal glory reason for the climb can only take you so far. There is a point where outside pressures to climb an extremely dangerous mountain play in. Some of these points could be a company that sponsors a climber to climb and will pay for all expenses, pay the climber, and make the climber famous, if they are able to complete the climb. Something like that is the determining factor on whether or not a climber will come down to safety, or climb on to certain death.

            This is a short blog post on something I read which relates to sociology, and I know it is also a very confusing one. With many of my connections between my experiences or something I read/saw and sociology I feel like they can be very hard to understand in my writing. I believe that in most cases it is harder to put what you feel or what you are thinking down on paper than it is to say it out loud. That is the case with most of my blog posts and work in every class, not just sociology. I think this is a neat connection which I also think most people would not make. If this is confusing for you, then ask me to explain it in person and I’d be happy to explain it to you!

-TH

Here is a link with the "Addicted to Danger" book on amazon.com
I highly recommend reading it...
http://www.amazon.com/Addicted-Danger-Jim-Wickwire/dp/B005FOH4CS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315290450&sr=8-1

The First Honors Reading

I thought I would start off with a very exciting video on "What is Sociology?", so here it is:

             With that behind, this blog post is my first Honors reading blog post, so bear with me. The first article I was assigned for my honors reading was called What is Sociology? Comparing Sociology and the Other Social Sciences. After reading the article, I didn’t know what to think at first. There was no doubt that I thought it was interesting, but I just didn’t know if it was the good or bad kind of interesting. After I thought about it some more I realized it was the good type of interesting, which is what I was hoping for. It was the good type of interesting because it provided distinct characterizations of the different social sciences. I enjoyed reading how the different social sciences compare to sociology and I found myself relating them in my head later in the day after I was done reading.

            One of the things that caught my eye was of a relationship between the author’s idea of sociological situations and what we did in class a few days ago. On one of the days in class we went over in groups why there could be juvenile delinquency and what were some sociological factors that played in along with psychological factors to cause juvenile delinquency. I immediately made that connection in my head because we went over it in class.

            I can relate the purpose of this article which is the vagueness of the definition of sociology with my own life with relationships. With relationships I do not mean just dating, I mean human interaction and friendships as a whole. Just like introductory students with the ambiguity of the definition of sociology, I felt uncertainty as a first born child with relationships. I had nothing to base my ideas off of and I also had nothing to relate to which would have helped me understand relationships with peers and others better. I’m sorry if that doesn’t quite make sense to you; I had trouble trying to write that connection out on paper. If you have a question about that relation I made then you can ask me so that I can hopefully try to explain it better and more clearly.

            I have already seen my own “biography” influenced by my personal history in so many ways. There are also many different levels which one is influenced. There are many different possibilities that can factor it. Things like going to an all boys or coed school, or a private catholic versus a public school. At the same time, small things like who you pass and say hello to in the hall can also have a very strong effect on a person’s sociological and psychological outcome.

-TH

Post Script: I apologize for not puting my signature "TH" at the bottom of my "The REAL First Post"

The REAL First Post

For the real first post I am supposed to write “Who Am I? Write a blog entry that defines who you are. Explain to the class what makes up the person you are. What are the biggest influences in your life? What are your goals/purposes?”
            Personally I feel this is too difficult for me to answer through writing, but seeing as this is an assignment I guess I have to. It’s much easier I think for someone to see who I am by meeting and talking or being in my class with me.

To summarize who I am is something I don’t normally think about doing. But I would say I am very different than many of the people who live around here. While people around here may like going outdoors, I truly enjoy being in the outdoors. I’m an avid hiker, climber, and skier. Unfortunately living where I do, I am unable to do those things without having to travel quite a bit. One cool thing that I can think of about me right now is that I plan to climb and ski down Mt.Elbrus is Western Russia this coming summer. Mt.Elbrus is the highest point in Europe at around 18,510 feet. It also is apparently home to the world's "Nastiest Outhouse" said Outside magazine in 1993, I'm really looking forward to that.

I care for the environment, but would consider myself a very hypocritical person when it comes to it. That is probably because of the Edward Abbey books I have read so far (Desert Solitaire, and The Monkey Wrench Gang), along with the book Hayduke Lives!, which I just started reading. These books are written by their eco terroristic author who uses his own past experiences to tell fictional tales of characters. I believe these books have changed who I am in the past year, especially how I feel about the environment since I first read one of his books. I would say that he is one of the influences on my life. I would also say that all my peers, teachers, and the rest of the world are my biggest influences in my life because I don’t really look up to anyone in particular.

At this point in my life, I don’t really know what my goals or purposes in life are. I have a few things on my bucket list, which I guess could be used as “my goals or purposes in life” for now. A few of those things are climbing the 7 summits (highest points on each continent), hike the Appalachian trail, Kayak down the Mississippi River, ride behind the Tour De France for the entire race, and a few other things which come and go as I remember them or as I gain new interests. My other goals are to get straight A’s for the rest of high school because I didn’t do so well freshman or sophomore year (2.455 GPA Freshman year, 2.8 GPA Sophomore year). I was able to get straight A’s and get a 4.1 GPA last year (Junior year), and I hope to also get straight A’s this year because I must for 1^st semester of this year if I want to go to the college of my dreams. That is another goal you could say of mine in my life right now, is get straight A’s so that I can get into the college of my dreams, which is Colorado College in Colorado Springs, Colorado where I could also play Divison 3 lacrosse. I am way below their average GPA to get in, but I would be the 3^rd generation of my family to go and 5^th member of my family to go if I ended up going to CC. Other than that I can’t recall any other goals, but I’m sure I will remember them later. I’m sorry if this is a bland summary of “who I am” but the only thing I can say is that it would be better to meet me and see how I act in class and around people.

Here is a 3D model of Mt.Elbrus is Western Russia...
Elbrus_3D_version_1.gif‎

And here is a video of the CC Division 3 lacrosse team about You vs. Them... I think its a pretty sweet video, but thats probably because this is where I want to go and play lacrosse.