Small Talk or a Longing for Nice Words?

In class we acknowledged our seemingly superficial interactions with others in life after reading what Thoreau thinks in Walden “We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other. We meet at meals three times a day, and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we are.”
Thoreau is arguing that many times we only talk and see each other for the sake of talking and seeing each other, not because we actually have a strong need to reminisce with this person. I see this everyday in my life and the lives of my friends around me sitting down for dinner and making conversation that seems too trivial, making small talk with people you kind of know, that repetitive conversation that comes every day or so “how are you?.. “I’m fine, you?”.
We all know we do this, but the question is why, when many of us don’t care about the questions we are asking?
I have come to a conclusion that we use this form of communication to fill an emotional void of a desire for a connection to others. If we didn’t engage in this small talk there would be no kind words from strangers and faces that are familiar, to fill our days.
If people decided to stop replying or asking the same artificial questions then our days would be faced with less human interaction which is what we long for. It is the fact that we are asking at all genuinely or not, makes the days go by more pleasant.

The Herd

I was saddened to hear the news this holiday weekend about the mob of bargain hungry shoppers on Black Friday that killed a Long Island Wal-Mart employee. The idea that people were willing to lose all self-control enough to end up killing and injuring others in order to buy “bargains,” is a frightening picture of the people of our nation. Even in a time of financial peril where to some every dollar has more value we see ourselves spending our money instead of saving, which points to the extreme pressure upon this society as a whole that says consumerism is the way to go. People are so encouraged in so many ways (TV ads, magazine spreads, fashion magazines etc, etc) to keep buying mindlessly. This idea of so many conforming, because of what surroundings says is the right thing to do sharply contradicts Emerson who believes that “Who so would be a man, must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself and you shall have the suffrage of the world,” as said in Self-Reliance. Emerson thinks that a great man cannot come to be by following the crowd . That this conformity seen in wanting these possessions and literally following the herd for these possessions speaks of the decadence of our society.

Key to Winning

During class last week my ears sprang up as Mrs. Logan was about to announce the key to winning a debate every time. If you are in control of the framing of the debate and how the questions are phrased then it is undeniable that you would win. At the time this suggestion was not crystal clear to me. I was confused as to how exactly this would work out. At home this idea became apparent to me as my dad was asking me about my dinner “You didn’t eat your asparagus did you?” which, was followed by my mom’s side comment “you have to eat it, why didn’t you?” I actually had eaten all the asparagus and before I had time to answer, these assumptions were made. The way my dad framed the question made it seem as though I did not. By putting an implication in the question, made the suggestion seem like the truth. If my dad phrased the question “did you eat your asparagus?” Then the slate would have been clear of a biased question that wouldn’t trick others into thinking it had to be the truth.

On the scale of a dinner table argument, what they thought did not really have much of an importance, but imagine if an actual question of relative importance was phrased on a large scale. The public could go along wrongfully believing a mistaken point of view, because of the fragment of the question.In general this would always work, except in some cases.

Recently vice Presidential candidate Biden did an interview for an Orlando television station. The interviewer Barbara West asked some probing questions, which gained a significant amount of media attention. Her questions were formatted in a skewed way in which she would not be offering a neutral base for viewers to rightfully judge. Barbara asked if Biden recognized this famous quote, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” By associating Karl Marx to the question she is implanting the idea of communism in the minds of viewers before the viewers can even hear another side. If a question sways one way then that is the same as giving one point of view a platform. If Barbara had been more professional she simply would have asked about Obama’s plan of spreading the wealth. Phrasing the question of a debate or argument can make a win, but in this case Barbara went too far. She was too obvious and her questions did not come off subtle by blatantly comparing Obama to Marx.

Even though formulating a question to win an argument is guaranteed in swaying people, there is still an art in doing it right.Less conscious viewers could have taken those randomly implanted references to Marx to heart and made up their minds before the question was asked. The media attention that this interview received gives me confidence for our nation’s inability to just listen and not question.

Deal or No Deal:The Making of an Idealist?

While watching the nationally aired television show Deal or No Deal on NBC, I started to notice some similarities in the decision making process compared to what we have been learning about idealism and pragmatism in class. The basic premise of the show is that there are twenty one cases each consisting of a different monetary value. The values are known at the start of the game, but which case contains what value is unknown. The contestant picks a case that they hope has the most value to hold on to. Then the player chooses other cases each at a time to remove them from play, the cases amounts are then instantly disclosed. By the process of elimination the monetary value in the case the player picked to hold on to is gradually revealed. During the game the banker offers the player an amount of money to quit the game. This offer is based on the amounts remaining in play.
This man like many others on Deal or No Deal made a choice that can almost always be seen on this show, but none the less shocks me every time. There were 8 plays still remaining only one was over the offer the banker gave. He had less than a ten percent chance to end up with more money than the banker would offer. The most sense would have been to take the offer. Why he didn’t could be as simple as putting him into one of two categories, an idealist or a pragmatist. Going against all practical odds for a small chance for a lot of money risking any money at all could define an idealist. It would seem that in general most people would be more sensible then end up walking away with considerably less based on an irrational whim. Recalling other Deal or No Deal shows the pattern of looking past logic is constant. From many of the episodes I have seen, this happens which makes me think there could be more than idealists and pragmatists, since I imagine the majority of people couldn’t be that idealistic. Maybe the crowd cheering and the incessant excitement creates an ambience of anything is possible, which could possibly fuel this hope in an idealistic ending, which hardly ever happens. An idealist could be made in his or her surroundings. Even though I see the logic behind taking the banker’s reasonable offer, I might be in a different state of mind when being cheered on and watched by millions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggERMTeC14A

A Modern Day Witch Hunt

During the Crucible reading I could not help but relate this part of history to an account that is occurring now that seems to echo the witch hunt and overall mood of the public. Weeks after 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed and put into effect. The fear of terrorists after the attacks was vast and spreading within the people of our nation. Even though the overall sentiment of panic is not as strongly felt as the days after the 9/11 attacks, the fear in people is still lingering. The Patriot Act gives the government the authority to access your tax records, the books you check out, wire tapping your phone, the right to break into your home, followed by many other new laws that are not in line with the constitution. All of these searches are now done in the hope of finding terrorists before they plan attacks.
The Patriot Act seems to soothe many minds of fear that terrorists will no longer harm, securing that everything is being done to combat them. The dread built in people that still resides after 9/11 mirrors the fright that people had in the witch hunts of 1692. The panic led to rash decisions to do absolutely everything to contest this, which ultimately led to the unwarranted deaths of nineteen people. In times of panic it seems that minds become fragile and more susceptible to going along with in justices in times of terror because the immediate effect is comforting. Many citizens of Salem were not seen questioning the unproven claims that led to the deaths of community members can easily parallel citizens now sitting alongside the Patriot act unquestionably, but comforted.

Racism in Hockey?

Spotting my brother sporting a Black Hawks jersey stirred up my thoughts on the propriety of the Native American mascot the hockey team portrays. The mascot that is always seen hand in hand with the team is seen with face paint and feathers. The Black Hawks logo portrays a common typecast that seems to define the Native American people in the public eye, a traditional man at a Pow-wow ceremony. This evidently does a meager job of defining the contemporary Native American or culture of the people. After reading Reservation Blues, I feel that I have become alert of narrow-minded portrayals of ethnic groups. I have been to a few Black Hawk games and I now find myself baffled as to why I never questioned the mascot before. The recognition of the mascot being offensive made me ask myself ‘how is this mascot possible in a world of politically correct statements?’ and ‘Why have I not heard the stories of Native American groups protesting the mascot?’ My Google news search only yielded two stories on Native American groups protesting the mascot. It was clear and disappointing to find out that the media has no drive to cover these stories or make much fuss over this issue. I can not imagine other ethnic mascots parading around defining a people without being deemed racist by the media. A nationally recognized sports team having an African American Mascot would not seem to fly without a hostile response from the public. It makes me wonder why the Native American version is any different and is not getting any response from the media or in least being discussed. A whole culture of a spirited people reduced to a stereo type parading around on the level of an animal mascot is distressing, but even more so paired with a silence from the public.