1. The performance seemed to suggest that the main factor leading to domestic violence does not start within the relationship. Rather, it is a product of the abuser's social environment. The high school kid seemed encouraged to press that girl despite her protests because in the culture that exists in his school, this is the manly thing to do. The man who abused his girlfriend was mentioned to be a good friend before they started dating, perhaps that is how he was brought up to view relationships.
Part of what perpetuates dating violence seems to be mainly related to an unclear definition of what exactly it is. The woman that was being abused didn't seem to know it, and so when her friend tried to help she took offense. Similarly, if the boys on the basketball team had defined what was going on as rape, they would have been much more inclined to stop it.
2. I think that the culture in a society will respond very little to government interaction on this subject, again because so many people don't recognize domestic violence. That being said, I do think it would be helpful to recognize domestic violence as it's own crime. It seems like in our society domestic violence is often regarded as simple assault in our modern system, and the part about domestic abuse is simply mentioned when it comes to finger-pointing. True certain actions are identified as abuse, but I still think it is important to focus on that more and define it better.
3. one thing briefly mentioned was pressure on guys by their friends. There used to be these commercials on the radio trying to discourage having sex before you were ready. There were two of them, a girl talking to her friends and a guy talking to his friends. The girl would say things like 'he keeps pressuring me' and her friend would say something like 'if he keeps doing it leave him'. The guy would talk about how he feels uncomfortable being one of the few guys that's never done it (kind of like the virgin Larry) and he wants to just hurry up so he can brag. His friends discourage him from doing it just for that reason, and at some point one of them says 'half those guys who say they're doing it are lying anyway'. I know that type of pressure exists, but I still wonder if that's true.
4. I suppose so. A lot of the people in my discussion group said they didn't feel they had been exposed to anything new with it, but a different group of ninth graders may feel differently. And in the discussion, I think, people probably felt they came up with something new. It might also work to do something similar with an issue less commonly discussed in depth by SOF students, like gang violence.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Hw 57
Part 1:
Part 2:
When Parenting Theories Backfire-- Well that theory, honestly, was not a very good idea. Even without the unpredictable responses, a child that is constantly being asked "you choose" will come to think of themself either as the ruler of the universe, or feel that options are pressing in on them from all sides. Plus, a parent constantly asking the same question will begin to sound like a broken record, and eventually be discredited and ignored, leaving the child to feel alone. And the unpredictable responses are going to be a problem when you try applying anyone else's theory: if you didn't invent it, you won't know how to counteract something that goes outside it's boundries.
Attachment Parenting-- they worked pretty hard to make some of thise start with B, huh? Anyway, I don't have any strong responces to this. My main reaction was that these methods may not always be applicable, but that is also mentioned later on. The only thing I sort of disagree with was the babywearing thing: I'm not against it, I just don't think it's as helpful as it seems. I think the main issue is that that's the time that babies get the most stimulation, but if you provide them with objects or other people to interact with most of the time being carried around won't be that different for them.
- What should be the guiding principles? Love? Obedience? Loving obedience? Humor? Empowerment? Subordination? Time outs? Separate cribs or co-sleeping? Breast feeding or bottle? Child-centered or parent-centered? etc.
- What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)?
Part 2:
When Parenting Theories Backfire-- Well that theory, honestly, was not a very good idea. Even without the unpredictable responses, a child that is constantly being asked "you choose" will come to think of themself either as the ruler of the universe, or feel that options are pressing in on them from all sides. Plus, a parent constantly asking the same question will begin to sound like a broken record, and eventually be discredited and ignored, leaving the child to feel alone. And the unpredictable responses are going to be a problem when you try applying anyone else's theory: if you didn't invent it, you won't know how to counteract something that goes outside it's boundries.
Attachment Parenting-- they worked pretty hard to make some of thise start with B, huh? Anyway, I don't have any strong responces to this. My main reaction was that these methods may not always be applicable, but that is also mentioned later on. The only thing I sort of disagree with was the babywearing thing: I'm not against it, I just don't think it's as helpful as it seems. I think the main issue is that that's the time that babies get the most stimulation, but if you provide them with objects or other people to interact with most of the time being carried around won't be that different for them.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Hw 56
Part 1:
Since the people I'm interviewing (my mom and her friend) are therapists themselves and have taught therapy in graduate school, I made no effort to simplify my questions:
-What are some of the benefits of drugs over talk therapy?
-Under what circumstances is talk therapy most effective?
-Would the addition of talk therapy be helpful in a situation that calls for drug therapy? Vice-versa?
These were just some basic starting points, since they know much more about the topic than I do.
Part 2:
I first talked to my mother, who used to have a private practice and currently teaches family systems. She said, in essence:
The use of drug therapy vs talk therapy depends largely on how entrenched the behavior is. For more recent, situational depression and anxiety, medication is likely to be unnecessary; but in the case of a patient that has chronic, chemically based emotional issues drugs will be necessary to put them in an appropriate state to change their behavior. Drugs are essentially helpful as a jumpstart, they make people motivated to and capable of change when their state was otherwise intractable, but are ultimately incapable of actually changing them. She mentioned that a lot of people take drugs to sort of stabilize themselves for talk therapy, as otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to put in the work needed to change their situation; and that ultimately a combination of both is often what is most effective.
I then talked with her best friend, who is currently running a busy private practice, she said:
Drugs treat the chemical component most quickly. While talk therapy has been shown to alter chemical composition of the brain in a more long term way, it is not as quick. She also mentioned that talk therapy has the benefit of being a form of interaction in itself, just the act of talking to someone in itself can be helpful. The purpose of therapy is to get the patient to change their behavior in a way that would help them deal with or fix their emotional problems, and drugs on their own ultimately can't teach someone the new methods they might need. She also mentioned that because of this a patient may remain dependent on drugs for their entire life because they haven't actually addressed the cause of the problem.Overall, she agrees that a combination is best.
Part 3:
Overall, it seems like my thesis has been slightly altered by these interviews: I was originally going to argue talk therapy over medication, but now it seems like it might be best to advocate for a combo approach. I may still be able to argue that drugs on their own are not as effective as talk therapy on its own or a combination, however.
Part 4:
On a scale of 'definitely true' to 'definitely false': "I prefer for an unpleasant situation to be resolved as opposed to just going away." or something.
Since the people I'm interviewing (my mom and her friend) are therapists themselves and have taught therapy in graduate school, I made no effort to simplify my questions:
-What are some of the benefits of drugs over talk therapy?
-Under what circumstances is talk therapy most effective?
-Would the addition of talk therapy be helpful in a situation that calls for drug therapy? Vice-versa?
These were just some basic starting points, since they know much more about the topic than I do.
Part 2:
I first talked to my mother, who used to have a private practice and currently teaches family systems. She said, in essence:
The use of drug therapy vs talk therapy depends largely on how entrenched the behavior is. For more recent, situational depression and anxiety, medication is likely to be unnecessary; but in the case of a patient that has chronic, chemically based emotional issues drugs will be necessary to put them in an appropriate state to change their behavior. Drugs are essentially helpful as a jumpstart, they make people motivated to and capable of change when their state was otherwise intractable, but are ultimately incapable of actually changing them. She mentioned that a lot of people take drugs to sort of stabilize themselves for talk therapy, as otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to put in the work needed to change their situation; and that ultimately a combination of both is often what is most effective.
I then talked with her best friend, who is currently running a busy private practice, she said:
Drugs treat the chemical component most quickly. While talk therapy has been shown to alter chemical composition of the brain in a more long term way, it is not as quick. She also mentioned that talk therapy has the benefit of being a form of interaction in itself, just the act of talking to someone in itself can be helpful. The purpose of therapy is to get the patient to change their behavior in a way that would help them deal with or fix their emotional problems, and drugs on their own ultimately can't teach someone the new methods they might need. She also mentioned that because of this a patient may remain dependent on drugs for their entire life because they haven't actually addressed the cause of the problem.Overall, she agrees that a combination is best.
Part 3:
Overall, it seems like my thesis has been slightly altered by these interviews: I was originally going to argue talk therapy over medication, but now it seems like it might be best to advocate for a combo approach. I may still be able to argue that drugs on their own are not as effective as talk therapy on its own or a combination, however.
Part 4:
On a scale of 'definitely true' to 'definitely false': "I prefer for an unpleasant situation to be resolved as opposed to just going away." or something.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hw 55
Part 1:
My question: "Is therapy as effective as medication for treatment of stress and depression?"
Part 2:
Yu-Xi: Your question is interesting, but potentially difficult to investigate. In order to make it easier, you may want to chose one specific aspect of bonding to investigate in depth. For example, you could ask 'What are some common situations that lead to deepening romantic relationships?' You could also try to make your question easier to research by making it more scientific, so that there would be more concrete evidence available.
Devin (section 1) :
This is a really good question. The only room I see for improvement is in the word 'qualities', you may want to tighten that up a little. On the other hand, I think it would work just as well as it is if you then define specific aspects in the thesis of the paper itself.
Part 3:
Marano, Hara. "Talk Therapy vs. Drugs ." Psychology Today. N.p., 01 Feb 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
A short but interesting source from Psychology Today. It talks about the different types of effects that the two therapies have on the brain.
Davis, Jeanie. "Depression: Drug v. Talk Therapy." CBS News. CBS News, 08 Sep. 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
An article on the subject. It calls attention to the changes in treatment over the years, and some of the benefits and downsides of both. Also cites some useful statistics on prescription drug use and coverage.
"Do You Need Drugs or Talk Therapy?." Health.com. N.p., 05 May 2008. Web. 12 May 2010..
An article from Health.com comparing the two. This one seems to be leaning towards talk therapy, but perhaps as a defense of it in the face of support for drug therapy. Like the previous article, it mentions that drugs work faster but talk works better.
"Drugs vs. talk therapy." Consumer Reports Health. Consumer Reports, Oct 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
From Consumer Reports. Contains a wide variety of information, from analysis of the results of a large survey to discussion about insurance coverage to comparisons of different drugs.
My question: "Is therapy as effective as medication for treatment of stress and depression?"
Part 2:
Yu-Xi: Your question is interesting, but potentially difficult to investigate. In order to make it easier, you may want to chose one specific aspect of bonding to investigate in depth. For example, you could ask 'What are some common situations that lead to deepening romantic relationships?' You could also try to make your question easier to research by making it more scientific, so that there would be more concrete evidence available.
Devin (section 1) :
This is a really good question. The only room I see for improvement is in the word 'qualities', you may want to tighten that up a little. On the other hand, I think it would work just as well as it is if you then define specific aspects in the thesis of the paper itself.
Part 3:
Marano, Hara. "Talk Therapy vs. Drugs ." Psychology Today. N.p., 01 Feb 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
A short but interesting source from Psychology Today. It talks about the different types of effects that the two therapies have on the brain.
Davis, Jeanie. "Depression: Drug v. Talk Therapy." CBS News. CBS News, 08 Sep. 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
An article on the subject. It calls attention to the changes in treatment over the years, and some of the benefits and downsides of both. Also cites some useful statistics on prescription drug use and coverage.
"Do You Need Drugs or Talk Therapy?." Health.com. N.p., 05 May 2008. Web. 12 May 2010.
An article from Health.com comparing the two. This one seems to be leaning towards talk therapy, but perhaps as a defense of it in the face of support for drug therapy. Like the previous article, it mentions that drugs work faster but talk works better.
"Drugs vs. talk therapy." Consumer Reports Health. Consumer Reports, Oct 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
From Consumer Reports. Contains a wide variety of information, from analysis of the results of a large survey to discussion about insurance coverage to comparisons of different drugs.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Hw 54
| INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population. |
Big five test (I’m not sure if I took the right one, since the link didn’t work for me, but here it is)
| Big Five Test Results |
| Extroversion (48%) medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being assertive and social and being withdrawn and solitary. Accommodation (72%) high which suggests you are overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense too often of your own individual development (martyr complex). Orderliness (54%) medium which suggests you are moderately organized, structured, and self controlled while still remaining flexible, varied, and fun. Emotional Stability (48%) medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being calm and resilient and being anxious and reactive. Inquisitiveness (82%) high which suggests you are very intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical. |
personality tests by similarminds.com
I took the first test a long time ago on this
website and got very different results, but people change, huh? Overall, I think neither of them paint a fantastic picture of me, after reading the descriptions I think INTJ fits me best. I wouldn’t say any particular test is that reliable, since even humans often can’t seem to get this right. Honestly, I wouldn’t call these any more accurate than astrology, though obviously a lot more science went into it. I don’t trust it any more than astrology as a predictor of relationships or compatibility, either. Not only is this only mildly inaccurate from the personal viewpoint, but given that it’s all about the personal viewpoint I definitely wouldn’t use it as a method for defining others.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Hw 53
Part 2:
Overall, the survey was pretty much what I expected. There weren’t any questions that I found unusually interesting or that caught me off guard. I didn’t really feel embarrassed answering any of them, but that might just be me. I can’t really say that I trust the statistics due to the sample size and the selection bias (everyone who took the survey was a New Yorker interested in taking this class) but it’ll still be interesting to look at the results.
Part 3:
The questions that surprised me the most were the ones about drugs and drinking. Honestly, I was surprised that so few people said that they had been drunk or used drugs; it seems like every time I’m early for advisory someone down the hallway is talking about how smashed they were the night before. It makes sense that of all questions for people to lie on those would be the ones, but it seems to me that most of the kids I know in this class aren’t really the type to lie about this stuff. Whatever the reason, I wasn’t expecting that.
Part 4:
I looked at both of the professional surveys and, given their specific focuses, they didn’t really seem to have much in common with ours. This is probably a function of the fact that they are professional studies; the whole organization is devoted to studying one thing. The only real similarity I found is the suicide question (there is a similar question in the second survey). I think that the professionals made an important distinction that we kind of forgot about: they only asked about the 12 months before the survey. I’m not proud to say that I checked the “No, only once in a while, not much” box, because I had thought about it, once, when I was like seven, when I was overreacting to a lost homework assignment and thought I would never get into middle school. They also added the word ‘seriously’, which I think is important because that would have changed my answer as well.
Overall, the survey was pretty much what I expected. There weren’t any questions that I found unusually interesting or that caught me off guard. I didn’t really feel embarrassed answering any of them, but that might just be me. I can’t really say that I trust the statistics due to the sample size and the selection bias (everyone who took the survey was a New Yorker interested in taking this class) but it’ll still be interesting to look at the results.
Part 3:
The questions that surprised me the most were the ones about drugs and drinking. Honestly, I was surprised that so few people said that they had been drunk or used drugs; it seems like every time I’m early for advisory someone down the hallway is talking about how smashed they were the night before. It makes sense that of all questions for people to lie on those would be the ones, but it seems to me that most of the kids I know in this class aren’t really the type to lie about this stuff. Whatever the reason, I wasn’t expecting that.
Part 4:
I looked at both of the professional surveys and, given their specific focuses, they didn’t really seem to have much in common with ours. This is probably a function of the fact that they are professional studies; the whole organization is devoted to studying one thing. The only real similarity I found is the suicide question (there is a similar question in the second survey). I think that the professionals made an important distinction that we kind of forgot about: they only asked about the 12 months before the survey. I’m not proud to say that I checked the “No, only once in a while, not much” box, because I had thought about it, once, when I was like seven, when I was overreacting to a lost homework assignment and thought I would never get into middle school. They also added the word ‘seriously’, which I think is important because that would have changed my answer as well.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Hw 52
Hw 52-
As mentioned, this assignment is ridiculously impossible. Oh well.
Since I can’t possibly address all that, I’ll just talk a little about how I feel about people in general.
This may not surprise anyone, but in general, I like people. It’s not like there’s nobody I don’t get along with, but I tend to try and see negatives as one aspect of the person and not necessarily something condemning. I try to value everyone, even when they make it particularly hard for me. I can honestly say that I appreciate and hold dear the lives of strangers, though as a human it would be denying myself to say that there aren’t those I love more. I think it is popular right now to be cynical-- if asked what they think would be the right thing to do if they saw someone being mugged, most people in our class would probably say something like “ignore it, it’s not like I know them.” They would also probably claim that that’s what they would do in that situation, even if it’s not the real answer. I honestly don’t understand the point of this. I genuinely think that the right thing to do would be to help them, and if asked what I would do I would say that I would at least try. Whether I would actually do it probably depends mainly on how much courage I can pluck up in the actual situation. Which brings me to my next point.
I think that the worst thing that someone can be is a hypocrite. Obviously, some situations make it worse than others (saying veggies are good for you and refusing to eat carrots isn’t as bad as saying god hates homosexuals on your way to meet your gay ‘escort’, for example) but as a whole, there is no greater violation of personal or pubic honesty. I can’t say I blame a person if they commit hypocrisy unknowingly, or over something they can’t control, or if they’re trying to learn something to correct it, that’s just another of the unpleasant aspects of humanity. But if someone knows that they are a complete hypocrite and takes no steps to the contrary, I personally find that infuriating.
Another thing that I tend to stay away from, as most people who know me know, is polarized opinions. I think that there is nothing to gain by excluding other’s viewpoints in almost any aspect of life. If you exclude them because they’re wrong then you should at least grant them an audience in the hopes that they’ll do you the same, and if you exclude them to preserve your own ideas, perhaps they are so easily changed because they are yet unfinished (in which case another opinion could do you good).
Unlike one of the more popular teenage philosophies, I see nothing wrong with courtesy. Blatantly speaking your mind may be a good way to get your point across, there is definitely a time and place for it, and lying to protect someone’s feelings rarely does any good, but when it comes to non-helpful thoughts like insults and general rudeness I don’t see the point of making these things known. I also don’t have a problem with doing things I don’t want to do at all because society demands it; it is part of life and there’s no way around it. Wolves get killed for eating before their turn, I see no reason to claim that societal norms aren’t a major part of any social animal’s life.
As mentioned, this assignment is ridiculously impossible. Oh well.
Since I can’t possibly address all that, I’ll just talk a little about how I feel about people in general.
This may not surprise anyone, but in general, I like people. It’s not like there’s nobody I don’t get along with, but I tend to try and see negatives as one aspect of the person and not necessarily something condemning. I try to value everyone, even when they make it particularly hard for me. I can honestly say that I appreciate and hold dear the lives of strangers, though as a human it would be denying myself to say that there aren’t those I love more. I think it is popular right now to be cynical-- if asked what they think would be the right thing to do if they saw someone being mugged, most people in our class would probably say something like “ignore it, it’s not like I know them.” They would also probably claim that that’s what they would do in that situation, even if it’s not the real answer. I honestly don’t understand the point of this. I genuinely think that the right thing to do would be to help them, and if asked what I would do I would say that I would at least try. Whether I would actually do it probably depends mainly on how much courage I can pluck up in the actual situation. Which brings me to my next point.
I think that the worst thing that someone can be is a hypocrite. Obviously, some situations make it worse than others (saying veggies are good for you and refusing to eat carrots isn’t as bad as saying god hates homosexuals on your way to meet your gay ‘escort’, for example) but as a whole, there is no greater violation of personal or pubic honesty. I can’t say I blame a person if they commit hypocrisy unknowingly, or over something they can’t control, or if they’re trying to learn something to correct it, that’s just another of the unpleasant aspects of humanity. But if someone knows that they are a complete hypocrite and takes no steps to the contrary, I personally find that infuriating.
Another thing that I tend to stay away from, as most people who know me know, is polarized opinions. I think that there is nothing to gain by excluding other’s viewpoints in almost any aspect of life. If you exclude them because they’re wrong then you should at least grant them an audience in the hopes that they’ll do you the same, and if you exclude them to preserve your own ideas, perhaps they are so easily changed because they are yet unfinished (in which case another opinion could do you good).
Unlike one of the more popular teenage philosophies, I see nothing wrong with courtesy. Blatantly speaking your mind may be a good way to get your point across, there is definitely a time and place for it, and lying to protect someone’s feelings rarely does any good, but when it comes to non-helpful thoughts like insults and general rudeness I don’t see the point of making these things known. I also don’t have a problem with doing things I don’t want to do at all because society demands it; it is part of life and there’s no way around it. Wolves get killed for eating before their turn, I see no reason to claim that societal norms aren’t a major part of any social animal’s life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)