Thoughtful and artful video

Here's a short and entertaining video about remembering perspective: that we're human and can choose awareness.  We don't have to default to boredom in routine; we have the capability to snap out of it and choose.

Embracing Uncertainty

"Dig around in most of the world's great religious traditions and you find people finding their sense of grace by embracing uncertainty rather than trying to bury it in codified dogmas."

A taste of a longer article at NPR.org on embracing uncertainty.  Check it out.

academic subjectivity

I'm currently in graduate school. I hope that this post will be one to start a theme of my struggles to find a perspective from which to write and understand what I learn. I inherently prefer writing with the word "I" and using it to organize narratives, however this, in many disciplines, goes against very explicitly stated traditions. For today, I'd like to quote an article whose author writes on his use of "I".

Before all of this, a note on my purposeful use of the active subject in this essay is warranted. Autoethnographers have noted the highly tactical enterprise of using the first person in academic writing (Peterson & Langellier,1997). Such tactics sometimes serve as confessionals, in efforts to render texts transparent (van Maanen, 1988). However, the “I” that this essay evokes, unlike the fully-formed modern subject, is a textual, constructed and strategic “I,” designed to underscore the partiality, contingence and temporal quality not only of such insight as “I” have to offer, but of knowledge claims in general. My efforts at generating such texts are relatively recent (Ganesh, 2008; Ganesh, in press), but in many ways, as I do so, the voice with which I speak to myself draws from oral practices that stem back to my childhood: for instance, this voice evokes memories of stories that my grandmother told me; stories told in a voice that are at odds with the realist trope in which most of us write. So, in personalizing this text, I hope to both problematise realist tropes, and actualize what Ellis and Bochner (1996) have called the therapeutic function of research and writing.

And here's the APA citation for ya:
Ganesh, S. (2009). OrganiZational communication and organiSational communication: Binaries and the fragments of a field. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 10(2), 6-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hell yes, science!

A scientific article:

The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?

Laurie A. Rudman & Julie E. Phelan (Click for full text)

Published online: 6 October 2007

Abstract Past research suggests that women and men alike perceive feminism and romance to be in conflict (Rudman and Fairchild, Psychol Women Q, 31:125–136, 2007). A survey of US undergraduates (N=242) and an online survey of older US adults (N=289) examined the accuracy of this perception. Using self-reported feminism and perceived partners’ feminism as predictors of relationship health, results revealed that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier relationships for women. Additionally, men with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction in the online survey. Finally, there was no support for negative feminist stereotypes (i.e., that feminists are single, lesbians, or unattractive). In concert, the findings reveal that beliefs regarding the incompatibility of feminism and romance are inaccurate.

Keywords Feminism . Close relationships . Feminist stereotypes . Intergroup relations . Gender attitudes

Citation: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? SEX ROLES: Volume 57, Numbers 11-12, 787-799.

Lecture: Empathy Paradox – Increasing disconnection in the age of increasing connection

by Sara Konrath – Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Univ of Michigan

Konrath began her talk with a quote about new media, as “vulgar,” “poison,” and a “national evil.” However, the quote was actually from 1749

with regard to the new media form of the novel. This perspective grounded the audience in the fact that, well, usually, we’re hesitant about new media and we may even go as far as to disdain it. Or, the older generations have long rejected or disapproved of younger generations’ use of particular forms of media (from books, to flapper culture, to facebook). These are not new things.

Her question is: is there an increase in disconnectness with today's new media(s)? As a psychologist, she examined several personality trait variables since 1979 in college student populations: narcissism, empathy, and attachment styles. (Nerdy psych note: Attachment styles are usually, or were originally, discussed in terms of child-caretaker relations, but have been since adapted to adult attachment.)

So, in a nutshell, her findings did suggest the worst cases, trends showing an increase in narcissism, decrease in empathy, and an increase in a dismissive(avoidant?) relationship styles since 1979. However: these are small numbers, not huge changes, and she noted that it doesn’t mean [we’re] unable to have healthy relationships, just less able, on average.

Next there was some discussion on potential causes, because psychologists always remind us: correlation is not causation. An important point is that these trends didn’t start with the internet, but perhaps could be exacerbated by its use/omnipresence. Her suggestions for future research are as follows:

-examine more closely the prosocial effects of new media (not just the bad stuff)

-methods for determining causal relations

-motives for media use

-assessment of media use and its effects (not just general use, but what are people doing?)

An interesting point was brought up in the ensuing Q&A session, in that facebook really blurs the circles of intimacy that we’re used to. Rather than keeping your family, best friends, acquaintances separate, on facebook (and on this blog) we just broadcast indiscriminately to everyone. Someone also asked if ther had been any assessment of behavioral measures (not just traits) and she suggested Robert Putnam (specifically, his book: Bowling Alone).

I'd be interested to discuss the implications of these findings. For example, do these trends in the traits of college students over time have impacts on, say, their attitudes toward the "environment?"

Yes, Bill McKibben, Yes.

Bill McKibben, an outspoken activist and inspiration author (among other things) has recently written another though-but-more-importantly-action-provoking post over at Grist. Check it out. He says:

Mostly, we need to tell the truth, resolutely and constantly. Fossil fuel is wrecking the one earth we've got. It's not going to go away because we ask politely. If we want a world that works, we're going to have to raise our voices.

I recently read the book he mentions writing in 1989, called The End of Nature. It was scary and depressing, and what's worse, it was written 20 years ago and a lot of the issues are still around, as prevalent as ever. It led me to scrawl across my notebook:

HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THIS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AS THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR TIME?

I'll share what I thought were a couple pivotal quotes, if you don't have the time to read the whole thing.
His premise is, I think encapsulated in this particular sentence:

"The invention of nuclear weapons may actually have marked the beginning of the end of nature: we possessed, finally, the capacity to overmaster nature, to leave an indelible imprint everywhere all at once."

To elaborate:

"If the waves crash up against the beach, eroding dunes and destroying homes, it is not the awesome power of Mother Nature. It is the awesome power of man, who has overpowered in a century the processes that have been slowly evolving and changing of their own accord since the earth was born."

And another:

"We live, all of a sudden, in an astroturf world, and though an astroturf world may have a God, he can't speak through the grass, or even be slient through it and let us hear."

I think this last one hits particularly home for anyone who is remotely spiritual. If your spirituality is even loosely connected with God as life, God as unity, or if there is any Nature in your God, it's a point worth considering.

To deal with guilt, we must take responsibility. We Americans alone are responsible for a huge percentage of global environmental harm (which continues as you read). Knowing this, as many do, we must address it. We must strive as individuals to use less energy, to produce less waste, and to educate our friends and family how (and why) to do these things as well. As consumers, we must demand better products, electric cars, organic foods, local products, sweat-free clothes. We must lead by example and show the world we recognize what we've done, take responsibility for it, and as a nation provide a better way of life as an example for the world.

We must reject products that lie about being "environmentally friendly," and seek to create criteria of our own for how we should treat our environment. What, by the way, is your "environment?" Have you thought about this? Is it something you're intimately familiar with or just catch a glimpse of on your commute? How does Organic Ranch Dressing help our environment?

We must become environmentally-informed consumers, and choose products wisely, not based on ads or alluring packaging.

We must examine and change our habits.

Oh, and I'm tired of this mediocre, middle-of-the-road, compromising bullshit. Let's get mad, let's get radical, and let's get some shit done. Right on Bill.

Write more!

I know, I should write more. Got any ideas?

Ants & Humans

Another William McDonough quote:

"Consider this: all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals and the soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do."

Ingrained Music

This video amazes me.

Bobby McFerrin plays pentatonic scale with an audience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk

AmeriCorps Motivational Statement

So I'm not bragging about this mediocre statement, but I haven't written anything in a while, so here goes. What follows is my personal statement for a position I'm applying for with AmeriCorps. Let me know what you think.

When I went to New Orleans, I felt self-actualized for the first time in my life. As a psychology student, I had read about self-actualization in textbooks and heard of it in lectures; I understood the concept well. But it wasn’t until I chose to spend my spring break in New Orleans helping with Hurricane Katrina relief efforts that I actually knew what self-actualization felt like.
I had put myself in an unfamiliar situation; I found myself in a van full of people I had just met (except for one friend) and strapped in for the 14-hour drive south. I had no idea what to expect, and I had just decided to go on this trip because other plans fell through. I’d have to say, though, that it was the best last-minute choice I’ve made in my life.
The first morning in New Orleans I met Jeremiah. He was the volunteer coordinator: the top of the hierarchy of people in charge of the place I was staying – a makeshift shelter in an abandoned warehouse serving as lodging for about 120 college kids on spring break. Jeremiah was one of the first people in my life who I felt believed in me, someone who recognized my skills and valued them.
I worked alongside Jeremiah coordinating volunteers, contacting residents about rebuilding or gutting, and staffing the volunteer center. To say it was uncharted ground for me would be an understatement. I had never been in such a position of leadership, nor entrusted with as much responsibility. I wrote press releases and helped coordinate a large press conference to occur after I left, things I had never done before. But I like to get my hands dirty. I like challenges. So I wouldn’t say I was afraid.
That spring break in New Orleans was also the first time I realized that I like working with people, a lot. I had done other service projects in the past, but until then I don’t think I would’ve recognized myself as passionate about working with others. It was a great feeling to know that I was working with so many others who had taken the time to come down and help out. We had felt a similar draw to devote our time to, and this became an instant bond.
Some of us are called to action when we learn about what goes on in the world, as we become aware of the amount of suffering that occurs to other humans, other living beings, and the planet itself. Individually, though, I think we are very limited. In other words, there is very little we can do in isolation, by ourselves. But once we start talking to people about our ideas and our passions, that changes. Following my passion of self-actualization and surrounding myself with people who radiate their own passion have been my guiding forces since New Orleans. Only by putting our heads together, learning about each other’s skills, and harnessing our passions can we begin to make an impact.

What is sustainability? What is "the environment"?

I think our common, mainstream definitions of these words, and a lot of rhetoric around concern for these things is constructed in a way that doesn't get to the root of our problem. Here's what I mean:

I personally think a lot of the standard arguments for sustainability are shit. Fuck economics, fuck science, technology, etc. (In this case, as a basis for this argument.) I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that a lot of people no longer have the foundations to create relationships with non-human entities. I mean here, that this "inherent value" that the earth/environment/whatever you call it, should manifest itself as a respect and awe within us, unconsciously, and if you grow up in a grid full of concrete boxes, I don't know if that's possible*. I think this problem is at the root of so many other current psychological problems in our society and world. *Sorry, that's a little harsh. It may be possible, but I think it takes a conscious effort to remember it.

At least that's what I've been thinking lately.

All our urges toward "green" "eco-friendly" things that "help our environment" are just misplaced desires to reconnect to the natural world. We don't need a greener clorox product, an eco-lodge in the middle of the most biodiverse place on earth, or to give money to an NGO for it's administrative costs, we need to walk around in the grass, observe the differences in how a robin and hawk fly, and hear the sound of bugs crawling on the forest floor. Then, I think we can start thinking about what it could look like to live a life that is worth passing on to our children.

I very rarely hear this argument constructed in that way, especially in a classroom. It may be too simple for academia, even for psychologists who think they/try to understand people. I hope whatever I do next in my life will try to answer the questions this way...I'd like to understand more about it, and I think it has a lot of potential.

a second for the environment

weird we feel like we're "helping "the environment"" when we buy a car that still uses gas and is made from all kinds of unsustainable materials. yes, it's definitely less bad than most other cars on the market, i think, but it's still a weird thing to say. furthermore, i'm not comfortable, from a psychological standpoint, with our use of the term (and conception of the idea) "the environment". what exactly are we referring to in that sense? and what makes us feel like we're helping it when we buy a car or, say, change a lightbulb? i feel that term and the phrase serves to distance ourselves from nature - from something tangible, from creation/our mother earth. people who say "save/help the environment" aren't usually in touch with that. (in my opinion, which i know is pretty "radical")

2 quotes

Two totally unrelated quotes:

From John Ruskin (1819-1900, British romantic environmentalist):

Whereas the mediaeval never painted a cloud, but with the purpose of placing an angel in it; and a Greek never entered a wood without expecting to meet a god in it; we should think the appearance of an angel in the cloud wholly unnatural, and should be seriously surprised by meeting a god anywhere. Our chief ideas about the wood are connected with poaching. We have no belief that the clouds contain more than so many inches of rain or hail, and from our ponds and ditches expect nothing more divine than ducks and watercresses.

I personally like his mourning about our loss of expectation. If nothing else I feel that this loss may be the greatest for humanity solely, as through an anthropogenic lens.

From Dan Savage (The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant)

The same impulse that drives grown gay men to walk around holding hands could be pushing us toward this [adopting a child]. For same-sex couples, taking a lover's hand is almost never an unself-conscious choice. You have to think about where you are, whether you're safe, and you have to look. By the time you determine you're safe, you're not even sure you want to hold hands anymore. The genuine moment has passed, but you've invested so much energy and angst that now you can't not take your lover's hand. You wind up holding and the only reason you take your lover's hand is to prove that you can.

Surely, this fascinates me because of my interest in psychology; I think he does a great job at explaining our relentless doubting/insecurity (whether this is socially or individually caused).

I just visited the US and picked up a few new books!

Two Intense Movies

The past two nights I've watched two movies: The Price of Pleasure and The Constant Gardener. They were both pretty depressing but at the same time thought provoking. Here are some of my thoughts:

The price of pleasure was about pornography and it's impacts. The aim of the documentary was not to provide a bias or be preachy, but rather its aim is just to get people talking about it, something we usually do not do, no more than the "porn is bad" or "I like/watch porn." The movie included a lot of quotes from porn "users," producers, and actresses. It described a study done to analyze some of the top rented flicks - from the violence in it to racial content. I wouldn't have guessed this but about 90% of the films they analyzed had violent content. (Though I don't know their working definition of violence.) The movie included several porn clips as well, and nothing out of the ordinary, as far as I can tell. It was certainly interesting to see it removed from its normal context.

Seeing the clips out of context, it was even more clear how big a role male dominance is in the scenarios of standard porn. The movie pointed out that when sex is attached to these socially unacceptable (politically incorrect) ideas they can be extremely overt and we don't seem to care as much or at all. The male dominance is one facet, but race (gendered) is also a factor. Extremely over-sexualized black men, docile Asian women, demanding white men, etc., the standard racial stereotypes, but on steroids and very obviously tied to gender. These politically incorrect ideas are overlooked and more acceptable in porn. Why is that?

To me the most interesting phenomenon is how the concept of "normal" is completely altered by watching pornography. For many men*, porn (videos and magazines) is one of the first and perhaps only source for information on sex and relationships. (*I say men here because they are the overwhelming majority of porn consumers.) How then will they ever develop a frame of reference on sex outside of that? In other words, their views on sex are created by the world of porn, and these ideas are too often brought into the world of the bedroom. With no anchor on normality outside of porn, this fundamentally changes what will register as violence, or as rape, in a man's mind.

I do not blame the men who watch porn. Though I think there are healthy alternatives to using porn (like not using it), I find it hard to place blame on the individual men. How so? I think it has something to do with how the concept of normal is altered - it's not conscious. They're not thinking "I'd like to see violent porn and change my perception of violence and then act violently toward my significant other." Furthermore, demonizing or shaming men for doing this would tend to make them more resistant to change. So, though I do not think these individuals are to blame, I do think they are the ones who need to change. Once they realize that their views of sex and relationships are affected by porn, they should question that. It is their responsibility as a part of an intimate relationship to be aware of their ideas of sex and what they bring to that relationship.

And in a free market system where we are not allowed to blame a company for producing porn, I believe we shouldn't put the responsibility on them either, i.e. ask them to censor themselves. I do think it is the responsibility of individuals to have control over themselves. Men need to find a masculinity that is not derived from a dominance over women, and their free market demand should thus requisite less supply.

OH, and HERE'S the bibliography. (It's a PDF file from the Price of Pleasure website.) (There's a lot else at the website, including a trailer and interview w/ Noam Chomsky.)

Ok, well I've been rambling a bit more than I thought I would so I'll come back to the other movie another time. Let me know what you think.

Implicit Associations and Blink

As a psychology nerd (at least for some types of psych.), I find the following project interesting. For non-nerds and nerds alike, it's kind of fun to play with and see your results:
http://implicit.harvard.edu/

Project Implicit, based at Harvard, but well-connected across the country, is conducting research on implicit associations. To break it down for non-nerds: implicit is sort of analogous to automatic. So, in other words, they study the associations you make semi-automatically. Stereotyping is an example of this.

I just finished Blink by Malcolm Gladwell which was about the ramifications of these judgments - when they go wrong, when they're avoided, etc. For example, the conclusion of the book tells the story of how women began getting accepted into prestegious orchestras...by auditioning behind a screen so judges couldn't stereotype their abilities based on gender.

I egotistically think this is a good reason that my name can be read androgynously.

Anyway, there's some food for thought if you're interested in that kind of thing or have some time to waste and want to help out cool research.

on happiness, part II

i feel like i should write about this somewhere or other, and i'm feeling the blog over the journal for this one - it should at least be available for someone to read sometime. i suppose that is the purpose of all this nonsense, anyway, right?

well, here goes, happiness, part II:

i'm in a class about "Conceptions of Human Nature" - basically talking about how/if humans are unique, and what we should do about this. we talk about rationality and the potential for "happiness" a lot.

about a month ago i came up with this:

if -
the goal of human life is happiness
and -
we've been knowingly evolving

why aren't we all the happiest yet?

either we're confused: happiness isn't our goal (maybe it's the pursuit that we want), or we've never explicitly set out and consciously evolved with this aim, or there are other forces that have come between our evolution and ultimate happiness.

why are they called "intentional communities"? what are the rest? would this suggest that evolution (social evolution) is not guided (i.e. by people)?

it seems like we're lacking an explicit collective social consciousness, but [[i think]] we rely on it nonetheless.

today, march 5th, as i was walking to my spanish class i was thinking:
this place makes my stomach hurt. it makes me sad - but i don't even know what that means anymore. walking to class all i see is destruction, sadness, death. i see no value. i see a system where replace this notion of value with an idea of money, a set of numbers and unintelligible rules. i am ashamed. i am ashamed of my part in it all. for i no longer know what to say - how to relate - how to relate to someone so used to being left alone, blinded and convinced that consumption, an iPod, a cell phone will solve these problems. institutions have become the community. they must - how else will we find ourselves, others? who works for whom? am i a slave to institutions - or otherwise? why is it this relationship: master & slave? in communities there is no such thing, no such potential.

later, we were talking about nihilism in class. basically it's like "why don't we all just kill ourselves..." and there is no answer. or, well, the answer is like this: if we killed ourselves it wouldn't matter anyway, so what's even the point of that. if it happens it happens.

right.

and in the class right after that, Social Cognition (300 level Psychology class), we're talking about "Subjective Well-Being" (the measure psych'ists have come up to approach what normal people call happiness)...

here's some scary shit:

-in 1940, only 40% of houses had showers or baths, and only 35% had toilets.

between 1957 and 1998 in America:
-"real wages" (i.e. spending power, adjusted for inflation) doubled

-but subjective well-being basically stayed the same. 33-35% of people report themselves as, "very happy"

what does this all mean? that money, and/or quality of life doesn't make us happy?

what is the purpose of life, if not the pursuit of happiness? are we moving closer to this ideal collectively? do we have any hope as a species?

needless to say, today was kind of a depressing day.