Blog Post #16 - Shift Happens

This video makes me feel very hopeful and exited about our future.  Technology is beneficial, and the fact that education, living, and jobs will be positively affected by technology is something to be happy about.  

The educational system needs to adapt and include more technology in their classrooms and libraries.  They also need to include a little less of teaching just for "SAT's purpose", and more of teaching for the sake of spreading goods, useful information.  Educational system should also include more technology courses within the students' course requirements.  

I think the things I have studied so far help understand a lot of shift in our society.  They apply by helping us understand the information we get today, as well as know to adapt to new info.  Changes in info availability will improve a lot our understanding, because more people will be able to know more things.  Open information and readily available, useful technology are extremely beneficial.  

Blog Post # 15 - Rural, Suburban and Urban Living

I have lived in urban and suburban areas and I have family who lives is rural areas, and I must say there has been a lot of change.  When I lived in my country, I lived in a fairly suburban area.  There were stores, malls, roads, etc, but nothing as fast paced and crowded as urban areas.  When I went back to visit my home city, I noticed that it was completely different.  In my opinion it was still suburban, just with the worst aspects of urban cities incorporated in it.  There double as many stores, triple as many cars and buses, 5 times as many people, still with the under-developed aspects of a suburban area, such as low quality streets and living.  It was a surprising experience, and quite interesting.  Don't get my wrong, I do like urban living, and would love to live in places such as New York City or DC, however as I said before, my home town had the pollution and disorder of a big city, without the museums and theaters.  

My grandmother from my father's side lives in a fairly rural area, and it somewhat remains that way.  There are obvious changes, but not as many as one would expect.  There is more transportation and roads have been built, however one can still see the same trees, green fields, animals, and natural beauty from before.  The same applies to the urban environment I live in now.  It is crowded and noisy, however in my opinion it hasn't changed much.  Urban environments by definition are always high in activity, so I wouldn't expect a lot to change there, except maybe small details. 


I noticed the the area in between rural and urban, which is suburban, was the one which suffered most change.  In my country, which is a third world country, suburban areas have the worst of both rural and urban.  They have the sub development of rural living, which the pollution and violence of urban living.  In the United states this is quite different.  Suburban areas here have somewhat the best of both rural and urban places.  Here in the United States, suburban areas have the peace of rural areas, but the easy access to stores, entertainment, business of urban areas, without the violence and large crowds.  That is why in my country, Urban areas are the best, however in the United States both Urban and Suburban are quite ideal.  Rural, suburban, and urban areas have suffered much change along the years, but in my opinion urban living will always be more ideal.  

Blog Post #14 - Democratic Elitism

Which democracy theories are the most fit for our society?  Not many people have asked themselves that, but I think a lot of people have unconsciously thought about this, without including specific sociological terms.  There are a few democracy theories, but I think the theory I agree with the most is Democratic Elitism.

Why Democratic Elitism?  Before explaining why   I agree with Democratic Elitism the most, I must explain what this is.  Democratic Elitism is simply the belief that a society must be governed by a select group of “gifted” or highly educated individuals.  These individuals are thought to be more knowledgeable than most people, and therefore more fit to govern them.  An example of this is a government.  We, as a society, subscribe to Democratic Elitism. 

I think this theory is the best because I cannot think of any modern society which is fully functional and organized without a body of government.  Putting the direct power of governing in the hands of individuals would promote disorder, and put rules on the mercy of biases and prejudices.  Our politicians have to meet certain requirements in order to be able to govern us, and do a good job in keeping us safe and well governed.  Not everyone is fit to govern a society, and without a organized government we would not be able to establish rules and laws, since everyone has their own opinions and views.  For that reason, it is necessary for us to democratically elect an elite that will make it their main jobs to govern us, and look out for our well being.  

Blog Post #13 - Is Walmart Good For America?

Is Walmart good for America?  For someone who works in retail, it is a very tricky question to answer.  I have never worked in Walmart, however I have many friends who do, and they have different opinions regarding whether Walmart is a good or bad place to work, or what is their influence within their communities.  Walmart was founded in 1962, by retail worker Sam Walton.  Today, Walmart is the world's largest retailer and corporation, with more than 6000 stores around the world, half of which are located in the U.S.  With that, can we establish whether Walmart is good or bad for America? 

Many people argue it is bad.  Its low prices and high sales mean, for many, low cost of living and low salaries.  Many of my friends who work at Walmart argue that because it's prices are so low, it encourages low wage labor and low quality of living.  Many also argue that it causes its workers to have to work more hours in order to meet demanding expectations.  According to Frontline's documentary, Walmart also has a certain power upon manufacturers, causing costs of goods to go down.  Walmart is argued to have taken the power out of manufacturers and into retailers' hands.  

Many people argue that Walmart is bad for America, however I somewhat disagree.  Many other stores pay minimum wage to their employees, and many of them have low retail prices.  Walmart is targeted because of its popularity.  Walmart's annual revenues are of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, and have 1.5 million employees worldwide, more than 1 million of whom are in the United States. This shows that Walmart not only brings millions of jobs, which are more than needed in our economy, it also brings money to our government.  Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States, which is obviously a beneficial thing.  

Many people argue that Walmart lowers standards of living,  hurts retail trade, and due to its popularity,disrupts some communities.  Many others on the other hand, can see that although Walmart drives cost of goods to be lower and low wage labor to be higher, it is the largest employer in this country.  Walmart drives employment opportunity and activity in the economy, and in my opinion it is beneficial to America.  

Blog Post #12 - Family Chores

Filling up our Family Duty Chart was an interesting experience.  There were somethings that surprised me, however others were.  My mom and my stepfather's roles and chores were pretty equal.  Sometimes both of them could be checked for the same chores (planning vacations, buying groceries, etc.) 

I was surprised with how little I actually contribute to my family duty chart.  I thought I helped quite a lot, but upon filling up this chart I noticed that I don't do as much as I thought I did.  After looking at it for a while, I noticed that maybe it was because I was responsible for the house "maintenance" chores (dishes, vacuuming  bathroom cleaning, etc) which have to be done more often than others (like writing holiday cards, planing vacations, or car maintenance.)  

This chart was quite interesting and fun to complete.  I think most people found that, if they were one of the kids (which is my case) they did much less than their parents.  As our podcast said, it was also interesting to look at what types of chores each of us did, and to observe who was in charge of "fun" chores (although I don't think any chores can be considered "fun")  Our podcast also makes an interesting point that in the card, there are many chores that I didn't think of as chores.  

Blog Post #11 - Secularism

I think the world is becoming increasingly secularized.  In Europe (of all places), for example, we can observe than Atheism is becoming increasingly popular.  Secularism and Free thinking are more present within the Western media now a days, and that means that more people have access to secularist ideas.  Western shows, comedies, movies, etc are becoming less religious.  Maybe that is due to the fact that it is not politically correct to impose a certain religion, and that is why extreme religious views are less present in Western media.  But secularism is not just a western "thing".  Since out TV shows, movies, music, etc can be bought and seen throughout the world, secularist ideas have been able to spread.  I also attribute the increasing of secularism to a more accessible scientific base.  Many years ago, common people did not have access to science, and therefore they could not use it to answer their questions about our environment and our existence.  Now we have almost unlimited (and extremely easy) access to science, studies, experiments, scientific books, scientific ideas, and that is making it much easier for people to explain what they see around them by using reason instead of religion.  

Many may ask what the appropriate role of religion in a government is?  Simple answer:  None.  Religion should stay out and away from our government.  Throughout history we have been observing that mixing religion with politic is not a good idea.  In order to have a fair government that has the well being of everyone in mind, we must have a government that has no religious affiliation.  The appropriate role of religion is to stay within believers' hearts and out of our laws and regulations.  

Blog Post #10 - Tale of Two Families

Tale of Two Families was very interesting to read.  From the very start you can see that Max's family is already in a much more comfortable situation than Byron's.  As the story goes by, we can see many examples of how racial segregation can change people's lives, even if they have the same interests and same capacities.  Byron was just as intelligent as Max, however he had to work twice as hard in order to get where is is.  He needed to have trust on himself and focus on his studies, and because of his effort, he got a scholarship.  Max was also talented and bright, but he had a lot more money and could get his education worry free.  As this story concludes we see that even today, when our society has gotten a lot better in terms of racial segregation, both Max's and Byron's communities still are segregated.  Byron's family sold their houses for very little money, while Max's family got 14 times what they paid for.  But that is not their fault.  Both families are honest, hard working, and have talented children.  Our society is what causes this inequality.  It is very heart warming to see that both Max and Byron grew up to be very successful men and work together.  This shows that with effort and strength, we can overcome even those obstacles that were already here even before we were born.  Of course social and economic background help a lot, but being honest, hard workers and putting effort into what we do, we can get very far, and be very successful.

Blog Post #9 - Gender Inequality

What I've learned about gender inequality and social construction of gender this week has been somewhat surprising. It has been said that our society does not exactly take gender inequality seriously.  I agree in some aspects.  Here in the U.S., gender inequality isn't so much of a problem, since women and men have pretty much the same rights.  Of course, there is still some inequality (such as different salaries, or gender specific jobs) but in my opinion, none of these inequalities actually invade's either genders' rights.  

Unfortunately that is not the case in other societies.  In my Gender Inequality   Assignment, I interviewed two women from different cultures:  Brazil and Pakistan.  My findings from these interviews weren't exactly surprising, since I expected there to be greater inequality (for religious reasons in Pakistan and for economic reasons in Brazil), however hearing about those things from someone who lived gender discrimination  and had basic rights actually stripped away from them...  was, for lack of better word, shocking.  Many sociologists agree that gender inequality is still a serious problem today, but that it is disappearing.  I agree i parts.  I think that gender discrimination is disappearing in more developed societies, and it may be getting better in less developed ones (Brazil has its first female president), however I don't think that less fortunate classes of these less developed countries can see a difference.  In my opinion, that happens because gender inequality never comes alone.  There isn't a society who discriminates just for the sake of doing such.  Gender discrimination comes with other problems, such as social and economic background, cultural background, and (more evidently) religious background.  Less developed societies are weaker social and economically, and therefore depend on labor intensive work.  For that reason, women may be considered less useful.  That is how a larger difference between men and women appeared in the first place.  When humans were hunters and gatherers, both men and women had similar roles, and therefore similar importance within society.  Once we started settling down, owning land, and becoming an agricultural society, labor intensive jobs (that could only be performed by men) became more important, and women's roles were reduced.  One can see that difference in indigenous hunter-gatherers societies.  

I agree with sociologists when they say that gender inequality is not a big problem in developed societies anymore.  In the U.S. both men and women have the same rights.  In may developed Europeans societies, both men and women have similar rights.  But if we stop and think, The U.S. and most European societies are economically stable, and although mostly christian, such societies do not censor free, critical thinking.  Less developed societies, such as Latin American, African and many Muslim societies, are not as fortunate.  These societies have history of being economically handicapped, and most of these societies rely on religion for social, cultural and political purposes.  For that reason, critical thinking is censored, and it becomes much easier to follow gender discrimination.  As previously stated there is a development being seen in these societies from outside, however, a poor percentage of such societies cannot tell the difference.  As I said before, gender inequality is becoming less of a problem in well developed societies, however in less developed ones the issue is moving forward slowly, mainly because, as previously mentioned, gender inequality never comes alone.  Rather, it comes with deeper underlying issues, such as religion, culture, social and economic background.     

Blog Post #8 - Does Global Inequality Affect America?

Does global inequality affect America?  If so, how?  And why should we care?  First of all, global inequality does affect America.  As one of the most powerful countries today, American has a lot of responsibility on helping minimize global inequality.  Many of the wars we have been fighting recently have been described as been “wars for freedom” or “wars for democracy.”  That is one of the ways America takes responsibility on helping other countries fight against inequality.  But how does that affect us?  Well, a simple answer would be:  it affects our pockets.  Every war fought by this country is paid by us tax payers.  That is direct affect of global inequality in each individual.  It also affects us socially.  One of the reasons America has such a great reputation and the land of the free is because our government and political system promotes equality.  Many people may say that America is not equal (and in many points it isn’t) but compared to many other countries (many of which have fought America in some war) we have a great system of equality.  

It also affects us economically, but in other ways.  The money that we spend helping other countries with their inequality problems could well be spent to feed out poor, shelter our homeless and educate our children.  I am not by any means saying that helping other nations is wrong.  As I pointed out in the beginning, as one of the most popular and successful nations today, we are also a symbol of freedom and we should take responsibility into helping our fellow nations.  I am however, stating that many countries may be satisfied with their situation, and sometimes America may come across as getting into unnecessary problems.

Global inequality also affects us politically.  The reason why many people choose to come to this country illegally is because they know that the opportunities in their countries are not equal to the opportunities here.  That affects us, because it giver politicians excuses to explain their ignorance.  For example, immigrants take jobs that many Americans are not qualified to do, or just don’t want to do.  Many politicians take advantage of that and say that immigrants “steal” jobs, when there is no such thing.

With the popularity of internet and social networking, global inequality affects us in personal level.  As humans, we have empathy towards one another, and seeing other country’s peoples suffer with inequality hurts us.  Global inequality does affect America, not only in an economic level, but also in a personal level.  

Copyright Disclaimer:  The pictures posted do not belong to me.  

Blog Post #7 - Does Social Class Matter?

Unfortunately (when a sentence starts with that, you know it ain't gonna be good) social class matters way too much in the U.S. today.  As a matter of fact, it is one of the things that matter the most in America today.  As we all know, unfortunately (again) our culture is controlled by our youngsters.  Yes, our easily influence, shallow youngsters, who dress whatever the Kardashians tell them to wear, and watch whatever their school cheerleaders tell them to watch.  I am not saying all young people are like that!  By no means!  However, the American culture is described by others as the behavior of those youngsters who want it all, and yet know nothing about anything.  One of the things that they learn in their religious relationship with the media is to value social class.  I don’t believe they think of it that way, but when the price of your clothing or the name imprinted on your bag (probably by some underpaid Chinese child) is more important to others than your values, beliefs and intellectual capacity…  that says that social class is in fact considered important. 

                I have experienced the importance of social class.  The most evident examples of such importance were witnessed by me in the glorified place (which has become more of a social event than a center for education) we call High School.  In high school, social class is pretty much everything.  The girls who wear the most expensive clothing, or have the most expensive cars, or go to the most expensive restaurants (none of which are actually paid with their own hard work, but rather that of her parents) are considered the most popular.  The same applies to boys.  There is this misconception that money equals worthiness.  It is shameful.  And by the way, it is the parents’ fault.  Dear American parents, lets start educating your children instead of buying their fake respect with video games and expensive crap they don’t need.  Video games will make them stop slamming doors right now, but a good education and values will save them from having doors slammed at them later.   

When we think of the importance of social status, we most likely imagine the scenarios I just presented.  But those aren't the only ones.  Social status is important in the U.S. for deeper reasons.  In American, if you don’t have money, you pretty much don’t have anything.  There are many good public schools, but if you can’t afford supplies, books, tutors, and the many other expenses that come with education, you’re pretty much in trouble.  You need money to have education, to go to the doctor, to live.  Does social class matter in the U.S.?  Yes.  Unfortunately yes.  

Blog Post #6 - Technology is Our Friend. Lack of Education is Our Enemy

In my opinion, Americans today are way more isolated, but it is not exactly "due to" technology.  American teenagers now a days seem to be more social than ever... except for the fact that the social group they worry about the most is one of people they don't even know, such as Facebook "friend."  Teenagers are becoming so caught up on what happens in their cyber social life that they are forgetting to live real life.  I have had friends who pride themselves on the amount of Facebook friends they have, but give little attention to the real friends that participate in their lives every day, and I find that depressing.  I don't know if it is because on the internet you can shape yourself in a certain way that may hide your real self and please others, but the increase in popularity of social media and the lack of education about such is making Americans more and more isolated.   

It is not only the lack of educations about social media that is making Americans isolated, but the lack of education about technology in general, and how to use it in a functional way.  When I was a kid back in my country, there wasn't a single day (besides rainy days maybe) that I wasn't outside playing soccer, talking to other kids, playing cards (weird, I know, but I've always liked playing cards).  My house was on a hill, and I remember my friends and I playing dodge ball every weekend in my street.  I remember wanting to be on the team at the top, because that way I wouldn't have to run after the ball as it rolled to the busy road.  I also remember us just sitting at each other houses gates, talking about school, homework, soap operas, counting coins to see if we could go to the store and buy a cookie (to share between 2-4 of us).  We often went to different schools, but unlike in America, school wasn't out life.  In my culture, school is the place where you learn, and the outside world is where you make friends.  You don't have to go to the same school in order to be friends.  Why?  Because we stick our big heads outside once in a while and meet new people.  We didn't have iPods, and iPads, etc.  Some of us had video games, but we never became obsessed with them, like American kids do.  We all had TVs, but we also never allowed ourselves to become stuck on a couch watching TV.  There was quality indoor time with family, and quality outdoor time with friends.  When I arrived in america I was shocked.  I was jogging in the place where I live, in a Saturday morning, and there was no one outside.  I went to the grocery store, and came back in the afternoon, and there were only some kids, re-enacting horrible scenes from the ridiculously violent games American children are so fond of.  I was disappointed.  

To me, this is something we should be concerned about.  We have never lived in an era with so much technology so readily available to the public as we do now.  The adults that we know today were once kids who also played outside, and didn't have imaginary cyber friends.  We don't know how our children will turn out to be, and how this isolation with affect them in the future.  Don't get me wrong. technology is amazing and extremely necessary.  Our society would not be functional without it, and it makes our lives much easier.  I love technology, and I do own a smart phone and have a Facebook account.  It would be stupid of anyone today to be opposed to technology, as it contributes to our economy, medicine, education and more.  However, children are not being properly educated about technology, and they are becoming caught up on a cyber world.  The solution is to educate our children to value their lives, like themselves, increase their self-esteem, so that they won't feel the necessity to please people who live in other continents and that they have never met.  We need to educate them so that out society won't become even more isolated.  

Americans are way more isolated than they ever were.  But it is not "due to technology".  It is due to the lack of education about technology.  

Technology is awesome!

Blog Post #5

This blog post to me is quite simple.  I was born and grew up in the rough city of Rio de Janeiro, a city filled with criminals.  Here in the U.S. things are different.  In Brazil, criminals are treated better than they should be.  The Brazilian government spends more money in criminals then they do in student, and that is revolting.  Here things are different.  I think the U.S. deals with the issue quite well.  I am not fit to propose solutions.  I honestly don't know.  In my eyes, I don't think there is much that should be changed regarding criminals.  Things seem to be going well enough.  For me, who came from such a rough environment, I see the way the U.S. treats criminals is much better than in my country.  In my country, even the police is made up of mostly criminals.  It is shameful.  Here the situation is much better, so I would rather be satisfied with that.  

Blog Post #4 - Nature Vs. Nurture

When talking about the subject of Nature vs. Nurture, people tend to get very divided.  Some people believe that we were born the way we are, and there is nothing we can do about it.  Well, that has been proven wrong (Refer to experiments on conformity by Zimbardo, Bendura, Asch, etc).  Our behavior is influenced by psychological conditions, some of which we are born with, but assume a psychologically healthy person was born with a certain kind of behavior, that behavior could well be changed by the environment around that person.
      
Many other people believe that we are born as a blank slate, and that everything we believe, like, desire, find important, and do is a result of being influenced by our environment.  This has also been proven to be wrong.  Let me point out a case that has caught my attention.  In Switzerland, there has been a huge discussion regarding whether our sexuality is innate or learned.  In the following video, you will see that, unlike what we would expect, scientists are not curious about that.  Much for the opposite.  They think it is an unimportant question.  Many people who defend gay rights in Switzerland believe that saying that our sexuality (and consequently homosexuality) is innate is the same as saying it is undesirable.  I found that quite odd.  In my opinion (as as the American scientist points out), seeing our sexuality as innate encourages people to be more sympathetic towards it.   

(WARNING:  This video contains images which may not be suitable for some audiences.  Its also in Swedish, which English subtitles)

So, what makes us good or evil?  Is a psychopath born a psychopath, or is there such thing as "The Lucifer effect"?  Well...  a little bit of both.  Some people are in fact born with genes that make them more likely to have some sort of personality, such as psychopathy, but without the environment to pull the trigger, those personality traits may never come to surface.  
Many researchers have explored the topic.  As the researcher in the BBC documentary below tells us, if  our pre-disposition to be moral or immoral depends on a chemical, than that makes it easier not just to measure how evil someone is, but also to predict how likely, lets say, a child is to become a 

psychopath as an adult.  The tests performed in the video below are amazing.  From the very first test, we can see that the discussion of whether people may be born instinctively good (or evil) is a complex one.  


(Fast video forward to 31:00) This is mid blowing.  There are actual physical signs of psychopathy.  Researcher Jim Fallon analyzed a group of brain scans, those of patients of depression, schizophrenia, normal people, and killers.  He noticed a pattern.  The group he separated as those with a defective orbital cortex and the front part of the temporal lobe.  This group, amazingly, was made up of the killers.  This finding is amazing in its own.  It, as the narrator says, is a step closer to finding the signature brain profile of a psychopath.  But this isn't the most surprising finding.  

From where do these differences in the psychopaths' brain come from?  The answer is:  Their genes.   The MAOA gene (also known as the warrior gene) became a vital player in this research.  Just being born with this gene can pre-dispose you to violent behavior.  The very fact that one is born with that gene makes them much more likely to be a killer than a person without it.  So, everyone that is born with that gene is deemed to become a killer, which proves that nature is stronger than nurture, right?  Wrong.

(Fast forward to 36:35) The researcher himself finds that he has a family history of serial killers.  After further research, he finds that he possesses the warrior gene.  So why didn't he become a murderer?  Because his environment hadn't allow him to do so.  As he points out, he had an amazing childhood, and that allowed the psychopath gene to not be triggered.  Fascinating!

And that raises a question.  Is our genetic make up enough to control who we are?  Or is the environmental trigger necessary?  In my opinion, there is no "Nature vs. Nurture" but rather a "Nature and Nurture".  Both nature and nurture work together in making who we are.  We are neither born evil, nor born as a blank slate.  Our genetics can have great influence on our behavior, however without our environment to (again) "pull the trigger", those genetic traits may never come to surface.  

Blog Post #3 - To be Great is to be Misunderstood: A Bit of Fry and Laurie.

Being a huge fan of Stephen Fry, and having watched nearly every episode of every season of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", I can tell the reader that sketches like this one are very common, not just portraying Americans, but Canadians, Australians, and even the British themselves.  It worried me, however, that most of my classmates interpreted the sketch as representing the British "Looking down" on Americans.  Sir Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie do in fact poke fun of the American ego, but I don't think that at any moment they seem to look down at them.  The American sense of superiority is in fact annoying, and anyone from another country will tell you that.  Americans tend to poke fun of Hispanics for being poor/immigrants (see: Family Guy, Tosh.0, Comedy Central Presents), Asians for being good in math (See: Any comedy show), Canadians for being polite, the Middle Eastern for ridiculous reasons that boggle my mind, the British for their accents and their culture, Russians for being communists, The Jewish, The French, The Indian, Native Americans, Eastern Europeans, Africans...  You name it, America has poked fun of it.  Why shouldn't other countries have the same right?  I don't think that America looks down on the cultures it pokes fun of, it is just comedy!


About Stephen punching Hugh, it has nothing to do with the sketch itself.  It is more about Stephen (the composed, classy one) finding Hugh (the sporty, silly one) annoying.  It is sort of a recurring joke, which is more notably referenced in the later (and funnier) sketch entitled "Where is the Lid?" (Video below). 




So, as a conclusion for why Stephen punched Hugh, I can tell the reader that it wasn't a well thought out representation of the British despise of Americans, or that British people want Americans to shut up.  It was simply a representation of the fact that:  Stephen Fry enjoys hitting Hugh Laurie!  :)

  
 


Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are intelligently hilarious, and its a shame that Americans don't "get" that kind of humor.  The American public is in need of shows like "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", and Stephen Fry's brilliant show "QI".  Getting to experience comedy that makes the audience exercise their critical thinking skills is priceless, and I wish the American audience was more exposed to the kind of dry, quick witted comedy that the British have been so accustomed to for decades.  

Now c'mon America, back to watching Tosh.0! 

Week #2 Blog Entry - Stanford Prison Experiment

Do you think the Stanford Prison Experiment was ethical? Why or why not? (Feel free to also write about any other aspects of the experiment that you find interesting or noteworthy.)

In its assumptions, the experiment was ethical, as the people conducting the experiment expected the subjects to know what their roles were, but to not get far into them.  However, some of the results were not foreseen by the investigators.  The study became unethical by the way it was executed by the researchers.  In my opinion, any study carries risk of developing into a situation that comes out of control.  The researcher’s responsibility is to recognize hazardous situations/behaviors and terminate the experiment immediately.  The problem is, the researcher connected to his work in a personal way, and it isn’t of a researcher’s interest to terminate his own work prematurely, even more so when there was o supervision by independent bodies (IRBs, for example).  A good example of that rule, is that after the prison experiment, new guidelines were approved in order to protect human subject in research, so that no other future study would get out of control as the Prison Experiment did.  Additionally, that experiment created guidelines to performing similar studies with minimal risk to the subjects. 

            The question is:  what was the benefit from that research.  By law, the benefits (direct or indirect) should outweigh the risk in any given human subject research, and in this case, the risk to benefit ration seemed to not have been assessed properly beforehand.  There should have been procedures to continuously monitor the research as is the case now days.  When looking at it from a modern point of view, the study was unethical.  By our standards, there should have been more ways to minimize the physical and psychological distress endured by the subjects.  However, when thinking in a broader point of view, we have to take into consideration that at that time, what we would consider “unethical research” was common, as there were little constrains to what a researcher could do, and researchers weren’t properly educated as to how to protect the subjects’ well being. 

Week #1 - First Entry

Greetings, everyone!

My name is Helen Borges, and I am very excited about taking SOC 200.  I am currently taking another sociology course, and I am very excited about everything I will learn in those classes.

  I was born in a small town in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  I came to the U.S. in 2008.  I am currently a full time student at NVCC (15 credits) and I work part time.  I will be transferring to GMU in the Spring of 2013, and there I will be majoring in Communications, with a concentration in Journalism.  After that, I plan on getting a Masters on either History (if possible) or English.  

  As a high school student, I was a member of the National Honor Society, and there I learned to be passionate about different cultures (most members in my school took IB Anthropology, which was a truly enlightening experience), and to appreciate everything those cultures have to offer.  To me, striving to be a  well rounded person is extremely important.  Coming from a culturally diverse country, I was raised to be curious and opened minded about different costumes and norms, and to respect them. 

  I enjoy reading a lot, and try to “read” (I listen to my books) as much as I can.  I am taking Sociology courses to fulfill my degree requirement, however among the many Sociology courses I chose this one because it will give me a good base, and teach me to analyze and understand sociology.  I find sociology fascinating, mostly when it deals with psychology (Zimbardo's "Stanford Prison Experiment" is an example.)  I also enjoy literature and philosophy, and my favorite authors are Nabokov, Charles Dickens, Orwell, Nietzsche, Freud, and Schopenhauer. I enjoy listening to music as well, and my favorite band is "The Smiths."  I am a fan of British TV shows, and my favorite shows are "QI", "Mock the Week", "Have I Got News for You" and "Would I lie to You."

 I will do my best to add as much as I can to this class.  I think I will have a lot of fun sharing my thoughts and points of view with my class mates and also getting to know my class mates' thoughts and points of view.  I look forward to participating and contributing to an interesting, enjoyable class.  I also look forward to meeting all of my class mates, and learning as much as I can about them. 

I look forward to meeting all of you guys!

Helen Borges.