Monday, October 29, 2007

whats mainstream? obesity, heart disease, diabetes, ADHD

There was an article in the Australian Magazine on the weekend explaining how a new study has come out to say that exercise it pointless because it wont make you lose weight... what scientist was doing this experiment? i think its been a well known fact the exercise does a lot for your body on top of losing fat!

Today there are so many mixed messages being sent to the public. We are told the exercise to lose weight then NO Dont bother it actually wont help, Obesity is caused by eating too much fat and then no its actually genetic and there is nothing you can do about it, Dont give kids sugar because it will make them crazy then dont worry about it coz sugar makes no difference, if you have high cholesterol then change your diet but wait no need to change your diet just TAKE LOTS OF DRUGS! Heart disease is the same, acne is the same athletes foot, the flu, etc etc ALL THE SAME ....there are so many health problems out there these days...so many ways of fixing everything but underlying it all is the Pharmaceutical companies making money out of selling sickness and selling drugs. Notice that no company has ever designed a tablet that will fix the problem with one dose??? they create these drugs that need to be taken every single day for the rest of your life!

i'm not saying that medicine is a bad thing, in many ways we have been so lucky to have it and the advances it has made in our world BUT there comes a time when we have to say how much is too much? do i really need to be taking drugs for my asthma, diabetes, arthritis, headaches, and hayfever?

WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR DIETS...what are we putting into our bodies? i bet your poor little body doesnt like it very much...and oh yeah and we need to get off our lazy backsides and start exercising.

why do so many people just not get it?



http://youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg

check out this video it makes a lot of sense!

Sunday, October 28, 2007

BLOG TWO: Ethnocentrism

What is ethnocentrism? Why does it occur? Under what conditions is ethnocentrism likely to be maximised?

Introduction

Ethnocentrism is the extreme view that one’s own way of living, their values, patterns and beliefs are superior and correct compared to those of others (AllAboutPhilosophy.org, 2007). Human beings generally favour their own groups which builds solidarity and peace within the in-group (Brauer, 2000; Le Vine & Campbell, 1972). Ethnocentrism creates negative evaluations about out-groups (Cunningham et al. 2004), and they are usually made prematurely and no time is taken out to actually learn about the out-group (Barton, 2001, para. 3). Ethnocentric behaviour can be hostile, derogative and at times violent towards an out-group (Brauer, 2000). Everyone is ethnocentric, it is an innate characteristic and it cannot be avoided because human beings unconsciously make assumptions about other people based on our own limited experiences and understanding of life (Barger, 2004, para. 2; Cunningham et al. 2004). Our experiences influence the way in which we interpret new people and new situations (Barger, 2004, para. 2). Ethnocentrism can distort communication between groups, which can increase hostility and tension in interactions (Culbertson, 2001, para. 1). There are a number of theories within social psychology which explain how ethnocentrism can be maximised. These theories include frustration-aggression, realistic conflict, relative deprivation and social identity. Within this essay I will look at these four theories and how they relate to three events within Australia’s history; the Cronulla Riots, the Australian Gold Rush and the implementation of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, and how each of these events has increased in ethnocentrism.


Frustration-Aggression Theory

The Frustration-Aggression theory suggests that anger arises when people feel they are being unfairly treated, causing intergroup conflict and increasing ethnocentrism (Grant & Brown, 1995).
In 2005, approximately 5000 people gathered in Cronulla for a protest against a number of confrontations between groups of white Australians and groups of people of Middle Eastern appearance. The weekend before the protest three off-duty lifeguards had been assaulted by a group of men of Middle Eastern appearance. The protest began peacefully, however became violent after a group of white Australians chased a man of Middle Eastern appearance into a hotel and a number of youths of Middle Eastern appearance were assaulted on a train. These incidences were followed up by a series of violent attacks in retaliation near Cronulla and Maroubra.
This story is a prime example of the Frustration-Aggression theory. Le Vine and Campbell (1972) suggest that frustration from an act of aggression generates further aggression. This is evident in the acts of white Australians chasing the man into the hotel and assault of the youths on the train, in retaliation to the assault on the lifeguards. Le Vine and Campbell (1972) also state that aggression can build up over repeated frustrations. The purpose of the initial protest was to bring awareness to a number of confrontations between these groups of peoples. Evidently, aggression had culminated from the repeated attacks between the two groups. The large crowd in protest gave way to diffusion of responsibly along with deindividuation which saw the occurrence of aggressive outbursts by the crowd (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
Ethnocentrism was maximised in this situation as each group made negative evaluations and stereotypes regarding the other group (Cunningham et al. 2004). Each group built up their own pride and vanity by judging themselves with superior morality, by looking at the other group with contempt and behaving with hostility and violence (Le Vine & Campbell, 1972).


Realistic Conflict Theory

The Realistic Conflict theory proposes that when there is a threat to valued resources ethnocentrism will build between groups (Grant & Brown, 1995).
During he Australian Gold Rush in the 1850s and 1860s thousands of people travelled from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Europe, China and North America to mine gold and by 1854 there were approximately 25,000 people camping throughout the Ballart fields and the surrounding regions. With a large influx of Chinese immigrants there was a lot of curiosity from Australian and European diggers, however, as areas for mining became scarce conflicts arose between the different nationalities. The Chinese were often brutally attacked, many being murdered or dying from subsequent injuries (Jayaraman, 2000).
Le Vine and Campbell (1972) stated that intergroup conflict increases when the resources are greatly valued and the conflicting parties have the most to gain by victory. The Realistic Conflict theory suggests that with the lack of mining resources, which were extremely valued, conflict arose (Le Vine & Campbell, 1972). Ethnocentrism also increased as the Australian and European diggers believed themselves to be superior to the Chinese (Jayaraman, 2000) and possibly thought that they had more right to the land and gold. The threat of the Chinese would have increased the Australian and European diggers’ solidarity within their groups and their personal dislike for the Chinese (Le Vine & Campbell, 1972) which in turn increased ethnocentrism.


Relative Deprivation Theory

The concept of Relative Deprivation explains that we can feel we are worse off than others with whom we compare ourselves (Myers, 2007)
In looking again at the Australian Gold Rush the theory of Relative Deprivation would suggest that the groups could have felt deprived of the opportunity to find gold because of the massive influx of immigrants, especially if those immigrants were finding a lot of gold in their land plots. For this reason ethnocentrism between the groups would have been maximised and their interactions with the immigrants would have become hostile and evidently, violent (Grant & Brown, 1995).




Social Identity Theory

The Social Identity theory suggests that if an out-group threatens the identification of an in-group, conflict and ethnocentrism will increase (Grant & Brown, 1995).
In 2001, Steven Bracks, the premier for Victoria, introduced a Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, otherwise known as a Vilification Law. In theory the act was supposed to promote tolerance between groups, prohibiting vilification of any race or religion, and providing compensation for victims of vilification. Instead the law made freedom of speech and rights to personal belief and opinions illegal, and it promoted tension between racial and religious groups. Countries such as France are a prime example of how the Vilification law encourages ethnocentrism and discrimination between groups. Since the law was implemented in France it has created “mini nations” within the country (Nahllia, 2007). The law has brought about the formation of ethnic territories where people cannot enter if they do not belong to the ethnic group. The Vilification law has, ultimately, created division between the different ethnic groups within France (Nahllia, 2007). In Australia, the introduction of the law into Victoria promoted an increase in the divide between many religious groups, including the well-known case between the Christian church and the Islamic Council of Victoria.
Under the Racial and Religious Tolernace Act 2001, if any group felt that they were being socially threatened they could claim victimisation to vilification and take the ‘threatening’ group to court. The Law maximised ethnocentrism as it increased in-group feelings of superiority, but also victimisation, and therefore their hostility towards out-groups. The Act also provided a legal or ‘socially acceptable’ approach of attacking any out-group that the in-group did not like. There was a lot of criticism to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and in 2006 it was nullified in the Australian High Court.


Conclusion

Ethnocentrism is the view that one’s own culture is superior to any other way of living (Le Vine & Campbell, 1972). Ethnocentrism creates tension and hostility between groups and at times can be the cause of violent acts towards an out-group. Ethnocentrism is a characteristic within all people and it cannot be avoided (Barger, 2004, para. 2). As explained throughout this essay, four social psychology theories, frustration-aggression, realistic conflict, relative deprivation and social identity, support the concept of ethnocentrism and how it can be maximised. Throughout the history of Australia there have been a number of events, the Cronulla riots, the Australian Gold Rush and the implementation of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which have maximised ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is destructive and causes division between groups. It is a psychological concept that needs to be further understood in order help empathize with groups in which interaction occurs and so to reduce hostility and tension that may arise.




References

AllAboutPhilosophy.org (2007). Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism - is there a biblical alternative to these two extremes? http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/common/printable-ethnocentrism-faq.htm
Date accessed: 25/10/2007

Barton, J. (2001). Ethnocentrism. http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory36.htm,
Date accessed: 25/10/2007

Barger, K. (2004). Ethnocentrism. What is it? Why are people ethnocentric? What is the problem? What can we do about it? http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm
Date accessed: 25/10/2007

Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth

Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context: The effects of social status and group membership on perceived out-group homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 15-31

Culbertson, H. (2001) Why is ethnocentrism bad? http://home.snu.edu/~HCULBERT/ethno.htm
Date accessed: 25/10/2007

Cunningham, W.A., Nezlek, J.B. & Banaji, M.R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the ideologies of prejudice. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology Inc., 30(10), 1332-1346

Grant, P.R. & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 195-212

Jayaraman, R. (2000). Inclusion and exclusion: An analysis of the Australian immigration history and ethnic relations. Journal of Popular Culture, 34(1), 135-155

Le Vine, R.A. & Campbell, D.T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behaviour. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Myer, D.G. (2007). Psychology (8th Edition). New York, NY: Worth Publishers

Nahllia, D. (2007). Sermon. Unpublished Recording. The Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd. Curtin, ACT

Perreault, S. & Bourhis, R.Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination [Electronic version]. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc., 25 (1), 92-103

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Praise the Lord that the Australian Church fought to discredit the Vilification Laws in Australia and our right to Freedom of Speech and Won! If they hadn't we would not enjoy the freedom that we live in where we can debate and stand up for what we believe in! The fact that this law has been discredited in most parts of australia and will NEVER be passed in federal government means that we will never be made to give up the values and beliefs that Australia is founded on for the wants of others who come into our country thinking that their culture or their religion is superior to ours.
Ethnocentrism is dangerous when we receive aggression and hostility in our own nation, when our values and ways of living are discriminated against by others who have contempt for who we are as a nation.
Like the bumper sticker says 'Australia, if you dont like it go back to where you came from!'

Monday, September 10, 2007

Blog 2 topics - Confluence

Blog 2 topics - Confluence: "Ethnocentrism What is ethnocentrism? Why does it occur? Under what conditions is ethnocentrism likely to be maximised? "

this will be such an interesting topic because even within foreign countries ethnic groups can believe that they are superior to the natives living in the land....

there was a law passed in australia (the name of it escapes me) that made it illegal to say anything against any religion or nationality and people were put in jail for making any comment. one man went to jail for a comment he made about muslims in view of christianity. when he we released he fought for the law to be abolished and after 5 years of fighting and going all the way to the supreme court he won and the law was finally abolished.

this law has been passed in other countries, for example, France and because of it different nationalities and religions within the countries are not safe to speak out about others. ethnic groups live in certain areas and stick together. it is at a point that if you are of a particular nationality or religion you shouldnt enter other peoples areas because you could be attacked or killed. thats pretty extreme!

imagine what australia would be like if that law remained. we may not be the country we are today...FREE and allowed to speak out about what we believe in. Multiculturalism is special but i do believe it has a dangerous side and this is what i want to explore through this topic!

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Blog 1: What are the environmental (situational) explanations for aggression?


Aggression is a behaviour or action motivated by the intention to harm another person who wishes to avoid the inflicted harm (Parrot & Giancola 2007). There are a number of types of aggression including active, passive, hostile and instrumental (Baumeister & Bushman 2008). Active aggression is defined as the harming of another by performing a particular behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman). Passive aggression is the intent to harm another by withholding a behaviour or action (Baumeister & Bushman). Hostile aggression is impulsive and the desired goal is to inflict injury to the victim (Baumeister & Bushman). Finally, instrumental aggression is the intentional use of a harmful behaviour motivated by another goal (Baumeister & Bushman). All types of aggression are caused by internal and external factors which influence an individual’s reaction to a situation (Myers 2007). External or environmental factors used to cause aggression include personal observation and modelling, mass media and propaganda, and victimization. The Ghosts of Rwanda and Jane Elliot’s Australian Eye both provide insight into the environmental provocations of aggression.

Aggression can be learned by observing and modelling the aggressive and violent behaviours of others (Myers 2007). Research indicates that people who witness the rewarding of aggressive behaviours are more likely to replicate those actions (Baumeister & Bushman 2008). The Blue Eyed Brown Eyed experiment conveyed this occurrence as Jane Elliot’s discriminatory behaviour towards the blue eyed group was copied by the members of the brown eyed group (Robins & Cullen 2002). Elliot aimed to establish a “pecking order” within the experimental group. Elliot’s goal was to set brown eyed people apart from blue eyed people by building brown eyed people up and engendering a feeling of worthlessness within the blue eyed group. The brown eyed members immediately began to put-down and insult the blue eyed group because they felt superior and encouraged by Jane Elliot to behave in that manner. The aggressive behaviour of the brown eyed group was interesting as many of the members were Aboriginals who had been discriminated against by white Australians throughout their lives and personally did not agree with that treatment. The Blue Eyed Brown Eyed exercise explained how an environment promoting discrimination and racism can encourage aggressive behaviours among groups of people almost instantaneously.

Aggression between groups can be encouraged by the means of mass media. Mass media is an extremely influential tool used to instigate instrumental aggression. Instrumental aggression is a cold, premeditated behaviour with the aim to bring about an end which is considered necessary (Baumeister & Bushman 2008). During the civil war and genocide in Rwanda radios were used to campaign for the killing of all Tutsi people (Des Forges 1999). “War legitimates such extreme violence that it can make aggrieved or opportunistic citizens feel licensed to target their neighbours” (Power 2002). The propaganda justified the targeting and killing of non-violent Tutsis by instilling a belief in the Hutus that they would became a problem for the nation of Rwanda. Dutton, Boyanowsky and Bond (2005) explain that violence towards target groups is advanced by the belief that the target group had an unfair advantage over the perpetrators in the past and therefore violence is justified as revenge. The Hutu propagandists took a party line which conditioned hatred in the Hutu people for the Tutsi tribe by telling the Hutus that the Tutsis were foreign invaders bent on turning the Hutus into slaves as they had in previous times (Barker 2004). Radio broadcasts instructed Hutu people to set up barriers to stop Tutsis escaping the country and search out Tutsis with the soul purpose of killing (Des Forges). The propaganda told the Hutu people that Tutsis were going to try and kill them and so Hutus should carry a gun at all times and endeavoured to kill any Tutsi person whom they came across (Barker). Using the Radio airwaves was a calculated action on the behalf of the Hutu government with an aim of wiping out the Tutsi tribe by encouraging the Hutus to kill any Tutsi tribe members.

Victimization and experiencing unpleasant treatment such as personal insults, or feelings of social exclusion can cause humiliation and self-worthlessness, which subsequently encouraging aggressive behaviours from those who are being victimized (Myers 2007). For some of the members in the Blue eyed group from Elliot’s experiment this was very apparent. Hostile and passive aggressions were both observed throughout the Australian Eye documentary. Two of the participants, Caroline and Jack, became hostile almost immediately when treated in a discriminatory way (Robins & Cullen 2002). The videorecording showed how Jack became hostile towards Elliot as soon as he entered the room. He stood at the back of the room and would not comply with the instructions which Elliot was issuing. When he tried to sit in chair which he was not allowed to sit in he became rude and eventually walked out of the program (Robins & Cullen). In an interview following his exit, Jack said that he with his personality he could not handle the manner in which Elliot treated him (Robin & Cullen). Another participant, Caroline, also behaved aggressively toward Elliot when she could not handle the way she was being treated. Caroline was impolite and replied angrily to questions directed towards her; however she remained in the experiment (Robins & Cullen).
Passive aggression was also observed within during the exercise. One man, Irving, did not handle the belligerent style in which Elliot addressed him and therefore would not obey Elliot’s instructions (Robins & Cullen). Although he did not act hostilely or rudely toward Elliot, he purposefully disobeyed her as a way of undermining what she was trying to achieve in the group (Robins & Cullen).

Aggression is a behaviour motivated by the intention to harm another person. Environmental factors influence an individual’s aggressive motivations and reactions to a particular situation. Aggression can be learned by observing and copying how other’s deal with situations. It can be encouraged through media and propaganda programs which instil particular beliefs in individuals and communities. Aggression can also arise as a reaction to victimisation and discriminatory treatment. Situations and environmental factors have a large impact on how aggression develops in individuals.


REFERENCE LIST:

Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J. 2008 Social psychology and human nature, Belmont, C.A.: Thomson Wadsworth

Barker, G. 2004. Ghosts of Rwanda [video]. USA, Frontline

Des Forges, A. Leave none to tell the story, New York: Human Rights Watch
Dutton, D.G., Boyanowsky, E.O., Bond, M.H. 2005. “Extreme mass homicide: From military massacre to genocide”, Aggression and violent behaviour, vol. 10(4); 437-473

Myers, D.G. 2007, Psychology (8th edn), New York: Worth Publishers

Parrott, D.J., Giancola, P.R. 2007, “Addressing ‘the criterion problem’ in the assessment of aggressive behaviour: Development of a new taxonomic system”, Aggression and violent behaviour, vol.12; 280-299

Power, S. 2002. A problem in hell, America and the age of genocide. New York: Harper Collins Perennial


NOTE: Photo Link to concept map. you will need to click open link and image will appear larger.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

european invasion of tribal countries

its amazing that time and time again history has shown that when Europeans invade tribal countries and try to enforce their way of life the existing inhabitants struggle with it and really don't want to stop living the way they have always done for thousands of years. we see the devastating affects that the English had on the aboriginals in Australia and the repercussions are still seen today. the same is true for the Hutus and the Tutsis tribes in Rwanda. the Belgians came in and because they showed favouritism towards the Tutsis aggression and hostility built up between the two tribes, which led to the horrific massacre in Rwanda in 1994. Jane Elliot's experiment also shows how even such a small difference in features such as blue and brown eyes can be used to cause racism and ultimately extreme hurt or if taken too far violence and death.

what a world we live in... humans have so much ability to show kindness and overwhelming love to others yet we chose to discriminate, hate people for no reason, cause division within ourselves and kill each other because we can... i don't think there is any other animal in all of creation who would want to harm one another like we do!

i've just attached an article from BBC News giving a quick over view of the history of the country and why the genocide happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

Thursday, July 26, 2007

I've decided that i would like to do the social self question and so i thought i'd follow bec's lead and tell you all a little about myself!
I' 21 years old and i've lived in Canberra, on the southside since i was three so this is my home! I still live with my parents who i'm really close to along with my sister and brother... we are a really strong christian family and having this upbringing has had a massive impact on my life and my beliefs and values. Having my faith has taught my a lot about who i want to be now and who i want to evolve into as i grow throughout the rest of my life.
I'm currently in my last semester of Human Nutrition. At the end of last semester i became interested in the psychology behind people and their eating habits and food addictions. i think the psychology of people and how they relate to food is really important because it can impact how they see themselves, without any realistion on their part. there are so any food issues out there...obesity, anorexia and bullemia to name a few...and psycology plays a massive role in hs problems or diseases. i also want to find outmoreaout people and their relionships to food and how social situations can impact them...Hopefully that makes some sense.
what else... i'm also getting married at the end of this year. this has been an exciting life decision and upcoming change. i know it will continue to influence who i am and will be!

there is so much more that i'll have to figure out how to word everything else there is to know about me...its actually not that easy! love to hear your comments...thank you

rosie

Thursday, July 19, 2007

testing...testing...

this is my first test blog!