It is rare when my thoughts about America's divided political citizenry are so clear to me. Today, yet again, has me ruminating on the American Right or more specifically, the modern conservative or neoconservative.
There are many discrete ideas and positions embraced by American neoconservatives, in fact, too many to tackle in this short post. My larger point, however, intends to concisely describe what divides the American Left from the American Right, and that is the the Left's embrace of and trust in the University institution, and the Right's dismissal and frankly, glib skepticism of that institution. Furthermore, the Right seems equally skeptical of the idea of detrimental multinational corporations, conglomerates, monopolies and oligopolies pushing their way to the center of American discourse and engaging in financed skepticism and disinformation.
This divide largely explains why the average neoconservative one might run into (probably at least one in every family, and most likely to refer to his or herself as a "conservative") dismisses the scientific consensus on global warming. Neoconservatives tend to mistake a political dispute for a scientific one. If the Right believed in the University institution, the Right would turn to the scientists and climatologists and discover there is in fact a verifiable consensus: global warming is occurring and industrial carbons (a human cause) are culpable. Being capable of matching a climate change denial article for every article warning of the imminent global threat doesn't mitigate or undermine the consensus. It merely illustrates the aggressive and pernicious nature of financed skepticism and disinformation.
But a neoconservative is unlikely to remove himself from his long relied upon, comforting world view. He will continue to believe electricity provided by coal-fired power plants is so cheap, and either fail to appreciate or remain ignorant about the fact that American subsidization is responsible for his lighter electric bill. On the other hand (no pun intended), the woman from the Left will continue to dig up verifiable fact and research data provided by the University institution.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Friday, December 16, 2011
Let the Market Mantra Die & Save Yourselves!
I've got an itch and it really needs scratched. The right wing mantra, "let the market decide" is a glib one-liner that the politically minded hears quite often these days. It's the republican solution to everything from health care to smoking bans. Now, when concerning health care, I'm for single payer and against the corporate socialism masked in good will and commonly referred to as ObamaCare. A smoking ban in public places, however, is one example of legislative action the state of Pennsylvania has gotten right, I think.
Taken from the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association's website: "On June 13, 2008, Governor Ed Rendell signed the Clean Indoor Air Act. This Act prohibits smoking in most public areas and workplaces, protecting the majority of citizens in Pennsylvania from tobacco smoke. On September 10, 2008, the new law will take full effect everywhere in the state except for in the City of Philadelphia, which will be permitted to preserve its existing local smoking ban - the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law."
I did not do any research on Philly, but I've come to understand that usually when state governments allow local governments to maintain a law in the wake of statewide legislation, it's because the local government's current law exceeds expectations, but I digress.
There was a time, not too long ago, that saw me accepting this overwhelmingly baseless assertion--let the market decide!--despite holding progressive views. It made sense; if non-smokers don't want to smell like a pack of cancer sticks, they'll talk with their wallets and force bar owners (in particular) to make a decision that determines which customer is more important to the survival of their business: the smoker with 19 other friends, or the non-smoker with 79. Of course, I'm referring to the percentage of smokers vs non-smokers. In fact, I found an article that claims the percentage of smokers in America has even declined to below the 20% mark, sitting at 19.8% according to WebMD.
So what does "let the market decide!" really mean? Sounds like an endorsement of boycotts, but I don't buy its effectiveness. Seriously, you're telling me that after working all week, the majority of the adult population that would like to go out for drinks or head to a restaurant for a nice meal on a Friday or Saturday night (and maybe a glass or two of beer and wine) without the harmful interference of tobacco smoke should have to organize, engage in a boycott and monetarily inform the market that they're "Mad as hell, and [they're] not going to take it anymore!"?
I agree, that's nuts! And you're certainly bonkers if you think everything the government does and everything the majority wants are two mutually exclusive ideas. Sometimes they are (being molested by the TSA and being detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime are a few examples that come to mind), but in the case of the Pennsylvania smoking ban and others across the U.S., the state government got it right. Hmm, maybe it's the Fed that we only need to worry about.
Really though, "let the market decide!" is a tough one to sell to me. At the very least, how does it read? There could be a host of reasons a bar or restaurant owner is seeing a decline in clientele and sales. Maybe his beer selection sucks. Maybe her food is crap. Who knows? One thing is for sure, if I'm a restaurant owner and I start to doubt my cook due to a loss in sales, I don't ban smoking, I find a new cook!
To be fair and totally honest, though, maybe the market actually has decided to a degree, or maybe it's just that owners of Pennsylvania establishments have finally "got it": that the health of the majority of one's customers is directly related to whether one's business thrives or not, and that there's no reason why a minority of people who choose to negatively impact their health by way of smoking should be able to externalize those detrimental effects on to people who've chosen not to do so. Yeah, we're both at a bar, Joe Camel, but my drinking doesn't effect you or anyone else (unless of course I drive drunk and kill an innocent person or I talk incessantly and tell boring stories while sloppily quaffing a few too many pints).
Note: If you're a resident of Pennsylvania, you might already know that the smoking ban law states that smoking is still permitted in establishments that report less than 20% food sales. I'm willing to bet that there are a number of bars that fit in that category and have still decided to disallow smoking inside their walls. Look at the clock...it's time we let the logic decide!
Taken from the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association's website: "On June 13, 2008, Governor Ed Rendell signed the Clean Indoor Air Act. This Act prohibits smoking in most public areas and workplaces, protecting the majority of citizens in Pennsylvania from tobacco smoke. On September 10, 2008, the new law will take full effect everywhere in the state except for in the City of Philadelphia, which will be permitted to preserve its existing local smoking ban - the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law."
I did not do any research on Philly, but I've come to understand that usually when state governments allow local governments to maintain a law in the wake of statewide legislation, it's because the local government's current law exceeds expectations, but I digress.
There was a time, not too long ago, that saw me accepting this overwhelmingly baseless assertion--let the market decide!--despite holding progressive views. It made sense; if non-smokers don't want to smell like a pack of cancer sticks, they'll talk with their wallets and force bar owners (in particular) to make a decision that determines which customer is more important to the survival of their business: the smoker with 19 other friends, or the non-smoker with 79. Of course, I'm referring to the percentage of smokers vs non-smokers. In fact, I found an article that claims the percentage of smokers in America has even declined to below the 20% mark, sitting at 19.8% according to WebMD.
So what does "let the market decide!" really mean? Sounds like an endorsement of boycotts, but I don't buy its effectiveness. Seriously, you're telling me that after working all week, the majority of the adult population that would like to go out for drinks or head to a restaurant for a nice meal on a Friday or Saturday night (and maybe a glass or two of beer and wine) without the harmful interference of tobacco smoke should have to organize, engage in a boycott and monetarily inform the market that they're "Mad as hell, and [they're] not going to take it anymore!"?
I agree, that's nuts! And you're certainly bonkers if you think everything the government does and everything the majority wants are two mutually exclusive ideas. Sometimes they are (being molested by the TSA and being detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime are a few examples that come to mind), but in the case of the Pennsylvania smoking ban and others across the U.S., the state government got it right. Hmm, maybe it's the Fed that we only need to worry about.
Really though, "let the market decide!" is a tough one to sell to me. At the very least, how does it read? There could be a host of reasons a bar or restaurant owner is seeing a decline in clientele and sales. Maybe his beer selection sucks. Maybe her food is crap. Who knows? One thing is for sure, if I'm a restaurant owner and I start to doubt my cook due to a loss in sales, I don't ban smoking, I find a new cook!
To be fair and totally honest, though, maybe the market actually has decided to a degree, or maybe it's just that owners of Pennsylvania establishments have finally "got it": that the health of the majority of one's customers is directly related to whether one's business thrives or not, and that there's no reason why a minority of people who choose to negatively impact their health by way of smoking should be able to externalize those detrimental effects on to people who've chosen not to do so. Yeah, we're both at a bar, Joe Camel, but my drinking doesn't effect you or anyone else (unless of course I drive drunk and kill an innocent person or I talk incessantly and tell boring stories while sloppily quaffing a few too many pints).
Note: If you're a resident of Pennsylvania, you might already know that the smoking ban law states that smoking is still permitted in establishments that report less than 20% food sales. I'm willing to bet that there are a number of bars that fit in that category and have still decided to disallow smoking inside their walls. Look at the clock...it's time we let the logic decide!
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Response to CH 17 of Life-Span: Human Development
Issues, concerns, concepts & theories surrounding our “final challenge,” death and dying, are thoroughly discussed in CH 17 of Life-Span: Human Development. Questions such as “what is death?” and “what kills us and when?” are addressed before delving into various theories that attempt to answer our concerns about a subject that affects us all on multiple occasions throughout our life span.
One topic I found interesting during my reading discussed the various behavior, culturally, that we as humans express in response to death. For instance, Japanese Americans tend not to express their grief in public for fear of shaming themselves. I find that to be a cruel and unhelpful practice. I feel expressing one’s grief is liberating, comforting and appropriate. It’s healthy for loved ones of a person who has died to see that friends and family cared for him or her. I ball my eyes out at every funeral I attend as long as I had made some sort of connection with the person who has passed. It’s even possible for me to merely look at the pictures of someone I was only acquainted with and start getting teary-eyed. It’s perfectly natural, and I’m not ashamed of crying as a form of mourning, whether for myself or for the people who were most close to the person who just passed. This leads me to some of the theories addressing our reactions to the prognosis of death on one’s doorstep.
Kubler-Ross’s “Stages of Dying” include (1) denial and isolation, (2) anger, (3) bargaining, (4) depression and (5) acceptance. While an interesting and in some areas plausible theory, I don’t think the third stage, bargaining, functions for everyone who faces death. Bargaining is said to occur between a person who’s learned he/she is dying and God. The dying individual allegedly asks for either a pass or more time to experience aspects of life they’ve put off until that moment of desperation. That being said, atheists would seemingly skip that step in the process toward acceptance.
This fallibility in the theory is touched upon in other ways. Criticisms of Kubler-Ross’s stages take shape in the idea that only a minority of dying people experience all the emotions suggested and medical professionals naively feel it is important to push patients to experience the emotional stages in order.
Despite some of the uncertainties about the accuracy of particular theories, one thing is certain: bereavement is unmistakable and an experience we all must bear. Bereavement is said to be expressed through grief, an emotional response to the loss, and mourning, a cultural reaction to the loss such as funeral attendance or visiting graves with flowers every year.
The Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model serves as a clarifying paradigm that helps explain the bereavement process just noted in the preceding paragraph. According to the model, (1) numbness is followed by (2) yearning, which is followed by (3) disorganization and despair and lastly (4) reorganization. From my own perspective, the Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model is perfectly plausible, believable and relevant. The numbness stage certainly correlates to the disbelief feeling that so many loved ones of those lost tend to express. As reality sets in, yearning of course follows because the loss is unmistakable and undoubtedly irreversible; the result is agony and emotional pain. This leads to depression, despair and a lack of organization in one’s life. This culminates into feelings of apathy, which eventually comes to an end in the form of reorganization.
I relate to this model (Parkes/Bowlby...) in its entirety. My best friend from college (Cal-U) committed suicide almost 2 years ago now. He jumped off the Homestead bridge a few days before Christmas in 2009. I learned of his death through my mother in law who recognized his name from my wife and I’s wedding invitations when his suicide was reported on the local news. I couldn’t believe the news. I had to see for myself, and when I saw what seemed like a high school photo of him in the news report online, I immediately started to weep. I called our closest mutual friends with the terrible news.
It was at my friend’s viewing in Pittsburgh that I met his parents for the first time. They immediately knew who I was when I told them my name. His mother cried in my arms repeating my name over and over again. Apparently I was talked about in my friend’s home. It touched me, but I felt so bad for my friend’s parents. I still run through in my head how “I could have done this” or “done that” and my humorous, talented and amazing great friend might still be alive today.
I cried for a long time. I still visit the online guest book that his mother set up in his memory. She visits the page often to write to her son; to tell him how much she misses him. I can’t imagine how hard it is for her and her husband to wake up every morning remembering that their son is no longer around. I hope they’ve begun to reorganize their lives, despite the indescribable grief they must still feel over their son’s suicide. Most of all, I hope they don’t blame themselves.
Like the chapter notes, due to family attachments, deaths of family members are usually the hardest to bear. Statistically, in terms of the loss of a spouse, women are more likely to experience this damage to the family system. The loss of a husband tends to have an extensive impact on the life of a widow. Emotional issues aside, the widow might need to move, get a job or change careers and/or take on single-parenthood.
Relevant to the emotional states of my late friend’s parents, the loss of a child is said to be more difficult than any other loss for adults. Mixed emotions begin to take over: anger, guilt, depression and longing. Unfortunately, the book notes that only 12% of parents whose young adult child committed suicide found meaning in the loss a year after the tragic event. Honestly though, why would they? The number purportedly jumps to over 50% after 5 years, but the study included accidental deaths and homicides as well, so it’s hard to say how much the parents of adolescents and young adult children who committed suicide augment that statistic.
As hard as it is for me to imagine the feelings of loss my late friend’s parents must experience on a day to day basis, the grief work perspective, a process that essentially leads to reorganization, provides some comfort when concerning their health. According to the perspective, “bereaved people must confront their loss, experience painful emotions, work through those emotions, and move toward a detachment from the deceased.”
While I highly doubt my friend’s mother will ever reach detachment from her son, I do feel, judging from the online guestbook, that she has confronted and continues to confront the loss, is certainly experiencing painful emotions, and working toward getting a handle on her intense emotions and moving forward with the family she still has and the life she still must live. A degree of detachment for one’s mere sanity is possible, but full detachment--especially a mother from her son--is unlikely. There will never be a day she doesn’t wake up thinking about him. The bonds will never be severed, and the idea that they must be is partially responsible for the grief work perspective recently coming under some criticism.
Critics argue that the grief work perspective is culturally biased, and incidentally, I’d like to note that just like the cultural differences expressed through our public responses to death (see page 1 “...Japanese Americans...”), our private handling of bereavement may vary as a result of differences among cultural norms.
In conclusion, it seems grief takes many forms and isn’t always a cut and dry response to loss. That being said, it is very clear to me that the most important factor in reaching reorganization after the loss of a loved one is social support. This could come in the form of close friends, family members, spouses, churches and community organizations and anyone kind enough to be compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic and sensitive toward a person experiencing bereavement.
One topic I found interesting during my reading discussed the various behavior, culturally, that we as humans express in response to death. For instance, Japanese Americans tend not to express their grief in public for fear of shaming themselves. I find that to be a cruel and unhelpful practice. I feel expressing one’s grief is liberating, comforting and appropriate. It’s healthy for loved ones of a person who has died to see that friends and family cared for him or her. I ball my eyes out at every funeral I attend as long as I had made some sort of connection with the person who has passed. It’s even possible for me to merely look at the pictures of someone I was only acquainted with and start getting teary-eyed. It’s perfectly natural, and I’m not ashamed of crying as a form of mourning, whether for myself or for the people who were most close to the person who just passed. This leads me to some of the theories addressing our reactions to the prognosis of death on one’s doorstep.
Kubler-Ross’s “Stages of Dying” include (1) denial and isolation, (2) anger, (3) bargaining, (4) depression and (5) acceptance. While an interesting and in some areas plausible theory, I don’t think the third stage, bargaining, functions for everyone who faces death. Bargaining is said to occur between a person who’s learned he/she is dying and God. The dying individual allegedly asks for either a pass or more time to experience aspects of life they’ve put off until that moment of desperation. That being said, atheists would seemingly skip that step in the process toward acceptance.
This fallibility in the theory is touched upon in other ways. Criticisms of Kubler-Ross’s stages take shape in the idea that only a minority of dying people experience all the emotions suggested and medical professionals naively feel it is important to push patients to experience the emotional stages in order.
Despite some of the uncertainties about the accuracy of particular theories, one thing is certain: bereavement is unmistakable and an experience we all must bear. Bereavement is said to be expressed through grief, an emotional response to the loss, and mourning, a cultural reaction to the loss such as funeral attendance or visiting graves with flowers every year.
The Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model serves as a clarifying paradigm that helps explain the bereavement process just noted in the preceding paragraph. According to the model, (1) numbness is followed by (2) yearning, which is followed by (3) disorganization and despair and lastly (4) reorganization. From my own perspective, the Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model is perfectly plausible, believable and relevant. The numbness stage certainly correlates to the disbelief feeling that so many loved ones of those lost tend to express. As reality sets in, yearning of course follows because the loss is unmistakable and undoubtedly irreversible; the result is agony and emotional pain. This leads to depression, despair and a lack of organization in one’s life. This culminates into feelings of apathy, which eventually comes to an end in the form of reorganization.
I relate to this model (Parkes/Bowlby...) in its entirety. My best friend from college (Cal-U) committed suicide almost 2 years ago now. He jumped off the Homestead bridge a few days before Christmas in 2009. I learned of his death through my mother in law who recognized his name from my wife and I’s wedding invitations when his suicide was reported on the local news. I couldn’t believe the news. I had to see for myself, and when I saw what seemed like a high school photo of him in the news report online, I immediately started to weep. I called our closest mutual friends with the terrible news.
It was at my friend’s viewing in Pittsburgh that I met his parents for the first time. They immediately knew who I was when I told them my name. His mother cried in my arms repeating my name over and over again. Apparently I was talked about in my friend’s home. It touched me, but I felt so bad for my friend’s parents. I still run through in my head how “I could have done this” or “done that” and my humorous, talented and amazing great friend might still be alive today.
I cried for a long time. I still visit the online guest book that his mother set up in his memory. She visits the page often to write to her son; to tell him how much she misses him. I can’t imagine how hard it is for her and her husband to wake up every morning remembering that their son is no longer around. I hope they’ve begun to reorganize their lives, despite the indescribable grief they must still feel over their son’s suicide. Most of all, I hope they don’t blame themselves.
Like the chapter notes, due to family attachments, deaths of family members are usually the hardest to bear. Statistically, in terms of the loss of a spouse, women are more likely to experience this damage to the family system. The loss of a husband tends to have an extensive impact on the life of a widow. Emotional issues aside, the widow might need to move, get a job or change careers and/or take on single-parenthood.
Relevant to the emotional states of my late friend’s parents, the loss of a child is said to be more difficult than any other loss for adults. Mixed emotions begin to take over: anger, guilt, depression and longing. Unfortunately, the book notes that only 12% of parents whose young adult child committed suicide found meaning in the loss a year after the tragic event. Honestly though, why would they? The number purportedly jumps to over 50% after 5 years, but the study included accidental deaths and homicides as well, so it’s hard to say how much the parents of adolescents and young adult children who committed suicide augment that statistic.
As hard as it is for me to imagine the feelings of loss my late friend’s parents must experience on a day to day basis, the grief work perspective, a process that essentially leads to reorganization, provides some comfort when concerning their health. According to the perspective, “bereaved people must confront their loss, experience painful emotions, work through those emotions, and move toward a detachment from the deceased.”
While I highly doubt my friend’s mother will ever reach detachment from her son, I do feel, judging from the online guestbook, that she has confronted and continues to confront the loss, is certainly experiencing painful emotions, and working toward getting a handle on her intense emotions and moving forward with the family she still has and the life she still must live. A degree of detachment for one’s mere sanity is possible, but full detachment--especially a mother from her son--is unlikely. There will never be a day she doesn’t wake up thinking about him. The bonds will never be severed, and the idea that they must be is partially responsible for the grief work perspective recently coming under some criticism.
Critics argue that the grief work perspective is culturally biased, and incidentally, I’d like to note that just like the cultural differences expressed through our public responses to death (see page 1 “...Japanese Americans...”), our private handling of bereavement may vary as a result of differences among cultural norms.
In conclusion, it seems grief takes many forms and isn’t always a cut and dry response to loss. That being said, it is very clear to me that the most important factor in reaching reorganization after the loss of a loved one is social support. This could come in the form of close friends, family members, spouses, churches and community organizations and anyone kind enough to be compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic and sensitive toward a person experiencing bereavement.
References:
Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2006). Life-span: Human development. (5 ed., p. 521). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
An Essay on Television & Cognitive Development
The main thrust of this essay is to explore the notion that excessive television viewing during the early stages of child development impacts the cognitive development of children.
The conventional wisdom suggests that excessive television does have a negative effect on the cognitive development of children and the axiom is at least somewhat culpable for the decline in the younger generation’s school performance (Munasib & Bhattacharya, 2010).
Some of the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development stems from negative statistical associations that plainly link poor achievement in school to heavy television viewers. In simpler terms, people who watch a lot television achieve less academically (Anderson & Collins, 1988).
However, through my research I’ve encountered compelling arguments and enlightening empirical data from both sides.
A few assertions countering the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development are as follows:
(1) There is no evidence that children are overstimulated by television because of factors like leaving the room and looking away.
(2) There is little evidence that television detrimentally affects cognitive development or interrupts cognitive activities because homework that may be done during television viewing has not been found to be of a lesser quality than homework completed away from a television.
(3) Television viewing may actually increase one’s attention span, and the most poignant assertion of all,
(4) “There is no evidence that television asymmetrically influences brain development.” (Anderson & Collins, 1988).
With the last assertion taken into account, it is worth noting that the psychologists who made that claim simultaneously believe there is no way, currently, to unequivocally prove that television viewing has no major impact on cognitive development.
One particular study I came across examined the hypothesis that background television negatively impacts play behavior of very young children and thus alters their cognitive development. The television programming imperative to the study was adult in nature, or in other words, incomprehensible to young children. As part of a naturalistic observation, the study involved videotaping 2-year-olds in their homes. The study found that the children played with their toys about one-third of the time when television was playing in the background. This finding is particularly troubling if one subscribes to the conventional view on child development which asserts that play has a positive role to play in terms of a child’s cognitive and social development (Schmidt, Pempek, Kirkorian & Lund, 2008).
One theory that seems to hold water (even amongst psychologists who’ve concluded that television really has no substantial impact on cognitive development) is the probability that excessive or high levels of television viewing among very young children results in poor attention capabilities. A longitudinal study found that children between the ages of 1 and 3 who watched television for 7 hours or more per day showed attention problems at age 7. As a result, the psychologists concluded that moderate television viewing by young children is harmless (Foster & Watkins, 2010).
Notwithstanding what seems like a credible conclusion on the matter, the study just referenced above has its limitations.
Most critical to the validity of the study is the fact that the data utilized to draw a conclusion was maternally reported. This means that the findings relied solely upon the honestly and accuracy of the mothers who participated in the study, and it is quite possible that some mothers may have under-reported the amount of television their children watched for fear of embarrassment.
Also, the effects of television may rely on more than just the amount watched. Factors such as content that is watched and parental co-viewing are likely as important as how much television is actually viewed. One aspect of a theoretical position submitted by the psychologists presented the idea that television may have negative effects on children who watch a lot of a certain kind of television programming (Foster & Watkins, 2010).
In conclusion, although I agree with the authors/psychologists who suggest that analysis on the subject of television viewing and its effects on cognitive development is still in the early stages, I believe there is at least some degree of credibility to the argument that says excessive television viewing can potentially limit a child’s attention capabilities and hinder one’s cognitive development, and as a result, the cognitive loss certainly spurs implications about a child’s future achievements, aspirations and ability to function as a cooperative and contributing member of society.
Bibliography
Anderson, D. R., & Collins, P. A. (1988). The impact on children's education: Television's influence on cognitive development. working paper no. 2. Massachusetts Univ., Amherst. Dept. of Psychology, 98. doi: ED295271
Foster, E. M., & Watkins, S. (2010). The value of reanalysis: Tv viewing and attention problems. Child Development, 81(1), 368-375. doi: 47898690
Munasib, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Is the "idiot's box" raising idiocy? early and middle childhood television watching and child cognitive outcome. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 873-883. doi: EJ894576
Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., & Lund, A. (2008). The effects of background television on the toy play behavior of very young children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137-1151. doi: EJ802187
The conventional wisdom suggests that excessive television does have a negative effect on the cognitive development of children and the axiom is at least somewhat culpable for the decline in the younger generation’s school performance (Munasib & Bhattacharya, 2010).
Some of the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development stems from negative statistical associations that plainly link poor achievement in school to heavy television viewers. In simpler terms, people who watch a lot television achieve less academically (Anderson & Collins, 1988).
However, through my research I’ve encountered compelling arguments and enlightening empirical data from both sides.
A few assertions countering the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development are as follows:
(1) There is no evidence that children are overstimulated by television because of factors like leaving the room and looking away.
(2) There is little evidence that television detrimentally affects cognitive development or interrupts cognitive activities because homework that may be done during television viewing has not been found to be of a lesser quality than homework completed away from a television.
(3) Television viewing may actually increase one’s attention span, and the most poignant assertion of all,
(4) “There is no evidence that television asymmetrically influences brain development.” (Anderson & Collins, 1988).
With the last assertion taken into account, it is worth noting that the psychologists who made that claim simultaneously believe there is no way, currently, to unequivocally prove that television viewing has no major impact on cognitive development.
One particular study I came across examined the hypothesis that background television negatively impacts play behavior of very young children and thus alters their cognitive development. The television programming imperative to the study was adult in nature, or in other words, incomprehensible to young children. As part of a naturalistic observation, the study involved videotaping 2-year-olds in their homes. The study found that the children played with their toys about one-third of the time when television was playing in the background. This finding is particularly troubling if one subscribes to the conventional view on child development which asserts that play has a positive role to play in terms of a child’s cognitive and social development (Schmidt, Pempek, Kirkorian & Lund, 2008).
One theory that seems to hold water (even amongst psychologists who’ve concluded that television really has no substantial impact on cognitive development) is the probability that excessive or high levels of television viewing among very young children results in poor attention capabilities. A longitudinal study found that children between the ages of 1 and 3 who watched television for 7 hours or more per day showed attention problems at age 7. As a result, the psychologists concluded that moderate television viewing by young children is harmless (Foster & Watkins, 2010).
Notwithstanding what seems like a credible conclusion on the matter, the study just referenced above has its limitations.
Most critical to the validity of the study is the fact that the data utilized to draw a conclusion was maternally reported. This means that the findings relied solely upon the honestly and accuracy of the mothers who participated in the study, and it is quite possible that some mothers may have under-reported the amount of television their children watched for fear of embarrassment.
Also, the effects of television may rely on more than just the amount watched. Factors such as content that is watched and parental co-viewing are likely as important as how much television is actually viewed. One aspect of a theoretical position submitted by the psychologists presented the idea that television may have negative effects on children who watch a lot of a certain kind of television programming (Foster & Watkins, 2010).
In conclusion, although I agree with the authors/psychologists who suggest that analysis on the subject of television viewing and its effects on cognitive development is still in the early stages, I believe there is at least some degree of credibility to the argument that says excessive television viewing can potentially limit a child’s attention capabilities and hinder one’s cognitive development, and as a result, the cognitive loss certainly spurs implications about a child’s future achievements, aspirations and ability to function as a cooperative and contributing member of society.
Bibliography
Anderson, D. R., & Collins, P. A. (1988). The impact on children's education: Television's influence on cognitive development. working paper no. 2. Massachusetts Univ., Amherst. Dept. of Psychology, 98. doi: ED295271
Foster, E. M., & Watkins, S. (2010). The value of reanalysis: Tv viewing and attention problems. Child Development, 81(1), 368-375. doi: 47898690
Munasib, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Is the "idiot's box" raising idiocy? early and middle childhood television watching and child cognitive outcome. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 873-883. doi: EJ894576
Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., & Lund, A. (2008). The effects of background television on the toy play behavior of very young children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137-1151. doi: EJ802187
Monday, September 26, 2011
Response to "A Brief History of Social Studies," (Chapter 1 by Diane Ravitch)
After reading the chapter, my position on what social studies should be is no different than before. The reforms of the early 20th century, as noted in the chapter, brought an emphasis on an applied form of study, in complete opposition to the insipid, academic nature of history. While I believe in the importance of the latter to the lives of our students (the academic part, not the dull), the reforms are beneficial to students and ultimately to the society they will be a part of to a greater extent upon their departure from formal education institutions.
Historically, history was first the central subject within the umbrella of social studies. However, the chapter implies that liberals in the field began to belittle the original model of history because it appealed to conservatives or individuals who cared little for societal improvements. “Dull recitations of political events” were replaced with a telling of history that incorporated “political, social, and economic events.”
Today, the status of history is one in which “chronological history” is less and less examined due to a wider focus on “immediate personal and social problems,” or the study of social studies. These would be what the chapter alludes to in the first paragraph: career education, ethnic studies, gender studies, consumer education, environmental studies, peace education, character education and drug education. My question is: what’s wrong with that?
Diane Ravitch seems to argue for the past which, ironically, didn’t offer a variety of views, despite being an element in the classroom she insists is our responsibility to provide. I do believe it to be of great importance that we provide a variety of views in our instruction, however, I don’t think we would be doing our students a favor if were to artificially present a lack of consensus surrounding particular issues. One example would be the issue of climate change.
There is no legitimate “apples to apples” dispute over the existence of climate change, only manufactured confusion spurred by powerful political proponents. This has been proven time and time again through the discovery of financed skepticism via giant corporations like Exxon and more recently by journalists in Texas who challenged Texas Governor Rick Perry and his assertion that many scientists who once believed in climate change had since “switched sides.” The Perry administration “backed up” the claim with a list of names, most of which was made up of meteorologists (not exactly climatologists) and scientists who neither knew they were on the list nor changed their position on the issue.
My point is this: various view points are only as valid as their plausibility backed up by some semblance of evidence, and their worthiness in the classroom relies solely on that test of credibility. History within the social studies umbrella should be a tool to relate to the contemporary concerns of today. Parallels should be drawn, solutions should be deliberated upon and our society as a whole should learn to appreciate history again. That is, however, what SHOULD occur.
Historically, history was first the central subject within the umbrella of social studies. However, the chapter implies that liberals in the field began to belittle the original model of history because it appealed to conservatives or individuals who cared little for societal improvements. “Dull recitations of political events” were replaced with a telling of history that incorporated “political, social, and economic events.”
Today, the status of history is one in which “chronological history” is less and less examined due to a wider focus on “immediate personal and social problems,” or the study of social studies. These would be what the chapter alludes to in the first paragraph: career education, ethnic studies, gender studies, consumer education, environmental studies, peace education, character education and drug education. My question is: what’s wrong with that?
Diane Ravitch seems to argue for the past which, ironically, didn’t offer a variety of views, despite being an element in the classroom she insists is our responsibility to provide. I do believe it to be of great importance that we provide a variety of views in our instruction, however, I don’t think we would be doing our students a favor if were to artificially present a lack of consensus surrounding particular issues. One example would be the issue of climate change.
There is no legitimate “apples to apples” dispute over the existence of climate change, only manufactured confusion spurred by powerful political proponents. This has been proven time and time again through the discovery of financed skepticism via giant corporations like Exxon and more recently by journalists in Texas who challenged Texas Governor Rick Perry and his assertion that many scientists who once believed in climate change had since “switched sides.” The Perry administration “backed up” the claim with a list of names, most of which was made up of meteorologists (not exactly climatologists) and scientists who neither knew they were on the list nor changed their position on the issue.
My point is this: various view points are only as valid as their plausibility backed up by some semblance of evidence, and their worthiness in the classroom relies solely on that test of credibility. History within the social studies umbrella should be a tool to relate to the contemporary concerns of today. Parallels should be drawn, solutions should be deliberated upon and our society as a whole should learn to appreciate history again. That is, however, what SHOULD occur.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Response to the Foreword & Introduction of "Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?" by Finn, Lemming & Ellington
In Chester Finn’s Foreword, he argues that social studies education became a conduit for apologist indoctrination following the 911 attacks. As a result, overt patriotism became tantamount to prejudice and the biggest threat to American diversity. Social studies education avoided specifying why the American way of life should be preserved and rather, encouraged examining where we’ve gone wrong in the eyes of a global community.
Finn argues that a second path to decline came in the form of NCLB. Social studies was removed from any form of accountability in order to focus on proficiency in core subjects like math and science. In doing so, the standards have been left to the professionals in the field, the very people Finn blames for the subjects all too sudden decline.
In my view, Finn is clearly a hawkish conservative. A jingoist, to use a term he referred to when characterizing the implications of social studies education following 911. His views are absolutely the opposite of my own. Finn, like many others who share in the pounding of chests over American exceptionalism, believe being a true American patriot and being honest with ourselves and accepting the axiom that America’s foreign policy and Intelligence adventures played a role in the attacks on 911 are mutually exclusive. Those who raise points about the CIA-coined “blowback” concept justify the attacks. Those who tell a crowd of Tea Partiers that Osama Bin Laden was explicit when explaining why America was attacked and that it clearly had nothing to do with the superficial idea that radical Muslims hate “our freedom” are booed and ridiculed (read: Ron Paul at the CNN Republican Debate, Sept 12, 2011). I vehemently disagree with Finn’s position.
While I largely disagree with the implication introduced by Lemming and Ellington that social justice and environmental concerns are contrary to the societal priorities of most Americans, I do sense how the perceived agenda of SS professionals could be undermining a more objective purpose: effective practice. What is effective practice? Research skills, higher order thinking development (e.g. analysis, interpretation) and public speaking are a few of my educated guesses.
However, my observations in a number of social studies classrooms place me in opposition to the position of the contrarian professionals who describe the state of social studies education as “moribund.” In the classroom, I see a focus on substantive content trumping all other approaches. That being said, I cannot speak for the grand scheme of things. Numbers talk, and there is a legitimate argument to be made on the side of the experienced professionals who sense a dramatic decline and a radical change in not only the education of students, but also the educators themselves.
Finn argues that a second path to decline came in the form of NCLB. Social studies was removed from any form of accountability in order to focus on proficiency in core subjects like math and science. In doing so, the standards have been left to the professionals in the field, the very people Finn blames for the subjects all too sudden decline.
In my view, Finn is clearly a hawkish conservative. A jingoist, to use a term he referred to when characterizing the implications of social studies education following 911. His views are absolutely the opposite of my own. Finn, like many others who share in the pounding of chests over American exceptionalism, believe being a true American patriot and being honest with ourselves and accepting the axiom that America’s foreign policy and Intelligence adventures played a role in the attacks on 911 are mutually exclusive. Those who raise points about the CIA-coined “blowback” concept justify the attacks. Those who tell a crowd of Tea Partiers that Osama Bin Laden was explicit when explaining why America was attacked and that it clearly had nothing to do with the superficial idea that radical Muslims hate “our freedom” are booed and ridiculed (read: Ron Paul at the CNN Republican Debate, Sept 12, 2011). I vehemently disagree with Finn’s position.
While I largely disagree with the implication introduced by Lemming and Ellington that social justice and environmental concerns are contrary to the societal priorities of most Americans, I do sense how the perceived agenda of SS professionals could be undermining a more objective purpose: effective practice. What is effective practice? Research skills, higher order thinking development (e.g. analysis, interpretation) and public speaking are a few of my educated guesses.
However, my observations in a number of social studies classrooms place me in opposition to the position of the contrarian professionals who describe the state of social studies education as “moribund.” In the classroom, I see a focus on substantive content trumping all other approaches. That being said, I cannot speak for the grand scheme of things. Numbers talk, and there is a legitimate argument to be made on the side of the experienced professionals who sense a dramatic decline and a radical change in not only the education of students, but also the educators themselves.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Wake Up America, They're Ignoring the Majority
Last night's Republican Debate on MSNBC (Sept 7, 2011) was a disgrace. I had a night class so I wasn't able to watch it live, but MSNBC put the debate up on it's website, which currently is blowing up the headline, "Analysis: Romney and Perry Make it Look Like a 2-Man Race." Really?
MSNBC is pretending like they had nothing to do with the manner of the programmed debate or the questions that were asked. Pundits are acting as if candidates could somehow earn attention during the debate and alter the line of questioning, as if the order of questioning wasn't contrived.
ABC's Amy Walter and her editors should be ashamed of themselves for not even mentioning Ron Paul, the candidate who clearly has won across the board in online polls. The only folks who are saying "no" are a minority of poll participants and the establishment media. Just take a look at this one, that one, this one and that one (query: who won republican debate 2011, first two pages on Google). Rick Perry's earned as low as third place in some polls, but hasn't won any that I've come across. Romney's landed second, but still no win online.
Are we to let a clearly dishonest media establishment decide for us who will challenge President Barack Obama in 2012? Do we lack the self respect required to opt out of voting in an election that contains at least one candidate no one really wanted on the ballot in the first place? Am I wasting my breath? Probably.
Like Thom Hartmann said on the radio a few weeks ago, most Americans are low information voters. They'll go with whom they're given, not with whom they'd want if they actually paid closed attention to politics.
MSNBC is pretending like they had nothing to do with the manner of the programmed debate or the questions that were asked. Pundits are acting as if candidates could somehow earn attention during the debate and alter the line of questioning, as if the order of questioning wasn't contrived.
ABC's Amy Walter and her editors should be ashamed of themselves for not even mentioning Ron Paul, the candidate who clearly has won across the board in online polls. The only folks who are saying "no" are a minority of poll participants and the establishment media. Just take a look at this one, that one, this one and that one (query: who won republican debate 2011, first two pages on Google). Rick Perry's earned as low as third place in some polls, but hasn't won any that I've come across. Romney's landed second, but still no win online.
Are we to let a clearly dishonest media establishment decide for us who will challenge President Barack Obama in 2012? Do we lack the self respect required to opt out of voting in an election that contains at least one candidate no one really wanted on the ballot in the first place? Am I wasting my breath? Probably.
Like Thom Hartmann said on the radio a few weeks ago, most Americans are low information voters. They'll go with whom they're given, not with whom they'd want if they actually paid closed attention to politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
