Week One

In the introduction to the course, I provide a quote from Emile Durkheim in which he argues that
social behavior (behavior that involves more than one person, such as interaction within a small
group) cannot be really understood by simply examining the personal characteristics of the individual
actors who make up the interaction. Do you agree with Durkheim? Why or why not? That is, do you
agree that "social reality differs from our "individual realities?

I agree with Durkheim and that social realities differ from individual ones. Ones personality may be
clearly defined when in solitude or possibly when with a partner, close friend, or close family member;
however, it can be altered when with these different people and with other groups. For instance, one
could be quite the introvert and that can show when attending a social event (i.e. party) alone. Perhaps
he or she will avoid putting himself or herself out there and may wish to simply listen and watch the
surroundings. If he or she were to attend this social event with a few others or ended up connecting
with a group of people at the event, then qualities of an extrovert may emerge and he or she could take
on the behaviors of others that are unlike his or her own. Additionally, someone could be known for his
or her excessive cursing among friends but may keep it classier and rarely curse around family or may
take academics seriously when studying alone but insist otherwise when with a group who hates school.
I have seen cliques in my high school collectively act rude and obnoxious towards certain people, then,
as individuals, be nice and sweet towards the same people, appearing two-faced and easily influenced
by others. Peer pressure seems to be a common way for people to separate their own individual and
social realities. Someone could be against drinking and then attend a party and have a drink as if the
behavior is now acceptable because others are being accepted whilst doing that. I would also consider
the bystander effect as having a sense of conformity, although these groups may not be directly
interacting, because one could decide not to help another in need due to the diffusion of responsibility.
Perhaps he or she is conforming to the behavior of others by not helping and assuming someone else
will, but he or she would have helped another if the group of people were not present. The change in
behavior that occurs when in the presence of others is typically a way for people to fit in and be
accepted; I believe this is also a way for people to avoid being disliked or bullied for their differences, to
indulge on hidden desires, to risk-take, and to explore their curiosities (i.e. they may wonder why the
others they see are happy and enjoying their time and may wish to also have that amount of happiness).

Replies

Iman,

I can certainly relate to your thought that we care less about what others think as we grow older
because I have cared a little less about how people perceive me each school year since I transferred to a
public school in 7th grade. However, I believe we can get to that point where we just convince ourselves
that we do not care anymore when we actually do care what someone may think of us. I disagree that
we stop allowing society to influence us because societal influences are always going to surround us,
especially with social media in existence. Aside from conformity and obedience, society can still
persuade us and affect our thoughts and actions (i.e. in politics or in marketing). Being altered versions
of ourselves in society is not always negative. For instance, we may act different in group therapy, but it
can be beneficial; you are in a group that will influence you to be a better person by helping you with
and guiding you through personal issues. It is interesting to break down a group and realize how
unique each person is. The group may have common interests, and the individuals may look the same
on the outside; but, inside, each person can appear quite different.

Shaina,

I am fascinated by your simplistic smoking example as I caught myself agreeing to the assumption that
the group is stressed from work and on a break before looking at the individuals. Ive not given much
thought about being judgmental towards a group of people because I often judge others separately.
However, come to think of it, I judged groups all in high school the cliques; I disliked the cheerleaders
and jocks as they often were the rude and popular ones, and I friended the quiet students and the art
students as we shared similar interests. I grouped these people together believing that they are nearly
the same. Additionally, and in my opinion, when a member of the disliked group approaches us, we
often hold our judgements and continue to hate even if that member is nice and friendly. Why is it so
easy to judge but so difficult to undo our judgements? Do you think its possible that we judge groups to
reassure ourselves that we either belong or dont belong with them? Is this to boost our self-esteem, or
something else? Your example also reminds me of how people can, for example, negatively judge others
based on that present moment and then later regret that negative judgement or feel bad after hearing
of the issues that the person is dealing with.

Week Two

Last week we learned a bit about science and research methods. A sociologist named Gordon
Gauchat recently published a study in which he shows that among Americans, whether or not a
person trusts the claims of the scientific community is closely associated with their political
ideology. That is, Gauchat (2012) shows that in 1974, people who identified as politically
conservative reported the highest level of trust in science among all respondents. Conversely, in
2010, political conservatives reported the lowest level of trust in science compared to other
groups. What do you think led to this change? Bear in mind that this is not a discussion about our
own personal political affiliations, so let's keep the discussion centered on the question at hand. Be
nice.

The decrease in trust in the scientific community among conservatives has been due to the
advancing and modernizing world. The world and its people are constantly evolving, and I do not
believe that conservatives adapt to change well, unlike liberals. They tend to hold onto their beliefs
tightly and are resistant to opposing views whereas liberals can hold onto their beliefs just as tight
but whilst allowing flexibility for various incoming viewpoints of knowledge. I think that the generation
one is placed in, not necessarily ones age, has an influence on his or her political standpoint on
scientific studies. Generalizing, the older generations are more conservative and the younger ones
are more liberal; and, the younger ones tend to be more well-known or dominant because of social
media and technological advancements. This sense of domination, in my eyes, seems to strike a
nerve in conservatives because their traditional values have been evanescing over the years.
Therefore, the ever-changing field of science that many liberals can easily adapt to has scattered
research that may be overwhelming instead of the same handbook like the bible that people have
dealt with for numerous years. Within the virtual world, conservatives which can be generally
associated with religion, primarily Christianity tend to slip into a post about evolution, global
warming, or abortion and react with negative comments or religious promotion such as stating
biblical quotes to keep their beliefs alive. I do not think they appreciate how science is impacting the
general public by helping to legalize views they have been against for quite some time or how
science has unsupported research for their beliefs, perhaps coming off as an attempt to disprove
their religion. Their decline in trust in science may also be influenced by how journalists or the media
translate research. For instance, popular news articles that appear on social media can be
contradictory. One year science might say that meat is necessary for your health but then say it
isnt the next year. If one with more conservative views were to see these two postings, he or she
might see a flaw or inconsistency in science. Oftentimes, the journalist that summarizes scientific
articles may not translate the findings correctly; he or she could easily misrepresent an association
claim for a causal one, confusing readers. The numerous scientific reports within the internet and
news broadcasts today may also be unusual and strange to the older generations because there
were not as many studies or advancements in technology then as there are today. Information they
do not agree with or do not like is now constantly popping up everywhere in front of them, appearing
to cause a stronger reaction that could lead to distrust. Science consists of theories, which are not
necessarily proven nor disproven, and I honestly think conservatives are in denial that their beliefs
(i.e. religious ones) are also types of theories; if they came to this kind of realization, they would
have to change their mindset something they wont typically do. Liberals can be more inclined to
consider than reject any scientific finding, properly reported or not, and their inclining support for the
scientific community could cause conservatives to be less supportive and to make sure that they are
unlike the opposing side. I dont think there is a definite answer as to why they changed, but I do
think the way the newer generations are coming about have a great impact on this change.

Replies

Brooke,

I certainly agree with the examples you provided. Abortion did not seem as widely accepted back
then as it does today. Perhaps this is because the traditional values consisted of marrying, having
children, and raising the family proudly. If a woman became pregnant and had children, then people
often considered it, and conservatives can still consider it, a blessing or a miracle rather than
considering how the woman actually felt about it. I think that women typically kept the child since that
was the norm; today, many women feel more empowered and want to do as they wish to their body
the norms within society changed. Science can state that you can extract a fetus before a
heartbeat appears, as you say, and conservatives can view this as taking the modern days side.
Science may support that side and can appear as if it's allowing traditional views to disappear; but, I
believe science is just evolving alongside the views of liberals because they both can handle being
exposed to an abundance of change and new knowledge throughout time. Additionally, the
individuals with differing sexual orientations are becoming more widely accepted and are taking
advantage of coming out in the modern world. Conservatives view this as disrespectful to their bible,
but religion has become so questionable lately and is easy to rip apart or laugh at. Now that
transgender people can become who they truly are with sciences help, conservatives lose even
more trust with science since the field can help others with more liberal views than those with more
traditional views. Even if science is right and says that a fetus is not alive until six weeks in or that it
can transform someone into who they are, conservatives will still disagree because these changes
within society are unacceptable to them. Society has thoroughly changed since the bible was written,
so why dont conservatives who associate with the views of Christianity realize that their rules have
been bending and breaking for many years and learn to embrace the ever-changing society instead
of forever following strict rules?

Eric,

I appreciate the overview on your additional research on Gauchats article. As I was reading the
class posts, I noticed that the majority mentioned Christian conservatives as the main ones with a
distrust in science. Why is it that religion specifically? I understand that science can go against the
beliefs of their authority figure, but dont other religions have a figure or set of rules that they look up
to, as well? I find that fascinating because I think that Christians, especially the extremists that I see
around, are giving all conservatives, and even their own religious community, a stubborn and/or a
bad name. Generally speaking, what is it about their beliefs that makes it difficult for them to open up
to science? I certainly agree that conservatives are more skeptical and will question science rather
than immediately believe whats presented. Somewhat odd to me that they do this because they are
not likely to change their minds regardless of how much they interrogate it. Perhaps they have secret
hopes that science will convert them.. Opposing or supporting the government seems to be quite
wishy-washy in both parties because I have known people on both sides who love one thing that the
government regulates and then hate another thing that they do. I do not really know all that much
about politics, but a conservatives attitudes about the government can be inconsistent; and, they
may not or may not want to realize it.

Week Three

Sociologists who study emotions can be roughly divided into two camps: "positivists" and "social
constructionists." Positivist researchers, as described by Kemper (1981), hold that biological
processes, largely unaffected by cognition and culture, determine what, when, and how individuals
experience emotions. Conversely, social constructionists argue that emotional experience is
intimately tied to cultural norms and expectations. If you were investigating a topic within the social
psychology of emotions, would you adopt a positivist standpoint or a social constructionist view?
Why?

After contemplating for quite some time, I decided that I would adopt the view of a positivist. I agree
with the social constructionist view as a whole (i.e. no single reality, each individual has their own
perception, and people have creativity when discussing how something is meaningful) but disagree
when talking about the topic of emotions. The positivist viewpoint, in my opinion, is truthful about
emotions being tied to biological processes because there are systems in the brain and body that
immediately react to situations in certain ways and at certain times. For example, the amygdala is a
part of the limbic system in the brain that is associated with emotion. One of the six basic emotions,
fear, is processed in the amygdala (what individuals experience), reacts when needing to prepare
the body for a fight or flight response (when individuals experience it), and responds with sweat,
increased heart rate, nausea, and muscle tension (how individuals experience it). Ones initial
reaction to a situation is determined by his or her brain and body; you dont think about what emotion
you are going to experience, so your biological processes are unaffected by cognition. Perhaps later
on when you realize which emotion you are experiencing and why, you will think and consider how
you feel, which could be tied to culture and expectations. For instance, say that you encountered
someone you dislike at the mall and they offended you. You would at first feel angry (your immediate
biological response), then you might realize how angry you are and tell yourself to calm down, so
that you can walk away and not cause a scene (how society wants you to act). I believe that the
initial emotion you feel in a situation is how you truly feel; you can later modify it or mask it to fit
societys norms and expectations, but I do not think these emotions are intimately tied to society
unless one chooses to tie them together. Each persons biology is different to an extent. Someone
can have a damaged amygdala and have difficulty feeling or identifying fear. We all have a brain, but
how we process a situation will differ. Ive known people who are sad at weddings when society
states that weddings are a happy occasion, and they will pretend to be happy to please society
(even though they are truly in a sad state). Your cognition can be tricked but will always hold a deep
truth. Although I believe that these two camps are relevant at different stages in the situation, a
positivist viewpoint better explains the origin of our true emotional experiences, not the various
versions we allow others to see.

Replies

Tori,

I definitely agree that ones biology is the root of understanding his or her emotions. I believe that
society and culture will eventually play a role in manipulating the emotion, but the true emotion lies in
how the mind has initially responds to a situation. Stripping away everything about the person to
leave the basic outline of an individual is a fascinating way to look at the positivist approach. This
makes me think of the outline of a person as the biology and then he or she can be colored in with
environmental/societal factors. The interpretation of the outline will be similar to everyone, but the
interpretation of the colors will vary; so, the biology seems to be a bit clearer since science has one
or few definitive answers whilst the environment and society has multiple answers and influences. I
believe both approaches certainly play a role, but the positivist standpoint holds the root of an
emotion before it expands and changes.

Stacey,

I agree that people will give objects meaning as this enhances life with more purpose and makes life
more interesting to the individual. Each person has a unique perspective along with each culture, so
reality is influenced and shaped by society. With your dollar bill example, could you say that there is
a universal meaning to the bill the simple value? If you were to show people a $1 dollar bill and
ask how much it is worth, they would more than likely agree that it is worth $1. I see this as the
biological makeup because it is straightforward and is the origin behind each persons meaning. If
you then ask how they would use the bill, then they would more than likely have varying answers.
One could say that the bill would be used for charity, another would purchase food, another would
use it for origami, and another would find it useless. The social constructionist viewpoint can see
how the bill has been altered to the fit the individuals desire or need. If this could be applied to
emotion, how would one use a certain emotion? Perhaps one could be happy because he or she lost
weight while another could be happy to find a penny on the road. They could both be smiling but
have different outlooks. I think the outlooks start from somewhere, and that somewhere is in biology
where the emotion then stems out to fit the individual and the situation.

Week Four
In our four-part consideration of Small Groups (structural social psychology), we learned quite a bit
about some classic sociological and psychological studies on factors that affect obedience. There
are two big critiques that skeptics generally focus on when talking about these types of studies:

1) People in these studies only obeyed because they knew they were in an experiment. The
results are not valid because the experimental setting is artificial.

2) The results of the studies may be valid, but they are outdated. We are a much more ethical
and enlightened society in the 21st century. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, people were taught a lot
more to obey authority, but recent generations are more likely to challenge authority.

Choose one of these critiques and tell us: do you agree or disagree? Why?

I would disagree with the second statement because I believe the results of older studies are still
valuable today; and, I do not believe that todays society is more enlightened. (We may be more
enlightened about past or changing events, but the next generation may be more enlightened about
our events.) I see previous experiments as valuable events to learn from no matter how long ago the
experiment was conducted. The results are still great to look at and say something about humans in
general; even if it says something about humans at a particular time, we could still apply it to similar
concepts and compare them. For obedience, Milgrams study was conducted in 1963 but is still
discussed today and is still applied to obedience in todays society, especially through replicated
experiments. Milgrams experiment was based off of the Nazis, and we consider the Holocaust to be
an unfortunate but valuable piece of history; so, neither should be considered outdated. People
continuously obey and challenge authority, regardless of the time frame. Members of The Family
obeyed Charles Mansons orders in 1969, and the counterculture of the 60s and through the 70s
disobeyed society and its norms. Today, students obey professors and disobey police officers.
However, there were always people who didnt murder, stood by traditional norms, disrespected
teachers, and cooperated with police. That being said, people back then were not taught more
respect, and people now were not taught any less. Certain groups may be challenged differently in
different generations (i.e. the rising generation of young adults may challenge police officers while
older generations may not), but a group is always going to be challenged by any generation. I was
not alive during the 50s, 60s, or 70s, but some older family members and friends have said how they
rebelled and others have said how they were classy; I believe it depends on the individual and the
manner in which he or she was raised (by family and society). Additionally, I think people assume
that recent generations challenge authority because the media heavily reports on the negative
events, including disobedience. Would one really watch the news if they reported how well-
mannered someone was to an authority figure? Perhaps but people will more than likely watch
and read about negative events. The disobedience is easier to see and react to with social media
but has always been around throughout numerous generations.
Replies

Christopher,

I agree with your stance. I think that people assume that the recent generations are more
enlightened due to technology and learning from past events and that older generations were more
likely to obey authority. However, people fail to realize that when the older generations were
considered the recent generations, they were just as likely to be enlightened and to disobey. I
believe that when our rising generations grow older, we will think that we have more respect and so
forth. This can also be applied to the events and lifestyles each generation has been exposed to, as
you state, which can then be applied to the way in which we experiment. Sure, the experiments back
then were operated based on how that time was; but, that doesn't mean it is irrelevant today
because we can apply the situation tested then to a similar situation happening today. Sure, we may
be smart enough now; but, we still have plenty to learn, and experiments can provide new
information, even if ran the same way as years ago.

Kaitlyn,

I respect but disagree with your stance. There has certainly been an abundance of history made
since the 50s, especially in the sciences, but do you think it is possible that these historic events and
advancements mirror past events? If so, then 'outdated' claims could still hold valuable information
that could be applied to today's society. Of course, I think that past experiments should be
conducted again or replicated to compare the times, results, and human behavior; but, I would not
consider older experiments outdated or in need of being replaced because they could still be helpful
in understanding humans and society. When you say that people don't obey authority like everyone
did back in the day, is it possible that you are judging based off of the information being shown to
you through the media and/or based off of your position in this recent generation? Do you believe
that your generation will have more respect than the newer generations as you grow to be as old as
the current older generations? I find it interesting how so many believe that the past consisted of
respect and innocence when there were people in that time who rebelled and disobeyed just as
much as ones do today. Deviant behavior just seems to be thrown in our faces daily, so we will view
the recent generations negatively and may not attempt to compare the behavior to the past. I think
that who we choose to obey or disobey could fluctuate throughout time, but I do not think that people
are progressively worsening. Perhaps the school system is teaching us wrong, or the media was not
as influential, or some other factor. You also state that we like to be followers and do what everyone
else is doing, but I do not think this is always the case. I believe that there have always been groups
who follow the trends and norms and groups that stray away and are seen as different or as
outcasts.

WEEK FIVE

In this week's consideration of the social psychology of deviance, we realize that deviant behavior is
a concept that is very hard to "pin down." Sociologists utilize a number of different definitions for
deviance, depending on which aspect of behavior they are interested in. For this week's discussion,
we will work on developing our own definition of deviance. Use your initial response to tell me how
YOU would define deviance (incorporating knowledge from this week's readings and lecture). In
your replies to each other, try to help your fellow students refine their conceptualization of deviance.
Remember, as scientists we want to be as precise as possible. Nonetheless, any ideas are fair
game!

Although deviance has numerous definitions, I would define deviance as positive or negative
behaviors and/or attitudes in a given situation that stray away from the norms and expectations of
certain groups within society.

Not all acts of deviance are bad; people assume deviant behavior is bad and/or illegal because they
see severe acts of breaking the law more easily (i.e. murder, shoplifting, underage drinking,
speeding; possibly due to media) than simple acts of going outside a groups standards (i.e. not
drinking if your friends are drinking or going the actual speed limit and not going five miles per hour
over). Additionally, not all deviants are bad people; they might find the need to please society or
need to find a way to make a living but resort to less favorable jobs such as prostitution because of
who they are (different ethnicity, gender, social class, etc.). I believe that deviant behaviors are
frowned upon or praised depending on the group and situation, but they can simply be due to a
person being different. For example, a person may have severe depression as a mental illness and
can later commit suicide, a person living in the deep south likes heavy metal music, or a person may
be homosexual or bisexual instead of the usual heterosexual orientation. None are illegal or bad,
but perhaps uncontrollable or unlike what is considered normal. Heroes could also be deviants for
not being bystanders. The degree to how deviant one is could be based on their experience or
learning and opportunity structures. This lack of normlessness, or anomie, changes rapidly as
Durkheim states; and, I believe that norms (i.e. clothing trends) will forever be altering, and there will
always be deviants, whether it be people who are different or people who break the law.

Replies

Christopher,

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about this topic. I agree that deviance gives a spark to life because
its not always bad behavior. Dancing in line at a grocery store is certainly against the norm, but who
is this act hurting? I would bet that some people would look annoyed whilst others would laugh. Are
the ones who laugh deviants for not straightening up that persons act? How boring would life be if
we all listened, obeyed, and respected the norms within society? Very. Forgetting to live is a sad
reality, but we all need to be a deviant at some point in our lives in order to spice it up or gain
happiness. In some cases people will become deviant because they like danger; but, their actions
give them a sense of pleasure, even if it involves harm. Would you also include attitudes or thoughts
as a type of deviance? If in the bible-belt one identifies as atheist or agnostic instead of Christian,
then I think that person is technically a deviant, although he or she is not doing anything wrong. Im
sure people in the past would think women are deviants for voting or working now, but social
movements are formed by these deviants and can help improve society. Norms change and the
meaning of life may also change, but each self is not perfect and always needs a little tweaking or
change, even if that tweaking or change is caused by deviant behavior.

I like the term neglect in your definition but am contemplating on whether or not one always neglects
norms to make that true. A person with mental illness or cancer is technically a deviant because that
is not the norm within the general society, but he or she did not neglect the norm of being
illness/cancer-free as it was out of his or her control. (This person could also not be a deviant in a
group of people that has members with mental illness or cancer - this concept of being deviant in
certain groups and situations is tricky and interesting to me.) Not saying that the term you provided is
wrong or should be changed (since there are many definitions of deviance), but, for a general
definition, would you consider using a term such as diverge?

Brooke,

You say that deviance is something unexpected, but what would that something be? Are you
referring to the persons actions, biology, impact on society, beliefs, characteristics, or how they
were raised as unexpected? Or the person as a whole? I believe a combination of factors are
unexpected for deviance as it cannot be narrowed down to one thing, so I agree with your definition.
That is why crime or why people kill is so difficult to define and so extensive to research; there are
multiple influences and factors that contribute to someones deviant behavior. I have written a
research paper in UWRT 1103 about why people kill, and there was an abundance of information
that could explain it. Deviant behavior is not limited as it ranges in severity and throughout groups,
situations, and time. As for Hitler, I do not believe he was born or raised as a deviant. I believe his
dreams were crushed when he was rejected from a fine arts academy and failed the entrance exam.
His artwork is beautiful, and he may have been a different man if he was able to pursue his
aspirations. Not excusing his later dream of creating a purely Aryan race, but rejection from the
group in society he wanted to identify with could have heavily influenced and intensified his anger
and need for power. His level of aggression could be linked to his biology, and discrimination against
other groups could be linked to how he was raised; thus, the outcome of the individual, Hitler, could
be debated with nature vs. nurture and explained on various levels.