Eternal Blessings

The term effort-optimism, a word that generally characterize Americans, was an important perception for me. Effort-optimism is the belief that hard work will pay off. However, what was even more interesting was how other countries perceived Americans work ethic.

"To people in many countries, Americans are overly ambitious. What we think of as a healthy work ethic, they see as needless effort or even arrogance" (Trenholm 352).

I personally feel that many Americans are too busy focusing on wealth, fame, power and a host of other shallow desires. When one desire is met, the bar is raised, again and again. We are greedy people and we have too much pride, which will lead to our destruction.

We are focused on the wrong things. Here's a poem I wrote:

OOPS! It Was Never Yo Show

Freely by faith in Christ we're offered the gift of eternal life

What this world has to offer can never measure up to this

This world as we know it

Is surely amiss

Improper. Out of Order.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean

We tend to elevate on the material things

When that house as you know it

May surely foreclose

And that car your driven

Remember . . . there's repo's

Oh, Yeah

Our looks.

They shall surely fade

So stop living so shallow

And get down underneath

Search for the Spiritual, so Eternal Blessings can flow

Now take a look around because

OOPS!

It Was NEVER Yo Show

To Believe or Not to Believe

Like the rationality premise, I do believe that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis. The social institutions that practice this belief is our voting system and the American courts because we have the right to have a trial by jury.

I also agree with the mutability premise. This premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and that the way to improve humans is to improve their physical and psychological circumstances. This premise brings forth the thought of "low socially economic status" (SES) families.

Low socially economic status families have to endure the hardship, of not only, (probably) living from pay check to pay check, but they also face drugs, crime, health issues, and educational barriers, to say the least. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying just because these families are facing barriers that they can not, have not, or will not persevere. What I am saying is that higher economic status families have an "environmental advantage." And I'll leave it at that.

Low SES families face greater risk factors than higher SES families. Risk factors are personal or environmental factors that make a negative outcome more likely. The mutability premise specifically targets communities whose inhabitants are environmental in danger.

In order to balance (lessen) the damage that the risk factors impose on a low SES community, protective factors have been put into place. A protective factor makes negative outcomes less likely. For instance, these low SES communities will have free or income sensitive clinics within them. The community's children are also bussed across the city to better schools. Lastly, but not least, programs like Big Brother Big Sister help thousands of children and families nationwide.

On another note, the perfectibility premise is based on the old Puritan idea that humans are born in sin, but they are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. I agree that we are born in sin. However, this belief appears to be saying that humans are capable of achieving goodness based on their own power and might. If this is the case, I strongly disapprove.

The Word of God says, "Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." (James 1:16-18)

Exploring the Unknown

Yes, I do agree with Ruth Benedict when she says that we are "creatures of our culture" and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture.

There is some evidence that a fetus will learn inside and outside a mother's womb. Hearing is a major factor in the fetus' learning in the womb. Researchers have also concluded that "in the weeks before birth, fetuses are sensitive to small differences in musical notes and prefer the sounds of their native language, even though it will be many months before they begin to speak it (The Development of Children, 5th ed. p82).

To me culture is formed naturally because we are "hard wired" to categorize things. For instance our language, speech patterns and the color of our skin, to say the least, are things we use to categorize. Studies have shown that we are able to categorize things, as early as three-months-old (The Development of Children, 5th ed. p188).

Upon categorizing these various things about ourselves, we begin to set ourselves a part from everyone else. We start to ask our group (those that we place in a category "like us") who are we? What is our purpose here and how are we to live our lives? These questions require the group to work together to form answers to these questions (Trenholm 343). This is the foundation of culture.

According to me, culture is basically a routine that a certain group of people follow (for their reasons) and the routine is understood by the people of that particular culture. The everyday practice of a routine becomes automatic, thus allowing for culture to be passed on for generations.

Although habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture, we can break through the limits that are placed on us. In order to break through these limits, we must be willing to put effort into learning about people, places, and things outside of our categorical limits. We must be willing to step outside of our comfort zone and familiarize ourselves with the unfamiliar.

Everything Is Not Always What It Seems

I found the topic of "object language" to be interesting. Object language is defined as "all intentional and nonintentional displays of material things, such as implements, machines, art objects, architectural structures, [as well as] the human body, and whatever clothes covers it." (Trenholm 133)

Our communication is affected by our environment. The book discusses that size, temperature, lighting, and noise (to name a few) are important communication factors.

For instance, if an instructor were to walk into the room wearing all "bright" yellow, he/she would be a distraction to the class. The outfit is considered to be too "loud." It's simply noisy.

On another note, when I read about object language, I thought about people themselves. When the statement said, ". . . our possessions act as public symbols of our values, status, and financial success, informing others of our identity and reinforcing our own sense of self." I didn't agree with this statement entirely.

Many people walk around with the cross on their necklace or an "I love Jesus" sticker on their car bumper. However, their lifestyles beg the differ. This is when the contradiction on verbal and nonverbal behavior comes into play.

I'm not even going to get started on people who fixate on dressing up the outside and are still "lacking a lot of things" on the inside, not to mention financial stability.

I Hope Nobody Saw That!

There are many nonverbal behaviors that can be misinterpreted. The most embarrassing misinterpretation of nonverbal communication, is to think that someone is waving and saying "hi," to you, but before ya know it, they're rushing pass you, with open arms, excited to see someone else. Then all you can do is feel a little stupid. . . in hopes that nobody else saw what just happened!

The way that excessive miscommunication of nonverbal behaviors can be avoided is to pay better attention to the person who is sending the message.

In my case, I should have been cautious in interpreting the nonverbal message. I could have taken my time to see if I really recognized the person. I should have also looked at their body position and eyes better. By taking the time to do this I could have noticed if their body position was turned towards me and I could have noticed if their eyes were looking pass me.

My failure to give proper attention to nonverbal cues casued me some embarrassment. I reacted quickly because I would hate for it to be someone I did know and I failed to wave.

MisUnderstood

Although nonverbal messages are more universal than verbal messages, nonverbals do not always carry the same meanings in other cultures. An example of nonverbal behavior that is very contradictory to the Western culture is the "head nod," displayed by the Japanese culture.

The Japanese culture is dedicated in creating harmony. This is why when they are being given directions or something they will say, "yes" while shaking their heads. However, they are simply letting you know, "I hear you". This head nod doesn't always mean that you are understood nor do they agree with what you are saying. This nonverbal behavior is practiced for the sake of harmony and this behavior is very confusing to the Western culture.

Many facial expressions are universal. However, a study was done to see how Japanese men and Western men responded to disgusting pictures. The Western culture made disgusting faces when showed these pictures. Contrastingly, the Japanese culture smiled while looking at these pictures.

Dangerous Ground

I believe it is not possible to perceive others without catagorizing them in some way.

A study done on three-month-old babies wanted to explore when do infants start to catagorize. The infants were shown four sets of pictures. The pictures were shown to them in sets of two.
The first three pictures shown were of different cats. The cats were of various sizes and colors. The last set of pictures shown were a picture of a new cat and a new dog.

Upon seeing these pictures the infants stared for a long period of time at the dog, than they did at the cat. This preferential looking indicated that the infants had made a category for cats and not dogs.

This study was conducted by Peter Eimas and Paul Quinn. This study is in the book The Development of Children, 5th ed. by Cole, Cole, and Lightfoot.

This study shows that we are hard wired to catagorize. It's part of our survival skills. Just think what would happen if we thought lions were horses?

To me catagorizing people, places, and things is normal and we can't get away from it. However, the problem we face is when we start to judge. Our judgments can get us into trouble - depending on the situation.

For instance, cell phones come in many shapes and sizes. Therefore, we catagorize them in a variety of ways. Then we determine which one is suitable for us. We made a critical decision. This is a good thing.

Unfortunately, when we start to judge people we are treading dangerous grounds. It's perfectly natural to catagorize. Our brains can't help it.

The problem we encounter is when we start to judge a person based on what we see. Judgment leads into stereotyping and stereotyping leads to a person loosing their individuality.
We must be mindful of our behaviors when it comes to categorizing people and we must be willing to avoid stereotyping at all costs. We should always be thinking, "I need to treat people the way I want to be treated."

The Big Cover Up!

What I found to be of great interests in this weeks reading was the word "euphemisms."
Euphemisms are inoffensive words that are used instead of highly charged terms.

Basically, euphemisms are used to trick the mind into thinking, "Oh, it's not that bad."

Some of the uses of euphemisms are as follows: (77)

(1) "clean bombs" doesn't sound so bad. This term is able to make one think that it's a bomb, but it doesn't cause that much damage - not like other bombs. Only if this were the case. Clean bombs are one thousand times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima!

(2) "collateral damage" sounds like what has been damaged isn't that significant. Collateral damage is the same as civilian deaths. The damage greatly exceeds significant.

(3) "friendly casualties" is another term that's misleading. Friendly casualties are American troops who have been killed by American bombs.

This language and the way it is used, especially by our political system, is misleading and deceives the public.