Social Thoughts for the Week

This shall be my last post before I send this blog off for printing and submit it. As cliched as it sounds, it never fails to surprise me how time really flies. Before you know it, it's been the end of three months; the last week of school officially ends this Friday. I haven't had the time to reflect on how my year as a sophomore went and I bet that before I know it, I would be starting my junior year.

Anyway, since this is technically the final post (I say technically for I would love to continue on blogging yet I would have to muster enough intrinsic motivation to do so), I thought it would be apt to reminisce on the 12 weeks of social psychology that I've been through (Tomorrow's the last day! *ehem I didn't mean to sound estatic* ).

I must say that I've learnt a lot in this course; and this is not because I'm trying to self-justify all the effort I've put in (not that it was much heh) for the sake of my self-esteem. Certainly, the most important thing that I've learnt would be to never underestimate the power of the situation – the force that drives people to do the things they do (not all, but some, in my opinion). The more fundamental lesson one can gather from social psychology would be to not leave any stone unturned in seeking answers – some things or phenomena just can't be explained through individuals.

While it has been fun learning all about social psyhological theories and principles, it has been eye-opening and enlightening as well; not forgetting to mention how easy it has been to apply social psychology to life. Even as I'm typing this now, social psychologists would probably theorize my behaviour as that of obeying authority or following a social norm and what-have-you. Yet, it would be worrying should one just stick to social psychological theories to explain everything that happens in this world of ours. We must not forget that there is a myriad of causes to anything; every individual, society or situation differs. Let me just leave with the knowledge that I've gained and integrate it with others that I've learnt, applying everything to understand more about why things happen the way they do.

Till then, I bid thee farewell.

Goodbye, we say;

Till the next time, write I may.

What I do or say,

Differs tomorrow and today.  

All Percentages

able (16%) accepting (0%) adaptable (8%) bold (0%) brave (0%) calm (16%) caring (8%) cheerful (33%) clever (8%) complex (0%) confident (33%) dependable (8%) dignified (0%) energetic (8%) extroverted (8%) friendly (33%) giving (8%) happy (16%) helpful (16%) idealistic (0%) independent (16%) ingenious (16%) intelligent (50%) introverted (0%) kind (0%) knowledgeable (25%) logical (8%) loving (0%) mature (8%) modest (0%) nervous (8%) observant (8%) organised (0%) patient (0%) powerful (0%) proud (0%) quiet (0%) reflective (0%) relaxed (0%) religious (25%) responsive (16%) searching (0%) self-assertive (8%) self-conscious (0%) sensible (41%) sentimental (0%) shy (0%) silly (0%) spontaneous (0%) sympathetic (0%) tense (0%) trustworthy (0%) warm (50%) wise (0%) witty (25%)

Created by the Interactive Johari Window on 18.3.2006, using data from 12 respondents.
You can make your own Johari Window, or view Syuhada’s full data.

———–

Just a little extra to improve my self-concept. This Johari’s Window is not very valid, for surely, my self-concept consists of more than 6 adjectives. Nonetheless, isn’t it always surprising that your self-concept is, more often than not, different from what others think of you? In my case, rather, how much of myself do I reveal to others? I’m still pretty much a closed book; a chameleon who changes with every situation, compared to a person who remains the same and true to himself/herself at all times. Of course, in social psychology, there is no such person, for they talk about the power of the situation and its influences on a person.

Still, I like to call myself adaptable, just to make myself happier.

War has always been something that intrigued me. The killings disgusted me; the cries saddened me; yet there was a far bigger question underlying it all. How could these people do it? It was something that one could go on pondering over for years and still not get an answer.

Certainly, war has evolved over the years – from fighting one-on-one in the battlefield literally to the mere pressing of a button to drop a missile or bomb on a target from up above – all of these certainly have implications on the actors. It’s much more difficult to inflict hurt, assuming one is normal and has a heart, when the intended victim is so much nearer as compared to when there is a distance between you and the victim. This is why it is so much easier (for the lack of a better word) to drop a bomb on a target. You won’t know immediately if you missed it and accidentally hit a village filled with innocent people, women and children. You won’t see immediately the horrifying consequences of your actions right in front of your eyes. The same I would say of those high-ranking officials hiding in camps and offices barking orders to just-enlisted teenage soldiers shooting in the frontline and suffering the physical and psychological consequences instead. The same I would say of governments who decide to invade/declare war/insert-euphemism-here one fine day and remain unaware of the real situation at ground zero. Power is a dangerous tool for people who do not know how to use it. Then again, who knows?

There is the principle of “obedience to authority” in war which attempts to answer the perennial question of why these ordinary people turn into heartless killers in times of war. They were not madmen; rather to quote Aronson et. al. (2005), “ordinary people exposed to extraordinary social influences” (p. 273). In the My Lai massacre, there was informational influence when the behaviour of the other soldiers made the killing seem like the right thing to do and there was normative influence when the soldiers wanted to avoid rejection by their peers and superior officers (Aronson et. al., 2005). Forget rejection, a stronger reason to obey authorities would be for personal safety reasons, ie. survive and preserve thy life. Nevertheless, the thought of how strong these pressures of conformity can be is certainly worrying; and you begin to wonder about the ramifications of obeying the wrong authority.

—————– 

Reference: Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. and Akert, R. M. (2005). Social Psychology: Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.  

For a little inspiring reading on a mother writing about My Lai Massacre to her kids, read this. Spread the peace, love and joy.

Given that Monday is the first deadline of our 3 group projects for PSYC002 – Social Psychology, I thought that it would be apt to write about group processes in today’s entry. Of course, I also would have to add that I’m terribly tired from helping out at SMU’s Open House today and therefore may not be fully coherent. (Typical self-handicapping )

We all know that some of the antecedents for groupthink to occur would be there being a directive leader and a highly cohesive group. Applying this to real-life situations, eg. groupwork in school, would groupthink be less likely to occur if the group is a self-managed team? Having taken MGMT001 Leadership & Teambuilding, we learnt that there is a difference between a team and a group, with a team being more cohesive and having a goal to work towards to versus a group where the members just work together to complete a task. Now, a self-managed team, would be a team where there is no autocratic/directive leader and everyone is equally motivated to reach their goal, which I believe is an ideal situation for teams to be successful. This then brings me to the question, does groupthink necessarily need a directive leader to occur? Or could it be that some team members are dominating the discussion, even bypassing the leader and making the leader himself susceptible to groupthink?

Ah, just some food for thought and off I go to watch the critically-acclaimed and Oscar-winning “The Pianist”. Perhaps I’ll write about it next time.

My heart breaks as I have to retype this entry all over again, thanks to technology subjecting us to its whims and fancy.

————

So I sit here horrified at 1.05 am looking at this ‘weekly’ journal filled with 4 official entries and week 9 of school has barely begun. Nonetheless, I shall try to be positive in this 5th entry, with the emphasis on the number 5 to make me slightly happier and slightly more optimistic, especially with a midterm laden with work break that has just ended.

With a midterm looming just around the corner (tomorrow!), it simply does not make sense to be staying up this late (and writing this). Do forgive me whilst I try to write some sense over here.  

I know that this is really sad, and truly I am to be pitied, for the only thing that I’m currently looking forward to is watching American Idol every week on Wed – Fri nights. Let’s try to reconcile my favourite show and social psychology, in this case, the notion of conformity.

Interestingly, the North American culture is such that it is against the idea of conformity. Individualism is a badge worn with pride and the underdog is supported, to paraphrase the textbook. Yet, studies have shown that most of these very individuals do conform, even if done so unknowingly. Putting this into perspective, and in the context of American Idol, where the winner is voted by the audience, (let us ignore the idea of producers rigging the show and what-have-you), conformity here occurs on both sides – the contestants as well as the audience voters, bringing us to a gazillion questions.

Looking at the contestants, will they try to conform to the cookie cutter of the music industry – where having talent is not enough but having the right image is necessary to succeed? Will they try to conform to the ideals of the audience, to be popular and get the votes of the audience to be the next American Idol?

As for the audience, will they conform to the people around them and support whoever is the most popular? Or will they support the underdog? Will their votes be based on talent or looks? Will their votes be based on their own critique of the contestants, or will they conform to the critiques of others? So many questions to answer, and it’s 2.07 am, perhaps at the end of the American Idol season, I will attempt to answer them.

So who shall be crowned American Idol this year? Will it be the really handsome Ace Young, whose smouldering good looks melt the hearts of girls (and gays alike) every time he sings? Will it be the really talented Taylor Hicks, who is really into singing but whose looks are far beyond his true age? Or will it be my favourite Katharine McPhee – who has the total package – great vocals and such a pretty face?

Excuse me while I watch with bated breath and ogle at the good-lookers appreciate the talent on the show.