Friday, September 20, 2024

2.01 Nature AND Nurture and Socialization

HW Levine, Robert and Wolff, Ellen.  Social Time: The Heartbeat of Culture.  Psychology Today. 1985.          


Google Form for this lesson

1.  What are some of the unseen ways that the tree below has been shaped?


There are two general categories of influences on the tree: Nature and Nurture.

The Nature and Nurture Dynamic

The tree begins with a seed that houses the tree's genetic material, an algorithm for how the tree should grow.  But the rules of the algorithm interact with the environment that the seed lands in.  For example, the tree's genes are programmed to grow towards the sunlight, but that depends upon what is around the tree and what happens to the tree.


The genetic material in the ash tree seeds creates an aptitude for the tree to grow like this:


Both of the ash trees above start from seeds like the ones pictured above. The seeds provide an aptitude for the tree to grow.  The aptitude is the tree's potential for traits like height, branching, lifespan, etc...  This is the tree's nature; its genes and biology.  But this aptitude is dependent on the nurture that the tree gets from its environment; the tree is affected by its surroundings:
  • the light it receives
  • its surroundings like buildings and other trees
  • the soil composition
  • pollution
  • animals and insects nesting/affecting in the tree
  • And the tree is also affected by human activity:
    • pruning
    • fertilizing 
    • people driving by the tree with trucks hitting the branches  

All of the effects of the surroundings of the tree and the human activity is nurture; how interaction with surroundings and people affect growth.  So the tree's growth is based on a dynamic interaction between both its nature and its nurture.  

The poem below was written by Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman who was a sociology major from Harvard. (She also wrote and read The Hill We Climb, the poem at the 2021 Presidential Inauguration). You can read more about her and hear her recite her poetry on this 2021 post from the NY Magazine.

 Arborescent I

by

Amanda Gorman

We are
        Arborescent-
What goes
        Unseen
Is at the very
        Root of ourselves.
Distance can
        Distort our deepest
Sense
        Of who
We are,
        Leave Us
Warped
        & wasted
As winter's
        Wind. We will
Not Walk
        From what
We've borne
        We would
Keep it
        For a while
Sit silent &
        Swinging on its branches
Like a child
        Refusing to come
Home. We would
        Keep.
Knowing how
        We would
Again
        Give up
Our World
        For this one.
2a. What does Gorman mean by "We are arborescent"?
2b. What are some things that "go unseen" that are "at the very root of ourselves"?

This lesson is the beginning of our second unit - Social Structure.  For this unit, I want students to be able to answer the question: How has social structure shaped you? To begin this unit, this lesson will first examine evidence about how humans are programmed by their DNA and biology.  If we are programmed to grow/be/act a certain way then that is not social structure, that is biology.  Let's begin with an examination of biology v. society or nature v. nurture so that we can separate out what is social influence on people.

Like Gorman explains in her poem, people are like trees as well.  Humans are born with biological nature - genes that provide an aptitude and a road map for growth.  In other words, all living creatures from trees to humans are dependent on both nature and nurture. But humans are affected by their surroundings - their environment including both the physical environment and the social environment.  Similar to trees, many animals are born with instincts and abilities to survive on their own.   

Human Nature is to be Nurtured

But people are different than trees and animals in profound ways.  If a tree's seed falls to the ground and takes root, left to itself, it grows.  But if a human baby is born, left to itself, it is unlikely to survive.  In other words, humans are deeply interdependent on other humans to survive.  In other words,  it is human nature to be nurtured.  Humans need to be cared for, and that is why we are born with a biology and a psychology designed for social interaction.  

Blueprint by Nicholas Christakis
Nicholas Christakis is a sociologist and medical doctor.  In his 2019 book, Blueprint, he explains that humans are born with a nature that makes us be nurtured.  This is what Christakis calls the "social suite:"


“At the core of all societies, I will show, is the social suite: 

(1) The capacity to have and recognize individual identity
(2) Love for partners and offspring
(3) Friendship
(4) Social networks
(5) Cooperation
(6) Preference for one’s own group (that is, “in-group bias”)
(7) Mild hierarchy (that is, relative egalitarianism
(8) Social learning and teaching”




 

 

Watch Christakis briefly summarize his book on youtube here or on the embedded video below:


For more info., Christakis has a 30 min interview with the RSA here that explains how his work can inform us during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Evidence for the connection between nature and nurture and the human social connection: 

Born Helpless
From Scientific American,
Human babies enter the world utterly dependent on caregivers to tend to their every need. Although newborns of other primate species rely on caregivers, too, human infants are especially helpless because their brains are comparatively underdeveloped. Indeed, by one estimation a human fetus would have to undergo a gestation period of 18 to 21 months instead of the usual nine to be born at a neurological and cognitive development stage comparable to that of a chimpanzee newborn. 
From Cornell,
Newborn horses can stand within an hour of birth. Baby wood ducks leap from a nest to splash down in a pond a day after hatching. Yet human babies, as well as the young of many other species of mammals and birds, require months or years of care before they reach full mobility and sensory function, let alone maturity.

Alpaca babies usually walk and nurse within 30 minutes of being born. 

Neurobiology and psychology

    • mirror neurons
    • vagus nerve
    • facial recognition
    • language
    • oxytocin
    • left-cradling bias
      • “A left-cradling bias arises from the right hemisphere advantage for social processing, for example, visual recognition of infant facial expressions,” the authors of the first study write. “The position of an infant on the mother’s left side may optimize maternal monitoring, by directing sensory information predominantly to the mother’s right hemisphere.”
        Allow us to translate. You probably learned in biology class that the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body and that the opposite holds true too. So if you’re holding baby on the left, your right hemisphere—the one responsible for processing emotion, making sense of what you see and facial recognition—is fully engaged. Your parenting muscles, in a sense, are fully flexed.


Dr. Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General of the United States, recently wrote: “Loneliness and weak social connections are associated with a reduction in lifespan similar to that caused by smoking 15 cigarettes a day”.


Social relationships—both quantity and quality—affect mental health, health behavior, physical health, and mortality risk. Sociologists have played a central role in establishing the link between social relationships and health outcomes, identifying explanations for this link, and discovering social variation (e.g., by gender and race) at the population level. Studies show that social relationships have short- and long-term effects on health, for better and for worse, and that these effects emerge in childhood and cascade throughout life to foster cumulative advantage or disadvantage in health. This article describes key research themes in the study of social relationships and health, and it highlights policy implications suggested by this research.


Social connections like these not only give us pleasure, they also influence our long-term health in ways every bit as powerful as adequate sleep, a good diet, and not smoking. Dozens of studies have shown that people who have social support from family, friends, and their community are happier, have fewer health problems, and live longer.

Dean Ornish's Reaserch

 

Dr. Dean Ornish, a cardiologist who found through research that patients with medical issues, including surgeries like bypass surgery or mastectomies, healed quicker and more thoroughly if they had meaningful relationships in their lives. 

From Dr. Ornish's website:


At the Heart of Healing: Connection

Loneliness and Isolation

Medicine today tends to focus primarily on the physical and mechanistic: drugs and surgery, genes and germs, microbes and molecules. However, there isn’t any other factor in medicine – not diet, not smoking, not exercise, not stress, not genetics, not drugs, not surgery – that has a greater impact on our quality of life, incidence of illness and premature death from all causes than loneliness and isolation.

Love and intimacy — our ability to connect with ourselves and others, is at the root of what makes us sick and what makes us well, what causes sadness and what brings happiness, what makes us suffer and what leads to healing. If a new drug had the same impact, virtually every doctor in the country would be recommending it for his or her patients. It would be malpractice not to prescribe it — yet, with few exceptions, we doctors do not learn much about the healing power of love, intimacy, and transformation in our medical training.

There is a deep spiritual hunger in this country. The real epidemic in our culture is not only physical heart disease, but also what I call emotional and spiritual heart disease. The profound sense of loneliness, isolation, alienation, and depression that are so prevalent in our culture with the breakdown of the social structures that used to provide us with a sense of connection and community. It is, to me, a root of the illness, cynicism, and violence in our society.

We are creatures of community. Those individuals, societies, and cultures who learned to take care of each other, to love each other, and to nurture relationships with each other during the past several hundred thousand years were more likely to survive than those who did not. Those people who did not learn to take care of each other often did not make it. In our culture, the idea of spending time taking care of each other and creating communities has become increasingly rare. Ignoring these ideas imperils our survival.

Awareness is the first step in healing, both individually and socially. Part of the value of science is to increase the level of awareness of how much these choices matter that we make each day. Not just a little, but a lot, and not just to the quality of life but also the quantity of life – to our survival. When we understand how important these issues are, then we can do something about it. These include:

• spending more time with our friends and family
• communication skills 
• group support
• confession, forgiveness, and redemption 
• compassion, altruism, and service 
• psychotherapy 
• touching
• commitment
• meditation

When we increase the love and intimacy in our lives, we also increase the health, joy, and meaning in our lives.



Bruce Perry's Research
Another researcher,  Bruce Perry,  has written extensively about the importance of nurturing humans as they grow, especially empathy.  Perry's research details the sad evidence that humans who are not nurtured by other humans will not grow and develop. There are numerous examples of kids who are fed and protected so that they survive, but they are isolated from other people and not shown love and caring.  Humans need more than nutrition and shelter to grow and develop.  

Watch both of the videos below about famous examples that are as revealing as they are sad:

  • Danielle, found in 2004.

        

  • Genie, found in 1970.  
The video below is about a girl named Genie that was locked in a bedroom alone for 12 years of her life. Here is what Susan Curtiss wrote about her in her book, Genie; A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day Wild Child.
Here is a brief clip from a documentary about Genie's story. And below are notes from one of the researchers studying Genie:
Genie was pitiful. Hardly ever having worn clothing, she did not react to temperature, either heat or cold. Never having eaten solid food, Genie did not know how to chew and had great difficulty in swallowing.  Having been strapped down and left sitting on a potty chair she could not stand erect, could not straighten her arms or legs, could not run hop, jump or climb.  In fact she could only walk with difficulty shuffling her feet and swaying from side to side. Hardly ever having seen more than a space of ten feet in front of her she had become nearsighted to exactly that distance....Surprisingly, however, Genie was alert and curious. She maintained good eye contact and...She was intensely eager for human contact. 

3. What are the ways that Danielle and Genie both were not nurtured?

4.  What are some of the results of their lack of nurturing?


Feral Kids


Some people have been found to be living with wild (feral) animals.  These feral people provide more evidence that humans are influenced by their surroundings.  Check out this website for examples of feral children.

 


Socialization before birth!

The process of nurture that shapes humans is called socialization.  There is evidence that this process begins even before birth!  Even before birth, a baby is dependent on its parents for its genes.  And then, as it develops in utero, it depends on its mother to make the baby's life viable; A prenatal infant can be impacted by the stress that the mother feels as well as the nutrition she gets, and the medical care she receives.
  • This Ted Talk by Annie Murphy Paul explains some of the ways that humans begin learning before birth!
  • Another example of prenatal socialization is in identical twins who have the same exact DNA and biology.  Because they are exactly the same, nurses will often paint the nails of twins differently so that they can quickly tell them apart.  But, often the parents of these twins can tell them apart from their earliest days because they have already started developing different personalities even before being born.
  • The effects of alcohol and drugs on unborn babies are one example of prenatal effects on unborn babies that are well documented.  Additionally, other examples are the effects of prenatal vitamins and stress on the mother.  
  • Yet another example of socialization happening in utero is that babies are influenced by what mothers eat during their pregnancy.  One study shows that the amniotic fluid around the baby can take on the flavor and smell of certain foods or spices.  Babies show a correlation to those foods after being born.  See more about this study here.
  • There is even more recent research that has found that the experiences a grandmother has can affect the genes that she passes down to her grandchild!  In other words, the nurturing or socialization process that affects you, might start decades before you are even born!  This multigenerational effect on genes is known as epigenetics.   Here is a link to a PBS program called The Ghost in your Genes about epigenetics.  The researchers theorize that social experiences can affect the genes of a person and, more amazingly, these genes can be passed down to a generation or two. So the grandchildren may experience the effects of their grandparents' lives on their genes. How amazing is that? They call it the "ghost in your genes," explained on the BBC here.



Conclusion:

Can you explain what sociologist mean by nature and nurture?
What is the dynamic between the two?
Use evidence from the lesson above to support your answer.

Thursday, September 19, 2024

1.08 Groups and Categories

 While waiting, please review Joel Charon's "Should We Generalize About People?"

Action Item for next class: Joel Best, "The Truth about Damned Lies and Statistics.



Please sit in your designated areas.






 


In and out is not just for burgers, it is also for groups! Sociologists use the terms ingroup and outgroup to refer to groups that you are either a member of (ingroup) or not a member of (outgroup).


To illustrate this, today I separate the class into two different groups.   To put it another way, I create an ingroup and an outgroup for each student.  Each group made a list of reasons why the other group was in that outgroup. Every time I do this lesson, the reasons break down into judgments against the other group.

For example, in class I split students into 2 groups of students wearing spirit wear and those who were not. I asked each group to list as many answers as they could about the other group:



In just a few minutes, I created an in-group and an out-group.  

Ingroups are groups that an individual is in. You have membership in it, and because of that, you feel aligned to the group and you have ownership in it and you are more likely to trust it.  It is easier for individuals to recognize the diversity within their ingroups.

Out-groups, by contrast, are the groups that one is not a part of.  People tend to fear outgroups and judge them more than their own ingroups.  This can result in people unnecessarily fearing outgroups and scapegoating them.  They also tend to see outgroups as being less diverse and having less individuality/differences than those of an ingroup.  This is known as outgroup homogeneity.  Often, outgroups are based on a master status - a sociological term for a person's most salient group membership, or a group that defines the person to a society.

Some years I divide students by who is wearing jeans, or who is wearing hoodies or who is wearing gym shoes.  Regardless of how arbitrary the groups are, a similar result happens:  students generalize about the other group and pass judgments.   This is a small example of what happens with ingroups and outgroups.  Imagine how much we are affected by the ingroups and outgroups that we experience from the time we are young.   



1.  What are some ingroups that you are a part of in your life?


Research on Ingroups and Middle School Cliques
Patricia and Peter Adler studied adolescents extensively and they concluded that the creation of cliques happens cyclically even before middle school begins and these can lead to prejudice and discrimination. Here is one of  Patricia and Peter Adler's ethnographies and you can read the abstract below:




Examples of how people can have fears and judgmental views of outgroups:

Jane Elliot's Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes illustrates racial outgroup attitudes
Jane Elliot, a teacher in the 1960s conducted an experiment in her third grade classroom to show the power of ingroups and outgroups.  
And there is an updated version of this. Jane Elliot returns to do the experiment with college kids. It is called Angry Eye. Here is the link to watch it on mediacast.

Outgroups and the war in Iraq
In this TED talk by Sam Richards, he explains how understanding outgroups might lead to a radical experiment in empathy. Check it out:



Outgroups, Stereotypes and Islam

Here is a link to a video called I am an American that shows the dangerous stereotypes that outgroup homogeneity led to in the wake of 9/11.

In this case, Islam is the example, but it could be any religion, ethnicity or group. United States' history is punctuated with examples of groups that have been scapegoated and vilified. This is how Muslims have been treated in many cases in post-911 America. For many Americans, Muslims are an outgrip and so Americans who don't know any Muslims easily fall prey to stereotyping/overgeneralizing them, judging them, fearing them.  But I have had so many Muslim students that I don't see them as an outgroup, nor do I see them with homogeneity, or a monolith.  And that is what this video is showing. There are caring, loving, neighborly Muslims all around us and they a diverse group of people, but when they are an outgrip, it is easy to not see these realities.  Here is a link to a page hoping to end stereotypes about Muslims.

In fact, in the wake of 9/11, many Muslims were stereotyped as terrorists and some were victims of vengeful hate crimes.  But because of outgroup homogeneity, the first person murdered as a hateful vengeance for 9/11 was not even Muslim or Arab - he was Sikh.  His name is Balbir Singh Sodhi   Here is his story on NPR's Story Corps.   And 15 years later, Sikhs are still being victimized.  But Sodhi's brother has made it his mission to preach forgiveness.





2017 Americans are afraid of Muslims especially after some people are scapegoating them:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/psychology-hate-groups-what-drives-someone-join-one-n792941
Much of hate is based in fear, said Dr. A.J. Marsden, an assistant professor of psychology at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida — "basically, fear of the unknown, fear of what might happen and fear of anything that's different than you or falls outside your definition of what's supposed to be normal."
"We establish ourselves as a tribe, and we say this is the group for which I have a love for, for which I identify with" Marsden cited Islamophobia as an example."There's a lot of hatred in the United States toward Muslims," she said. "One of the reasons is they don't understand the religion. ... There's a lot that they don't know, and that scares them, because there is a small part of Muslims who are violent, and that is what is driving the hate."
That concept is known as the "in-group/out-group theory" — the idea that people tend to define themselves in social groupings and are quick to degrade those who don't fit into those groups."

2017 Research about media coverage of Muslims affects outgroup Americans fears
http://www.wbur.org/npr/532963059/when-is-it-terrorism-how-the-media-covers-attacks-by-muslim-perpetrators
"New research from Erin Kearns and colleagues at Georgia State University shows that the president is right — sort of. There is a systematic bias in the way terrorism is covered — just not in the way the president thinks.
Kearns says the "terrorism" label is often only applied to cases where the perpetrator is Muslim. And, those cases also receive significantly more news coverage.
"When the perpetrator is Muslim, you can expect that attack to receive about four and a half times more media coverage than if the perpetrator was not Muslim," Kearns says. Put another way, "a perpetrator who is not Muslim would have to kill on average about seven more people to receive the same amount of coverage as a perpetrator who's Muslim."
Perhaps these findings are not all that surprising to you. But there are disturbing implications for the way Americans perceive Muslims, and the way Muslims perceive themselves."
Connecting research, ingroups-outgroups, mindfulness and the fear of guns v. terrorism
https://qz.com/898207/the-psychology-of-why-americans-are-more-scared-of-terrorism-than-guns-though-guns-are-3210-times-likelier-to-kill-them/
According to the New America Foundation, jihadists killed 94 people inside the United States between 2005 and 2015. During that same time period, 301,797 people in the US were shot dead, Politifact reports.  But... Americans are more afraid of terrorism than they are of guns, despite the fact that guns are 3,210 times more likely to kill them.
Chapman University has conducted a Survey of American Fears for more than three years. It asks 1,500 adults what they fear the most. It organizes the fears into categories that include personal fears, conspiracy theories, terrorism, natural disasters, paranormal fears, and more recently, fear of Muslims.
In 2016, Americans’ number-one fear was “corruption of government officials”—the same top fear as in 2015.  Terrorist attacks came second.  In fact, of the top five fears, two are terror-related.  And number five is not fear of guns but fear of government restrictions on guns.  Fear of a loved one dying—whether by gun violence or anything else—came next.
... after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, people began flying less and driving more. The result, estimated Gerd Gigerenzer, a German risk specialist, was that 1,595 more Americans died in road accidents during the 12 months after 9/11 than would have otherwise.  Michael Rothschild, then an emeritus professor at the University of Wisconsin, calculated some of the risks we face:
One in 6 million: Risk of dying in a plane hijacking, assuming you fly four times a month and hijackers destroy one plane every year. (Just to be clear, since 9/11, hijackers have not destroyed any flights in the US.)
One in 7,000: the risk of dying in a car accident in any given year
One in 600: the risk of dying from cancer in any given year
According to data compiled from the Centers for Disease Control, over 2005-2014, an average of 11,737 Americans a year were shot dead by another American (21 of them by toddlers), 737 were killed by falling out of bed, and nine were killed by Islamic jihadists—who in most cases were US citizens, not immigrants (Nearly twice as many Americans kill themselves with guns as kill each other).
In this example, the media and most Americans see terrorists as an outgroup and because some terrorists claimed to act in the name of Islam, Americans stereotype the category of Muslims into terrorist.  The fear, mistrust and stereotype result from most Americans seeing them as an outgroup.

The power of recognizing our own outgroups
I think that the point of sociological mindfulness is becoming more aware of others and part of that awareness is an understanding of how we may have portrayed that group in our own minds. So understanding the idea of in-group/out-group dynamics is easy but applying it to ourselves is the challenging part.  But when we recognize outgroups, we can be more mindful about how we think about them and question where our assumptions about them have come from.  And maybe most importantly, we can bridge these outgroups by getting to know people who are part of our outgroups.



Powerful examples of how bridging outgroups can make a difference

Stranger at the Gate is a 2022 short documentary that shows the power of both outgroups and conquering their dangerous consequences through our shared humanity.
Here is a PBS story about the movie.  Watch from :26 - 3:11


Former marine Richard "Mac" McKinney was determined to bomb the local Islamic center in Muncie, Indiana. But the kindness he was shown there not only made him drop his plans, but eventually become a member of the community. The story is told in the new short film "Stranger at the Gate,directed by Josh Seftel.
Listen to it below:


Former student of mine, Amina Amdeen
Here is a Muslim former student of mine, Amina Amdeen on NPR's Story Corps who makes me so proud.  Listen to her story about the danger of outgroups and how bridging the gap can bring people together.

Here is NPR's coverage of the story.


Transforming a white supremacist
This episode of On Being demonstrates how creating an ingroup can also create empathy.
"We'd heard Derek Black, the former white power heir apparent, interviewed before about his past. But never about the friendships, with other people in their twenties, that changed him. After his ideology was outed at college, one of the only orthodox Jews on campus invited Derek to Shabbat dinner. What happened over the next two years is like a roadmap for transforming some of the hardest territory of our time."
More about Black's transformation in the 2018 Pulitzer Prize winning book by Eli Saslow called Rising Out of Hatred.


Cubs Joe Maddon and The Creation of Ingroups and Empathy
Cubs Joe Maddon's "Hazelton Integration Project" is a great example of how creating ingroups can help people bridge outgroups like race, immigration status and social class.  Essentially Coach Maddon did what I did in class: He created ingroups.  Except, he did it to create bonds between people who would have previously identified each other as outgroups. Watch this short summary here about how Maddon's project helped to create a sense of community and ingroup relationships.




As this semester goes on, be mindful of the groups that we talk about that are your outgroups. You must make a conscious effort to understand these groups and recognize the diversity within these groups. 
Research is important in helping us understand the unique aspects of out groups that we may not be familiar with.  Additionally, it is important to recognize our own biases connected to our in-groups so that this does not affect the objectivity of our research.


3. Why is it important to be sociologically mindful of our ingroups and outgroups?


4.  Choose one of the examples above that you think is a good example of the importance of ingroups and outgroups.  Identify the two groups in the article.  how does one of the groups judge/stereotype their outgroup?


Applying ingroup/outgroup dynamics:

5.  Please share one or more examples from your own experience where you ay have had a misconception about an outgroup, but after getting to know someone from the outgroup, you had a new understanding of people from the group.

6.  Examine the research article that you found for this unit.  
Was the research focused on an ingroup or outgroup for you?   

7.  How might your research shed light on this group to avoid viewing the group with outgroup homogeneity?

Now think about your own life.  What are your in groups?  What are the outgroups that you could become more aware of, more empathetic to?




Categories and Stereotypes

After reading Joel Charon's "Should We Generalize About People?"

8.   According to Charon, is it okay to generalize? Why or why not?

9.  What is the difference between a generalization and a stereotype?
                        

After reading Joel Charon's "Should We Generalize..." hopefully, you realize that yes we must generalize because it is what makes us intelligent human beings. But our great strength as humans can also be a horrible flaw. If we do not generalize and categorize accurately then we run the risk of stereotyping. We must realize that although individuals can be categorized into certain groups, it doesn't mean that all individuals fit that group's generalization. Toward the end of the reading, Charon says, 
"If we are open-minded and reflective, we can even evaluate how good or how poor our generalizations are, and we can alter what we know as we move from situation to situation."
This is both the task and the promise of sociology.  Sociology challenges us to think about our generalizations and assumptions about what we know and it promises us that with proper thought and care we can understand people better.  

Apply the idea of ingroups/outgroups and categories/generalizations to the research that you found:

10.  What are the groups that are examined in the original research that you found? (Use the abstract)

11.  Does your researcher make any generalizations/conclusions about the group? (Use the abstract or conclusion)

12.  Does your researcher explain any nuances about the group that might help people from the outgroup think more critically about the group?



Examples of stereotypes and lessons we can learn from them:
 
Stereotypes about Muslims
The video called I am an American that shows the dangerous power that extreme stereotypes can lead to.


In this case, Muslim is the category, but it could be a different religion, ethnicity or any other category of people.  United States' history is littered with examples of groups that have been scapegoated and vilified. This is how Muslims have been treated in many cases in post 9/11 America. But I have had so many Muslim students who prove that this is just a stereotype. And that is what this video is showing. There are caring, loving, neighborly Muslims all around us but extreme stereotypes lead us to only see the stereotype and ignore reality.  Here is a page from Indiana University called Muslim Voices which is trying to correct the stereotyping.

Lesson: Don't give in to outgroup homogeneity.  Even if you do not know the complex dynamics within an outgroup, be cognizant that those variations probably exist. 


Examples of stereotypes about differently-abled individuals 

Brett Eastburn
Brett Eastburn was born with no arms or legs.  Here is an article in the Daily Herald about Eastburn visiting a school in Mt. Prospect.  We might categorize him as disabled, but we should be careful about the assumptions and stereotypes that go along with that category.  Here is a Ted Talk by Eastburn and here is his book, I'm Not Missing Anything

 

Nick Vujicic
Another powerful differently-abled speaker is Nick Vujicic. He is a motivational speaker who also has no limbs.   Here is a video of him on youtube


 





Aaron Fotheringham
This is a video about Aaron Fotheringham, an "extreme sitter." Aaron has been in a wheelchair his whole life, but he sees it as an opportunity. Again, we should be careful of our stereotypes. Aaron is way more rad than I will ever be, but he is in a wheelchair and I am not.  If you search youtube, you can see Aaron doing a double backflip! But there are also lots of videoes of him crashing over and over again and again. It takes hard work and lots of effort to become good at what you do.  

Hard work was a theme in all of the above videoes.  And if you read the rest of Outliers, Gladwell makes the case that the most successful people spend ten thousand hours developing their skills.  The other theme that comes out in all of these videoes from Brett Eastburn to Aaron Fotheringham is that in order to find meaning in your life you must find a way to serve others.  Find a way to help other people.  You have talents.  Develop them and find a way to use them to help others.  That is your purpose.  And here is Aaron "wheels" Fotheringham at the 2016 Paralympics:


 

Here is the latest update from Wheelz on the BBC.
 
Here is a video about a different type of street performer that also challenges your assumptions about the category "disabled".


I love how these "disabled" people see their opportunity to teach others.  Their lessons seem to be similar:  The world doesn't owe you anything.  You owe yourself hard work and dedication to become what you want.  Find a way to help others/teach others.  Don't stereotype and keep an open mind.

Lessons from differently-abled individuals:
  • Accept yourself as a part of creation; your existence is the universe's confirmation to you that you matter.
  • Develop your talents/desires.  Whatever you want takes hard work. It takes failure, discomfort and effort.
  • Find ways to serve others.  Whenever you don't know what to do or when your life feels directionless or meaningless, find a way to serve others.  We all have talents that can help others.

13.  Choose one of the examples of stereotypes above.  What did you think about the example?  What is the category?  What is a stereotype of that category?  What are some accurate generalizations?


14.  Apply categories and stereotypes to the research article that you are examining:

What are the categories that your research article covers?
Are these ingroups or outgroups for you?
What are the generalizations in your research article?
Are there stereotypes that your research article dispels?


Dealing with stereotypes
Finally, when you feel like you have been stereotyped, how do you react? What do you do? Anis Mojgani suggests that you shake the dust. Checkout his slam poemHere is a link to his poem in writing.



Lesson from Mojgani: When you have been stereotyped, shake the dust.  Move on and don't let the dust settle on you.  Don't let it define you.



15.  Have you ever been the victim or perpetrator of a stereotype?  What was the stereotype and category?  Share a personal example.


The Cookie Thief, a poetic example of judging
There is a poem I like that illustrates Charon's point. The poem called "The Cookie Thief" by Valerie Cox. We are all cookie thieves sometimes in how we erroneously use the categories that Charon talks about. 

Lesson
We have all been both the victim of stereotyping and the perpetrator of it.  Try not to be the cookie thief.


EXTRA:
This American Life, radio episode about stereotypes 
Another great source about stereotypes is episode 362 from This American Life. Click here to listen to the episode where 5 people tell stories about stereotyping. Listen to the prologue about people with disabilities, and Act One about NY cops stereotyping people coming from Brooklyn.


In Conclusion

What is difference between in-groups and outgroups?
Why should we be mindful of these groups?
What is the difference between a generalization and a stereotype?