 |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Bibliography Report: Research
and Opinion on Six Subjects Spring 2003—Generation 18 Instructions for this report can be accessed here Research Topic 1: Inborn Talents Indicate Future Success A) What determines success? Successful people are often thought to possess qualities that give them the edge over un-successful people. Specifically, successful people are believed to be more “talented” than others. Talent refers to a natural ability to be good at something, therefore it is assumed that these successful people have natural abilities that others do not. Yet some successful people may not owe their success to genetic predisposition but to environmental upbringing.
The first search query I employed was to find a precise definition of talent on Encarta.com. I then used Google to search the exact phrase “Many unsuccessful people are no more talented than unsuccessful people”. I was surprised to discover numerous matches to this exact phrase, but I still searched for simpler phrases such as “successful people” and “unsuccessful people”.
The definition of talent as described by Encarta was “A natural ability to do something well”. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=talent This indicates that talent is defined as a genetic quality, not one that is readily learned. The majority of the matches on Google were actually a reference to the exact phrase, which is usually attributed to Harvey Mckay. These websites, among others, attributed the phrase “Many unsuccessful people are no more talented than unsuccessful people” to McKay. http://www.legalnews.net/2002-01.htm http://www.healpastlives.com/pastlf/quote/quworkit.htm In searching for “successful people” the majority of the responses offered to sell me self-help books. One article by Matthew Herper http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/dailynews/forbes_psychology_021113.html was valuable in that it described research by psychologists of successful entrepreneurs. Alexander Zelaznick, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, interviewed successful entrepreneurs over many years. He observed through his interviews that these successful people tended to be more of a risk-taker; they do not weigh consequences as much as normal people.
If talents are attributed to being inborn qualities, then successful people have a genetic advantage over unsuccessful people who do not possess as many essential talents. Yet observations by Zelaznick indicate that the success of these people may be attributed to being a risk-taker, which is not a proven genetic quality. Both unsuccessful and successful people may have the same opportunities to succeed; it may depend on both genetic and empirical factors, although there is no empirical evidence to support this.
The logical next step would be to research whether the success of individuals is a result of genetic gifts or environmental upbringing, or both. This next step could be realized through an extensive longitudinal study, or simply researching additionally on topics of genetic and environmental influences on success.
As science is continually evolving and new areas are being researched often, it is recommended to check medical or psychological journals for recent findings on this topic.
A) The Urban myth of the Coca-Cola cocktail Strangely
enough, I have never heard of the purported effects of mixing Coca
Cola with aspirin until this semester. Perhaps I am more immune
to outlandish notions
I searched on Google.com (the trend, so it seems) for "Coca Cola + Aspirin". I was rewarded with many hits that were closely aligned with my topic of choice. I did not need to utilize additional search terms as this phrase provided sufficient information. C) Findings The most advantageous site I found was: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/aspirin.asp This urban myth was ironically first published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the 1930's. A [crackpot] Illinois doctor reported that teenagers were ingesting this "dangerous" concoction and often had narcotic-like addictiveness. There are other phenomenon associated with the ingestion of this mystical cocktail that range from the preposterous to the reasonable. A few of these are: 1. It’s an aphrodisiac. 2. It causes instant death. 3. It cures headaches. The only phenomenom that has some validity is the effect of the mixture on headaches/hangovers. Dehydration is often a cause of headaches/hangovers; Coca Cola is water based therefore alleviates this dilemma with consumption of the mixture. Aspirin is known to reduce pain, especially in the head, so it is no surprise that it may work to reduce headaches, with or without Coca Cola. Yet the two ingredients may together provide a more effective remedy than ingesting either/or. There is lack of sufficient evidence to claim in any form that mixing Coca Cola with Aspirin will induce feelings of being “high”. The mixture may have some beneficial effects on those of us who choose to ingest a considerable amount of alcohol. Perhaps I am likely to synthesize a nice combination of two consumables that I have readily available, especially the morning after a severe bout of inebriation.
It would be interesting to investigate the effects of the mixture on alleviating symptoms of a hangover, specifically if combining the ingredients would prove to be more effective that ingesting the ingredients separately, but future research attempting to show some evidence of getting “high” from this mixture would be futile.
Try it for yourself! Coca Cola and Aspirin are two very common ingredients that most college students would have easy access to. Even if not to get “high” perhaps this research will prove useful to those of you who are not quite sure how to cure a hangover.
A) Sexism in the form of the sexist joke Men and women usually hold quite different opinions on the acceptability and humor of sexist jokes. The gender difference of opinion is due to many factors but the primary factor is that the majority of sexist jokes are focused on women. Men tend to view sexist jokes as merely a form of humor, while women are likely to view sexist jokes as degrading to their gender. B) Research I used Google to search for “sexism+joke+men” and was rewarded with multiple results with exactly what I was looking for (boy I’m getting good at this). I originally was just searching for general information on sexist jokes, but as my searching progressed, I attempted to find sources from both a man and a woman’s point of view. C) Data Collected
The first site was an article from a feminist point of view on sexist jokes and what steps should be taken by women to protest these types of jokes. http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v103/fa/n052/news/cam.derry.cowdrey.html The second discusses the power trip that some men tend to get around women; rape and sexist jokes are supposedly part of this. D) Conclusion Personally I think sexist jokes are hilarious, even those made about men. It’s a good way to discover all the stereotypes of both genders, plus a good way for guys and girls to share a laugh among themselves. The first article tells that "Sexist jokes are the number one way to drive women out of any group, and they are more common than many people realize." This article is written by a feminist, so it may be a tad more hardcore than most women’s beliefs are. "Women keep silent when we see sexist jokes because if we protest, we will immediately be attacked for being over-sensitive, uptight, or a "feminazi." This is not totally true, I for one realize that some sexist jokes may be quite offensive to certain women and if a woman asks me not to tell them I am more than happy to comply. The second article says that "...men could be brought in from all over the world, and they would have nothing in common, except that they feel superior to women...This male cultural phenomenon is taught while men are young..." Some men do feel superior to women, but I do not believe they think they are better than women, merely that men are on average physically stronger than women. E) What To Do Next? The most important thing to do when the question of the appropriateness of a sexist joke arises is to talk amongst each other. Is it offensive to you? If anyone in the group is uncomfortable with sexist jokes then it is courteous to refrain from telling the joke. I would search on whether women or men are most likely to voice their feelings on sexist jokes; and I surmise that women would tend to keep quiet if a joke upsets them.
Think of others! If you are with your guy buds, you will most likely be able to tell a sexist joke and no one will be offended. Yet the same joke in the company of a few women would likely be offensive, so make sure and have a care for others.
A) Who should do what? Society has always had some form of gender roles; men and women have different roles to play. In the last century or so the line between what a man’s role is and what a women’s role is has become increasingly blurred. No longer are women content to be Suzy homemaker; they express the desire to get out and bring home the bacon just as the man has been doing.
I first searched for "women’s roles" and then "man's roles", but this led to too many responses so I narrowed down the results considerably by joining the two phrases together = "man's role"+"women's role"...and presto! I got exactly the kind of responses I wanted. I used Msn.com this time, not necessarily because I believe it to be better than Google, but rather because I am sick or using Google over and over, their site is not quite as aesthetically pleasing as Msn. C) Data Collected The first site of some use was from a women’s rights discussion : http://www.elavidge.com/press/releases/gia/World_Women.pdf It says that one in two adults(which immediately annoys me, why the heck cant the just say 50%) worldwide "...do not believe that women enjoy the same rights as men". This article also examined the rights of women across countries. North America and Western Europe tended to be the most favorable towards gender equality, whilst West Africa still has a general attitude of male-superiority. The second site, which provided a stark contrast to the first, analyzed the roles of men and women from a biblical/religious perspective. http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/sects/azilos.htm These
religious views maintain that the Bible has set forth certain roles
that the man and women should occupy. Women's role in life is different
from men's role, but both are equal in spirit. "The woman's
role is that of the life-giver and nurturer, the man's role that
of the
Through most of human history men needed to be stronger to physically protect and provide food for the family, while the women’s primary role was child rearing, only in the past few centuries have women come to be able to occupy the breadwinner’s role. Thus it is quite appropriate to allow this blurring of gender role distinction. E) What To Do Next? The next step I would take is to research the shifting of gender roles; I believe that these roles are constantly changing. Who knows, in another century men may be the homemakers and women bringing home the denero.
Being open to shifting gender roles is essential in today’s society; yet it is also important to remember that American society is not the only culture in the world. There are various gender roles across many cultures, and it is unjust to judge their specific gender role practices by our own cultural norms
A) Optimist or Pessimist? It is often said that there are two groups of people in the world; those who think the glass is half full, and those who think the glass is half empty. People are categorized as either optimistic or pessimistic, depending on their own personal views on life. B) Research I used Google to first search for "optimism+pessimism", but I did not receive desired results so I then search for "optimism+self-efficacy", and this produced better responses. Optimism and self-efficacy were often mentioned in the same articles. I also search for "pessimism" and "cynicism" and "pessimism+cynicism". C) Data Collected The best website that described my topic, even thought it was in a little too much depth, was: http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/Psychosocial/notebook/optimism.html This provided an overview of the two terms and the different types of optimism and pessimism. In searching for optimism+self-efficacy, http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/world14.htm proved to be a useful resource, it also discusses differences in self-efficacy across 14cultures.
http://www.industryweek.com/Columns/Asp/columns.asp?ColumnId=729 This is an article that discusses the effects of cynicism and pessimism in today’s workplace, as these tendencies are proven to have an effect on job performance. D) Conclusion Optimism and pessimism are possibly the result of genetic influence, but there is no evidence that says environmental influence also plays a role in these characteristics. Bandura was credited with the concept of self-efficacy, as a part of his social-cognitive theory. Self-efficacy can be associated with optimism in an individual with high self-efficacy, and associated with pessimism in an individual with low self-efficacy. In the workplace article, cynicism is thought to be composed of two parts; pessimism and dispositional attribution, laying the blame on someone else. E) What To Do Next? What evidence could we find to support the idea of environmental influence on optimism? I believe that most tendencies in people are a result of both environmental and genetic influences, optimism and pessimism included.
Remember that these tendencies are alterable; just because you have a tendency towards pessimism does not mean that you cannot change. Research has shown that optimistic people tend to live longer on the average than pessimistic people, so perhaps now is a nice time to consider a little change.
A) Lets delay gratification Is it better to instantly fulfill your precious child’s every need? Or shall you occasionally delay gratification in hopes of rearing a child without spoiled-brat syndrome?
In searching for info on instant gratification and its place in our society I used Google to search for the term "instant gratification" and was primarily rewarded with news and offers of various products and services that proclaim to undoubtedly satiate my thirst for instant gratification, and very few articles that actually discussed the concept. I ended up sifting through over a hundred results just to get two productive ones. Perhaps there is a search query that would allow me to eliminate the useless spam, but I failed to discover it.
One of the very few productive results, it discussed the effects of instant gratification in the realm of the Internet. http://www.katsuey.com/search_article2.htm Instant gratification in regards to the Internet is probably directly or indirectly responsible for the loss of millions of dollars spent towards unsuccessful Internet companies, for website design, search engine fees, ect. Many people spent their time and money(usually more money than time) to setup an Internet company to reap profits quickly and easily, or so they think. Very few are instantly gratified with web traffic or customers, and most go the way of the Dodo(extinction). This is actually a transcription of a broadcast by Robyn Williams, who discusses the effect of instant gratification on child rearing. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s599369.htm Instant gratification in child rearing shows that when Children in studies were put in a position where they could choose between a small reward available immediately, or wait longer for a longer one, the majority of the children forsook the larger reward to instantly gratify themselves, but some attempted to busy themselves so they could wait for the larger one. "Delay of gratification" is a concept that would help to prevent child development problems such as poor learning of social skills, little understanding of appreciation, and a sense of omnipotence.
Instant gratification is quite fixated in our culture, from child rearing to Internet businesses. The majority of evidence that I found perceives instant gratification as a negative concept. The benefits of succumbing to instant gratification are just that; “instant”, by no means permanent. When a child cries to his mother, pleading for that new Pokemon toy, and she concedes, the child is temporarily satisfied. Yet the long-term effects of this instant gratification are usually detrimental in the child’s development.
If instant gratification is proven to almost always be detrimental, why is it so prevalent in our society? I would research this to perhaps gain a better understanding of the mechanism of instant gratification in our society.
Are you a short-term or a long-term person? That is, what is more important, getting what you want NOW and facing potentially undesirable consequences later, or delaying your desire for gratification and avoiding these potential consequences. I can relate to the need to get what I want NOW, who likes waiting?
|
Bibliography Report | Research Report | Book Review | eMail | G18 Class Homepage
Content © 2003 Bryce Dechert