Blue Eyes

While in class on Thursday, I discussed Jane Elliot's "Blue Eyes" Experiment. Below is a link to that experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s

The Blue Eyes Experiment challenged the perceptions of a white majority, forcing students of the privileged class to see the discrimination and prejudice from the other side. Students with blue eyes were made "privileged" and told that they were better than brown eyed people. Blue eyed students got five minutes extra of recess, while brown eyed students were not allowed to go outside of the class during recess, and also could not use the drinking fountain or play with blue eyed children. By doing this, Jane Elliot was able to make her class realize the full extent of discriminatory behavior. As the students moved through the day, Jane noticed that the blue eyed students performed at or above their average potential, while the brown eyed students under performed and did poorly.

In the current climate where women are told they are lesser, and that they are not "built" for math and science, they often under perform. When standards are lowered, it is more often than not the norm for students to under perform due to their own lessening expectations of themselves. Only by promoting a climate in which all students of any gender can feel like they are equal can students succeed.

Neurological/Congenital disorders

I remember talking about Neurological disorders in class on Tuesday. We specifically talked about autism and a need for tolerance and inclusivity when it comes to the existence of "neurological variations."

I went to a panel discussion for "earth week" with the focus being on social justice. During one of the talks (one about pesticides as utilized in our agricultural process) a man mentioned the harmful effects pesticides had on the agricultural workforce. He mentioned one such case where a pregnant woman had been exposed to pesticides during her pregnancy and it resulted in her child being born without arms or legs. And I thought about our class and the discussion we had. And I realized that although it is true that we need to be open  and accommodating to those of us who are born "different," we have to question how "different" occurs and under what circumstances are people with disabilities born.

Now of course I'm not talking about a genetic abnormalities of "chance" or cases where non-normative behavior is determined as a disorder. I am simply questioning whether we are allowed to openly question causation factors of birth defects without being deemed intolerant of the people who live with these disorders.

In the example of autism, I'm not saying we should be less accepting or accommodating towards these individuals. But what I am arguing is that if the increase in rates of autism is not simply "natural" but caused by issues of chemical exposure to woman during pregnancy, or of young children being exposed to toxic pollution or a synthetic endocrine disruptor, then we shouldn't simply see those suffering from these disorders as examples of the positive plurality of life but rather as members of our society who suffers unjustly.

I think ultimately my question is, do we in accommodating and being more tolerant of individuals with mental disorders run the risk of dismissing how it is that these individuals are coming to be born or developing these disorders? Are we equally responsible in advocating for "accommodation" as we are in advocating for "prevention."

-Jayson Castillo

Well-Rounded

On Thursday we talked about the idea of social sciences and other disciplines joining together to make a more well rounded unit. I agree with most of the class that it's a good idea for it to happen. People get very much involved within there discipline, forgetting about others around them. I feel that everything in this world is connected in one way or another and when we choose to ignore something then we just hinder ourselves in the end. It's like when an artist creates art on there own for 30 years. They might never create that once piece that could make them famous. But when they involve someone else, say a musician, and then that piece gets the recognized and gets famous. the artist would have never produced that piece without the musician. On the other hand I do see why this could have its down side. If you begin to stretch yourself too thin then you wont have the depth into any field. If you attempted to release anything no one would take you seriously because you don't have the time invested into it. Also sometimes the more you invest into something, the more you understand it and can problem solve a lot easier.

In Response to Size Doesn't Matter

As many people mentioned in Thursdays class, they weren’t aware that females’ brains were physically smaller than males’ brains; I was also unaware of this. I understand in later day’s people would question the intelligence of the brain compared to size, but today if someone were to question it many people would automatically think it’s false. I think this is the case because women have proven to be just as equally intelligent if not more intelligent in many different aspects compared to men. In the past it was a way of thinking that men were superior to women in many ways, one of the most popular was intelligence. Today though, I think that the fact that it has been proven that the size of women’s brains being smaller has no significance of a greater or lesser intelligence earns women more respect. It also starts to defy the superiority of men. 

Interdisciplinary Studies during the 1920s

I really enjoyed how our discussion transitioned into the idea of interdisciplinary studies.  There are many benefits but also corresponding disadvantages to interdisciplinary studies.  It never hurts to evaluate a situation from all angles and to be fully aware in all assets of the mind, but as mentioned in class, doing so can spread the mind too thin.

I think it's noteworthy to point out that I encountered a similar discussion in my honors seminar on German Expressionism during the early-twentieth century.  Expressionism was a form of art that began to become prevalent throughout World War I and into the reign of the Nazis.  It's perhaps best describes as "any form of art that expresses one's inner emotions without a censor."  Essentially, nothing is off-limits or too dark or gruesome.  Many of these artists lived during the time period of Sigmund Freud and he took it upon himself to apply his discipline of psychoanalysis to these artists' works.  He believed that their art was not something of a spiritual sense, but rather their unconscious mind projected onto a canvas through their conscious mind.  As you can imagine, many of these artists took offense to this.  They thought it to be inconceivable that someone could apply a concrete discipline such as science to an abstract concept such as graphic and visual art.  The conflict between Expressionists and psychoanalysts of the time is a highlight of the study of Expressionism.

I also think that Freud's beliefs of Expressionist art exemplifies another example where science is believed to be superior to other disciplines.  Interdisciplinary study, especially in this example, make science to appear flawed and incorrect if more than one discipline's view on a matter are deemed accurate.

Museum Visit

The visit to the museum today was very interesting because we got have a different experience than in class.  We got to see first hand the history of disabilities and handicaps, both physical and mental.  The different kinds of inclusive dolls and education sources they had really stuck out to me were very impressive, especially when we saw a Barbie doll in a wheelchair, as well as a Barbie doll doing sign language, and then other dolls with a seeing-eye dog or a hearing implant.  The car that they had for amputee and paralyzed veterans was extremely interesting as well and seemed to be the first-born of cars for individuals who cannot drive a manual car because of physical impairments.  What I liked the most at the exhibit were the individuals the guide spoke about who tried to help the mentally and physically impaired individuals, rather than putting them into categories or treating them as "idiots" or "poor", and tried to help them and figure out therapy and rehab.  These individuals were helping to make change and not neglecting these individuals.  They recognized there was something they could do to help rather than push them aside.

Size doesn't matter

In thursdays class the question was asked does size matter? After all was said and done I would say no. I had heard in the past that female brains were actually smaller than a males when I was younger. I never really looked into it though, I always thought it was just young boys making fun of girls. Much like having cooties. However when it was explained why there was a size difference it made sense to me. Even if it wasn't explained as to why there is a difference in size and I was only told that there was a difference I still would have said no. Because I know plenty of women than are much smarter than me so it wouldn't have been anything that would have changed my mind