A Glimmer of Hope in a Bad-News Survey About Bullying

Wasn't assigned this week, but nobody posted, so here goes...

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/27/a-glimmer-of-hope-in-a-bad-news-survey-about-bullying/

I'm sure that everyone has heard about the obscene number of internet bullying-related suicides in recent news. When I read chapter 8 and came to the section on deindividuation, that was the first thing I thought of. This article talks about bullying (while physically in school), and blatantly leaves out the whole concept of internet bullying which single-handedly led to the 10 suicides in September. I was shocked when I read this - clearly, the issue has gone beyond the playground, and this article gives parents/guardians a false sense of security. "A Glimmer of Hope"? Really? Do you guys think this article is an example of flawed groupthink which the textbook at one point refers to as a "social disease"?

New Blog Design w.i.p.

Hey Everyone!

Just letting you guys know that I'm working on putting up the new blog design. I'm having some problems with things like the link color etc so just bare with me for the next few days as I work on fixing up the kinks.
If there's anything that is bothering you about the new layout then let me know and I will do my best to fix it.

Thanks,
Lyla

Replicating Milgram

original article here (edited by RW 10/25/10)

http://clinicallypsyched.com/milgrim-test-replicated-electric-shock-obedience-psychology-social.html

This article is about replicating an experiment done by Stanely Milgram in 1961. It was a social experiment about obedience and asked for the participants to act as "teachers" and "learners". Teachers had to administer electric shock therapy on the learner. Groups of learners and teachers would administer shocks that they believed were real but the machine was fake. "Milgram found that, after hearing the learner's first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts." This experiment is very interesting when dealing with obedience and authority. It's hard to believe humans are so accepting of authority and social obedience. Has there ever been a situation in which you had to conform to a practice which you did not agree with?

I'm having the same problem as Yael

I think the most shocking part of this article is the line about older people still not using a condom when they knew their partner had an STI. A big part of the sex ed/driver's ed classes in my high school was the stereotype that young people think they are invincible. This study could not prove them more wrong.

I wonder what percentage of older people don't use condoms because of menopause. Pregnancy is not even a possibility for most older couples in the survey, so the only benefit of using a condom for them would be STI protection. I agree that because the younger generations grew up with the knowledge that HIV and other STIs are highly communicable, they (we) tend to protect ourselves more.

For some reason, the blog would not let me add my comment, so I am just writing the comment as a post.

You wouldn't think the people preaching to us about what not to do, would be participating in those same activities themselves. It does make sense that older folk who are going back out into the dating world after divorce, or being widowed would not be as protective with sex. As mentioned in the article they have been spoiled, and I guess they forget that they are with a new partner who has new things, such as an std, that they may not know about. It's really interesting to think that more teenagers are being safer about sex than adults. Because our generation has grown up with extremely progressive science, we are constantly learning about knew things that are harmful. We've grown up knowing about the effects of smoking, the possibility of becoming pregnant of getting and stds without proper protection, and things of that nature, whereas people from older generations, were not exposed to the same information. Although they are now aware of these things, I think growing up without having them being drilled into your constantly by parents, media, etc. has an impact on your decisions later on in life. Because our friends and people of our age are the people we normally talk to about sex, there are a lot similarities, but when it comes to someone who is 20 or 30 years older than us, that is a different territory, which we normally don't think about or talk about. After reading this article though, it does seem like we should be the ones lecturing the people ages 40-100 about safe sex.

Study of American Sex Habits Suggests Boomers Need Sex Ed

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/04/study-suggests-boomers-need-sex-ed/

We've been talking a lot about attitudes and stereotypes in class. As former high school students, we all know what it's like to have awkward sex talks with parents/guardians where they assume you're being reckless when it comes to sex. This article debunks this stereotype, suggesting that older generations could benefit from a sex talk, whereas the vast majority of 14-17 year olds that are having sex, are using condoms. It seems like the first step to changing some gaping, inaccurate attitudes/stereotypes about teens.

How Stereotypes Defeat the Stereotyped

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1897009,00.html

This article talks about the new study of older individuals being affected in a negatively way because of stereotypes, and also how easy stereotype threats compel people to work against themselves. The article goes on to talk about how just reminding older individuals that they are members of a stigmatized group, really dampens their performance upon a test given. Older individuals taking the same test that were not reminded of their stigmatized group did significantly better on the same test. The study shows that the individuals that were told and reminded of their "elderly" stereotype, worried about their advanced age, which intern affected their performance. Interestingly, people between the ages of 60 and 70 were far more susceptible to stereotype threats than those ages 71 to 82. The article explains that this is because those people have just entered their 7th decade are are more sensitive to the stereotype than those who have already been considered old for a decade. Recent research has found that positive reenforcement about one's stereotype may just be as effective as any negative stereotype threat.