Problem people become indistinguishable and interchangeable, which means that only one of them has to be asked to find out what all the rest of them think.
Wait.....,WHAT?? Yes, that makes total sense, because the perspective of one person can enlighten the situation of a whole group. This is a huge part of the problem right here in itself.
. Looking at the history of black women in America, on the plantation taking care of white children in white households, how is it possible that they could become the symbol of laziness?
This is a very interesting point. This is extremely well known fact yet their assumed to be lazy. Instead of looking at facts people are ignorant and decide to take the "easy" uneducated route and contribute to the problem.How infuriating.
He understood what it meant to be cast as part of a problem people rather than people with problems.
Unfair assumption
. Race must be addressed in a form that can deal with its complexity and irrationality.
Other than proper education, what other ways can we do this? This is much easier said than done.
tradition is not something you inherit—if you want it, you must sacrifice for it. In other words, tradition must be fought for. . . .
This is something I unfortunately don't see my generation fighting for. They are okay with falling into the new norms and creating a new tradition but at what cost compared to sacrifice?
Trust in institutions is falling because of political and economic upheaval, most notably through ever widening income inequality.
Being that this is most likely caused because of the access to information readily available at our fingertips why are people seeking this out more only now? Does this information happen to just "fall upon their lap" or are they genuinely searching to seek it out?
But in 2016 several events made it broadly clear that darker forces had emerged: automation, microtargeting and coordination were fueling information campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion at scale.
Online misinformation has grown so far out of hand it's impossible to monitor everything.
that humans are wired to respond to emotional triggers and share misinformation if it reinforces existing beliefs and prejudices.
I have always wanted to know where this comes from and why. I can admit that when I was younger I definitely fell victim to sharing misinformation because of the reinforcement it had on my existing beliefs however I had a change in mindset and now I personally seek out opposing viewpoints. I like to know and understand both sides to an argument and I can even if I don't agree with someone acknowledge their side.
Powered by social media, rumors and misinformation would be rampant.
I consider social media to be the root of almost everything. People are almost too involved and reinforced with their one sided tunnel vison feeds.
It is easy to imagine that, today, almost everyone in that scene would be holding a smartphone.
Unfortunately this has become the new normal. It's extremely interesting to see this throughout not only the younger generation but older ones as well.
nonshared environmental effects.
Makes me think of the people whos growth is being held back because of their family members.
That is, both genetic and environmental influences may explain personality development, at least in the case of the rank-order continuity of personality traits, and at least in the case of neuroticism and extraversion.
This is an extremely valid point. I believe that both genetic and environmental influences have an effect on personality development. A lot of people in the world see this argument as black and white when in fact there is so much grey area.
, a clear structure of personality traits does not begin to appear before the preteen period
This is an interesting time. This persuades me to believe the nurture side as this is I feel when kids have enough experience to begin building personalities.
Theories suggest that personality continuity and change may result from environmentally mediated processes of identity development due to age-graded social roles and individual life experiences, but also from biological maturation.
Personally I can say I have wanted personal growth because of all of the above; age graded social roles, individual experiences, and biological maturation.
These patterns show that personality development is a lifelong process.
This is extremely important yet it's looked over so often. It reminds me of the beginning of the year when everyone is making their resolutions for improvement. Many people think they have reached their "best selves" but how can you when we are constantly growing and changing.
“You can’t improve intuition.
This is very interesting as I don't think this is a yes or no matter. You can't improve tuition, however can you improve all other aspects that drive your intuition then changing it?
“I see the picture as unequal lines,” he said. “The goal is not to trust what I think I see. To understand that I shouldn’t believe my lying eyes.” That’s doable with the optical illusion, he said, but extremely difficult with real-world cognitive biases.
I like that this was mentioned. I think it would benefit a lot of people if more people decided not to automatically trust what they are reading.
The anchoring effect is our tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered, particularly if that information is presented in numeric form, when making decisions, estimates, or predictions.
I have found myself in numerous situations missing specific information because something was said at the beginning of the sentence that caught my attention and I found it haed to continue to follow.
The gambler’s fallacy makes us absolutely certain that, if a coin has landed heads up five times in a row, it’s more likely to land tails up the sixth time. In fact, the odds are still 50-50.
This is interesting that people don't see this as a 50/50 chance yet they assume because the "coin" has flipped heads 5 times that the 6th time will be heads as well.
185 entries,
Wow this is a huge number
That state of affairs led a scholar named Hal Hershfield to play around with photographs. Hershfield is a marketing professor at UCLA whose research starts from the idea that people are “estranged” from their future self.
This sentence really stood out to me. I have felt this way about my future self and never knew how to phrase it until I read this. I also see a ton of people who can relate to this as well
They tested the hypothesis that our reading habits follow from this perception, and found it to be correct: Students asked to read a text on-screen thought they could do it faster than students asked to read the same text in print, and did a worse job of pacing themselves in a timed study period. Not surprisingly, the on-screen readers then scored worse on a reading comprehension test.
This is extremely interesting. I have honestly always preferred to read books versus digital text but have never truly understood why. This gives me a bit more perspective.
Before that point, the typical European reader had only a few books—the Bible, an almanac, maybe a work of devotional literature—and he read them over and over,
Although I can understand that reading it more than 50 times over can become extremely boring, it's interesting to see that they were almost using annotation or practicing reading techniques. I know that I enjoy revisiting subjects being that the more I revisit them the more I pick up.
A thousand years later, critics fear that digital technology has put this gift in peril. The Internet’s flood of information, together with the distractions of social media, threaten to overwhelm the interior space of reading, stranding us in what the journalist Nicholas Carr has called “the shallows,” a frenzied flitting from one fact to the next.
This is a very good point. We must remember to keep a balance. It's imperative that we not try to eliminate technology from children's' lives because that is obviously inevitable rather we teach them how to prioritize reading.
... the reader was at last able to establish an unrestricted relationship with the book and the words. The words no longer needed to occupy the time required to pronounce them. They could exist in interior space, rushing on or barely begun, fully deciphered or only half-said, while the reader’s thoughts inspected them at leisure, drawing new notions from them, allowing comparisons from memory or from other books left open for simultaneous perusal. To read silently is to free your mind to reflect, to remember, to question and compare. The cognitive scientist Maryanne Wolf calls this freedom “the secret gift of time to think”:
Although I too enjoy reading aloud, growing up I always was nervous and embarrassed about it. For some reason society has put a negative stigma on it. I was under the impression that people thought you were a "better reader" if you could read in your head versus aloud. Why is that? Where did it start? Also, I don't understand the statement; " The words no longer needed to occupy the time required to pronounce them." When you are reading in your head, words are still occupying time in your head just not aloud.
Brennan calls people who don’t bother to learn about politics hobbits, and he thinks it for the best if they stay home on Election Day.
This reminds me of a statement made above which stated "American voters have remained ignorant despite decades of rising education levels." I believe that everybody has the choice to be ignorant or not and unfortunately now in society a lot of people lack open-mindedness and motivation to learn and further educate themselves. Most people are living in a state of content and if we did what Brennan said and let the "hobbits" stay home on election day, we enable a ignorant society instead of encourage education for not only self betterment but to also make a positive contribution to society.
A more practical suggestion came from J. S. Mill, in the nineteenth century: give extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs.
I do not understand this process as it takes away the purpose of the task. It all goes back to equality. Why would an "uneducated" person be incited to vote if they know someone with a degree or an intellectually demanding job can come in and automatically trump their vote. Lack of contribution can encourage more lack of motivation and a pessimistic outlook. Why even bother if you know your vote will be undone?
Plato, one of the earliest to see democracy as a problem, saw its typical citizen as shiftless and flighty:Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy.
I don't think they understood nor realized the opposing side which was exactly as Plato mentioned people standing idle and being neglectful. We are seeing a huge lack of motivation, urgency and courage in my generation and younger and this is a bit alarming to me. What happens to our society when everyone lacks motivation to seek to further educate themselves?