XC - Quarter 4 - Babies

I do not think any culture had a better way of parenting than the others; they all had their good methods and bad methods. My thought on the baby in Namibia is that there were minimal interaction between the baby and the parent, especially right after birth. The baby was left on the bed and it also happened when the baby knew how to crawl; the parent gave more attention towards the beginning and a little more when the baby started to understand the parents. In the beginning when the baby was first born, the mother breastfed the baby and when the baby started to crawl, she waited around for the baby to go to them to feed themselves when they are hungry. After the baby knew how to crawl, the mother allowed the baby to interact with others and learn to discover new things themselves. I guess this could be a good thing; the baby would be able to rely on himself and not have to depend on the parent too much. The good things were that the baby was breastfed and there was a point when the parent treated the baby like an adult; she spoke to him with a stern voice and punished him for what he did. In their society, I guess they treated babies like adults so they can mature faster so the baby in the movie was treated like one. The baby was also taught things like balancing a can on his head when the parent felt it was time for him to learn the things that their society thought was necessary.

I thought that the baby in Mongolia was neglected a little too much; he was tied up, left on the bed, and really did not have much to play with. All the baby got after birth was getting breastfed but the mother also tried to force the baby to drink milk; she even squirted milk at him. Although some may argue that babies should drink milk at specified times, I did not think the mother had the patience to allow the baby to drink the milk for himself rather than squirting milk at him. When the baby did something wrong, like the time he spilled the water, he was scold at and spanked on the butt. It seems like discipline were taught by raising voices and spanking but the mother also did not show sympathy; she walked away when the baby went near her. I feel like the movie portrayed this baby to be the slowest to learn how to walk and I think this was caused by the mother's negligence. Then again, the movie also showed that he did not give up trying to get the paper towel while the movie kept going back to the Japanese baby.

While these two babies were often neglected, I feel that the Japanese baby had too much attention after birth. It was either because the mother and the father attended the baby too many time but this baby gave up more easily when she could not figure stuff out. I think the baby was also a little neglected when she was at the dinner table; the mother was busy and left her alone. As the baby got older, the parents left the baby at a daycare center while they went to do their own thing. The father was talking on the phone while using toys to entertain his baby and I think this distances himself from the baby.The good things that this parent did was taking her to interacting lessons and taking her to the park to interact with others. And although she was at the park, the parents were not in the camera half the time so they might or might not have been there to supervise.

The main thing I did not like about the baby in San Francisco was the fact that the baby was all wired up and was packed like a present. The other thing was when he was left on the door bouncing while his mother was cooking something. Based on an article I read online, it said that parents should allow their baby to watch everything they do. The mother should have held her baby so she can connect better with her baby while she was cooking. Other than that, I think the parents did a pretty good job taking her to lessons and allowing her to do things herself. The father allowed her to peel her own banana and take a bite of the nasty part, so she can learn to not eat that part the next time.

I noticed that many societies want their babies to first learn the word "mom." In the movie, the father was no where to be seen in Namibia and in Mongolia; they were rarely seen in San Francisco and in Japan. Since the mother took most of the time raising the baby, they feel that it is right for them to have their baby learn the word "mom" first. This way, they know that they matter to the baby's existence and that ten months of pregnancy mattered. And even though the babies could have been just making sounds, the moms like to perceive these sounds as "mom."

Parenting 102

When Ms. Plaza was asked if she would correct her child immediately when her child does something wrong, she said that it "depends; if it is in danger." Ms. Plaza called her child an it; does Ms. Plaza feel superior to her child? Does she think that her child is just a little animal that cries and crawls? Maybe people do have children to have meaningful lives, like Snyder says; parents are like Gods to them, their creator. Cindy, like many other kids including myself, have been taught to call our parents, with a pronoun rather than their name. She says that only her peers can call her by her first name, her children cannot; and maybe this is because she was brought up to call her superiors mom, dad.

I thought it was weird for Mr. Marks to compare the experience of having children to a science fair. He makes it sound like children are our experimenting objects and we all try to get the better outcome so it makes the experimenter look good. Marks also said that the middle class coaches their kids while the lower class tells their kids what to do and "the natural approach does not prepare kids for the economy." He also said that the middle class bothers to do research for their kids while the lower class waits for things to happen to their kids. This reflects the economy; because of capitalism, many parents use the normal approach to prepare their kids for the economy. While the economy allows the middle class to be more educated to coach their kids, the lower class does not know enough so they were told what to do and so will their kids. The middle class works hard for the outcome so they do research on parenting while most of the lower class are tired of trying to become rich so they just wait for things to happen and do the same for their kids.

I do not feel like I have learned much from this short parenting mini unit; I still do not know how kids should be parented, whether it should be an authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive style. There were not specific things that stood out to me; the research and interviews just reinforced the obvious. Marks did say that he took his daughter to various places like the music class to broaden her choices in the future. He also said that when you have kids, there is absolutely no time for yourself so the kid must be the center of attention. The websites said that babies should sleep with the parents and that they should be breast fed rather than formulas. What I did find out is that parenting might just be something that comes to you when you are in the situation.

However, there were some small stuff that I learned. Babies do not get spoiled when you attend their needs very often, it is a method of communication. Marks said that having kids will make you a slave, and I totally agree; you would have to keep your eye on the kid 24 hours a day and "look like a moron" to make them happy. In the future if I ever have kids, I should probably take them to classes at the early years to give them a head start. Then again, maybe not having kids will save me that extra trip to depression.

Parenting 101

I think parents should sleep with their kids; it gives the kids the sense of attachment and physical connection. Breast feeding also adds to that physical connection; it is natural and does not contain harmful chemicals. Although I was the only one of my three siblings who was not breast fed, I feel like I can connect more with my mom. It could be possible that I will lose that connection in the future or that because I did not have that connection when I was an infant, I yearn for that connection. Of course, there are other factors that affect parent-child relationships; I was brought up by my parents themselves along with my older sister while my younger siblings were sent back to China because my parents did not have the time to look after them. Most people would probably say that kids should be the center of attention but I sometimes wonder if all the attention is healthy for the kids. I am afraid that if a kid gets too much attention, then the kid will grow accustom to the attention and might ask for more attention when the kid does not get it.

I think I would be a horrible parent and this is why I wonder whether a child should have all the attention or not. Kids need a lot of attention, thus, they should be treated like puppies. But if the kid is capable of acting like an adult (which is rare), then I believe that they have the right to be treated like adults. I think that parenting can come naturally if one can pick it up quickly when exposed to other parents and their kids. But I think that there should be some research done; does not have to be books, could be asking other parents for help. My parents never read books on parenting; I think that my mom learned to parent from her parents, just by observing how she and her siblings were treated. She probably asked her mom when she was helpless at times but she knew how to treat a swollen ankle with starch and vinegar. Kids learn from their parents, therefore, if they were physically disciplined, then they will discipline their kids physically also.

The authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles were first introduced to me two or three years ago. At that time, I thought the authoritative (consisting of elements from both the authoritarian and permissive) parenting was the ideal type of parenting. However, in the parenting descriptions, Baumrind makes all of then sound beautiful and positive in their own way. Then in the background information, she seems to favor the authoritative parenting, then the authoritarian parenting, and implies that the permissive parenting does not work at all. I think that my mom is using the authoritarian parenting style; I tend to give up easily and my brother often swings his arms when he does not get what he wants.

I think the Attachment Parenting website basically states things that a nurturing mother should know with a few exceptions that I learned. It should obvious that the mother should be physically close with her child; this includes breast feeding and sleeping with the child. What I did not know is that carrying your baby around wherever you go allows the child to be more alert. The website also touches upon the question of whether a mother would be spoiling the child if she attended to all the child's needs. The website says that being attentive to the baby's needs builds trust between the baby and the parent. When, then, does a mother stop attending to the baby's needs; when does the baby start to take advantage?

Interviews & Survery Questions

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you?
2. easily do you make friends?
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone?
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions?
5. much do you talk?

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why?

Person #1:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 4
2. easily do you make friends? 4
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 2
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 4
5. much do you talk? 3.5

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? No

Person #2:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 4
2. easily do you make friends? 5
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 1
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 5
5. much do you talk? 4

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? Yes; because if they want to know, I'm open to telling them. Just not the really personal stuff.

Person #3:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 2
2. easily do you make friends? 5
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 3
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 1
5. much do you talk? 3

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? No

First I needed to determine whether or not the person I interviewed was an extrovert so I stole the first 5 questions from the personality test we took. The way I determined this was, the person had to score a 3 or above on questions 1,2, or 5 or a 3 or lower on questions 2 and 3. If the person fulfilled 3 or more of these criteria, then that person is an extrovert. By looking at my data, all three of them fulfilled 4 of the criteria. Then I wanted to see whether they interacted with their acquaintances and were open enough to tell their acquaintances about their life. To my surprise, only 1 person would. This interview/survey provided evidence to support the claim that being more social does not mean that one needs more attention from the people they see daily. But I think this survey was not enough to determine this; instead of asking whether they talk to their acquaintances about their life, I think I should have made it broader and asked how many times they make conversations with their acquaintances and about what. This way, we get to see why people need other people and how frequently do we ask of our acquaintances.

Survey Question: How often do you talk to your acquaintances about your life?

HW 55

Part 1:

What social and emotional needs can be met by people we see daily?

Part 2:

Jia Min: It seems like you have more questions for your second topic so you would have more to write about and research on. I would go with that one and it sounds pretty interesting. Maybe your EQ can be "What more does a closer friend have to do than just a friend?"

Amber: Interesting question. Are you focusing on family or other people? I think attention is the word; why do people tend to seek attention outside the family. Just a suggestion.

Part 3:

What emotional needs can be met by our acquaintances?

Lewin, Tamar. "Teenage Insults, Scrawled on Web, Not on Walls." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/us/06formspring.html. New York Times. Web. 12 May 2010.

Formspring.me is a website that allows teenagers to write anonymous comments instead of writing on bathroom walls. Since the comments are anonymous, teenagers often insult the user. The user can select comments s/he chooses to post and answer to but most do not filter the nasty ones; they are more tempted to post them. One teenager had stopped wearing a particular clothing because someone had made a comment on it. The website has even caused a suicide of a teenager because of the nasty comments posted about him.

Teenagers take advantage of the nasty and inappropriate comments from other people to attract attention to themselves. Other teenagers that we see daily, but do not consider as friends, serve as a game piece to draw attention. It is the same thing as going to a party and making out with someone so that you have something to tell your friends about, thus drawing attention to yourself. Users are crushed by the critical comments on the website but they still read them. It seems that people who are not that close to you would be the ones telling you the truth and it is the only way you can figure out how to "fix" yourself. People you see daily are there to give you feedback on how you should act or how you should look.

Lloyd, Tracey. "The Process Of Deindividuation." http://social-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_process_of_deindividuation. Suite101.com. Web. 13 May 2010.

Deindividuation "suggests that strong identification with a group culture may lead to decreased personal responsibility." This terminology was created in the 1950s by Festinger. Psychologists believe that individuals behave more aggressively than those who are deindividualized. Deindividualizing one allows the responsibility to be shared among the group so that one does not need to carry all the burden. The article goes on, giving examples of evidence proving the success of deindividuation.

This is not the best article but I think the concept of deindividuation partly answers the question why teachers like to put us in groups and why we are in classrooms as opposed to homeschooling. When we work on projects with a group, we do not have to be responsible for all the requirements because we have others to share the responsibility. As a whole class, we do not have to feel like we need to have all the answers because we have others in class to build ideas off of. Our classmates are there to carry some of the responsibility so that we do not have to take it on by ourselves.

Cherry, Kendra. "Effects of Group Size on Problem Solving." http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologynews/qt/groupsize.htm. About.com. Web. 13 May 2010.

Working in groups of three to five people do better at tasks than just one person alone. A study done with groups of three provided results showing that the group was able to solve more difficult problems. The study also show that just two people is not enough, the group must consist of three to five people; working with just two people is just as bad as one person working alone.

Again, this connects to my students in the classroom; we often work in groups because more heads are better than one. Maybe teachers should consider this study and allow students to work in groups of three to five people to see if any significant changes occur. As students, other students serve as other brains that we can work off of, or better phrase, work together with.

HW 54

Part 1:

I took the Jung test result and I thought the percent breakdowns were pretty accurate but the second box was not. The results show that I am introverted, sensing, feeling, and perceiving. But then it says artist and that I am interested in fine arts, express primarily through art form. In fact, I am no artist, not very interested in fine arts, and rarely express myself through the form of art. I feel like this test does not provide sufficient information to determine whether it is useful. It just breaks the categories down but does not give a description of your personality.

On the other hand, I thought this test was pretty accurate for J.M.H.; she is introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging. She keeps a lot of things to herself, tries to find meaning behind everything, sensitive, and draws conclusions really quickly. The second part of the results was pretty accurate; I think she has some sort of drive to help others and enjoys doing it. She has a very complex personality. I think that the Big Five Test is more accurate and useful because it explains what the results mean. J.M.H. scored low for the extroversion part which suggests that she is reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and secretive which is very true.

Part 2:

I thought that my brother was an ISTP but his results were ISFP. As discussed in class, these personality tests measure how one view one's preferences rather than one's personality. Therefore, I think these test will entertain (like the audience at a magic show) those who were truthful when taking the test. This test did not really do anything for my brother or for me; he just took it and went back to watching videos. The test did not make me stop and think about how he is going to act in the future or change how I will act towards him. Basically, I take these tests for fun to see how accurate the questions being asked are.

Survey Analysis

Part 2:

This survey actually made me think thoroughly about the questions and reflect on them. Those were the questions that made me put myself back into the situation so I could get the full feel from it even if these situations were daily occurrences. They were not that personal (except for one or two) since they were anonymous and I did not feel pressured in answering them.

Part 3:

I was surprised to see that 30 people said that they talk to an adult in their family for more than 5 minutes every day but only 24 have more than 20 minutes of "face time" with a caring adult per day. Do their family not care about them for at least 20 minutes? I also noticed that 32.7% of those who took the survey chose maybe when asked whether friendship is for their own benefit. Do we really not know if we are taking advantage of friendship or we do not want to admit that we are using other people? On the other hand, 39.2% said that people think about themselves only; then why did 32.7% choose maybe when asked if they were thinking about themselves when making friends. The popular vote went to not much when asked if they made others feel bad to make themselves feel good. I had expected the popular vote to go to not at all; are we that selfish or is there an excuse behind it? 21 people said that they were not sure if they were happy about their identities; just shows that the represented population is still creating their identity. I was also surprised that the popular answer was affirmative when asked if people were tired of others in school. Why is this the case; have we been with each other for too long that we want to meet new people?? Why do we want to see new people, can't we just stay with each other? Is it because people change or we know them long enough to see their true self and start to dislike them? The popular vote went to maybe when asked whether people worry what others thought of them. I expected the votes to lean towards the negative side because I always hear people say that they don't care what others thought of them.

Part 3:

In the NYCGOV website survey, survey found that more than 50% of high school students had been sexually active; in our sample size, exactly 50% answered yes. 8% of NYC high school students are having safe sex, much lower than the percentage shown in our survey. One reason for this huge difference is that our sample size was not large enough to represent the whole population, in this case, NYC high school students. Within this small sample size, the number of people who were not truthful when filling out this survey can cause an effect on the results. One thing that was not provided on the website were the questions that were asked in the survey. The questions in the surveys could have been worded differently and this could also cause a change in the answers that will change our results.