It's the Little Things....

             As I wrap up the semester, it only seems right to end with a final blog. It is hard to believe that I just began writing this blog in the beginning of this semester. I feel as if I have been writing on this page for a good portion of my life. As a goodbye, we will go through a recap of the topics of psychology I have based my blogs on throughout the semester. 

          Why does skin color, gender, or any other factor make a difference in who someone should love? In our society, the majority of people say biracial marriage is wrong, same sex marriage wrong and have many other opinion based hatreds that do not remotely involve them. In the song "Same Love" by Macklemore, you can hear his opinion on same sex marriage. Above is an excerpt of this song, which is only one of the many lines that reveal his support for same sex marriage as well as several other controversial topics. To hear more of this supportive song, click here "Same Love" by Macklemore.

          In my blog "It Doesn't Affect You", I discussed the issues of gay marriage. Slowly, our nation is beginning to legalize same sex marriage, one state at a time. Although this is a huge step forward, there are many people in our society that still riot and advocate against same sex marriage. There are still parents who are ashamed of their children if they are gay or lesbian. And this is not just a problem in the United States. Several articles discuss criticisms about same sex marriage around the world. 

          My other blog, "Right of Wrong: That is the Question", discusses the theory of Jon Haidt. Haidt states that humans quickly come up with an answer and later come up with reasons to justify that answer. We would think that first we would think of costs and benefits and then come to a conclusion. This theory relates to our judgments of gay marriage. First we decide that same sex marriage is wrong. Later, we try to justify our conclusion not only to others but to ourselves. We come up with excuses like "It's not right" "It's just not how its supposed to be" and other excuses that have no factual backing. Both topics make me question how those not involved in the marriage or love affair and yet they pass judgement. 

          Emotions are tough to read. With simple facial expressions, we are able to tell how a person is truly feeling during a conversation. Paul Ekman, who specializes in detecting micro emotions. At Paul Ekman, you can read about Paul's techniques on reading these small facial expressions Included in these techniques are ways to catch a liar and ways you can control your own emotions. With these skills, one is able to detect a person's true emotions. Also, you will be able to tell someones real feelings on a certain situation. 

           Divorce is a very difficult situation. Especially when it is only one of the spouses that wants the separation. Divorce can occur for a multitude of reasons. One being the lack of communication or misunderstanding what is trying to be said. I recall several instances in my own relationship where my boyfriend tried to say something and due to a misunderstanding, an argument arose. Although not all marriages end because due to an argument or a misunderstanding, I am sure many marriages could have been saved if Ekman's skills were a common trait. 

           Being able to detect micro emotions would be beneficial for everyone. In relationships, there are several cases where this skill would be useful. Firstly, during an argument many micro emotions are conveyed. If a spouse was able to detect these micro emotions, the true emotions their partner is feeling would be evident. Also, if one spouse has decided that the marriage is over, it would be easier for the other spouse to figure that out through micro emotions expressed by their lover. For example, if they say something small and see the annoyance in their lover's face and many more examples like this, they will be able to see a divorce or separation coming. If we all were able to detect micro emotions, many divorces would not occur and many arguments would be avoided. 

             Bullying is an issue which has been growing with the increase in social media. Teens have recently been using the internet to hide behind the computer and bully their peers. There have been several extreme cases that ended in suicide. I have not had much experience with bullying with myself or even in my high school. There was one time where this boy, who was unpopular, posted a picture of himself on Facebook. Another boy, of higher popularity, began commenting on the picture making fun of the unpopular boy. Seeing this, I was appalled that someone could put another human down, so I said something. Bullying is an absolute breach of morality. 

    Morality is a part of everyday life. Whether it be standing up for someone realizing that murder and theft is wrong. There are several different stages of morality that a person can be in. These stages are determined by the actions a person will take in a situation that questions their morality. The spectrum goes from people who will pretend they do not see injustice acts happening to people like Gandhi. Morality is what separates the good humans from the not so good humans. Not all questions of morality will place people in the not good people category, but more often than not questions or morality show a person's true colors.

            Morality plays a large role in bullying. Not only does it take morals to not bully but also to stop bullying when you see it. I am not going to say that I am completely morally right, but I know when I said something to the bullying I witnessed, it felt pretty good. I can not imagine the feeling of putting someone down so extensively that they actually take their own life. Even on a less extreme, I could not imagine bringing someone to tears with my words. In a perfect world, we would all act like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., but unfortunately we have people life Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. If we were to have the perfect world, we would have no crime or bullying. 

          Now my readers, it is time to say goodbye. I never realized the commonalities among the topics I have touched upon through the semester. I hope you have enjoyed my thoughts Taylored especially for you, it has been my pleasure writing for you. 

It Doesn't Affect You

          This sign is just one of the many you can find when you Google "anti gay signs". Included in the multitude of signs is quotes such as "God hates fags" and "Homosexuality is a sin". First of all, I would like to see the data behind these signs. Secondly, why should their opinion mean anything to the rest of the world. In my previous blog, I commented on the topic of how people have opinions and comments on things that do not remotely involve them. Again, I urge homophobics and racists around the world to question themselves as to why they care.
 

           Although I can not say from personal experience, there must be homosexuals all around the world. In other words, homosexuality is not a creation of certain societies. Although, it is argued that the way a person is raised can cause homosexuality. Many think that an overly nurturing mother can create a gay son, especially with an absent father. Also, an overly involved father with an absent mother can create a lesbian daughter. Yet, this is not true in all cases. For example, my aunt is an extremely nurturing individual and her husband, a pilot for UPS, will be gone for weeks at a time. They have two sons, who they conceived, who are heterosexuals. This is only one example, but one example is all it takes to reject a hypothesis.
          Before writing this blog, I have read several articles which talk about homosexuality around the world. One article I read, at Life Under Russia's 'Gay Propaganda' Ban, which discusses the life of a woman and her girlfriend in Russia. The article depicted that Russia is extremely judgmental and harsh towards those who are homosexual. They even passed a law which forbids even discussing the topic of homosexuality in front of children. This is absurd. Everyone should be open and not hide the idea of loving someone of the same sex. I can only assume that the idea behind this policy is to deter children from becoming homosexual. Yet studies show that homosexuality is because of genes or how a child is raised, not from knowledge of homosexuality.

        Pictured above is a slave from pre-1865 where a slave shows his scars from being whipped. Today, homosexuals in Nigeria could also reveal similar scars. The thought of this alone sickens me. The thought that someone is being physically abused to such an extent because of something they have no control over is utterly sick and demented. On the website Nigeria Tries to 'Sanitize' Itself of Gays, you can read about the horrible acts performed by Nigeria in order to "cleanse" themselves of homosexuals. Why would anyone want to have another tragedy such as the Nazi's. Personally, I found diversity to make our world so much more interesting and exciting. If everyone were the same, life would not be near as fun as it is now.

          Matthew Shepard was one of the most nationwide known cases of homosexual discrimination. This 22 year old boy was beaten close to death and left to die tied to fence just because he was gay. Matthew did not have a choice in being gay, nor was it something for him to be punished for. Not only was he punished, but Matthew lost his life. The boys who performed this horrific act had no involvement in Matthew's life, much less the fact that he was gay. You can read more about Matthew's life and the horrible tragedy in which he lost his life at Matthew Shepard. There are several more cases where homosexuals have lost their life or have been beaten for the mere fact that they were gay. And for what? Because they are different than those performing the vicious acts.

         On the show, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, there is an episode which shows the discrimination against homosexuals. In this particular episode, the detectives receive a case where a lesbian woman is found beaten severely. When the detectives discover who beat the woman, it is revealed that a man who is extremely against homosexuals was behind the crime. The fact that television is now showing crimes again homosexuals is proof that it is a growing problem.
         Discrimination against homosexuals is more prevalent than many believe. Just because the city you live in has not significant discrimination does not mean that others around the world are being killed and severely beaten for the fact that they are homosexuals. The fact that they are who they are, and they can not change that. There is no difference between those who are homosexual and those who are heterosexual other than the gender of those who they love. Diversity is what keeps life interesting. Why would we want to change that? So I ask you, why do you care if someone is gay, black, poor or mentally challenged? Does it affect you?

Identify Yourself

         Caucasian? African? Oriental? Latino? How do you identify yourself? Or, is it a combination of a few? In the last generation, our society has become more and more open to different races, multiracial and biracial individuals. Yet, the majority of individuals do not view all races as equal. A prime example that I have recently noted is that one of my high school friends on Facebook stated that she watched a white male walk past a parked car, she followed suit and as she passed the same car, she could hear the car doors lock. She is African-American. Not only is this hurtful, but it is an extremely racist action. The only reason the girl in the car locked the door was due to my friend's ethnicity. How can one make such a quick conclusion on the morals of another? Like the saying goes, do not judge a book by it's cover. 

       Speaking of covers, recently several well-educated African-American graduates have been "Whitening their Resumes" in order to higher their likelihood of receiving a callback on job opportunities. The New York Times published an article that goes into further detail of this phenomenon at 'Whitening' the Resume. This is very sad that people must change their resumes in order to have a fair shake at jobs. I spoke with my father on this topic because he hires people regularly. I questioned if he receives two resumes, one from an individual with an African name and one from an individual with a Caucasian name if he would call the Caucasian first just based off names. He assured me that both candidates would have the same chance at securing the job. Although this is just one person, it leads me to believe not all of those hiring solely judge people's capabilities based off of their ethnicity. 

  

         Interracial couples have become more frequent in the last decade. In 2010, 1 in 10 couples, or 5.4 million couples, were interracial. This indicates a 28% increase since 2000 (Households with Partners of a Different Race). Also, there are several interracial celebrity couples, Kim and Kanye, Heidi and Seal, Mariah and Nick and several more. Not everybody is okay with interracial couples, but as it becomes more prominent in society, children are growing up seeing that it is nothing different than any other couple. My grandfather would not condone an interracial relationship in our family, my parents are not huge advocates of interracial couples and I, personally, have no opinion on the topic because it does not make a difference to me. What I am trying to say is that the years go on, people are becoming more comfortable with interracial relationships. The site, Interracial Intimacy, also comments on the topic. One of the opening sentences claims that racial purists refer to interracial couples as "mongrelization", which is sick. Different ethnic groups loving each other and having children is beautiful, not 'mongrelization. 

        College students in today's world are very comfortable with the idea of interracial couples, multiracial individuals and biracial individuals. Yet many multiracial/biracial people, including President Obama, on paperwork such as the census, only check one race or another. Many do not choose all races that actually apply to them. Why is this? Why do they feel that they must choose one of the other? If they fit into both categories, why not choose both? If our society is becoming so accustomed to the idea of biracial and multiracial individuals, what is the reasoning behind not checking all the boxes one relates to. 

       Ethnicity has created many uproars in our history, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., slave trade etc.. Recently, the uproars have almost completely depleted. Interracial couples are becoming less surprising as the years go on. I believe that people should love whoever they want without the pressures of society guiding them away from certain people. There are even television shows, like "90 Day Fiance", where the media portrays interracial couples. Our society has become much more accepting of interracial couples and biracial/multiracial individuals. So I ask you again, how do you identify yourself? 

Right of Wrong: That is the Question.

           Greedy. Disgusting. Selfish. Weird. Gross. Humans can be quite judgmental of situations that do not even involve them. Moral reasoning is a thought process that every human does throughout life. Lawrence Kohlberg, American psychologist, wrote what we now know as Kohlberg's stages of moral development. These stages consist of Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional. Pre-conventional are those who tend to avoid punishment and are very self-oriented. Those who are in the Conventional category conform to the social norms, are interpersonal and authority oriented. The final stage, Post-Conventional, individuals believe in following the social contract. These categories can be found at Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Which category would you place yourself in? Of course, one is tempted to say Post-Conventional, but most individuals are not self-less enough to be placed in this categories. Two examples of individuals in the Post-Conventional category are Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.

        What is the first word you think of at the thought of a brother and sister sleeping together? I am sure that it is along the lines of my first thought, "ew". In the scenario, created by Jon Haidt and discussed at What's the matter with a little brother/sister action? , there is a scene which two consenting siblings make love in France, where it is legal. Haidt asked individuals if they thought it was okay for the siblings to make love. Like I am sure you were just thinking, most individuals said "absolutely not". Yet, I would like for you to come up with a list of why not. Every reason you can come up with to justify why it is not okay has a reasonable answer to why it is okay. So I ask you this, why does this concern us in the first place? Why does it affect anyone beside themselves? This case reminds me of same-sex marriage. Those not saying the vows should not be eligible to pass judgement because it does not affect them at all.

        All morals have motives. We may not always be able to determine what the motive is or even agree with the motive but they are always there. This is one important detail in morality. Everyone must understand that people do not just perform acts for the heck of it. Almost always there is a moral fueling the action. Haidt discusses that even the terrorists involved in 9/11 had motives behind their moral decision to attack the United States. Haidt quotes "One of the most psychologically stupid things anyone ever said is that the 9/11 terrorists did this because they hate our freedom. That's just idiotic. Nobody says: "They're free over there. I hate that. I want to kill them." They did this because they hate us, they're angry at us for many reasons, and terrorism and violence are "moral" actions, by which I don't mean morally right, I mean morally motivated" (Haidt, 2001). I know it is difficult for Americans to open our minds to this thought. Yet, if the roles were reversed and we had terrorists attack their country, it would be easy for us to see the moral motive. 

       Haidt has also discovered that we quickly come up with conclusions and then later think of reasons to justify our conclusion. In Haidt's bizarre situations, like the scenario I discussed earlier about the brother and sister, the majority of people agree that it is wrong, they just can not come up with reasons why it is wrong. Many of our morals are derived from our societal beliefs or how we were raised. Going back to same-sex marriages, more commonly than not, those who are raised being told that it is wrong are going to be judgmental of same-sex marriages when they grow up. Another example would be the moral motive of those of oriental decent who commit suicide only because they have disgraced their family. We immediately conclude that this is over the top and odd. Yet, those who believe in this would consider strange that we do not follow suit.  

       The idea of right and wrong are different from person to person, yet in bizarre situations, majority of people agree with each other. Also, almost everybody judges others even if they are not even remotely involved. Humans are very quick to pass judgement. Subconsciously I can hear myself think, "wow, that's weird" or "Ew, what is she doing?" and who am I to judge? I can not even say I know what is going on in the situation I am observing. So, what gives me the right to judge the people involved in the situation? Who am I to say another person's actions are right or wrong? The answer is, I should not be able to make these judgments on others. 

Is It Worth It?

            Divorce rates have been increasing in the past twenty or so years. According to the website, Divorce After 50 Grows More Common in 1990, only one of ten of those 50 years or older were divorced. In 2011, rates increased to one in four of those 50 years or older have become divorced. That is quite the difference. I personally know many couples that are divorced or have been divorced in the past. The closest relative I have that has been in a divorce is my grandparents. When my mother was a senior in high school my grandparents decided to divorce. Since then, they both have been remarried and are still happy today. Also, my boyfriends parents have each had previous marriages and are now happily married. 

           There are several divorce facts on the website Why Couples Call it Quits.  I found it astonishing that the average couple spends 24 months and 12 days to decide to get a divorce. Two years! Imagine being unhappy day in and day out for two years. On top of that, 36% tried to force the marriage to work because they thought of a divorce as a personal failure. This means that 36% of people decided to stay unhappy to make themselves look better to everyone else. Also, 47% of people try to make their marriage work for their children. The way I look at it is, that it is not helping the children to watch their parents be unhappy in their marriage. Not only will it make for an unhappy household but in some cases the children can learn to disrespect their significant others by watching their parents. 

          Divorce happens for several different reasons. On the site, Why Couples Call it Quits, it states the top ten reasons for divorce. The number one reason is infidelity, second is being unhappy, third: arguing too much, fourth: fell out of love, fifth: did not communicate, six: wanted different things, seven: they changed, eight: did not feel like partners anymore, nine: abusive, and ten: money problems. Although I do not know the cause of all the divorces I have seen in the recent years, I feel like infidelity is the most common reason for divorce. I do think the reason for this is that men are cheating more often but rather that women are more independent. Although it is a fictional show, you can see in the television show "Mad Men" that cheating was very common in that era. 

        Recently, researchers have been able to determine seven variables in which they can predict the success or failure of a relationship. These variables are:

• Expression of fondness/affection
• Expression of negativity towards spouse
• Expressiveness vs. withdrawal
• We-ness and Seperateness 
• Level of traditional regarding gender roles
• How couple reported dealing with conflict
• Marital Disappointment or Disillusionist

With these variables, researchers can determine whether a couple will stay together or divorce with a 94% accuracy. This is incredible. People who do not know you can determine whether or not a couple will remain together based on seven variables. These variables can be seen at The Gottman Relationship Blog. 

          

        Gottman also stated ways in which couples can mend their relationship. The Gottman Institute provides nine tips in order to achieve a healthy relationship. These tips include building love maps, share fondness and admiration, turn towards each other, use positive prospectives, manage conflict, make life dreams come true, create shared meaning, trust and commitment. Out of these tips, which do you find most important? The website provides explanation of each tip. I find trust and commitment to be the most important in a relationship. Without trust, couples can not function as a true couple. Instead they will be constantly questioning their significant other. 

       Divorce can be very upsetting. At the same time, some couples should divorce much sooner than they do in order to protect their emotional health. Also, it is not healthy for children to watch their parents fight on a daily basis. If you're in a relationship where you have been unhappy for more than half the time, perhaps it is time to seriously consider the option of breaking up or divorcing your significant other. Unhappy relationships can cause a lot of unnecessary stress and emotional distress. So ask yourself, is it worth it?

You're So Emotional

      Emotions are a basic part of every conversation. Emotions help us communicate through simple facial expressions and understand how others are feeling without a single word spoken. We can agree that you can not really tell when a friend is jealous just by their facial expression. The six emotions shown above are known as the basic emotions. These emotions are those in which are easy to spot in an individual. There are also emotions that are not as easily spotted, which are known as complex emotions. Emotions tell a lot about a person. They tell you when or when you should not ask certain questions, they tell you how someone feels about you. 

     Recently, an article was released at Who Should Know How You Are Feeling? which discusses how various companies are using our emotions to determine various things. For example, companies are observing potential customers emotions through facial expression to determine if their advertisement was effective or not. So what is really private? If you are being watched while you watch television? That is just creepy. This article was written by someone who is in the business of creating this technology. It was nice of this guy to warn us about the upcoming privacy invasion but he is the one creating the devices to read our emotions! Luckily, this technology will only be able to read our basic emotions. We will still be able to maintain the secrecy in our complex emotions. 

      On the website, Paul Ekman you can watch several videos with Paul Ekman who is a psychologist specializing in detecting micro emotions. In these videos, Dr. Ekman teaches you how to tell if someone is lying, how to master your emotions and many other emotional techniques. I find this kind of creepy as well that this man can catch a facial expression that only occurs for 1/25th of a second. Many of us believe that we would be able to pick up on emotions but the truth is, we would not be able to pick up on micro emotions. 

     I have never been a huge on showing my emotion, excluding joy. I would rather keep to myself that way no one can question me on how I am feeling. This being said, I am curious to whether Dr. Ekman would be capable of depicting different emotions I have. Since the majority of people I see on a day to day basis can not decipher my emotions, I am curious if I do show micro emotions momentarily and people do not pick up on them or if I have adapted to showing no micro emotions what so ever. 

     There was a television series called "Lie to Me" based on Dr. Ekman's work. Basically in the show, you can see Dr. Ekman's life played out by actor Tim Roth. I would find it very interesting, especially after recently reading these articles, to watch the three seasons that aired. In this show you can watch the life of a deception detection expert in work. You can read about this television show at Paul Ekman Group . I wonder also, how often Dr. Ekman reads emotions. Is it something he can stop doing when he chooses? Or is he constantly reading micro emotions no matter who he is speaking to? 

Attachment Parenting; Good or Bad?

       Recently, a new style of parenting has hit media. Attachment Parenting, theorized by Dr. Sears, emphasizes the importance of extended breastfeeding, baby-wearing and co-sleeping. As you can see from the above photograph, extended breastfeeding is the act in which mothers continue to breastfeed their child well into their toddler years. Baby-wearing is where the caretaker literally wears their child in a sling in order to keep them closer. Finally, co-sleeping is where an entire family sleeps in one bed, every night.

      In the first article I read on this topic was "Jaime Lynne Grumet, Breastfeeding Mom on 'TIME Magazine' Cover, Illustrates Attachment Parenting". In this article, you can read about several woman who breastfeed their children into their toddler years. These women argue that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends mothers to breastfeed for a year or longer depending on the mother's personal beliefs. The belief of extended breastfeeding is done in order to grow a closer bond between mother and child. Also, to raise a more secure child. The question I raise is, if the child is old enough to understand what they are doing, then they can become dependent on their mother. This would create an opposite effect then what attachment parenting is said to accomplish. The child should become less secure because they are dependent on their mother. Children who breastfed as toddlers, ask for milk for comfort as well.

      For having such a peculiar and new idea on parenting, you would assume Sears or his wife were raised with these parenting techniques. After interviewing the couple, we have discovered that neither Dr. Sears nor his wife were raised with any of these attachment parenting styles. After checking that off our list, we would assume the Sears raise their own children using attachment parenting. In the article, "Meet Dr. Sears, the Man Who Remade Motherhood", the article states that Sears only gets his experience from being a father and a pediatrician. Therefore we can only assume that they use attachment parenting styles to raise their children.

     On the website, Attachment Parenting International, there are several listed techniques to raise a secure child. The techniques listed are Prepare for Pregnancy, Birth and Parenting, Feed with Love and Respect, Respond with Sensitivity, Use Nurturing Touch, Ensure Safe Sleep Emotional and Physical, Provide Consistent and Loving Care, Practice Positive Discipline, and Strive for Balance in your Personal and Family Life. In Prepare for Pregnancy, Birth and Parenting, the article suggests parents to research different parenting styles. Basically, this article tells parents to inform themselves on recent studies on parenting and breastfeeding and other parenting techniques. This article is pretty broad. I think most parents research various parenting styles and techniques.

     There are several odd suggestions brought up in these articles. The first one is co-bathing. First of all, a bath is a very relaxing act, why would you want a baby or child with you? Also, I feel as if children should not be comfortable seeing their mothers naked body. Another odd technique is co-sleeping. This is where an entire family sleeps in a bed together. My view on co-sleeping is that it would only make the child overly attached to their parents. In turn, these children will become dependent on sleeping with their parents making them unable to sleep alone or go to sleepover with a friend. To me, this seems like more of a detriment to the child than a benefit.

     After reading these articles, I became intrigued in the idea. Not in the way that I wanted to raise my children in the manner, but in the way that I was interested in the mindset of these adults. Upon further research, I found an article that stated that breastfeeding until eleven is becoming popular in Ireland. Eleven! Could you imagine going to your friends house as an eleven year old and seeing your friend breastfeed? I also read an article where a child was breastfed until the age of three and truly wishes her mother did not wait so long to stop breastfeeding. This woman now states that she can remember the taste and the action of breastfeeding. She also says that she is weirded out by her mother's breasts. Many articles do not take into consideration the long term effects it has on children. They may think it makes them more secure, but in this article, this woman is now just puzzled by breasts themselves and can not think of her mother the same.

     Overall, I think attachment parenting is a bad idea. Of course, I have no right to tell others how to raise their child. Yet I urge parents to really think about the long term effects attachment parenting has on children. This style of parenting could very possibly cause children to become overly attached and dependent upon their mother especially but also their other parent. Also, as seen in the final article I stated, extended breastfeeding can cause confusion and uncomfortableness in the future between child and mother. As attachment parenting may be comforting for the child at that time, it could potentially cause the exact opposite down the line.

Does the Language We Speak Effect Our Thoughts?

   

         Around the world, every country has a specific language that follows their own set of rules. Generally, language is used to get ideas and thoughts across to fellow people who speak that language. Even those who can not hear or speak have their own language. I, myself, have attempted to learn how to speak Spanish. Natively speaking English, it was difficult for me to comprehend that every object is designated male or female. Also, it was difficult for me to pronounce the "rr" sound when first learning the language. This is because when I was an infant, the people around me never used this sound. In turn, the sound was dropped from my vocabulary. 

         I recently read several articles discussing the impact of language on our thoughts. First, I read the article "Relatively speaking: do our words influence how we think?" This article brought up the idea that possibly the language we speak develops different thoughts in our minds. For example, German speakers always sound so angry when they speak. Does this make them think more aggressively than those who speak English? This is an interesting thought, but it can not be true that Germans are constantly angry. This being said, language could still influence thoughts, they just can not possibly influence thoughts. Who would want to be angry all the time anyway? 

          Also in this article, I read about a group of people called the Hopi tribe. This tribe is also known as "time-less Hopi" because they literally have no sense of time. In America time is a big part of our lives, from the time of the day, to the past, to the future. So if we try to understand a world where time is not a factor, it is difficult to comprehend. Imagine if the English language did not have the word time. Would we be as stressed from day to day? Or would we be anxious about what is going to come in our future?

         The second article I read was named "How Language Shapes Thought". I was immediately interested in this article by it's start. People in the Pormpuraaw community are constantly aware of which north, south, east and west are without hesitation. If you were to ask any of English speaking people to point north, they would hesitate and point in a direction that was somewhat accurate but not exactly correct. With the people from this community would not hesitate and be perfectly accurate. This is also mind-blowing, to those not from that culture. Of course, I am sure it is astonishing to them that we are not capable of the same thing. 

        There are also several other examples of differences between various languages. One example would be in Mandarin, there are no words for exact numbers. Instead, they use words that mean "few" or "many". Again, could you imagine not having a word to say 'I have two dogs'? There is also a group of people who group colors into five categories. Basically, they use one word to describe both blue and green. Which we have like seven different words for colors that are very similar. For example, blue, bluish green, teal, turquoise, cayman are all words that describe very similar colors. Another example would be that several languages give objects a gender, like I stated earlier. In the English language, we only have genders for people and animals. This makes people who speak languages that follow this rule think in the way that inanimate objects that are male can not be given the name Lisa. Where those who speak English never blink an eye at calling an inanimate object any name they please.  

        The final experiment I read about was named "Language doesn't influence our thoughts...except when it does". I found this experiment a little odd. They created 16 images that resembled things the students have never seen before. The study showed that when the images were given labels, it was easier for students to guess them correctly. Those who were not given labels admitted to creating their own labels in order to place the images into the designated groups. This proves that language, whether we know the language or not, allows us to think clearer in the terms of placing these images into the designated group. 

     Overall, we can agree that language absolutely effects our thinking. Just in three articles, it was proven that the language we speak changes the way we think. Whether it be grouping colors together or not having any sense of time. There are tons of languages around the world so we can only think about how many different ways people around the world think. If something as common as language effects our thought, what other things effect our thoughts? 

How Much Do Babies Actually Think?

          When we think of babies, naturally we believe that not a lot of action occurs between their brain neurons. Recently, I have read several articles depicting research that has been done to prove otherwise. These studies made me recall the times when I was playing with my younger cousins. There were times when I have been shocked by the amount of understanding you can perceive from babies. For example, when playing with my cousin who was a baby at the time, I was able to hide his toy in a box. He continually stared and cried at the box until I removed his toy. At the time I was too young to comprehend the amount of thought produced by my cousin at such a young age.

        First, I read the article titled, "Do 18-month-olds really attribute mental states to others? A critical test".  This study was rather confusing the first time reading through it. I felt that there was a lot of tests occurring simultaneously. There was also a lot of stimuli for such a young age. There was sounds, new people, blindfolds and possibly new sights. This alone could create a confound which, in turn, could skew the results of the research.  Although I believe babies are capable of more profound thought than we have believed in the past, I also think that babies are more easily overwhelmed with multiple stimuli occurring around them. This study found that babies are capable of mental processing and do not rely solely on adults as "precursors".

         After being completely overwhelmed myself with the past experiment, I read an article titled "Newborn babies may be more developed than we think". This article introduced many experiments in which it reveals babies thoughts. One experiment I found extremely interesting was an experiment in which it reveals that babies are able to reason using probability. Experimenters were able to discover this reasoning when they placed more pink balls in a container than yellow and noticed that multiple babies would stare longer when more yellow balls were pulled out of the container. If babies can use probability to fuel their thoughts, what else can babies do that we have not discovered yet?

         Babies also understand laws of physics to a certain extent. An experiment was done were a toy car is shown passing through a solid wall. This action also causes babies to stare longer than when the toy car does not betray the laws of physics. This experiment was also explained in the article "The Brain: What Do Babies Know?". Babies, yet again, would look longer at the actions that defied physics than those that did not.

         At first I was thinking, no way, babies do not understand physics nor probability. Yet, after reading these experiments it is clear that babies are definitely more intrigued by events that defy the laws of physics or probability. This mere fact tells us that they are confused by the defying action because they are thinking no way this can happen.

          It is argued that babies and chimpanzees will mimic people's actions. The only difference is that babies will copy any action performed by a person but a chimpanzee will only copy actions that are useful to them. This being said, doesn't this mean that chimpanzees are more capable of thought than babies? Possibly in this manner, yes. But then I raise the question, can chimpanzees show the same confusion when certain actions are performed that defy physics or probabilities? Or, are chimpanzees capable of doing any sort of metal processing without adults severing as "precursors"?

          So, to answer the question, yes, babies can think quite a bit. Of course not as in depth as you and I, but on a certain level the amount a baby can think is astonishing. Fifty years ago, experimenters and/or scientists did not believe babies were capable of any sort of thought. Today, we are able to say, with supporting experiments, that babies are able to understand the laws of physics and probability to a certain extent.