Josie sighed as she took a hard baby out of the juicy, voluptuous baby

Discrimination isn't always a bad thing.
At least, in some sense, it isn't.
Looking at it from a functionalist perspective (everything has a function), it exists for a reason. It unites those that are discriminated against AND unites those that are discriminating against others. It allows us to form a sense of self (even if it may not necessarily be as good as looking in upon one's self). On the reverse, as a dysfunction, it may muddle one's sense of self and maybe identify them with a group they don't feel they belong in. In my mind, it is never a simply negative word - is it wrong to look at some minority (... or even majority) and realize that they are different from me in some way (physical appearance or culture, for the most part)? I don't think it's necessarily right to form prejudices based off of these discriminations, but it's an unavoidable part of who we are.
"I'm not them. They aren't us."
Differences, as such, make the world go 'round, (does a cube go 'round or does it go about/'bout?) but "unique-ness" and "originality" are transparent concepts.
Sometimes, it's just telling the difference.
If it weren't for discrimination, apples would be the same thing as babies.
"Don't drop the apple, Richard! Its apple will definitely break!"
"Josie sighed as she took a hard baby out of the juicy, voluptuous baby".

I need to give this blog more love.

I'm almost on my twentieth post on my AP Psych blog.
This blog has five posts.
It's almost as if I'm neglecting a child. I sort of wish I could just fuse the two blogs, but I don't want to... even though they very often dance together, with long, glowing hair and shiny faces.
It's not at all as if I never actually think and apply the Sociological concepts we learn to myself and my life and the like. It's just... the thoughts get muted, in some strange ways. Ideas for posts:

+ Lack of Originality/False Originality and being "Random" or "Weird" ("I don't think anyone else has the same kinds of thoughts I do.")
+ Inborn Talent - Tabula Rasa?
+ Discrimination Isn't Always Such a Bad Thing

3-D Glasses

This blog feels naked, empty, a tabula rasa, of sorts. My AP Psych blog is though, too... even taking both into account, I don't think it's possible to get a truly good idea of my character. That can be found through interactions with me, as I am generally the same all around, although I fill different roles. At school, I'm the inquisitive student, and yet, I'm still Joey. With some of my friends, I'm a listener. For others, I'm a talker, an advice-giver. For mostly everyone, I am a bit of a humorist. But I am always Joey. The only time there's really role conflict is when I'm unsure how to approach a situation, if that makes sense.
My humor is perverted, is weird, is strange, but it makes people laugh. Whether they do it because they think it's genuinely hilarious or because they feel awkward and that awkward moments need awkward laughs to make it more awkward, I live for the laugh, sometimes. But I usually don't think about what I say for the reason that the thoughts that roll out of my head can be rather strange - just ask anyone in my Ancient Civilizations class last term about purple pudding. There is a filter that filters out things not appropriate for the situation, though.
I don't want to pass through this world and fade away from the memory of our world. I realize and feel that no one truly makes an impact - after all, we're less than a speck of a speck in a giant sea of sand, and that's how important we truly are. But I want to be remembered. Not as a celebrity, just someone that made a difference in someone's life. Or someones' lives, which is even better. I just want to be important, even if it's only to a single person. The more, the better, possibly.
This is precisely why I like learning about sociology and, especially, psychology. Maybe. I'm probably going to become a liscensed psychologist, provided I don't implode, explode, deplode, or replode before that time comes.
It's really hard to achieve goals when seeing with 3-D glasses - red and blue at the same time. I can see and argue for both sides of almost anything, which some could say is a gift or an important aspect (which Dubs would probably argue, actually). But these glasses also make me see in simultaneous optimistic and pessimistic ways. These conflict, maybe as roles, possibly as ideas, definitely as feelings. It creates a lethargy of undecisiveness that keeps me from doing what I want to do.
I'm writing this pile of nonsense when I really should have gone to bed an hour ago.
Post a blog, it's therapeutic; go to bed, no one cares.
Exercise, keep yourself healthy; no one cares about your self-image, you're going to die eventually anyway.
Work on your art so you can improve; no one gives a shit about your shitty, shitty art, you're a pile of shit... and it doesn't matter in the end.
Work towards your dreams, to success; don't bother, you'll fail.

Athletes == WHOOHOO DEVIANCE.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/081208-sports-bad-behavior.html

"Bad Sports Behavior Starts in Youth"

The media has vivaciously reported on any and all cases of athletes acting "inappropriately", whether in the games they play, or in the lives they live. It doesn't even seem to matter if the athletes are "major league", in college, or in the little leagues; aggression/deviant acts in athletes seems to spread across all ages. Actions of these sort have become so strangely common that sociologists have created a study called "deviance in sports" (you have to be pretty noteworthy to get your own field of research!).

Some athletes resort to methods that are... gritty to win, even though they may be against the rules or even illegal. Sometimes deviant acts are even committed because society seems to accept or push them.

As according to cliches, football players were found to be a good amount more aggressive than their non-footballing peers. Wrestlers were even moreso, while tennis players... were a lot less likely, actually. (Picturing a 'roided-out tennis player smashing heads is hilarious, especially if they're wearing the traditional headband-and-little-shorts.)

MY PICK IS...
THE STRAIN THEORY. WHICH IS KIND OF THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY MAKES SENSE HERE.
People have a strong desire to follow or achieve what society declares goals or norms. However, some people are more willing or likely to take... different methods to achieve these goals. This is partly where these... angrathletes (see what I did there? Do you like it?) come in. Society pushes success and winning, and not everyone has equal footing to get there, so some angrathletes are more willing to take different-than-normal (aka DEVIANT!) methods to get there. Steroids, punching babies, kicking the elderly, et cetera.
The people that punch fruit/lick tents/inject highly illegal substances are defined as "innovators". The word has no bias, but the person reading this summary (I see you, Mrs. Wollersheim! And everyone else!) and the people viewing these innovators do. Their deviance from the "norms" may be meant for a good thing (steroid users == steroid users to support team and keep crowd happy, along with prize money for 'roiders like bodybuilders), but it's not always interpreted as such.

Sort of like those two guys in some... southern state. I can't remember which... those are all pretty much one state, anyway. Anyway, they were wrasslers, and they got kicked off the team for getting paid to be on a pornographic site. A "gay" pornographic site (but the two laddies weren't involved in "gay" activity). Which is kind of hilarious in some really strange way. It apparently did not involve gnomes, hats, the color purple, nor pterodactyls, so it's not very awesome in my opinion... wait... err- right. Right. Yeah. They probably only did it to make money (and to... "show off their equipment" WINK WIN-- ohgodican'tdothiskillmenow.) Some people wonder if they were removed from the smattering of team because it was a "gay-for-pay" site; would it have been the same if it was some "straight porn" site? I don't think it would have been the sa-- why am I talking about this! THIS ISN'T RELATE - I need new shoes.

ANYWAY. MY GOODNESS. Please pretend that last paragraph didn't happen. Or do. Whichever way suits you. *adjusts monocle and combs curly moustache* I know this man-ling (not a boy, not a man... some weird combination of the two) that was on the wrasslin' team and he is just... nuts. Aggressive. I'm always afraid to tell him to leave me alone or to go away or to STOP ANGSTING TO ME ABOUT THINGS I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IF YOU DON'T LET ME ANGST IN RE-- uh. Yeah. I'm always terrified that he'll punch my lights out. My face-lights... eyes. Yes. My eyes. I need those to see (although some amazing things can be done with the tongue!).
I'm sure this boy-o is aggressive due to genetics, but also due to nurture. Again, we fall into that debate. Society grabs the loudspeaker and shouts at us to out more coal into the pit and to be successful (sort of opposites, no?). Sometimes, you have to resort to being aggressive or scary in order to bully people into giving you opportunities that you don't really have. Society seems to simultaneously smile and frown (srown?) upon deviations as such.

I'm rambling. I'm going to cut the artery before this thing gets off the table and pillages some villages. Besides, *checks pocket watch* I have to get going anyway. A bunch of fish are in my fridge, waiting to be devoured by an angry pterodactyl filled with purple gnomes.

P.S. I APOLOGIZE FOR HOW NUTS THIS MUST HAVE BEEN. My cold or whatever this is is making me *more* wonky and making me express it more. Which is scary. Run while you can!
Also, I tagged this as "scooters" because it was a suggestion courtesy of Blogger.

Simulation!

1. Green Bay has approximately 5.5 more percent of its citizens living below the poverty level than Wisconsin, as a whole, does.
2. The majority "family type" that makes up the majority of the families in poverty in Green Bay is "female, no husband present".
3. The majority of people affected by poverty in our town and in Wisconsin are below the age of eighteen. This is probably because they haven't had many opportunities to get out of this state of poverty, or because they've lived in this environment for so long that they've learned helplessness. It's actually kind of ironic - the common stereotype is that homeless people are all old (thirties, forties, etc), but what seem to make up the majority of homeless people are children.
------------
1. I work as a barista and food prep team member at the Harmony Cafe in Green Bay. I make nine dollars an hour (there are no listed qualifications). 1660 Mason Street.
2. 2126 Harold Street. Green Bay, WI. $340 per month plus fifty dollars per month for utilities.
3. I'll ride the bus to my job - my house is even on the bus line. It'll take appx. forty minutes to commute to my job from my home/from my job to my home. It costs 35 dollars per month.
4. I'll allocate 75$ per month for food.
5. I'll use a sitter - Kate D. - for ten to fifteen dollars per hour. I'll have my parents/friends take care of my kid for the morning/afternoon (for four hours each day) and the sitter will sit my child for four additional hours, until I get home. This will cost me about 800 dollars per month, which will leave me with about 140 dollars left, per month. This will be spent on things such as shampoo, soap, silverware/dishes (most likely a one-time purchase, but I could also get some from family). If I can afford it, I'll definitely get medical insurance, at least for my kid.
--------

1. This is kind of startling, to be honest. I had the Real World course last term, so I knew budgeting would be pretty difficult. This simulation might have been better, though - I mean, in this, we had to look for real jobs and houses and those sorts of things; they weren't just provided to be provided because it's a simulation.

2. My annual salary would be about 1440, monthly. That equates to about 17,280 yearly, assuming I make the same amount each week and that I work every day without sick- or vacation-days. So it would probably fluctuate.
That's above the poverty level, which is between 13 and 14,000 per year. So I earn above that level, but not by much, really.

3. I really wouldn't have any money left over, since the babysitter costs so little short-term, but so much long-term. Paying her literally saps out money that I feel could maybe be better used (who said my parents would have a life!?).

Nature and Nurture

We, as people, are nothing without society. Without society, is there truly any reason to exist (one could question what the meaning or reason for existence is in the first place)? If there were a last person on earth, who would they prove themselves to? What would be the point in developing or using things like language? Would their own satisfaction, their own mind, keep them company? Would they"turn into" or develop like a "feral child", without any further/any (if they were born before they became the last person/if they were born as the last person) social experience? What would they do - live with animals, or live in total isolation from any sort of living being? Would they manifest the loneliness that they would surely experience as a psychological disorder, such as DID? This really raises a lot of questions, a lot of which are truly unable to be answered from an objective standpoint.

Charles Cooley's "Looking Glass Self" is the concept that people's personalities and selves grow out of interpersonal interactions and the perceptions of others. Some sociologists feel that this concept is in force during all of a person's life, or until all social interactions are ceased or cut short, while others believe it naturally wanes over time. George Herbert Mead sort of dives deeper into this theory with his concept of "Role-Taking": That is, people not only act according to how they think others see them ("You see me as cute, smart, and funny, so I'll incorporate those things into my personality"), but that they sort of absorb traits or characteristics of people that they are surrounded by - role-models, respectable adults, friends, family, etc - and start to sort of imitate them and add them into their own personalities.

Genie's story definitely complements Cooley's works - at a very, very young age, she was cut off completely from virtually all forms of human contact (therefore not exposing her to important parts of society, which of course include language and perception), and she has suffered the consequences for all of her life. She had virtually no social identity - neighbors weren't even aware of her existence at all! - and had no perception about how people viewed her. If her cognitive processes were advanced enough to think in some semblance of the way the "average person" does, I wonder if she felt like she was scum because of how she was (or, I suppose, wasn't) treated by her parents. I'd also like to know if, before her "discovery", if she really thought anything at all, or if she was what we assume to be closer to an animal; that is, did she actually do what we deem as "think", was she aware of herself in any way?
I'm also curious if she learned helplessness. I don't mean in the same way of learning that is taught at schools - I mean if her parent's actions enforced/reinforced her belief or her subconscious beliefs or feelings that there was nothing she could do to alleviate the situation, therefore feeling helpless, and giving up hope on trying to fix the problem.
Above all else, I truly wonder what her state of mind is now, almost forty years after her discovery. How close to "normal" is she when it comes to conscious, cognitive thought processes? What about her subconscious?

I'm, honestly, don't know what "side" I'm on in the nature vs. nurture debate. Something that adds to my lack of side-picking is the fact that in the video about Genie and the one about feral children, it was established that nurture plays a HUGE part in development. But at the same time, I've read statistics that say that nurture is only 30 some percent responsible for development and personality and those sorts of things - Dubs even showed me part of an article study from AP Psych that had to do with that exact topic, and it fell in line with the 70-30 division - the lack of a true, conflicting answer, in my opinion, makes it somewhat difficult to determine. If someone says that they truly believe that nature is, by FAR, the most important, I'd have to ask them why feral children exist in real life. If someone else said that nurture was the most important, I'd ask them how people have brains and "think on a higher level" in the first place.
I think I'll pick a side, after all. But it's not the right or left hand, it's not the black or white tile, it's not the number one or the number ten - it's the side of in-between. I am all the space between the two polar opposites - all the negative space between the hands, the dark greys and silvers between the blacks and whites, all the numbers between one and ten. Maybe if we discuss this further, or if I get a chance to do my own research (Internet for the win!), I'll be able to pick one of the two obvious sides and not the invisibles that lie in-between. Or maybe I won't.

Assignment # 1

I think that there is indeed a point at which a line needs to be drawn in the sand. If globalization continues at the rate it's continuing at, nothing will be as interesting anymore. Take, for example, a person that is absolutely obsessed with some foreign land and culture. If globalization overexposes them to it, or waters it down, will it be as interesting or cool any more? I don't think it would be, to be honest. Globalization also indirectly puts people out of jobs, one could say. [sarcasm] If it weren't for globalization, low-pay, extremely poor people making our clothes for a little money for their families wouldn't be happening - I mean, those jobs would be going to people in our own country, who may be just a little less poor. [/sarcasm] However, one could also argue that a person in China's well being is no more or less important than your own.

It makes me feel kind of weird to see things like KFC and McDonalds signs in a busy square in China. I mean, I don't feel proud - I'm not patriotic, and I don't feel that fried, fatty birds or savory Big Macs full of death are "American things". I think the feeling is a little... revulsion. While it's true that we, the United States, are spreading good things to other countries ("developing societies", technology, etc) we are also spreading bad things, like obesity and some very Western ideas of society. Of course, all things called "good" or "bad" are called thus at the speaker's whim - because obviously, the words are entirely subjective. Therefore, I completely digress.

There may be some benefits to cultural lag. Take Athens and Sparta, for example - Athens was more "sophisticated" and "developed", while Sparta shunned things like art and theater and technology, but they became extremely famous for their insanely strong military and definitely helped in the defense of Greece in a certain ancient battle with the Persians. Both contributed to Greece, albeit in majorly different ways. I think it could be the same for "developed" countries and their inverse, the "lagging" countries. The same applies for people and cultures.
I think that both advanced and lagging cultures have things the other could use - the Native Americans taught the Europeans how to harvest and prepare crops, while the Europeans certainly shared things in return. In the end, both gained valuable experience from their contact, and, in a way, evolved into more intertwined, connected, yet advanced cultures.

The only "area" within the school that might be lagging would be the... Math department. I only say this on the basis of the more Republican-esque (I use the term loosely, because I only know of two Math teachers that are Republican, so I'm making generalizations [also, I think "cultural lag" is kind of subjective - they could argue that they don't lag at all!]) views they hold or share. I am forced to digress because I can argue my own points against myself (that argues the opposite points), and because I do not feel like staging an epic battle against myself. With that, I bid you adieu.