Two of my friends, Britt and Jessica, participated in the 10th annual Hill Country Ride for AIDS this weekend. The ride is 50 miles long and they had been training for a really long time to do it.
A large part of participating in this ride involves raising money for providing services for people who are HIV positive or have AIDS. Britt and Jessica actually raised a lot of money for the cause, but when they were first planning to do the ride they wanted to spend more of there effort on educating people about AIDS and HIV and sparking conversation about related issues. One way they decided to do this was through a “HIV/AIDS Awareness Movie Series”.
The first movie they showed (back in February) was a PBS frontline documentary called The Age of AIDS. They showed the movie at their apartment and the group made panini sandwiches and ate together. The movie was very informative even though it was a bit dry in some places mostly it was really fascinating. It was actually part of a mini series that is incredibly long so we ended up skipping certain parts of it. Because the movie was so long the party ended up being a sort of come-and-go atmosphere, which was really nice. I also got a really great chance to have several really interesting conversations about these issues with SU people that I had not really gotten a chance to know before, so that was exciting too.
The next month Britt and Jessica showed the movie Philidelphia, which is a particular favorite of mine. It has Tom Hanks, Denzel Washinington and Antoinio Banderas in it and it is about a guy who has AIDS and is fired from his law firm when they find out, so he sues them. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to go to this movie night, but I heard that there was a pretty good turn out and that everyone had fun.
The next movie night I did get a chance to stop by was last week, when Britt and Jessica hosted a burger cookout and RENT sing-along in the DLC community room. I couldn’t stay very long because I had to go to a test review but it certainly seemed like quite a promising event when I did stop by.
I really enjoyed the movie nights that I was able to attend and I think that this program was such a good idea as a way to raise awareness and bring HIV/AIDS issues into the forefront of conversation. I am often impressed by how civic engagement and academic thought and discussion are so readily available to me as an SU student through my classes and various lectures that are made available on campus. However, this also makes me wonder about how I will be able to find and/or create such discussion in the communities in my later life. The fact that Britt and Jessica were able to do this so successfully with dinner and a few movies now and t
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Student Work Symposium
The Student Work Symposium was particularly valuable for me this year because I presented a poster. My poster was on a correlational study I did in my research methods class examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and health locus of control. Getting to present a poster in a setting like the student work symposium was really helpful because it gave me a chance to practice presenting a poster so that I can know what to expect when I (hopefully) get a chance to present at a conference in the future. The experience was also helpful as a way of becoming familiar with compiling and printing a poster. I am not the most technologically savvy person in the world, so it was nice to have a chance to practice making the poster without as much pressure as I might feel if I was going to present it in a professional setting. Overall, the poster session was pretty quiet and not a huge number of people came to look at my poster, but several people did and most of them asked very interesting questions which I really enjoyed. Unfortunately, I did not get much opportunity to look at many of the other posters because I was busy at my own. I did, however, get a chance to look at a poster about someone’s internship at Hope Alliance, which is an internship I have applied for this summer. I really enjoyed getting to see that poster because it gave me a good idea of what to expect should I have the opportunity to intern at Hope Alliance.
The oral presentation I attended appeared to be focused on sociology and anthropology, although a student in the Biology department presented the talk that most caught my attention about bioethics and Huntington’s disease. One of the things this student focused on was the discussion of whether or not a person might choose to get tested for this (and other genetic disorder). She explained that a simple DNA test could determine whether or not an individual would develop the disorder, but that because there is no cure for the disease such a test would not make a difference in the outcome of one’s diagnosis. She also discussed some of the problems associated with being tested for the disorder. For instance, one’s health insurance company and employer could obtain the results of the test, which might prove problematic if one received a positive diagnosis. It turns out that a law has recently been passed to prevent employers and insurance companies form discriminating against individuals who have been tested for genetic disorders and whose tests were positive.
I found the idea of genetic testing to be particularly intriguing because it made me wonder if I would get tested for genetic disorders if given the opportunity. Ultimately, I think that I would not choose to get tested, especially if the disorder I was getting tested for did not have a cure. Instead I think I would choose to try to live the healthiest life I could and deal with each problem as it came up – just like I do now.
The oral presentation I attended appeared to be focused on sociology and anthropology, although a student in the Biology department presented the talk that most caught my attention about bioethics and Huntington’s disease. One of the things this student focused on was the discussion of whether or not a person might choose to get tested for this (and other genetic disorder). She explained that a simple DNA test could determine whether or not an individual would develop the disorder, but that because there is no cure for the disease such a test would not make a difference in the outcome of one’s diagnosis. She also discussed some of the problems associated with being tested for the disorder. For instance, one’s health insurance company and employer could obtain the results of the test, which might prove problematic if one received a positive diagnosis. It turns out that a law has recently been passed to prevent employers and insurance companies form discriminating against individuals who have been tested for genetic disorders and whose tests were positive.
I found the idea of genetic testing to be particularly intriguing because it made me wonder if I would get tested for genetic disorders if given the opportunity. Ultimately, I think that I would not choose to get tested, especially if the disorder I was getting tested for did not have a cure. Instead I think I would choose to try to live the healthiest life I could and deal with each problem as it came up – just like I do now.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Make up blog for late JDA blog
I chose to right about the color of dissonance opera for my make up blog for a couple of reasons. First, I have just recently seen the opera. Second, and more importantly, I think it fits in well with the discussion of gender and disadvantage begun with the Jesse Daniel Ames lecture.
I first became aware of the plans for the opera when my friend Duncan Alexander began working on the media for the show. Duncan used a special (and very complicated) computer program to produce the images that were projected on the screen at the back of the stage during the show and also on separate, smaller screens that were shaped like cubes and moved around the stage according to the action taking place on stage.
The opera was also mentioned during the abstract painting class I am taking this semester, while we were discussing Wassily Kandinsky and his wife Gabriele Münter, two of the artists depicted in the opera. The opera was based on letters written between Kandinsky, Münter, and their friend, composer, Arnold Schoenberg. The opera is set the summer before WWI while Kandinsky explored abstract and non-representative styles of art. The battle Münter faces as a female artist is also quite central to the opera. She fights to be recognized as a skilled painter and provoking, innovative artist in her own right, as opposed to an artist who is “good, for a woman”.
The things I found most intriguing about the opera were the staging and production choices. In a lot of ways the color of dissonance was not like a traditional opera. For instance, three actors portrayed each character. One actor did all of the speaking, and to a certain extent narrated the character’s story. Another actor sang the operatic parts of the character’s libretto, but interacted fairly little with the other actors. Finally, the third actor for each character acted like a mime – often displaying the inner thoughts and emotions of the character in question. Additionally, the mimes interacted with each other a great deal, almost in contrast to the singers who barely did this at all.
There were also a lot of elements in the opera that were reminiscent of Greek theatre. For instance actors used masks during the show, much like actors in ancient Greece did. Additionally the opera had a chorus, which was used both to further the story’s plot and also to add a quality of dialogue to characters’ expressions of their inner thoughts. Although, unlike in Greek theatre the chorus was hidden behind a screen for most of the performances – giving them and their parts a mysterious and ethereal feel.
Another intriguing thing about the opera was the effect it had on me. I am actually not really a fan of opera, especially more modern interpretations and compositions. I was also not so crazy about this opera. This particular opera I found a bit hard to follow especially because there was no explanation of the story in the program. Additionally – as one might expect with a name like the color of dissonance – the music for this opera was jarring and often even somewhat grating. The music, especially its dissonant qualities, made me feel anxious, uncomfortable, fidgety, antsy, and even somewhat claustrophobic. I found this effect very unexpected, but I feel that the claustrophobia-like feeling was quite appropriated given the repression the only woman in the opera Münter was experiencing.
I first became aware of the plans for the opera when my friend Duncan Alexander began working on the media for the show. Duncan used a special (and very complicated) computer program to produce the images that were projected on the screen at the back of the stage during the show and also on separate, smaller screens that were shaped like cubes and moved around the stage according to the action taking place on stage.
The opera was also mentioned during the abstract painting class I am taking this semester, while we were discussing Wassily Kandinsky and his wife Gabriele Münter, two of the artists depicted in the opera. The opera was based on letters written between Kandinsky, Münter, and their friend, composer, Arnold Schoenberg. The opera is set the summer before WWI while Kandinsky explored abstract and non-representative styles of art. The battle Münter faces as a female artist is also quite central to the opera. She fights to be recognized as a skilled painter and provoking, innovative artist in her own right, as opposed to an artist who is “good, for a woman”.
The things I found most intriguing about the opera were the staging and production choices. In a lot of ways the color of dissonance was not like a traditional opera. For instance, three actors portrayed each character. One actor did all of the speaking, and to a certain extent narrated the character’s story. Another actor sang the operatic parts of the character’s libretto, but interacted fairly little with the other actors. Finally, the third actor for each character acted like a mime – often displaying the inner thoughts and emotions of the character in question. Additionally, the mimes interacted with each other a great deal, almost in contrast to the singers who barely did this at all.
There were also a lot of elements in the opera that were reminiscent of Greek theatre. For instance actors used masks during the show, much like actors in ancient Greece did. Additionally the opera had a chorus, which was used both to further the story’s plot and also to add a quality of dialogue to characters’ expressions of their inner thoughts. Although, unlike in Greek theatre the chorus was hidden behind a screen for most of the performances – giving them and their parts a mysterious and ethereal feel.
Another intriguing thing about the opera was the effect it had on me. I am actually not really a fan of opera, especially more modern interpretations and compositions. I was also not so crazy about this opera. This particular opera I found a bit hard to follow especially because there was no explanation of the story in the program. Additionally – as one might expect with a name like the color of dissonance – the music for this opera was jarring and often even somewhat grating. The music, especially its dissonant qualities, made me feel anxious, uncomfortable, fidgety, antsy, and even somewhat claustrophobic. I found this effect very unexpected, but I feel that the claustrophobia-like feeling was quite appropriated given the repression the only woman in the opera Münter was experiencing.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Jesse Daniel Ames Blog
I, like many of my peers, felt the need to assign gender to Matt and Eli upon first meeting them. I felt Eli was pretty easy to label both because he looked male and because he used the pronoun “he” to identify himself in the program. Matt on the other hand, seemed more difficult to label ze did not use any gendered pronouns to describe hierself, but instead only used hier name “Matt”. Additionally, ze looked both feminine and masculine to me. Hier voice and speaking pattern did not help clear things up for me either as I felt ze sounded feminine in tone and sound quality, but that hier word choice and abrasiveness in speech paralleled more masculine constructs. By the time the program started and Dr. Johnson began to read an excerpt from Eli’s essay “Neither Stone nor Wing” I was reminded that gender is not as simple as genitals, chromosomes, and dresses versus pants.
Another factor I found particularly interesting was that Eli explained his gender journey/transformation. He explained that he was born “a girl”, then identified as a lesbian, and eventually as a transgender person. Matt on the other hand, did not really mention any specifics of hier personal experience with gender and gender transformation.
Disability was a second important factor discussed during the lecture. I expected (because of the reading we had been assigned) that Eli would show signs of a disability. However, I could not identify evidence of Eli’s disability until he began to speak. I found this experience of particular interest because I have often encountered transgender persons whom I (and others) tend to have certain expectations of until they speak and these expectations are then altered. I have typically seen this occur in MTF transgender persons who look very much like women and are treated as such and are treated as such until they speak and because they may not sound like typical women (and may, perhaps even sound like a typical man) they are then treated poorly, often even like “freaks”. I suspect that this dynamic is not so different from Eli being treated differently after he speaks and his disability becomes apparent.
I was additionally intrigued by Matt’s comments on disability and navigating disability as a member of other minorities (such as ethnic/racial minorities, gender minorities, and sexual minorities). Ze gave a specific example of a little boy who was killed by one of his classmates, presumably for adopting feminine behavior. However, Matt also pointed out that this individual was part of a racial minority, was at a socioeconomic disadvantage and appeared to display evidence of learning disabilities. Matt then explained that all of these other factors had been ignored, while many GBLT advocacy groups had emphasized the child’s non gender-normative behavior in order to draw attention to their causes. Matt made it clear that this was not an appropriate response and that while a person may not be the sum of his/her parts, all of these parts must at least be accounted for to truly begin to represent a person. Matt also made further allusions to invisible disabilities, which greatly touched me as a person who has had much experience with such disabilities, and because I find that invisible disabilities are often seen as secondary to visible disabilities.
This particular story (about the child who was killed) and the idea of advocacy groups picking and choosing part of people to represent reminded me of the conflict which has occurred between the transgender/gender-queer and the HRC (human rights campaign)*. In fact I believe Matt made a side comment alluding to this volatile relationship during the lecture.
*FOOTNOTE: The HRC began with the intention of and promise to include and work for transgender/gender-queer individuals along with GLB individual (in fact they still claim this goal). However, the agency did not keep this promise once the began their work because they found it was easier to get support for GLB issues if they excluded the transgender/gender-queer community (i.e. legislatures were more friendly to “gay people” than to the often more marginalized “transgender people” because they are seen as so far from “normal”. This conflict has grown so much that the HRC (or at minimum it’s prominent members) has recently been known to try to actively exclude the transgender/gender-queer community (as opposed to simply ignoring them) for their work for equality. This reminds me of Matt’s comments about picking and choosing parts of people to advocate for because within the transgender/gender-queer community there are some individuals who identify as GLB and others who identify as “straight”. Therefore, if the HRC refuses to do nothing else for the transgender/gender-queer community, they should at least be willing to advocate for GLB persons whether transgender or not, rather than letting one’s gender status take precedence over his or her sexual orientation.
Another factor I found particularly interesting was that Eli explained his gender journey/transformation. He explained that he was born “a girl”, then identified as a lesbian, and eventually as a transgender person. Matt on the other hand, did not really mention any specifics of hier personal experience with gender and gender transformation.
Disability was a second important factor discussed during the lecture. I expected (because of the reading we had been assigned) that Eli would show signs of a disability. However, I could not identify evidence of Eli’s disability until he began to speak. I found this experience of particular interest because I have often encountered transgender persons whom I (and others) tend to have certain expectations of until they speak and these expectations are then altered. I have typically seen this occur in MTF transgender persons who look very much like women and are treated as such and are treated as such until they speak and because they may not sound like typical women (and may, perhaps even sound like a typical man) they are then treated poorly, often even like “freaks”. I suspect that this dynamic is not so different from Eli being treated differently after he speaks and his disability becomes apparent.
I was additionally intrigued by Matt’s comments on disability and navigating disability as a member of other minorities (such as ethnic/racial minorities, gender minorities, and sexual minorities). Ze gave a specific example of a little boy who was killed by one of his classmates, presumably for adopting feminine behavior. However, Matt also pointed out that this individual was part of a racial minority, was at a socioeconomic disadvantage and appeared to display evidence of learning disabilities. Matt then explained that all of these other factors had been ignored, while many GBLT advocacy groups had emphasized the child’s non gender-normative behavior in order to draw attention to their causes. Matt made it clear that this was not an appropriate response and that while a person may not be the sum of his/her parts, all of these parts must at least be accounted for to truly begin to represent a person. Matt also made further allusions to invisible disabilities, which greatly touched me as a person who has had much experience with such disabilities, and because I find that invisible disabilities are often seen as secondary to visible disabilities.
This particular story (about the child who was killed) and the idea of advocacy groups picking and choosing part of people to represent reminded me of the conflict which has occurred between the transgender/gender-queer and the HRC (human rights campaign)*. In fact I believe Matt made a side comment alluding to this volatile relationship during the lecture.
*FOOTNOTE: The HRC began with the intention of and promise to include and work for transgender/gender-queer individuals along with GLB individual (in fact they still claim this goal). However, the agency did not keep this promise once the began their work because they found it was easier to get support for GLB issues if they excluded the transgender/gender-queer community (i.e. legislatures were more friendly to “gay people” than to the often more marginalized “transgender people” because they are seen as so far from “normal”. This conflict has grown so much that the HRC (or at minimum it’s prominent members) has recently been known to try to actively exclude the transgender/gender-queer community (as opposed to simply ignoring them) for their work for equality. This reminds me of Matt’s comments about picking and choosing parts of people to advocate for because within the transgender/gender-queer community there are some individuals who identify as GLB and others who identify as “straight”. Therefore, if the HRC refuses to do nothing else for the transgender/gender-queer community, they should at least be willing to advocate for GLB persons whether transgender or not, rather than letting one’s gender status take precedence over his or her sexual orientation.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Final visit to boys and girls club
Our last visit to the boys and girls club was very different from our previous three. First of all, we started the program 30 minutes later than our normal time because the club had an activity already scheduled for 5:15, when we typically ran our program. This change meant that a lot of the kids had already been picked up by their parents, so the group we were working with was much smaller. Another difference was that it was very rainy and cold. This was a problem because we had always run our program outside before. Fortunately, there was a conference room available in the housing authority building big enough for us to use. However we did have to make a few alterations to our plans because we were working on a hard tile floor rather than the soft grass. We ended up only working with a about five or eight kids this last day. It was a little sad not to be able to have one last session with some of the kids we had seen a lot of before, but it was also nice to be able to focus some special attention on the kids that were there. The kids also got to have a bit more influence in what activities we did that day because there were so few participants and they seemed to really enjoy that.
This blog assignment has made me think about the differences between my first and last sessions at the boys and girls club, especially in terms of what I learned and what I found helpful and beneficial in working with the kids. I wanted to make note of those things for members of other groups if they happen to read my blog, but also for myself, so I will be able to look back at it and remember the lessons I learned in the future.
One of the most helpful things we decided on when we first started out was that all of the Paideia scholars would participate with all of the kids from the boys and girls club in each activity we did. This demonstrated that our activities were fun, exciting, and something everyone might want to do. It was also helpful in managing and directing the kids.
We also never tried to get everyone’s attention. Some kids will always be distracted or talking to each other, instead we tried to get the attention of the majority of the group and explained the task at that point. Eventually the kids who were previously distracted would either listen up and catch on if they were really interested or wander off to do something else if they were not really interested.
I also learned not to stress out or worry too much when some of the kids decided they did not like the activities and walked away to find something else to do. This is really important because if the kids are forced to participate in an activity they don’t want to do it is not beneficial for anyone involved.
Probably the most important thing I learned about interacting with the kids had to do with how many of them crave attention and how to give them attention in a constructive way. To do this I would try to focus most of my attention on the kids who were listening well and participating in the activity (much like in the behavior shaping articles we read for class). This drew more children in, as they were provided with reinforcement when they listened to the instructors and followed directions.
Overall, I found the experience of teaching gymnastics, yoga, and tai chi at the boys and girls club a very interesting one. I learned from the experience and I would definitely do some things differently if I were to do this project again. However, I like to think that the kids benefit from the program as well and it was certainly fun and exciting to see their skills grow from week to week.
This blog assignment has made me think about the differences between my first and last sessions at the boys and girls club, especially in terms of what I learned and what I found helpful and beneficial in working with the kids. I wanted to make note of those things for members of other groups if they happen to read my blog, but also for myself, so I will be able to look back at it and remember the lessons I learned in the future.
One of the most helpful things we decided on when we first started out was that all of the Paideia scholars would participate with all of the kids from the boys and girls club in each activity we did. This demonstrated that our activities were fun, exciting, and something everyone might want to do. It was also helpful in managing and directing the kids.
We also never tried to get everyone’s attention. Some kids will always be distracted or talking to each other, instead we tried to get the attention of the majority of the group and explained the task at that point. Eventually the kids who were previously distracted would either listen up and catch on if they were really interested or wander off to do something else if they were not really interested.
I also learned not to stress out or worry too much when some of the kids decided they did not like the activities and walked away to find something else to do. This is really important because if the kids are forced to participate in an activity they don’t want to do it is not beneficial for anyone involved.
Probably the most important thing I learned about interacting with the kids had to do with how many of them crave attention and how to give them attention in a constructive way. To do this I would try to focus most of my attention on the kids who were listening well and participating in the activity (much like in the behavior shaping articles we read for class). This drew more children in, as they were provided with reinforcement when they listened to the instructors and followed directions.
Overall, I found the experience of teaching gymnastics, yoga, and tai chi at the boys and girls club a very interesting one. I learned from the experience and I would definitely do some things differently if I were to do this project again. However, I like to think that the kids benefit from the program as well and it was certainly fun and exciting to see their skills grow from week to week.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Week One at Boys and Girls Club
For our civic engagement project I worked with a group of students in our cohort to teach kids at the boys and girls club gymnastics yoga and tai chi. I was specifically in charge of the yoga curriculum. Before our first visit to the club we went through everything we would be doing as if we were doing with the kids to work out any kinks. I think this was very helpful because it allowed us to see what potential problems might be and come up with different solutions for these potential problems. Additionally, this practice helped me to feel less nervous about working with the kids.
We arrived at the boys and girls club about 15 minutes before we planned to start our program (5pm) to be present at the club meeting. During the meeting Daniel introduced us and explained what our activity would be. He said that he wanted at least 5 students to do our activity. We felt that this was probably not the most effective means of introducing our activity, because his request made the program seem less exciting and more like something kid would “have to do”. However, Daniel also pointed out that we had brought a snack for our participants, which immediately seemed to make the activity more appealing to the kids.
When we began our program we had a huge number of kids with us. The group seemed unmanageable in a lot of ways and the situation was, at first, rather over whelming.
We found that Daniel’s advise about a thirty-minute time limit to be very accurate. The kids did seem to have pretty short attention spans and quickly got bored with many of the activities we introduced.
I personally found that being adaptable was the most important thing to making our program work. I had to adapt the way I am used to yoga classes being instructed for the kid to be best able to understand and follow what I was saying. In the yoga classes I attend (and the way I was trained to teach) the instructor simply describes or explains to students what to do for each posture. He or she may demonstrate some aspects, but this is not at all central to the class. This set up allows the instructor to walk around, see how each student is doing, and offer individual help or corrections when necessary. However, when instructing yoga at the boys and girls club I found that it was very important to demonstrate each of the yoga poses and do the poses together with the students. This is in part because the kids aren’t very willing to sit quietly and concentrate on the word you say, when they could be doing something active. Instead, I found the instruction to be most effective when the kids can see what it is they are supposed to be doing. This was a bit of a challenge for me because I had to demonstrate both the posture and breathing while explaining each step and some of the postures leave one a bit short of breath (especially if you are also demonstrating necessary breathing patterns). It seemed to work best if I gave a super-short explanation of the pose, then did my best to describe and demonstrate the pose, and finally if I did each pose and repletion together with the whole group. I found that if I did not do the pose with the students they would not do the pose at all and instead be watching and waiting to follow my lead.
Ultimately what my first session at the boys and girls club taught me was the importance of being flexible when working with kids and, of course, to always have a back up plan or two.
We arrived at the boys and girls club about 15 minutes before we planned to start our program (5pm) to be present at the club meeting. During the meeting Daniel introduced us and explained what our activity would be. He said that he wanted at least 5 students to do our activity. We felt that this was probably not the most effective means of introducing our activity, because his request made the program seem less exciting and more like something kid would “have to do”. However, Daniel also pointed out that we had brought a snack for our participants, which immediately seemed to make the activity more appealing to the kids.
When we began our program we had a huge number of kids with us. The group seemed unmanageable in a lot of ways and the situation was, at first, rather over whelming.
We found that Daniel’s advise about a thirty-minute time limit to be very accurate. The kids did seem to have pretty short attention spans and quickly got bored with many of the activities we introduced.
I personally found that being adaptable was the most important thing to making our program work. I had to adapt the way I am used to yoga classes being instructed for the kid to be best able to understand and follow what I was saying. In the yoga classes I attend (and the way I was trained to teach) the instructor simply describes or explains to students what to do for each posture. He or she may demonstrate some aspects, but this is not at all central to the class. This set up allows the instructor to walk around, see how each student is doing, and offer individual help or corrections when necessary. However, when instructing yoga at the boys and girls club I found that it was very important to demonstrate each of the yoga poses and do the poses together with the students. This is in part because the kids aren’t very willing to sit quietly and concentrate on the word you say, when they could be doing something active. Instead, I found the instruction to be most effective when the kids can see what it is they are supposed to be doing. This was a bit of a challenge for me because I had to demonstrate both the posture and breathing while explaining each step and some of the postures leave one a bit short of breath (especially if you are also demonstrating necessary breathing patterns). It seemed to work best if I gave a super-short explanation of the pose, then did my best to describe and demonstrate the pose, and finally if I did each pose and repletion together with the whole group. I found that if I did not do the pose with the students they would not do the pose at all and instead be watching and waiting to follow my lead.
Ultimately what my first session at the boys and girls club taught me was the importance of being flexible when working with kids and, of course, to always have a back up plan or two.
Monday, February 9, 2009
I Love the Brown Symposium!
I went to all of the lectures of the Brown Symposium, so it is kind of hard for me to choose two lectures to write about. Instead I will write about my three favorite; Christopher Bader and Paul Froese’s “Images of God and Views on Science: Findings from the Baylor Religion Survey, Simon Conway Morris’ “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, and David Sloan Wilson’s “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”. I think the reason I found these lectures interesting because some of the information in the lecture (and/or the discussion it prompted) surprised me.
During the Baylor Religion Survey lecture I was particularly interested (although not surprised) to learn that individuals who do not believe in God are more uncomfortable with an interaction or dialogue between science and religion than are individuals who do believe in God. I did not find this fact unusually surprising because my experience suggests that individuals who are not religious tend to have rather negative views of religion. I was also interested to hear that in higher-level education religious people are more likely to be discriminated against than are non-religious people. A third thing that interested me was the audience’s reaction to having their image of god categorized and analyzed. I felt that various individuals felt uncomfortable about the generalizations made about them and other individuals sharing their image of god. I guess it is part of our nature as humans to wish to avoid being categorized, with the hope of instead being able to justify our beliefs and actions. However, the extent to which the audience expressed discomfort with their categorization surprised me. I would like to add here that the thing I personally found most upsetting in their lecture was when they said that the average American has a good chance of not knowing that the earth revolve around the sun!!!
I particularly enjoyed Simon Conway Morris’ lecture from the perspective of (hopefully) a future scientist. I was interested to learn that the ideas Morris lectured on were in fact the exact opposite of those he held earlier in his career. I felt his lecture provided insight to the process of science and how researchers must be open to the feedback provided by their research. (Obviously my field of interest wouldn’t have gotten very far if we listened solely to Freudian thought.) I plan to try to keep Morris in mind during my future study of science as a hint to be open to theories that are new and/or different from my own. I suspect this hint will help me to be a better researcher and student, and maybe in a few years some one will finally convince me and I will believe all human behavior is a result of conditioning. :) One last item from Morris’ lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain. I am not prepared to comment on this presently because I’m not quite sure I understand it and I am still devoting a great deal of thought to the subject. However, this idea certainly had an impact on me.
I was similarly surprised by the reactions of the audience to David Sloan Wilson’s lecture. I particularly enjoyed the lecture because I thought it was extremely thought provoking and raised a number of questions I had never thought to consider. However Dr. Wilson did not hesitate in the slightest to boldly challenge traditional Christian thought. On example of this is the idea that religion is 100% a social construct. This is not a fact that surprised me (I think it is fairly obvious that God did not reach down and hand religion to humanity), however it clearly rattled a number of audience members. While I understand how this could rattle someone (my mother, who has done master level work in religion used to shock me with such statements when I was a little girl) I was surprised by the number of people who took this statement to mean God isn’t real and religion is useless, particularly considering the fact that Wilson made a point of focusing on a number of the social benefits provided by religion. Additionally, comments from the audience indicated a similar reaction to Wilson’s assertion that it is scientifically proven that there is no such thing as an active God. Clearly he meant that a God who (for example) reaches down to earth to prevent a car accident. (I know that is what he meant because he said as much.) Again audience members seemed to take this as no God, divine being, or spiritual force in the universe exists. I think this interpretation may have occurred so that people could simply decide that Wilson was ill informed and simply ignore him. That would surely be easier than reexamining their own spiritual convictions. One last item from Wilson’s lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain
I would like to note at this point that I do not by any means think that all (or even most) of the lectures' audience members share the views of audience members I represented above. I take these representations from both the questions that were asked during the lecture and discussions I have had with friends and acquaintances about their reactions to the lectures.
During the Baylor Religion Survey lecture I was particularly interested (although not surprised) to learn that individuals who do not believe in God are more uncomfortable with an interaction or dialogue between science and religion than are individuals who do believe in God. I did not find this fact unusually surprising because my experience suggests that individuals who are not religious tend to have rather negative views of religion. I was also interested to hear that in higher-level education religious people are more likely to be discriminated against than are non-religious people. A third thing that interested me was the audience’s reaction to having their image of god categorized and analyzed. I felt that various individuals felt uncomfortable about the generalizations made about them and other individuals sharing their image of god. I guess it is part of our nature as humans to wish to avoid being categorized, with the hope of instead being able to justify our beliefs and actions. However, the extent to which the audience expressed discomfort with their categorization surprised me. I would like to add here that the thing I personally found most upsetting in their lecture was when they said that the average American has a good chance of not knowing that the earth revolve around the sun!!!
I particularly enjoyed Simon Conway Morris’ lecture from the perspective of (hopefully) a future scientist. I was interested to learn that the ideas Morris lectured on were in fact the exact opposite of those he held earlier in his career. I felt his lecture provided insight to the process of science and how researchers must be open to the feedback provided by their research. (Obviously my field of interest wouldn’t have gotten very far if we listened solely to Freudian thought.) I plan to try to keep Morris in mind during my future study of science as a hint to be open to theories that are new and/or different from my own. I suspect this hint will help me to be a better researcher and student, and maybe in a few years some one will finally convince me and I will believe all human behavior is a result of conditioning. :) One last item from Morris’ lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain. I am not prepared to comment on this presently because I’m not quite sure I understand it and I am still devoting a great deal of thought to the subject. However, this idea certainly had an impact on me.
I was similarly surprised by the reactions of the audience to David Sloan Wilson’s lecture. I particularly enjoyed the lecture because I thought it was extremely thought provoking and raised a number of questions I had never thought to consider. However Dr. Wilson did not hesitate in the slightest to boldly challenge traditional Christian thought. On example of this is the idea that religion is 100% a social construct. This is not a fact that surprised me (I think it is fairly obvious that God did not reach down and hand religion to humanity), however it clearly rattled a number of audience members. While I understand how this could rattle someone (my mother, who has done master level work in religion used to shock me with such statements when I was a little girl) I was surprised by the number of people who took this statement to mean God isn’t real and religion is useless, particularly considering the fact that Wilson made a point of focusing on a number of the social benefits provided by religion. Additionally, comments from the audience indicated a similar reaction to Wilson’s assertion that it is scientifically proven that there is no such thing as an active God. Clearly he meant that a God who (for example) reaches down to earth to prevent a car accident. (I know that is what he meant because he said as much.) Again audience members seemed to take this as no God, divine being, or spiritual force in the universe exists. I think this interpretation may have occurred so that people could simply decide that Wilson was ill informed and simply ignore him. That would surely be easier than reexamining their own spiritual convictions. One last item from Wilson’s lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain
I would like to note at this point that I do not by any means think that all (or even most) of the lectures' audience members share the views of audience members I represented above. I take these representations from both the questions that were asked during the lecture and discussions I have had with friends and acquaintances about their reactions to the lectures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)