Learning HOW to Think

I watched a short video for class today called "Shift Happens." It is a play on the old saying... well you know... anyways, it threw out some interesting statistics and thoughts on the ever moving culture and world that we live in. I see this all around me when I think back on my own lifetime and how much the world has changed. When I was a kid I loved to read Goosebumps, now I see students at the school I teach at coming to class with a Kindle. As teachers we are constantly trying to reshape the way we approach the way these students learn in a shifting environment.

This short video made me think about the future. I am interested to see what lies ahead for us as individuals and as a nation. It brought up some interesting points about the changing technology and the simple fact that new technology moves faster than the educational system that teaches students to use it. When I think of my students and the difficulties that lie ahead of them in high school and then college, I believe the challenge for their teachers and professors is to teach in a way that makes them think creatively. Anyone can study, memorize and repeat but the upcoming generation of students are entering an environment that moves so quickly they need to be equipped to change as the technology develops around them. So learning HOW to think about situations and technologies may be a skill that needs to be focused on in this changing environment.

In undergrad I was always struck by the kinds of students who were smarter than me in class and often did better on tests but who had little to no people or critical thinking skills. Their educational world has developed in such a box that when the real and shifting world hits them, they will be unable to follow. In a system of technology that becomes faster and a world that grows in its connectedness in unique ways, we must teach a future of individuals who are able to get outside of the box that is traditional learning and be able to flex along with the moving world around us.

Wipeout...

I am driving home from work yesterday and you would think everything was normal if it wasn't for the intense rain hitting the region causing mass flooding around the DMV. I work in Maryland and had to get to the Alexandria campus for an evening class and of course was met with an onslaught of crazy traffic. I know living around the city you expect to get a certain amount of traffic no matter what road or time of day, however this was bad...

So many people work in the city and travel to work each day, it was interesting to read this week about the trends and statistics regarding urbanization the decline of rural America and the population movement away from cities known as suburbanization. When I think about my life and the places I have lived, I was interested to read about the history of suburbs (the place I mostly resided). My mom was a teacher and able to live and work in many different areas so the choice of our residence was placed mainly on my dad. He initially worked in a suburb of Los Angeles then got a job working on Capitol Hill and we moved to a home in Northern Virginia.

According to our sociology book urbanization increased during the 1950's in a post WWII era and many people were seeking out the American dream of owning land and a home. Thanks to government programs that assisted families in receiving mortgage loans areas outside of major cities developed and drew large populations in. In my life I have not seen this specifically but I have lived in these areas. I have seen what the social scientists today describe as the movement to newer outer-ring suburbs. I lived in Reston, VA which was the first post-WWII planned community which I believe makes it a "first suburb." In high school I played sports against and new many kids from the new outer-ring suburbs like Centreville, Chantilly and Sterling.

I also went to high school where as a white male I was in the minority. This is example of another important change in the makeup of the suburbs today because it has a growing number of racial and ethnic minorities. This was not so much the case for the outer-ring suburbs, although I would be willing to bet that it is trending that way.

The People Rule?

I recently went on a trip to the Newseum with a group of my 7/8 graders. We spent time in class discussing our freedom here in America and what we are allowed to do or not. The subject was our first amendment rights and the extent to which that applies to what we do and say. According to the information presented to us the average American citizen can easily name all 5 main characters from The Simpsons however had trouble naming the five rights given to us in the first amendment.


When we started studying government in the next section of our sociology textbook I was challenged with the question of who really rules our country? We live in a democracy which by definition says the people rule, however is this actually the case? When it comes to this question I went back to our time at the Newseum, put together some of the facts written about in the book and it got me thinking that the people don't actually rule but I do not think they really want to rule.

Our country has a free and open voting system, yet less than half of our citizens show up to voice their opinion. According to our textbook this results from a fairly difficult system of signing up to vote and a general indifference to the voting system that comes from people not believing their vote will truly make a difference.

Low voting rates contribute to a system that pluralists theorists would claim give individual citizens little or no direct influence on political decision making. I think this is the case in the United States. Government is less influenced by individuals and more by interest groups that lobby as a representation of a group of people. This as well as a well established system of checks and balances that exist in government keep the government from becoming too centralized.

So, do the people rule? In some ways yes and in some ways no. With the explosion of social media such as twitter and facebook many more citizens are using unique ways to have their voices heard. This may be the new face of interest groups and lobbying our government, however as it stands now this still is a small portion of a population who is less versed on their given freedoms and more likely to name someone who lives in a pineapple under the sea...

Wally World

I love me a good road trip. Usually I head down south and on the way back we might stop on the way to visit our favorite large retail store... Wal-Mart! We get out the car, run around and maybe buy a few fun and cheap things. In my class I watched a PBS special about Wal-Mart discussing its rise and growing impact on the US and world economy and come to see that we might be better served to just stop at a gas station and grab a coach instead. The company gained economic prowess by using the power of information to analyze the supply and demand to create a "pull" system that focuses on what the consumers are buying and enforcing that need to manufacturer.

This change in the focus of power is something that is not normal in the history of our economy. Generally the manufacturer produces and sells at a specific price, where as with Wal-Mart they tell the manufacturers at what price they want to buy the products being manufactured. This puts supplier in a bind because they are forced to create the same product at a lower price. Thus, if the manufacturer sells at a lower price, it means the drop in costs must come from somewhere along the supply chain. One of the results is a movement of manufacturing towards other countries that can provide the product for cheaper. This often puts American companies out of business or makes them cut back.

Another impact is on the use of cheap labor and manufacturing that is solely focused on global cost cutting. The lower prices of Wal-Mart lead to lower wages for employee's making the products and to a lower standard of living. It all stems from a need to provide the maximum profit for investors each quarter. I believe this should not be the way.

One company that is focused on not just profitability but sustainability is the Mars Corporation. You all know the candy people but they are doing some really interesting work when it comes to this idea of profitability vs. sustainability. They posit that over time, maximizing profit is not beneficial to the company, its workers or the world. According to a document put out by Mars this idea is described as this:

"In the mid-1990s consultant John Elkington coined the notion of “triple bottom line” accounting, hoping to define how a company can extend its decision-making criteria beyond profit alone. This idea expands traditional reporting frameworks and seeks to quantify corporate environmental and social performance alongside traditional measures of financial success. The triple bottom line has been – and remains – a useful tool for identifying problems and integrating sustainability into a company’s agenda." (Sustainability at Mars, 2007)

This, I believe should be the way a company views its goals. Not just looking at profitability (like Wal-Mart), but seeking to make a product that has the mutual benefit of the company and all those along the supply chain (including the environment).

Ok, I will get off my soapbox now...

Let's Spin The Chore Wheel

Ok, confession time... when I was a kid, I had a problem. Dinner would be winding down and I would always sneak away to go to the bathroom. It happened so often that it would catch the eye of each one of my family members. I would sit on the toilet, not necessarily needing to use the restroom, but rather I was trying to get out of my duties of cleaning up the dishes. I would sit and wait til I heard they were all done then magically reappear from the hallway to see the great accomplishment my siblings had done. This did not last long in my family and I soon learned that the more I tried to get out of my clean-up duties, the more dishes they left for me to clean up when I would return.

Growing up I remember sharing a great deal of the household chores. Everyone had their respective roles, even my parents. The "family duties chart" shed some light on the fact that there are specific responsibilities that fell to certain members of our family. While the kids had specific chores we would rotate them throughout the year. My mom and dad had specific tasks that they would generally continue to complete throughout my formative years. While it was not a absolute reality, my mom would often be the one responsible for cooking. However she would rarely be the one to clean up the dishes afterwards. The rule is if you cook, you don't clean.

The list of typical family duties often left me choosing both parents as responsible for certain tasks because I remember them sharing much of the burdens. Because my mom was a teacher, she watched my siblings and I during the afterschool hours, but when my dad came home from work, he also was helping out around the house. This type of sharing of duties is different from how Sociologists would describe the nuclear family.

Sociologists describe working mothers as having a "second shift" when they come home from work and have to take care of much of the house chores. This was the case for my mom yet I would argue it was also the case for my father. I rarely remember him relaxing once he came home from work any more than I did my mom. That being said, my parents are not perfect. Before I can remember they got separated and talked about divorce, luckily they got back together and I am sure realized that marriage is very difficult and requires a sacrifice of themselves to the relationship and the family to make it work. My mom is also the kind of strong woman who would speak her mind and it would be difficult for her to allow what writer Betty Friedan described as an oppressive domestic life without communicating to my dad where he needs to help out.

Secular Nation

Just how secular are we? I am interested in the religious trends in found in our society and was intrigued by the information regarding the secularization in America found in my sociology textbook. The debate that exists either see's secularization as a trend in society that diminishes the power of religion or simply a non-factor when it comes to the significance of religion around the world.

I can only speak for my experience when it comes to this topic and it seems clear to me that there is a growing secularization of society. The statistics from the 1970's to 2008 show the same percentage of young Americans still believing in "God" but less and less individuals consistently going to church. The new testament writer James says that a faith without works is nothing. In the same way sociologists say that religion should "take the form of ritual practices, specialized activities." (Giddens, 528) While just as many people believe in some spiritual form of "God," less are attending any kind of clear meeting which can remind, focus and guide people to live with a greater purpose. I believe this creates a more personal form of God that has no clear boundaries for how to live life.

As our society grows more individualistic, the role of religion will have a similar effect. Choices, consequences, and habits become a personal thing for each person to decide for themselves. This focus on the religiosity of people is just one dimension sociologists look at regarding secularization. Other ways to view secularization is in the degree to which churches maintain influence in society through wealth or status. I think that the individual response to religiosity is a better way to discuss this issue and ultimately influences the role of religion on a larger scale in society.

I Had No Idea

When I was at dinner during my senior prom night in High School, something very embarrassing happened. I was enjoying my pasta meal with a large group of my close friends when my chair BREAKS from underneath me! I fell straight to the ground in one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. Luckily I was able to brush it off, but once I got to the dance everybody knew what had happened. Did I want to talk about it? Of course not. I still don't like to bring it up...

While listening to some stories about the Japanese incarceration at the onset of WWII as part of my homework for Sociology, I immediately thought of one of my co-workers who is a Japanese American. I had talked with her briefly about her family and where she comes from and we connected on the fact that we both grew up in southern California. When I asked her this week about this she was fairly open about her families experience during this time. While she was not yet born, her parents spent time in the camps shortly after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. I was shocked to hear this, something I believe she could have shared with me at some point over the past three years of working together.

She told me that it is a more private event for her parents than I would expect. Nothing much interesting has happened to my parents throughout their lives, but I wonder if something similar were to have happened, if I would tell people about it. I wondered, would my parents talk about it to me? According to one families story posted on the educational website densho.org, Japanese children will live their whole lives without hearing about the fact that their ancestors were put in these concentration camps.

I understand wanting to keep a level of privacy, but from your own family? It seems to me like the hurt of the past needs to be addressed in order for some sort of healing process to start. Ethnic discrimination of this sort needs to be addressed and brought out into the light to make sure nothing of the sort will ever happen again.

Go Ahead Punk, Make My Day...

I just got back from an indoor shooting range. Three buddies all went out to celebrate the last hours of "manliness" left for one of us as my friend Spencer is getting married on Saturday in Georgetown. He is taking the big leap and we thought what better way to send him off them to stand 40 feet away from a paper target and fire loud rounds out of a handgun. I have shot before, but only once. After we figured out how to turn the safety off (took about 5 minutes) we were the next Jack Bauer's in training.

I gotta be honest, it was fun and felt good to control something with that much power. I felt more like a man... or did I? When I got home I started my reading for Sociology this week and we are learning about Gender Inequalities. The bulk of the information I read focused on how gender roles are mainly a creation of gender socialization rather than a biological reality inherent in our genes. Several examples were discussed including a (scary) story of a twin male after a botched circumcision (ouch) that left him having surgery to reconstruct his genitals to then become a girl. This twin was then raised as a girl and had no real problem with it. In this case she/he has the same genetic makeup as her/his brother yet they were raised as a different gender and found no problems with that.

It seems odd, but it does make sense. Most of my "manlihood" as I can sense it comes from cultural norms and expectations. When I was in middle school I liked to be in chorus. Was it a "girly" thing to do? According to my friends, yes. Did I have to take pause to decide if I would participate in chorus? Yes! I ended up doing it, but had my moments of doubt. My natural leaning would be to do what made me happy, but the gender socialization that influenced my decision was clearly felt.

So back to the shooting. It was powerful, it was fun, it was "manly." But was there some hormone that activated within me this morning to cause me to want to go to a shooting range? It was more likely a lifetime of social norms, movies and other gender influences that made me think this activity was the manliest thing I could do today.

Who Cares?

This week in class we are focusing on the trends and realities that exist regarding the inequalities that exist throughout the world. While there is much information that exists about this topic, the fact is simple in that a small portion of the entire world is in control of the vast majority of this planets wealth. Our textbook claims that the GNI (per-person gross national income) in a typical high-income country is 56 times as much as in a classified low-income country.

All this interests me, however the bigger question I have is whether it seriously impacts our American lives or is this simply how the world is going to be and not much can be done. I know that the impact of globalization means that countries thousands of miles away are becoming more and more interconnected with each other. Every piece of clothing I wear is made in a different country. I heard an interesting story about wood in North Carolina that was chopped down then shipped to China to be made into furniture... shipped BACK to North Carolina to be sold. The cheap labor available in China makes this a profitable, all be it seemingly inefficient.

After looking at the statistics, the most personally impacting effect of inequality worldwide is the lack of food and health provided to those in poor countries. You see commercials on TV asking for donations to feed needy children and cannot help but feel impacted even in a small way. More than a personal connection, the malnutrition that exists in low income countries is a sign that many things are wrong throughout the world. We should care about this because it is a sign of natural drought, internal warfare, conflict, economic and health problem. These can have an impact on our lives as they can create a situation that calls for intervention by other countries. It also can impact American lives by raising prices of the products we buy. The rising cost of gas is just one product many of us purchase on a regular basis that can be driven up to uncomfortable rates.

Class Class Class

What is the importance of social class in the U.S. today? The reality is that class is of utmost importance to America. We base our dreams, goals, and family values on the kinds of people we are and want to be. We have an amount of money that we attain to make in our jobs and we have a persona that we are all trying to be. Whether you agree that class is necessary or not, even young children understand the importance of class.

I teach PE at a small K-8 school in Maryland. The younger kids are cute and the older kids get kinda bratty around the middle school age. You can even see the struggle of class in my school. Each child is trying to prove their worth based on their grades or the latest electronic device they own. These kids did not learn this on their own... they get it from their parents. Middle school kids especially are struggling to be the "top dog" in school. The textbook talks about this phenomenon citing a sociologist Murray Milner. He claims that they are attempting to establish themselves with some form of power. They are growing older but still live with and are under control of their parents. In class they are in class controlled by their teachers. So naturally, in between class and whenever they can they attempt to fill this void of adolescence between adulthood and childhood with "creating a social world in which their ability to evaluate one another gives them a sense of power." (Gidden)

In "People Like Us," a PBS documentary on social class, you can hear the many descriptions of class coming from the adults focused on in each story. Whether it was a soon-to-be married couple from New York struggling to understand each other while coming from different backgrounds or a group of people determining the status of someone based on the house they live in. Class is very apparent in America and while we might not use the term "class" we describe people and put them into categories of it without even thinking.

When I first came to this discussion on class I thought of its impact on relationships and marriage. I have been going to many weddings this summer and still have three to go! When I think of the idea of marriage and class I think of the many expectations we have as individuals coming from different class backgrounds and the problems this could cause when a man and woman decide to commit to each other. Suddenly their worlds collide together and they are in the closest of proximity dealing with each others expectations as to what life is supposed to look like. When I hear guys talking about finding the right girl you can hear them say "oh, I can't go for her, she comes from too much money... I wouldn't be able to provide the kind of life she would want."

I dated a girl in college from a very wealthy area outside of Richmond. She invited me and my family to her families yearly Christmas party. They told us it was "Tacky Christmas/Nascar" themed. So naturally my family and I went all out. I was wearing disgusting cut-off jorts and a sleeveless plaid shirt with a pack of marborols in my pocket (and a mullet wig!). When we got there I was completely embarrassed. Coming from a middle class family we thought a theme party meant dressing up in a way to make fun of yourself and be goofy. Her upper class family meant theme by finding a way to elegantly and stylishly dress towards the theme. Her dad wore slacks and a blazer and simply put a nascar hat on his head. Needless to say we did not work out... In many ways her coming from a different class background caused problems in our relationship.

The Unsocial Network?

I participate in a small group discussion at the basement of my church every Wednesday morning. Its basically ten men who gather each week to read the Bible, wrestle with what it looks like to be more like Jesus and share what is going on in our lives. We pray for each other at the end and one prayer request I hear from the men with children is that they do not have enough time to spend with them. One father just made partner in his law firm which is great but also means he has not had dinner with his kids in over two weeks since he gets home after they are in bed.

How do we solve this problem? One suggestion is to use the internet. He HAS to be in the office downtown at dinnertime, so why not set up a computer screen and link it up to a face-to-face webchat? The internet is an amazing thing that a father who otherwise would not be able to make a connection to his family during dinnertime can now interact as if he was right there. The kids loved it and it works with the fathers schedule, so here is a great example of how the internet has helped make a genuine connection whereas otherwise there would be something lacking.

But is the internet really helping us make a better connection to our social groups, families, and friends? Or are we just skimming the surface while making thousands of superficial connections each day. My friend is skyping into dinner... that can't really substitute for actually being there can it? But in his situation it is the best he can do, right?

I am not trying to raise an argument about the necessity of social networking and finding personal connections on the internet. I have heard many stories of old high school friends reconnecting on facebook and people finding love on dating sites. What I think is dangerous is when these internet connections replace the deep interactions we all need. We all have a deep desire to connect, to be known, and to feel love. If I only connect with people on facebook, they can only know a few bits about my personal info (favorite movies, books, quotes, etc) and possibly the few things I find interesting enough to share with the world each day (as long as it is under 140 characters). This, I believe, does not suffice.

But maybe I am wrong. Some would suggest that each connection is different for different people. There are social scientists that hold to the claim that the "weak" social connections of the internet are satisfying enough. An introvert might not have the courage to go up to someone at a bar and introduce themselves but a facebook friend invitation and wall post would satisfy. I can understand this in principle, however am fearful of the replacing effect this might have on normal face-to-face interaction.

Why The Low Crime Rate?

Our latest chapter we are reading in Sociology was about crime. Motivations, interpretations and statistics make for some interesting topics on the subjects. The last section of the chapter focused on different statistics and topics that trend on the topic of crime. The first and overall statistic that I saw was the overall crime rate in the United States.

The trend showed that over the time of 1985 to 2006 crime rates rose in the early 90's then started dropping heading into the 21st century. This trend got me thinking... what happened? Was there some change in law enforcement? Stricter gun enforcement? According to the book there is no prevailing explanation as to why. Some other explanations have been the booming economy which provides better opportunity for work. There was also a declining market for crack cocaine.

After reading this and exploring the statistics I was talking to my roomates and one of them mentioned a book he read that tried to explain the drop in crime rates called "Freakanomics." The book took different characteristics of society and tried to explain the trends that occured. This particular situation of lowering crime rate was explained by the introduction of legal abortions.

Let me explain: When Roe v. Wade was decided upon, many people who did not plan to have a child was suddenly able to rid themselves of the unwanted pregnancy. Whatever your beliefs on abortion, the claim made by the author is that in 1970, when the abortion was made legal, a generation of high risk children were never born. This trend made it possible that 20 or so years later, an entire generation of young men who would most likely be involved in crimes did not exist. According to the chart in our book, the crime rates begin to drop starting in 1993. This downward trend continues through the 2000's.

Whether this is THE reason for crime rate drop is unclear completely, however it does make some sense to claim that nothing drastic has changed to cause a major shift in the elements important to the many different theories of crime. As in many theories in sociology, the answers are not always easily explained and have many different factors involve. I think this overall crime rate drop is no different.

Nature vs. Nurture, Lodge, Nature Always Wins

The quote that is the title of this blog entry comes from the movie "Wedding Crashers." Maybe you have seen it, but one of the story lines running through it is about a young couple who come from very wealthy and successful families. The father of the girl talks about the two "great family traditions" one day. Christopher Walken's character makes a quip during a football game that the man's "nature" will always prevail. It got me thinking, which is it? Are we ingrained with certain attributes passed on by our parents in our genes that determine who we are going to be? Or is it rather a question of family, societal and social influenced?
After considering this for some time I would have to say my answer is YES. Are we influenced by the way we have naturally developed? Yes. And are we influenced greatly by the way we were brought up and the friends we hang out with? Yes. I believe that there is no one reason we are the way we are, but rather a diverse myriad of influences including inherit genetics and socialization.
The nature side of the debate would say that we interact with the world based solely on our genetic make-up. Gene's are turned on and off based on our environment. This leads to a belief that we are pre-programmed to turn out a certain way. While this is true in some ways, our development is affected in so many ways that it can hardly be boiled down to just genetics. My physical characteristics ARE genetically determined, however who I am deep down is not naturally made by a complex system of chromosomes but rather a delicate dance between the factors that influence my life inside and outside my body.
Some things that put pressure on my personality as I develop are my family, friends and the mass media. There are many theories of how children develop, however it is clear that we are influenced by our upbringing. We learn about the world and how to interact with it from our parents. Children are growing up under the supervision of a 42 inch screen displaying messages they will believe and incorporate into their lives.
We engage with the world based on the physical and mental capacities we are born with. At the same time, we are changed by the many factors that influence us in the environments through which we develop. The question of nature vs. nurture is a complex debate and in my opinion one that is not black and white but rather a rainbow.

America

I love being an American. I am live in a great country that lets you be who you want to be and drink beer out of an flag colored can while watching Fox News tell you why America is so good. That isn't the REAL reason I love America, but people will tend to make up their own minds about why people think America is great. I think it is easy to poke fun at American, we do some silly things sometimes. I am planning a trip to go to Daytona Florida with some buddies from college. 10 guys in a 12 passenger van riding around wearing tank tops and drinking beer. This will undoubtedly look ridiculous (especially if Joe orders those matching wolf t-shirts), but I can guarantee we will not be the only ones looking outrageous.
I have never been to a nascar race, but I am imagining some pretty outrageous things. In my mind, I will be overdressed if I only cut the sleeves off my shirt...
It would make sense that America would be the butt of a joke in other countries. I recently watched a clip from a British show starring Hugh Laurie (aka "House") where he played an American singer. He looks like a typical rocker from Jersey... plaid shirt, bandana, and an undeserved sense of accomplishment. It was funny as he played a song consisting mainly of the word "America" sung over and over in a very pious manner. It sends the message that when you are talking about America, the only thing to say IS "America."
Is this how we are seen by the rest of the world? I think that we are viewed differently by different cultures and countries. We might be cocky and dumb to one country but evil and dominating to another. It is clear that to those of the BBC viewing area we are pretty much in love with ourselves and while it is only a comedy show made to get a laugh, I think this sketch is true on some level. We have many things to boast about in America, but there are many things we can do better.
This clip also made me think of another British take on America and that is the movie "Love Actually." In it the newly elected Prime Minister meets with the President of the United States. The Prime Minister is a humble and confident man with good morals while the President is a southern chauvinistic jackass. The opposite is seen in the movie "The Patriot" about the revolutionary war. In it the Americans are freedom fighters whereas the British troops are murdering dictators. Obviously "Love Actually" is a a British made film where "The Patriot" is made in America.
So this goes both ways, different cultures view other cultures differently. I guess we just want to make it seem like the way we live life is normal. Other cultures must be lesser, inappropriate or wrong compared to ours because if they are normal... then what does that make us?

The Stanford Experiment

The University of Stanford created a sociological experiment in which students were paid to take part in a fake prison located in the basement of the sociology building. The results were both interesting and shocking. As the time in the "prison" went on, the students took on the personality traits of the roles they played. Guards became more hostile and aggressive while prisoners were more docile and sometimes rebellious. This experiment made me think of two things: the first is the ethical implications of an experiment of this sort. Were the students (and professors for that matter) aware of the possible repercussions of the time spent in the prison, both physical and mental? How far is too far when experimenting on humans? Secondly I put myself in the shoes of the students. Whether I was a prisoner or guard, would I react differently in the prison environment? What kind of person might I become in that situation. Could I compartmentalize my life to allow for an 8 hour shift as a guard to be a time where I become a different kind of person to better fit the role I was playing?
Ethics is a tough subject to tackle in one blog post. So many ideas, beliefs, and presuppositions are involved in looking at a scenario through the lens of ethics. In the Stanford Experiment the prisoners were put into a situation reserved for those being punished for real crimes they have committed. Although they were paid and told what would be happening to them, I do not think that they were properly prepared for what would happen. As seen in an interview after the experiment the students (both guards and prisoners) were in disbelief as to what had taken place. While it seems that no one was physically hurt the psychological pain inflicted is very real and could have some effects on the students. For me, the ethical question is based on the whether the professors and or students involved in creating the experiment knew the possible extent to which the subjects would be effected by being in the prison environment. If they were well aware of the possibilities then ethically the experiment should not have happened.
Personally I wonder what kind of prisoner I would have been... would I be the rebellious one? Would I tap into the small part of me that is introverted and find a way to pass the time quietly? If picked to be a guard, would I enter into the role I was placed and come down hard on the prisoners? Would I see injustice and step up and make things right? I am pretty sure I am inherently not very different than these Stanford students. I am a result of both nature and nurture. I sometimes act like the friends I am around. I am often affected by the situation I am in. So, would I be changed? I don't know... what do you think?

Its Wedding Season!! (Week One Entry)

I LOVE WEDDINGS!! Lucky for me, both my roomates of the past year: Travis and Chris were happily married over the course of the summer '10. I was honored to be a part in both weddings, first playing during the ceremony of Chris and Katie's wedding and then being a darn good usher for Travis and Sarah's. The simple fact that both my roomates are now enjoying time with their WIVES forces me to understand that the real world is hitting me right in the face.


I am done with college and all it's gloriousness. I will miss it for sure, however I feel as though I got the best out of college I could. All the good times with friends through random road trips, late night pillow talks, or simply skipping class to sit around and talk about life in the house office. This summer has been an amazing transition time in which I have been able to stay in Williamsburg, VA working for the Chapel as a student ministries intern. I got the opportunity to go on another mission trip to Nicaragua as a leader with the High School group. I was given the opportunity to grow in knowledge and in my relationship not only with God but with the community around Williamsburg.


Now comes the newest phase of my life: I am taking classes to hopefully go to PA (Physicians Assistant) school in a few years. Sociology 200 is a pre-req at alot of schools, so I will be taking it through NOVA and keeping up with assignments through this blog. I look forward to what I can learn and process through this summer thanks to this class. I currently work as a PE teacher/Athletic Director in Maryland and will be busy this summer directing our day camp and getting done with several pre-req courses through NOVA.