#in turn had such a negative effect that it outweighs the original intent | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

unchartedtrivia · 4 years ago

Text

War criminal. A psychopath. A man whose crimes are unimaginable.Or perhaps a cunning, clever manipulator who knows exactly what to do to make people stop digging into the subje:readmorect aand stop “biting at his heels”?

CHARACTER TRAITS:

- Boldness: low fear, high stress tolerance, tolerance of unfamiliarity and danger, high self-confidence, social assertiveness. Typical character traits for a soldier. Importantly, these are considered psychopathic traits. They do not directly qualify someone as a psychopath, but they are traits that are in the spectrum.

- He is curious of the world and his enemies. He is an intelligent man who does not believe in paranormal and supernatural phenomena that “can’t be explained” and has no evidence for it unless he is confronted with hard facts and reality. It’s visible while Nate and Flynn were terrified by Yeti - Shambhala guardians. Lazarević was the one who was calm and didn’t hesitate to kill it with cold blood, even if he didn’t meet this sort of enemy earlier. He was still aware of the threat, but he didn’t hesitate to move forward. He was the only one who didn’t believe in supernatural surroundings and paranormal creatures like the yeti. And only Zoran realized that yetis were actually human.

- He isn’t completely lacking of empathy (it is visible in the scene of Jeff’s death).

- Lazarević thinks long-term, looking ahead and anticipating various scenarios, more and less favorable. The advantages and potential benefits must always outweigh the disadvantages and losses. Everything must be carefully thought out. If something does not go according to plan, he can adjust quickly.

- He knows all the psychological tricks. (more in PHILOSOPHY)

- Patient - he looked for Cintamani stone for more than a few years.

- Able to work with others, but only as commander-subordinate.

- Is very sensitive to disloyalty, disobedience and betrayal.

PHILOSOPHY:

- Everything can be used against you. If the enemy knows anything about you, he will try to use it. If you show you care about something, others will take advantage of it. The less is known, the better.

- Don’t show emotions, feelings, don’t care about anything. This is the safest way.

- Violence and terror are only tools. He uses violence to show his power, terrify his enemies, influence them and pressure his subordinates. He uses it deliberately, on purpose. Violence is supposed to create his image in the eyes of others, like PR. It suggest that Lazarević is an experienced manipulator who knows all the psychological tricks.

- He does not do anything without a reason - everything must have its purpose, effect and outcome, even threats and insults (vide the scene where he terrified Flynn with the Phurba dagger)

- Emotions are also a weapon. He doesn’t show regret, remorse or positive emotions. Most of the time he is calm. Anger is meant to terrify or pressure others. It’s visibly in the scene with Flynn (as above).

ORIGINS:

According to wiki, Zoran Lazarević is Serbian; judging by his appearance, he is about 50 years old or not much older. At the time, Yugoslavia was part of the Soviet Union; there were common rules and principles, such as compulsory military conscription at age 18 and a “bachelor tax” (tax on not having children).

Why am I mentioning this? Because it sheds some light on his character. It is likely that after the age of 18 he was conscripted into the military, with which he later associated his life. Given his character traits, he was excellent material for a soldier and later a commander. And judging by his knowledge and skills, he was gradually promoted to special services like the KGB, where he was taught to manipulate others, not to succumb to pressure and mental and emotional blackmail. He can also use other means of mental coercion - blackmail and psychological pressure, intimidation, etc.

If we consider the English - that is, the original language version of the series - we can assume that Lazarević had a good understanding of English, not necessarily just because the language of the game requires it. His vocabulary, grammar and very strong accent prove that he knew bookish language, rather not used in everyday situations. This confirms Lazarević’s special status - he was most likely taught the language in a more “traditional” way, rather than by learning the language in an English-speaking environment. The creators even took care of such a small detail.

DID HE HAD FAMILY - WIFE OR/AND KIDS?

Lazarević is a man who openly shows “I have no weaknesses (PHILOSOPHY). The past, feelings, emotions - he hides everything.

So would he start a family and have children if it could be used against him one day, especially if he was an intelligence officer?

No. It seems highly questionable to me, given his life philosophy and lifestyle. He is a man with clear priorities and life goals, and a family would be an obstacle to achieving that plan.

(Interestingly, the "original” Lazarević, not his skin, available in the game, has a black patch with a black hand sign instead of an emblem on his shoulder. I dare to think that this is a reference to the Serbian secret organization “Black Hand” which assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. And going by a source from wikipedia, Lazarevic’s uniform from Uncharted 4 multi suggests he may have been a KGB volunteer).

BECOMING A LEGEND

The war in Yugoslavia and the division of the Republic of Yugoslavia into individual states were the first serious “test” of Lazarević’s abilities; already then he began to build his legend of a merciless man who does not hesitate to commit even the gravest crimes. Lazarević probably already foresaw that after the fall of Yugoslavia, he would become a nobody and the secret services would start hunting him down.

NATO BOMBING

Lazarević thinks long term, looking ahead and anticipating various scenarios, more or less favorable. The advantages and potential benefits must always outweigh the disadvantages and losses.

Strange that he didn’t foresee the NATO raid, isn’t it?

Why would a man of his kind, with his character traits, high intelligence and experience not guess that such an action would be carried out against him? To count on it not happening would be naive, to say the least, and not in Lazarević’s style. He is the kind of person who always has to have everything precisely planned.

Let’s think about this: NATO obtains the location of Lazarević’s hideout and he knew it. He had time to organize equipment and people, etc. At the same time, it is a chance to give up identity and be declared dead - especially if the body cannot be identified or found. The benefits outweigh the potential risks.

Interestingly, it seems to me that not everything went quite according to Lazarević’s plan. Why? Because, as we see in the first scenes in the game featuring him, he is very sensitive to disloyalty and betrayal; he says “I’m surrounded by traitors and fools!”.

It isn’t a fact, but my own assumption: “someone” has betrayed his hideout and passed information to NATO? Or - if Lazarević decided himself to reveal the hiding place - perhaps the potential “traitor” gave NATO the real, factual information? This would throw up an interesting thread explaining why he is so sensitive to lack of loyalty. It is possible that he foresaw what would happen, but NATO or the traitor took him by surprise. It would also show that despite his preparation for various situations, he never considered diversion within his own ranks. But, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, it’s my own assumption.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR LAZAREVIC KNEW ABOUT NATO’S INTENTIONS:

- He always has to have everything planned.

- He anticipates situations long term, thinks ahead.

- Considering him dead or missing is a benefit that outweighs the risk.

ARGUMENTS FOR WHY LAZAREVIC DIDN’T KNOW:

- He never considered treachery in his own ranks (which is why he reacts so negatively to his subordinate’s attitude).

BECOMING A LIVING LEGEND, FEAR AND MADMAN

It wasn’t long before he was branded a madman, feared by everyone from local warlords to the common people and his own army. It is fair to say that the tools he used - violence, cruelty, war crimes - were used solely to exert fear and pressure. Interestingly, however, Lazarević is not someone who bullies others for pure pleasure and his own comfort.

All three murders he carried out in front of Nate’s perspective eyes were swift and intended to put the victim to death immediately rather than prolong their agony. Significantly, they were all intended to underscore the atmosphere of fear, danger, and terror surrounding Lazarević. All this was well thought out. Let’s talk about these scenes.

FIRST MURDER: UNNAMED SOLDIER WHO STOLE AN ANCIENT COIN

Nate sees Lazarević in his own camp; one of the soldiers brings to him another subordinate who was caught stealing an ancient coin.

Lazarević asks “you would betray me for this?” “Zoran, I can explain!”. “No, no need […] I am surrounded by traitors and fools!” Why did he do this? NO PUNISHMENT: if he did not punish the subordinate, he would show his weakness and undermine his authority.

PUNISHMENT WITHOUT VIOLENCE: If he punished him without violence, he would prove to others that he has no authority, there is no serious punishment, and stealing is profitable (if you don’t get caught).

DEATH PENALTY: Punishing a subordinate with death is an example to other soldiers, a warning. It is a message to others - similar situations will not be tolerated. Significantly, this scene is very important in several ways. People like Lazarević are only lied to once; they know very well when betrayal begins. Since this man was able to steal from him even then, it is likely that he had already committed other things that made him untrustworthy but went undetected.

If Lazarević had kicked him out of the army ranks or left him alive, he would have had to constantly watch his back; this man could have turned him in to NATO or other organizations, especially if he was offered a large sum of money. If he was so greedy as to steal a plain old coin, what if he was offered more? His betrayal would be highly likely.

Throwing the coin into the pond also had its symbolic aspect. It was to show that even objects of value to others are in fact worthless to Lazarević and this is not really what the whole expedition is about. The pursuit of such trinkets is extremely foolish, as is cheating such a man.

The coin was not more important than the loss of life. The man lost his life - and therefore something priceless - in exchange for something worthless.

Significantly: Zoran did not prolong his victim’s suffering, he did not play with his victim’s suffering, he did not abuse him mentally or physically. The punishment was swift, without agony.

Action: quick murder

Result: murder in front of other subordinates, throwing away a precious coin

Effect: a message that theft will not be tolerated; to secure one’s “back” and remove a potential traitor from the ranks; to intimidate other potential traitors; to show that Lazarević rules with an iron hand, demands discipline and unconditional obedience and honesty. Violence is a tool.

SECOND MURDER: CAMERAMAN JEFF

The middle of a war, the city is in shambles, mostly divided between rebels and aggressors. There are no people, no medical aid, everything is ruined - from streets to buildings. Jeff is shot in the stomach by a random soldier.

Recall: the middle of warfare in Nepal - there is no way to get medical help. The abdominal wounds are very serious, in part fatal. If you do not get help, carry the wounded, etc. the probability of the wound becoming infected, worsening the injury and death increases dramatically.

Chloe rightly points out that Jeff was already dead from the moment he was shot; Nate and Elena, led by compassion, gave him false hope of survival and prolonged his agony.

Then Lazarević appears; as an experienced soldier, he knows that Jeff doesn’t stand a chance. Zoran asks a simple question - “did you carry him all the way from the temple? Shame.”, then takes out his gun and kills Jeff on the spot, sparing him further suffering. He does what Nate would not be able to do, as Elena or even Chloe. He doesn’t prolong his situation or walk away, leaving him alive and suffering. He ends things quickly. He doesn’t abuse him.

Was it cruel? No. It was sensible and just simply human (sic!).He did what Nate, Elena and Chloe were incapable of doing. He knew there was no other way out of the situation and he followed reason and mercy.

“Shame”.

Lazarević makes a personal assessment of the situation; he considers prolonging Jeff’s agony and giving him hope of survival to be shameful. This aspect is interesting to note - it shows that he is not without empathy and conscience, even if he does not show it more openly. It is an act of pity, which at the same time emphasizes his legend of a merciless man. At the same time, the victim’s death is a good tool - it can intimidate Nate, Elena, Chloe and Flynn. Isn’t that the perfect way out of the situation?

Action: Quickly kill the badly wounded Jeff Result: ending the victim’s suffering, an act of mercy, Nathan’s moral evaluation

Effect: intimidation of Nate, Elena, Chloe and Flynn, proving he is not reluctant to kill in cold blood, even for a good cause, highlighting black PR.

THIRD MURDER: BLACKMAILED SUBORDINATE Compassion is the enemy. Mercy defeats us.

Let’s take a look at this scene: a soldier enters a room, doing standard reconnaissance. He is caught by Nate, who decides to use him for blackmail. Lazarević enters.

What is the biggest problem in this situation here? We have three options:

SHOWING MERCY: shows the soldiers that their commander is weak and succumbs to emotion. Nate has the opportunity to dictate terms, not necessarily possible to meet. The authority of a fearsome leader with no weaknesses is overthrown. Showing submission, feelings, emotions and conscience and taking control. Losing control of the situation. Destruction of character traits.

Losses outweigh benefits.

Benefits: none.

NEGOTIATIONS: weakening authority among subordinates, overthrowing black PR built up over years. Nate’s unpredictable conditions, not necessarily possible to meet. Showing submission and taking control. Losing control of the situation.

Losses outweigh benefits.

Benefits: none.

KILLING SUBORDINATE: Black PR maintained. Intimidation (terror) maintained. Giving the message that there are no weaknesses. Giving the message that Lazarević is not acting with feelings and emotions like Nate, but with his own conscience and cool logic. Maintaining control of the situation. Exerting mental pressure. Information to Nate that negotiations are not an option and he is in a weak position (intimidating Nate).

The benefits outweigh the losses (loss of a soldier, lowering troop morale).

BLACKMAILING AND USING CHLOE AS EXAMPLE: Emphasizing Lazarević’s control over the situation and authority. Pointing out that Nate thinks with feelings and emotions and is easily blackmailed. Exposing Nate’s weaknesses.

That shows that Lazarević knew about their relationship and Chloe’s involvement in helping Nate. Forcing Nate to give in, forcing submission, forcing further cooperation. Black PR maintained. Intimidation (terror) maintained.

Benefits outweigh losses (Nate’s refusal to cooperate, Chloe’s murder - getting rid of the traitor, Flynn’s intimidation, giving a warning).

The murder of the unlucky subordinate was intended to emphasize Lazarević’s philosophy, to show that Lazarević has no weaknesses and is not guided by feelings and emotions, typical of an ordinary person. There is no place for emotional attachment in the boss-subordinate barrier - it is supposed to be a protection for both the one and the other. It is safer not to have emotional relationships, as they are a weak point and can be exploited. As you can see, Nate tried.

The killing of the subordinate itself was done after a long moment of reflection, quickly and effectively; it is likely that Lazarević looked for a way out of the situation before finally making a decision (he did not act without hesitation, driven by an unconditional reflex). He did not prolong the victim’s suffering. Most likely, at the same time, he was prepared for a similar turn of events, given the fact that he ordered Chloe to be brought in and used influence and pressure techniques on Nate himself. It is worth noting how perfectly trained he was.

At the same time, the murder of the subordinate highlights his status: the victim was a mercenary. He must have been prepared for a similar turn of events. In this profession, there is no place for mercy or loyalty.

Does this define Lazarević as a bad person who “doesn’t care about people”? No. He doesn’t get paid to “take care of his people” when the stakes outweigh everything else.

Action: murder of a subordinate, used as a blackmail tool, use of Chloe

Result: killing a subordinate, taking away Nate’s argument for negotiation, taking control of the situation and being able to impose his own terms.

Effect: to intimidate the blackmailers, to put psychological pressure on them, to prove that there is no reluctance to kill in cold blood in order to eliminate the “problem” - obstacle, to emphasize black PR, to emphasize his control over the situation. Getting Nate to cooperate.

As you can see, all three killings were done for a specific purpose, in one case it was an act of pity (which is quite unusual for Lazarević, given the black PR he was trying to take care of).

FOURTH MURDER: SHAMBALA’S GUARDIAN IN THE TEMPLE

Remember the temple scenes where Nate and Flynn try to find their way to Shambala? After turning giant cylinders with Tibetan signs, the guardians appear - yeti. Humanoid, huge, not very intelligent apes. And when it seems that both men will not survive the clash, Lazarević enters the scene. Interestingly, he is the only person in the entire scene who realizes that the yetis are not what they appear to be.

This means that Lazarević is not only hard to fool with various tricks, but he is also a man who does not believe in paranormal beings.

So why did such a man take an interest in the Cintamani Stone? Why did he believe in the legends but did not believe in the existence of the yeti? After all, both so far revolved in the realm of unbelievable things and were not verifiable in any way.

There is only one explanation - Lazarević saw with his own eyes the effect of the Stone (for example, during the civil war in Yugoslavia) or reached military materials that studied similar topics. This would not be surprising - already during the war period this was dealt with by the Ahnenerbe (and Carl Schafer’s unit got very far - to the very temple with the elevator, judging by the fact that there we find German mp40s, not to mention the mp40s found in the temple with the mirrors!).

On the other hand, it is doubtful that Yugoslav intelligence services would be involved in similar things. One would sooner expect it from the KGB, which emphasizes Lazarević’s connections with that organization all the more.

MUSEUM HEIST:

Compared to Flynn, who does everything the wrong way around, Chloe, who counts on others to do the work for her, and Nate, who acts rashly and without thinking through the consequences, Lazarević is the one with the clarity of mind and is the main force behind the game.

He is most likely the one who devised the plan to break into the museum. Why do I think so? Well, an important point was made to me: Flynn was not intelligent. He is easily fooled. He doesn’t predict events. He can’t plan for the long term, as the scenes with him prove - including the scene with Nate and Elena escaping execution. At the museum, he didn’t even pay attention to the new, installed alarms - until Nate told him about them.

And would someone like Flynn be able to prepare to carefully break into the world’s most guarded? I doubt it. I think Lazarević was behind the whole plan. At the same time, he also didn’t know about some of the security arrangements - not surprising, since he was a bystander and wasn’t there to check and inspect everything. And since he didn’t know about alarms, Flynn did not know about them either.

Significantly, Jeff’s murder scene proves that Lazarević has heard of Nathan Drake before. He walks up to him, observes him, and says “so… this little man is Drake…?”. He might have known Nathan from stories told by other people “in the industry”.

So he had to know what he was like, he knew his legend. So why did he decide to choose Flynn and Chloe to work with?

I think it stems from the fact that they both didn’t have reputations as thieves, unlike Nate. Nate had already proven on more than one occasion that he may have been able to provide someone with things that clients paid for, but he was trying to find their treasures for himself.

Example: a comic book. In the plot of the comic book, Nathan is commissioned to find a journal that belongs to the clients’ ancestors. At the same time he deciphers it before giving it to his client. He keeps the information to himself and tries to get the treasure before his principals. And here we go, here we have closer example: Uncharted 4 - Nathan and Sam take money from Rafe in exchange for finding Avery’s treasure. Nate offers Samuel a prison break with just the two of them, without including Rafe in the plan - he wants to leave his principal in a prison in Panama.

Choosing Nathan to work with him would simply be dangerous. It would involve the risk of abandoning the assignment, of trying to get information “to his advantage,” of trying to get the treasure without sharing with Lazarević. At the same time, Lazarević sees Nate as a freak, a person who will do anything to get the treasure. The dialogue in the coop proves this.

(posessing Janus statue) “Well now that we have this… he will come to us.” “Why Drake would be there?” “Because like you, he is a little fool who will do anything for treasure”. Risk was too high.

DID LAZAREVIC KNOW ABOUT CHLOE?

Of course. As we can see from his story and the facts we can deduce, he is a person who can quickly assess both the situation and people. At the same time, it should be noted that Chloe’s behavior itself was not very subtle - every time she was found, she held Nate at gunpoint.

“Accidentally.”.

At the same time, she disappeared for long periods of time, no one knew where she could be found, and there were no witnesses confirming her presence anywhere. Too many of these miraculous coincidences, right?

Leaving Chloe free would have a lot of benefits - among other things, she might have unknowingly led Lazarević after her. So - since when did he know about Chloe and Nate’s collaboration?

Although this is quite a debatable theory, I personally suspect that he knew about her participation during the search for the temple in Nepal or earlier, after Nathan and Sully escaped from Borneo.

Why?

Because it’s clear that the shots weren’t fired by Nate and Sully, unless Chloe dragged the bodies somewhere else and made it look like an accident. Flynn was most likely silent to save Chloe from punishment.

All right, Nate and Sully escaped. We’re headed to Nepal.

Chloe has a free hand again, she can move unattended, non-controlled by anyone. But are we sure? Would a man like Lazarević leave her without “care”?

While Lazarević was destroying all the temples one by one, Nate and Chloe left quite a few bodies on their way to the right place. One would think that the rebels were the culprits, but the rebels were not particularly effective compared to Lazarević’s well-trained mercenaries, as seen in the scene with the bus or the attempted assassination of the mercenaries at one of the temples in the square.

And the rebels were not well trained, not used to the new reality, and were not likely to have the latest equipment or numerical superiority. Meanwhile, what might Lazarević have found when checking one of the temples? A whole dead squad.

Significantly, reinforcements arrived during the game - meaning that most likely some of the soldiers had received a call and responded to it. Two dead units and no rebel bodies nearby, even no one? Unlikely. The scene of the escape from the temple may have reinforced his belief.

Let’s look at it from another angle: Chloe’s explanations are equally unbelievable.

The first meeting with Nathan: Chloe catches them “at gunpoint”. Both men somehow escape. There are no witnesses, just two dead men and one armed person. Flynn stayed silent, or didn’t guess what happened.

The second meeting with Nathan: Chloe disappears for a long time, cannot be contacted, eventually holds Nathan “at gunpoint”. And she found him “incidentally”. Highly possibly Flynn didn’t tell Lazarević anything. Perhaps that’s why he ordered Chloe to be taken from the place before Lazarević came.

Third meeting with Nathan: Chloe kills Draza; although there are no direct eyewitnesses to this, it is clear that the fatal wound could not have been inflicted by Nate, as the shot came from a completely different direction. The only person who would know the truth here was Flynn, but he kept quiet, most likely out of fear for Chloe.

The fourth meeting with Nathan: the dagger under Chloe’s care magically disappears literally minutes after talking to Lazarević. It’s unclear when it was realized that this had happened, but it’s not hard to guess who might have been responsible. Unbelievable.

While Flynn would have been able to believe it, I doubt that the situation in the second meeting with Nate would have appealed to Lazarević, who had far more intelligence, both mental and emotional. This is further proven by the scene during which he took Chloe hostage during Nate’s negotiations.

He was already aware of the fact that Chloe was very important to him, especially after situation in the train. Importantly, I personally think Lazarević treated Chloe as bait early on in the game. Upon reaching the temple, he already knew what her proper motives were. In the end, he gave her the dagger, knowing that Nathan was on their heels. Wouldn’t it be convenient to give the dagger back to Nate indirectly and just follow his trail?

Lazarević was aware that Flynn and Chloe would not be able to solve the mystery alone, which he clearly expresses in the scene by saying “Clearly hired the wrong man for this job."

Interestingly, Chloe, after the scene when Lazarević terrorised Flynn by using Phurba Dagger, says of her employer, "he’s a monster!”. At the same time, she doesn’t judge herself that way by her actions towards Lazarević’s mercenaries - as if she didn’t commit the crime herself. However, this suggests something else - namely, that she suffered the punishment, or witnessed the punishment, that Flynn had to suffer for the failures of both of them. This would not be surprising, given the way Lazarević acts.

Interestingly, Lazarević respects the agreements or contracts - including during the scene where he wants to kill Chloe for being a traitor. This proves that he knew about it and her motives all along, but after a discussion with Flynn, he changed his mind. “That was not the deal”.

COULD LAZAREVIC HAVE SURVIVED?

Arguments for:

- He doesn’t give up.

- Experienced military officer. He survived the NATO bombing, the war in Yugoslavia, and was most likely a high ranking service officer. Given his knowledge and training, he also had extensive experience in combat, especially hand-to-hand combat.

- Rather, he had a weapon at hand, at short range much more effective than bare fists or mace (gun in his holster).

Arguments against:

- Surrounded by eight difficult to kill opponents.

- Seriously wounded, weakened, reduced to the first floor (and thus to a position where it is difficult to get up on his feet and escape).

- No time to react In the final scenes, he voluntarily consents to die as if he had surrendered - because he felt he had fought as an equal and been defeated.

This is another trait of Lazarević’s that is very relevant to the scene as a whole - it tells us that he is able to acknowledge his loss in battle through the superiority and skill of others. In Uncharted 3 DLC coop Lazarevic, if he dies, tells us “Well fought, Drake (laugh) You are the better man. Still little… but better”.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO: LAZAREVIĆ ESCAPED

Okay, maybe he would have survived, but what about the collapsed bridges and ruined city? Keep in mind that it’s likely that not all parts of Shambala were equally destroyed, as we see in the final scenes. What is even more significant is that there could not necessarily have been only this one and only one way in and out of Shambala. Most likely there was another escape route. What is even more significant is that resin trees grew not only in this place. So Lazarević, while trying to escape - assuming he survived, of course - could have encountered another source of power, which could have given him more strength and healed his wounds.

Does that appeal to me? Yes, it most certainly does. Personally never liked last scene. A fearless man like Lazarević killed by eight violet, mountain trolls? Nope. This character deserved better ending.

Would I like to see Lazarevic return in some DLC or Uncharted 3 style co-op? Hell yes!

#zoranlazarevic #zoranlazarević #lazarević #uncharted2 #Uncharted 2 #uncharted 2 among thieves #among thieves #amongthieves #zoran lazarević zoran lazarevic #uncharted #trivia

6 notes · View notes

clockworkmoose · 4 years ago

Text

Oof 2020 recap.

I stepped down from my job in... End of Jan? Early Feb? with the intention of 1. getting away from a crazy employee I was not being paid enough to deal with and was not allowed to fire, 2. Finally had enough savings that I wasn’t a constant ball of insecurity, and I could take 9 months off with no income before I’d start worrying, and 9 months felt like a good time frame to try and be self employed and sell crafts/plushies at conventions.

Because why wouldn’t there be a bunch of conventions to sell things at in 2020???

Not working 50 hour weeks was also supposed to give me time to plan August wedding, and make wedding dress.

March, start sending out wedding invites. Two weeks later, Cuomo shuts down the entire state. *~*Timing~*~

Send out “woops hold that thought” cards.

The fiance had to transition to teaching his classes over zoom, and making youtube videos, which ends up being a 12-hour, 7-day a week time commitment. On the plus there, that was a huge crash course in video editing he finally had a reason to learn. And serendipitously, me had his brother had gotten him a bunch of camera and recording equipment to bully him into doing movie reviews on youtube, so he actually had the stuff he needed to teach online effectively. He takes over half of my craft room immediately after I reorganized and spread things out to make sewing more efficient and organized. Sewing stuff gets re-squished back into the corner. :<

April, i sew so many masks. so so many. i do not like sew mask. ;~;

Etsy sticks more fees on their site! I make a website! Web design has changed a fuckton since ye olden dayes of neopet pet pages! I have no idea what I’m doing; can’t even add a glitter trail following the cursor around! Where is the option for autoplay music in the background! Lame!

Mid June, and no end in sight for, ...y’know, so we cancel August wedding and push our deposit back to 2021. Fiance was really bummed about not getting the specific date so like a week later the venue says we can still show up with a small group and get “official married” outside on the day. I’m not gung-ho for this at all, but James is, so we decide to do that; start scrambling. I make my dress but like. From what was supposed to be the first drape fabric, because fabric store’s still closed. I like it, but idk!

I didn’t think I actually cared super much about wedding details, like I didn’t have a “dream wedding” as a kid or have a moodboard or anything... All I was really hoping for was having family there since I only get to see all the cousins maybe once every 7-10 years, and making my own dress. Since big family gather was obviously not allowed, not even being able to make my dress in the way I saw it in my head was just kinda... disgruntling? I guess? Sad emotions I can’t really put to words, and not strong enough to overrule fiance having strong happy emotions about getting to keep our original wedding date.

New York gathering limit is raised to 25, so my family (6) and his (2) plus us and officiant (3) all get together and yay, officially married on August 1st! Until we get paperwork from NY state, and ha ha funny story, officiant signed the paperwork for August 2. Officiant apologizes, sends in a correction letter, so now we’re officially married on the 2nd, but have a footnote in state records that says *(actually it was Aug. 1).

So like, I’m happy we got married, that’s a happy part of the day, but 1. family wasn’t there, 2. didn’t get to make the dress I was hoping to, 3. we didn’t even get the fucking date we did all this for??? It’s a complicated mix of emotions and I’m finding myself just kinda ignoring the fact we actually got married instead of trying to grapple and force the positive feelings to outweigh the negative. SHRUG EMOJI HAHA. DEALING WITH OUR FEELINGS? SOUNDS SUS.

September, my former job reopens, asks if I want to come back, because the person I trained as my replacement ended up quitting because she didn’t want to come back. Neither do I.

October, they hire a new manager, and I end up going in to train her a few days, and cover for her a few more days, and now I’m on call to help out, because I am a big wimpy pushover and did actually really like my job, and like the new lady taking over and don’t want things to be hard for her.

November, I got glasses! I have discovered that the world should NOT be blurry when it is 10 feet away from you.

I know I struggle without a defined definite schedule and my brain latches on to any possible distraction, so this year has been heck. Mental health-wise, I’m doing much better now that I’m not in daily contact with chaos employee! But productivity and focus-wise? ZIP ZILCH ZERO. It has been a STRUGGLE. I don’t have a distraction free zone because of James doing work-from-home teaching, and I don’t have a defined schedule of social events and work shifts to keep me on task. I kinda feel like my brain has turned into a bunch of smokey fog that’s just kinda swirling around inside my head, and every once in a while I emerge and realize a week has passed and I have not checked my email or talked to another non-husband human being in that time.

Oh, and small schadenfreude update on chaos employee- she didn’t have a job until the state reopened, wasn’t eligible for unemployment during the shutdown apparently, her husband finally got the divorce he’s been pushing for for the past decade, and she had to sell her 5k$ sewing machine to be able to make the monthly payments on it. And when she came in to the store once it reopened, new manager had already been warned that she was banned from the premises.

But before she was chased out, she rambled on about how she thought the government was tracking her phone so she got a new one and didn’t back up any of her contacts, and she was hoping new manager would give her my number again because we’re “””best friends.””””””” Manager declined to assist.

CHAOS LADY DOESN’T HAVE MY NUMBER OR ADDRESS ANY MORE. :D

#moosemun #life update idk putting down feelings more than expecting people to read #also #i got a new phone bc mine was going on 6 years old and this new one can do social media apps!#which is why i am posting on tumblr again after a month or so of my old phone giving up on the tumblr app #i can also do twitter and discord again!#as soon as i remember what super secure passwords I have. fuck.#time to reset everything

4 notes · View notes

potagepotiron · 5 years ago

Text

Hate crime

Season 3 of WTFock has ended, Robbe & Sander have found love and everyone is eagerly awaiting Christmas. It is a time to be happy. Well I’m not. I’m not happy because of how WTFock handled an important event that could have been a gamechanger for LGBTQ fiction. I’m talking about the hate crime that ended episode 28. The way in which this plot line was conceived, handled and received, tells you a lot of how our society views minorities.

Fist and foremost, I am a SKAM fan. I watched every clip and every remake. My favourite is Season 3. Because I’m a gay man. I also know this series can change people’s minds. How different crews made it into their own and are very proud about the result. So I had high hopes when a Flemish version of Season 3 was announced.

So I was watching season 3, had a few remarks here and there, and then came that slur. I’ve written about it earlier. To a gay man like me, familiar with internalized homophobia, the concept of using a terrible slur and throwing accusations at Sander like Robbe just seemed baffling. Do not do unto others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you. You wouldn’t subject another human being to such hate, because you know how it feels. Pure and simple. And then, the hate crime happened.

Let’s be honest, WTFock failed in handling the hate crime, from the absence of trigger warnings before the clip, to the immediate aftermath, right until the very end of the series. There was no middle ground, it either had to commit to its choice and be brilliant or fail. It failed miserably. It chose to portray Robbe & Sander as victims and refused to show any form of queer resilience. And even when it became clear, near the end, that they decided to have the attack trigger other major events in the story, the writers opted to not address the hate crime. And to the optimists stating that the attack could be dealt with in Season 4, I say this: too late.

Personally, I wouldn’t have included graphic violence in the first place. To me there is no value in showing violence. I seriously doubt its inclusion in a series aimed at a teenage audience, because the negatives (trauma and copycat behaviour) far outweigh the learning opportunities, even when handled perfectly. I couldn’t finish the clip. That night, I, a grown man of 35 years of age, was wide awake in my bed until 4 in the morning. I couldn’t sleep, knowing that a number of LGBTQ youth saw that clip and became afraid. Decided to hide in the closet for a bit longer, maybe. The scene simply is not worth it.

And despite my sentiments, the reactions online seemed to disagree: “we needed to show this. We needed to be shown this. People need to know.” I couldn’t understand. Trust me, I know about gay bashing. And so should you. I read all the articles in newspapers about the atrocious hatecrimes in Belgium and elsewhere. I know who Ihsane Jarfi is. Friends of mine who are in a relationship have been scared to go out late at night. I’ve been called names in the street myself. I know. The quesion is, why do I need to see two boys being beaten and left in the street?

I don’t think the depiction of a gay bashing had its place in WTFock. However, I do think that a discussion of homophobia should be included, albeit in another way. Gay violence and intolerance could have been a part of the talk that Robbe & Milan had. I’m not demanding to turn a blind eye to homophobia or to sugarcoat a story. Also, I myself am not blind to homophobia. On the contrary, I have encountered more of it this year than ever before. Belgian football, for example, is still rife with homophobic chants. And recently far right politicians have stressed the need to clearly define norms and abnormality with regard to sexual orientation and the rights to adopt or to get married.

The real question is what kind of homophobia the show chooses, wants to or needs to battle. Gay bashing is a radical example of hate, but hate has many forms. And all hate is the result of a much more complex undercurrent in Flemish society. Hate stems from fear of the unknown, indifference or lack of knowledge. And that is why Flemish LGBT interest group çavaria remains committed to eradicating homophobia in schools. This behaviour can be unlearned. Education is key. And that is why it was a good decision for WTFock to zoom in on the reactions of friends after a coming out. They could have gone the extra mile, though. Homophobia is far more varied and widespread than WTFock shows you.

Back to the hate crime. I wonder why the WTFock writing team missed the mark. Norwegian SKAM director Julie Andem demanded that research into the local youth culture should precede any adaptation of the original content. I’m finding it hard to believe that the gay community was on board with the decision to show a gay bashing. I consulted among my gay friends and all thought it was a bad idea. I also wonder whether or not anti-gay violence is a problem that is typical of Flanders. It’s hard to find reliable data on hate crimes and to interpret it because there could be a reluctance to report incidents, but there seems to be no significant difference between Belgium and its neighbouring countries, nor is there a statistically significant rise in homophobic attacks during the last years. There has been a rise, but that could be due to a higher percentage of people reporting incidents.

I’ve argued that the choices the writers made are bad, and that there is little or no claim to say that hate crimes are typical of Flanders, no more than anywhere else in Western Europe or Scandinavia, where the series originated and where gay bashing wasn’t included. But do I believe that the writers knowingly sabotaged their own writing efforts? Surely not. Yet, it’s hard to pinpoint why the series was developed the way it was without hearing from the makers. Chances are we’ll never know. Unlike their French or Norwegian counterparts, the screenwriters have, up to now, chosen not to communicate on the series. It is my perception that indifference to its LGBTQ audience, an appetite for drama and shock value and a degree of ignorance manifested itself throughout the series. That may or may not have been the intention of the makers, we can’t know, but it certainly had that effect on me as a viewer.

As always, a part of me that says I’m being too harsh. I can imagine it’s a lot less difficult and a lot more relaxed to write series on superheroes then it is navigating your way through the pitfalls of minority representation or gay televised fiction, a genre that exists less than 30 years and of which the rules are being rewritten constantly. It’s also not easy to have a number of militant gays like myself looking over your shoulders constantly, scrutinizing every line and every motive and picking on the one detail that got overlooked.

And should we dismiss the entire series because of this one incident? Let’s move on, Sander and Robbe are happy. Isn’t that a heartwarming prospect to gay kids? But this relativity is the problem. Silencing a hate crime not a detail. Showing violence on tv has repercussions, and they can’t be undone by having a cute gay couple smooch underneath a Christmas tree. A SKAM remake has a responsibility towards its audience. And it’s not that a chance like this comes around often. Budget cuts in locally produced fiction will mean it will take years before there’s another chance to see local gay fiction on screen. So every chance we get needs to be perfect. Because it will affect a new generation of young people.

Ultimately, the question is why it is so hard to have good quality gay stories, made by queer creators for a queer audience? Why was this series made by three white middle-aged men with a background in marketing, with only one of them with proven credentials in screenwriting? Why is it so hard to hire gay actors or to find authentic gay voices? Is it really necessary that a series like SKAM S3 contains “learning moments for the straight community”? Can’t we, for once, make a tv series without taking into account the heterosexual majority? It might be a bit tentative of me to say this, but I’m sure Niels Rahou, the writer of Season 3 of SkamFrance, wouldn’t have included a gay bashing scene. He has commented frequently on his scenarios, he is openly gay and he stated he would have benefited from a similar series during his adolescence. I don’t think the Belgian writing team wrote with the same sense of urgency or treated SKAM as a passion project.

To end, let’s go back to the original version of Skam Norway. The reason why the format was so revolutionary is precisely because being gay or coming out wasn’t a big deal. Jonas didn’t bat an eyelid when Isak told him he’d been with a boy. His friends were fine with it, and so were his parents. Isak faced an internal struggle, gradually coming to terms with and being the result of living in a heteronormative society. But ultimately the mopey kid with a love of sleeping waged a bigger war with his eternally overflowing locker. He just accepted his sexuality. In the end, though, Isak had grown as a person and showed serious committment to his boyfriend Even. But the eye-opener of the series was the way in which same-sex attraction was treated as something not to worry about.

As a reaction to the way in which homosexuality was depicted as part of mundane everyday life, people rightfully complained that this story was a bit too rosy. And it’s true, there is white middle class privilege in this story. Among certain communities, coming out still isn’t evident and living a gay life is considered unsafe for some people. Yet, Julie Andem would rather show her viewers with a vision of an ideal world, in order to help and comfort a LGBT audience, than care about what the public would think of the season. I think WTFock could have been more attentive to that message.

Luckily, for most of us, being gay doesn’t lead us to being the victim of a hate crime. That doesn’t mean we can turn away from the reality of such violence. But almost all of my gay friends have, one way or another, been confronted with various examples of homophobic behavior. More often than not, these instances are based on ignorance and are more small-scale in nature. Being called names in the street. A supposedly witty remark made by a drunk uncle at a Christmas party. Or take the well-known Flemish tv personality who, in all his innocence, made a plea for abolishing the Antwerp gay pride parade during a televised comedy show in june. He was applauded by the audience and genuinely seemed impressed by his clever, seemingly inclusive reasoning. More often than not, the threats the homosexual community face consist not of the raw violence of the physical attack, but of vulgarity, stupidity or ignorance. It is a potentially dangerous to narrow down homophobia to physical attacks and take the risk to have your audience believe that they’re in the clear as long as they don’t punch someone to death.

The only way things will change for the better is when the heterosexual majority steps up its game. This means they have to change, they have to start questioning their accepted beliefs, or how they educate their kids. Ultimately, they themselves won’t benefit from these changes, on the contrary, society as a whole will be a bit less tailored to them when heteronormativity is eradicated. Inclusivity is about the majority caring about the minority. So this is my advice to the WTFock team. Don’t care about clicks, controversy or drama. Don’t perpetuate the representation of LGBT individuals as victims of a harsh outside world. Dare to shake up old, established narratives. Show that homophobia is far more pervasive and far more subtle than the large-scale evil of a hate crime. And if you’re going down that route anyway, commit to it. Don’t brush it off. Status quo is no longer an option.

#wtfock #skam belgium #Skam

10 notes · View notes

thatone-highlighter · 5 years ago

Text

Some stuff for Shera season 3 before I die from season 4 and exams

Ignore the bad formatting I copy and pasted from notes and when I tried to fix it I deleted a chunk

She-ra season 3

Thoughts

Adora's backstory

It gives a reason for her specifically to be able to wield the sword other that her being ‘the chosen one’ but doesn’t explain how it works entirely like does the sword work for ANY first one or just one specific first one if it’s the second one how convenient that it just happened to be Adora . How was the first portal formed Mara did the thing to stop portals 1000s of years ago how did hordak open one to get Adora through those 20odd years ago and how did the world not fall apart then

I called it I connected the field in the trailer to the field shown in adoras flashback thing and I was right they are the same one I only got what the purple thing is wrong

Shadow weaver

I don’t think she’s been redeemed I think it’s more of a mutual agreement that they won’t kill each other for now the whole the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing fits right I think she could teach glimmer magic and some spells as well to assist them in the inevitable fight with the rest of the horde and being a princess and the daughter of such a powerful caster she could do some very powerful spells shadow weaver could also assist madam razz in teaching Adora about what she really is and how to control her powers because light Hope sucks

Light hope and Mara

Light hope was probably the reason Mara ‘snapped’ I don’t think she really did snap it’s just either how she interpreted it because she turned on her in the flash back showing ‘snapped’ Mara she-ra she has the red lines in her like when adoras shera gets infected with entraptas ‘murder virus’ so I don’t think that she really snapped light hope just doesn’t want adora to cut her off again or she honestly just doesn’t understand what Maras motives where we’ve seen that she doesn’t know much like the fact the babies don’t remember stuff was unknown to her so maybe light hope saw Mara destroying everything and disconnecting them from everyone else and taking them to despandos and saw that Mara must have snapped and not that she wa trying to protect everyone like Mara said she wouldn’t be remembered as a hero and she knew it and she still did it in the flash back if Mara ‘snapping’ she is shown to be whiter than the colour she is in the ‘perfect’ universe I think this is from one of 3 causes 1the crew hadn’t finalised her design by that point 2 she ras glow made her seem brighter 3 the tint of yellow-white on the screen made her look whiter . This is because you can still tell that her skin is darker than adoras shera what exactly did Mara do to get rid of the portal capabilities does it only apply to a portal made with the sword of protection for if it does why bother if she was supposed to be the last shera if not how did hordak Create the portal that brought Adora through

The ‘perfect’ reality

St first I was excited because I thought we were getting an episode of what would have happened had Adora never left the horde and I thought it would be fun.I was wrong. It was really interesting to watch it play out even if it still almost makes me cry after watching it 4-5 times everything seemed a little off even with the normal interactions like when Lonnie is thanking adora the way she talks just seems.. off like even then somthing was wrong catra was happy without the years of abuse and neglect she is happy and it’s great the first thing adora instinctively remembers is how shadow weaver treats catra and gasps when shadow weaver gets close and has a giant smile when she doesn’t do anything and is just fine how come adora sees madame razz in certain spots and not others and why does the informations guy behave like there is a screen there when he’s first saying the information and is it two different occasions where they’re there or just it skipped adora getting the sheets what was entraptas line of ‘I’m not really here’ about did she die is she saying the reality isn’t real if so why wasn’t it ‘we’re not really here’ that would make more sense for her to refer to all of them not specifically herself WHY didn’t bow rip his shirt open and why can’t glimmer teleport as much did she learn to get better through sneaking around I also liked the emphasis placed in her shoes when they don’t have toes and how they show the toe caps being back once they are back at bright moon in normal reality will angella return I think she might come back through the portal when horde prime comes back and is Mara also trapped in the inside of the portal from the last time she stopped it why easy the horde just immediately gone why was it there in the first place if it was so fast to disappear was micha still there even when the horde was still present why did it pick the decision to go with the rebellion as the decision to change when catra finally decided to admit that everything was wrong she was attacking adora with the intent to kill those where killing blows how exactly did catra perfectly position where she was in relation to the environment to go after adora like that when it kept changing when catra was attacking it kept going to places where she won where as when adora refused to let catra convince her it was all her fault it goes to the world falling apart while adora is falling she just sadly accepts that she failed and sits there to fall until she diaspears angella made a very nice and heart breaking spaech to adora then sacrifices herself for everyone in a way which is NOT fair for ANY of our emotions just why did they have to do that now my littke baby glimmer has no parents

The crimson waste/huntara

Adora has SUCH a crush on huntara and is so adorable and it’s also really gay which makes it even better huntara actually starting to like Adora too is so cute even if she gets teased for it. Glimmer just being happy to follow Adora and support her is also cute especially seeing how protective she was in the previous episode. Now that I think about it was the line ‘no we’re supporting her’ directed towards the going to the crimson waste to look for the centre and the Mara thing or was it towards Adora and huntaras interactions I’m not sure now

Catra

When season 4 come I hope catra faces the consequences of her actions like maybe scorpia might actually lose hope in her once she finds out she might get sent to beast island once hordak finds out she lied(side note entrapta better not be freaking dead for real this time) and if she does I hope Lonnie replaces her Lonnie deserves better she’s by far the best candidate for force captain that we’ve seen she cares for her friends can support them when they need it can actually do her job has speaking lines and she would make for an amazing antagonist for a season or 2 . Back to scorpia I hope she does alright after finding out what catra did and remembering what she did to entrapta who has only ever been good to her and how quickly catra turned back on scorpia

Glimmer+shadow weaver (ft. bow+adora)

With queen Angella effectively dead glimmer might go looking for another person to fill in that role in her life and she might turn to shadow weaver for that support. If glimmer tries to do this I think one of two things will happen with adora 1 adora will be completely against this and try her best to convince glimmer not to look to shadow weaver for advice or as a motherly figure and when glimmer inevitably goes to shadow weaver anyways it will weaken their relationship and/or adoras trust in glimmer until shadow weaver betrays/ starts to show her true intentions and once glimmer finds/ figures it out she will go and ask for adoras help and will ask her how they can fix things (both in terms of their relationship and about whatever the consequences of what shadow weaver did are) or 2adora will see that glimmer -the person who like a week ago would have taken any chance she could to punch her out- is giving shadow weaver all of this trust and is looking to shadow weaver for advice and adora might start to think that shadow weaver really had changed and start to lower her guard letting shadow weaver minipulate her again and eventually shadow weaver will betray the both of them and they will both be left there feeling completely abandoned

I’m not sure what bows place in either of these Scenarios would be but I feel like hell would probably be used as like a 3rd party thing (being the only one of the trio that hasn’t been directly influenced by shadow weaver) and try to convince his friends that they should stay away from shadow weaver or he might see them being happy or something and leave them thinking the possible negatives of whatever shadow weaver could possibly do seem to be outweighed by the positives in his friend lives

In terms of the first possibility of glimmer/Adora bow might side with Adora and try to convince glimmer that this is not a healthy way of projecting her emotions and to not use shadow weaver for a motherly figure and remind her of all the things that Adora does/did as a result of how shadow weaver raised her(e.g. Adora sleeping with a knife, not being able to relax etc)

Also how is glimmer going to handle her new responsibilities as queen of bright moon (also why was angella queen but every where else had a king then a princess) and maybe all of etheria like is brightmoon the ‘capital’ so to speak cuz everyone seems to give all this respect to the queen and there was the base of the original princess alliance plus that seems to be the main efforts that the horde put into taking also its protected by the whispering woods and EVERYONE was shook that it got frozen and fell apart leaving brightmoon vulnerable. How is little baby glimmer gunna Handle all of that especially after what just happened you know not just with her mum effectively dying also with the new stuff with Mara knowing adoras a first one and this shadow weaver stuff (basically just her existing)all this stuff happens and nobody got any time to proseess they are all going to need therapy not just catra

Swift wind and sea hawk

Sea hawk first Well if you think about it there was no chance for him to show up. Shadow weaver shows up then they go to the crimson waste where why would sea hawk be there and then adora gets captured so they go to the fright zone then we’re in the ‘perfect reality’ so unless he was like chilling in either bright moon or the fright zone he wouldn’t have been anywhere near them (in the perfect reality the war never happened and the alience never fell apart so glimmer never needed a captain to get to mermistas kingdom so they never met him there)

Then we’ve got swift wind. Swift wind being in any of the situations wouldn’t have really added anything to the plot maybe he could have shown up when they were thrown in the pit by huntara and co but that’s really the only time it would have made much sense. He COULD have shown up when they where breaking into the fright zone and helped with that but other than those two options I’ve got nothing having him anywheee else wouldn’t really make any sense he really would have just gotten in the way so it was a good call to just leave him out and focus on the other characters plus in the ‘perfect’ reality adora isn’t she-ra so swift wind is still a regular horse and therefore technically isn’t really a proper character for those two episodes

So over all neither of them really could have appeared this season maybe they will next time (most likely with swiftwind if we’re getting anything to do with light hope too) but I don’t really mind either way I like sea hawks interactions with glimmer and how she gets happy when she cheers him up a bit by being his crew but I don’t really care at all with swift wind tho he might help with somthing light hope related seeing as he was involved last time

The princess alliance pt1+2

So we’ve got the new princess alliance feturing spinnarella nettossa glimmer adora frosta mermista perfuma bow and sea hawk (part time entrapta) who all work together and do stuff like glimmer losing her powers being gay spreading the gay and more

Then you’ve got the original princess alliance that consisted of KING micha queen angella merimistas dad and I don’t think we’ve herd anything about the rest of them but it’s assumed that some of the other parents where a part I think frostas dad or somthing might have been but based on the time gaps we’ve been given frosta wouldn’t have even been born by the time the alliance fell apart because it fell apart once micha died and he died given that flashback in ‘remember’ when she was let’s say 3-4 and if we guess that she’s about 17 or so now then that means it has been apart for about 14-15 years and frosta has just cannonacly turned 12 so even if you be very generous with how old glimmer is in that flash back and say maybe even 5-6 then that still leaves you with a very very small chance that at the highest end of that frosta might have maybe been just born then taking into account the fact that she took the throne at 8 I assume because of a few deaths she would not have gotten much of a chance to learn much about the old alliance unless they where like very important stories passed down like tales of war

Their ages

So I think they are in like a few groups so here we go! We know frostas 12 so that’s easy and we also know that entraptas late 20s early 30s so we’ll say about 30 for her . 17-19 or so I think for glimmer bow adora mermista catra lonnie Kyle Rogelio then I think alitttle older at maybe 20-22 for Perfuma sea hawk then going from ther I think angella is about the same age as micha and if you do some math with him being about 12 in the light spinner episode and glimmer being about 17 then he is at youngest in his early to mid 30s so I’d say that’s the age for them. Hordak is like 100s of years old so I won’t go into that madme razz is ancient there is no way to work that out but if she was there for Mara she’s over 1000 years old at least

Now for shadow weaver when she says ‘take pity on an old woman’ to catra she really is serious assuming that she has that average life span of a human, ok let’s go so in the light spinner episode she is a full grown adult and presumably has been for a while so we can guess she’s mid to late 20s let’s use 27 for numbers sake then she’d have to be at the horde for a while to teach the level of 2nd in command so that’s a few years then she gets adora when she’s a baby and we know adoras about 17 so if we go from that she is at the very least almost 50 which if that is the case and she does have the average lifespan of a real human good job shadow weaver for reaching that age and still being able to do all the things you do

#shera #random shit #this is literaly 2500 words #please help me #glimmer deserved happyness #this was not prginaly weitten for other people #please excuse bad grammar and/or spelling #sheraseason3 #spop #spop post season3 #sheraandtheprincessesofpower #shera and the princesses of power #season 4 coming soon

1 note · View note

abascholarship-blog · 6 years ago

Text

PSYCH FINAL

SOCIAL Social Psychology is the scientific study of the experience and behaviours of individuals in relation to social stimulus situations according to Sherif and Sherif. Baron & Byrne say its the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior and thought in social situations. Tajfel is like it’s a discipline that helps with interpretation of social phenomena and aims to explain social life of individuals and groups. Rajele is like its just understanding the functions of a society There is not one, focus is to apply perspectives to help us understand and work towards better racial, cultural, gender, economic, interpersonal relations. HISTORY -1920s Sociology vs Psychology, Social Psychology combines the two. Mental testing started here (racists used it to justif black people could learn). -30s turned toward research focus. -40s intergroup conflict -50s focused on oppression. SA had a division (race-sympathizers and non-sympathizers). INTERGROUP CONFLICT -Gordon Allport’s contact theory, if different groups have contact with one another, prejudice will decrease. Mann 1959 research showed more intense inter-racial contact takes place. Basic contact can still breed prejudice. RESEARCH GONE WRONG -The nature vs nurture triplet experiment Neubauer -Rae Sherwood would study the African Civil Servant, after studying workers and bosses, they’re rather similar and they hated that bc Afrikaans wanted to feel superior. -Afrikaans and English IQ, English speakers kept doing way better. Afrikaans were viewed as inherently not as smart as English speakers. -HSRC (Human Sciences Research Council) South African research agency to monitor government policy through knowledge of social sciences and the humanities. But many controversies, like inclination of black man in white/urban areas to his homeland in ‘76. Showed they have none, which went against policies at the time so it was hidden. -In 1962 Psychological Institute of the Republic of SA broke off from SA Psychological Association bc the latter let black people join. ATTITUDES -evaluations that denote one’s orientation to some object or attitude referent. -Categorizations of stimuli object along an evaluative dimension generated from cognitive information, affective information, and information concerning past behavioral intentions Attitude=Affect+Behavior+Cognition. -Functions through knowledge, utilitarian, value-expressive, ego-defensive. EVALUATIVE ATTITUDE -object is the end in itself -experiential and specific or schematic EXPRESSIVE ATTITUDE -social-expressive -value-expressive -defensive THEORIES OF ATTITUDE

-Cognitive Dissonance Theory is when humans want consistency between their cognitions (beliefs, values, opinions). When two cognitions or thoughts contradict psychologically, it results in anxiety -Dissonance can be reduced when the importance of one or both of the cognitions is reduced or new information outweighs the dissonant belief pr at least one of the dissonant beliefs is changed. -Self-perception Theory is that our behavior and its interpretations of that forms out attitudes versus the popular view that our attitudes influence how we behave

COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION OF ATTITUDE -Mental representation of an object paired with another = attitude direction -Schema- mental structure of object containing knowledge and examples of referent and processes info pertaining to it -Activation of schemas ATTRIBUTIONS -How people identify cause. -Dispositional factors are characteristics of a person that are the cause like “Their homework is late because they’re lazy and don’t care about school” -External factors/Situational factors where the characteristics of a situation are the cause. “Their homework is late because they couldn’t get to campus on time” -Attributions are prone to bias ATTRIBUTION THEORIES -Focuses on different aspects of attributions and are complementary rather than competing -Focus on logic rather than motivations or emotions Common Sense Psychology in Everyday Life -People are motivated to make sense of the world and know what causes things to happen enables us to predict what will happen or how someone may behave and/or make judgments.on how we should act. -Interested in Causality LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY weakest to strongest 1. Responsibility by Association 2. Causal Responsibility 3. Intentional Responsibility CORRESPONDENT INFERENCE -Focus is trying to explain why people make internal attributions -We make internal attributions when behavior is related to personality -Conditions include choice (we believe they chose this behavior freely) and expectedness of behavior (when they do not act how we think they will). COVARIATION MODEL -extends on above -Individuals make attributions by assessing distinctiveness (extent to which the individual behaves in the same way in same situations), consistency ( extent to which the individual behaves in similar situations), and consensus (extent to which other people in similar situation behave) -When not enough info we use causal schemas. ATTRIBUTIONS AND EMOTIONS -People assess how far they have succeeded and/or failed, which leads to negative or positive emotions. -Three bases for making attributions to failures and success are locus (internal or external (perception of the cause is external or internal to the person) stability (does the cause remain the same over time or change) and controllability (what causes does a person have control over) The search for causes influences expectations for the future, and therefore, our emotions. SOURCES OF ATTRIBUTIONS -Culture. Individualistic cultures where focus is on individual success and goals tend to make dispositional or internal attributions. Collectivist cultures tend to make external or situational attributions. -Personality- differences in how individual people make attributions regardless of social or cultural context must be caused by personality. ATTRIBUTION BIASES -Fundamental attribution error occurs when the influence of situational factors is underestimated and dispositional factors are overestimated. -Actor-observer effect refers to tendency to attribute others actions to dispositional factors and our own actions to situational factors Basically when we explain our own behavior, we are a lot more aware of environmental or external factors. -Self-serving biases is taking more credit for successes rather than their failures. -False-Consensus Effect is overestimating the extent to which others agree with some of our opinions -False-Uniqueness Effect: When we present or see ourselves as unique or distinctive -Self-Centered Bias: Taking more than your fair share of responsibility for a jointly produced outcome ATTRIBUTIONS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIORS -There are differences in the ways we make attributions about people based on the social group they belong to -They tend to be intergroup attributions rather than individual ones. This happens in all social groups regardless of power or privilege 4 categories of attributions for intergroup -Internal (self as cause) -In-group/self-inclusion (my group is cause) -In-group/self-exclusion (my group not me is cause) -External (something outside my group is the cause) SOCIAL INFLUENCE -No formal definition, it accounts for a range of behaviors. A range of social phenomena in which people attempt to bring about changes in the behavior of others. SOCIAL INFLUENCE RESEARCH -Sheriff’s experiment investigated norm formation and its embodiment in group behavior. Experiment shows powerful aspects of conformity as they shape group dynamics. -Norm is an idea that social behavior is profoundly affected by expectations or understandings about what forms of behavior are correct. -Sheriff revealed that distance estimates are retained for longer than a year after original norm formation -Participants returned to individual experimental setting after group experimental setting but retained the group estimate -Distance norms can be manipulated by getting a “confederate” to make large or small estimates - if Participants are replaced one at a time, distance norm can perpetuate across generations of laboratory groups -Sheriff constructed a complex social phenomenon that is breathtaking in its simplicity. He also created a problem. Did this apply to real social processes and phenomena though? There was no correct answer - A social norm is an evaluative scale, designating acceptable latitude and an objectionable latitude for behaviors and beliefs and any other object of concern to members of a social unit. -Asch studied this again with a greater focus on generalization and found conformity in 36% of critical trials with 75% of participants conforming at least once despite the answer being obvious. Control groups were nearly 100% accurate. Participants reported anxiety and conformed for either informational reasons (they believed the information was correct) or in order to gain approval or avoid disapproval HISTORICAL CONFORMITY -Bond and Smith did a meta analysis of 133 studies -Conformity varies across cultures with collectivist cultures showing more conformity -There has been a systematic decline in conformity over historical time across cultures MILGRAM STUDY OF OBEDIENCE -Conformity is when people regulate their own behavior to relatively match the behavior of others in accord with group norm -Compliance- A specific acquiescent behavior is requested either implicity or explicitly -Obedience is often classified as a sub-type of compliance. Social influence is exerted directly and bluntly by using threats or hierarchical context to ensure acquiescence -Majority of Milgram subjects continued to obey the scientist until the end despite the “pain” 65% to be exact. STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT -Our behavior is dramatically affected by roles we adopt in a social situation -Direct normative pressure or authority figure is not necessary to produce conforming behavior -Prisoners passive immediately while guards were active and initiative, gave commands and bullied prisoners. -Unethical, replications do not necessarily support it and lacks ecological validity MINORITY INFLUENCE -Interested in situations where larger collectives are influenced by smaller collectives -Social influence can be exerted in the same direction denied by traditional approaches in their models -Minorities are few in number, have no normative control over the majority, perceived as weirdos, more likely to be ridiculed than taken seriously, have access to the same informational and normative means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority. -Color experiment, one trial had minority consistently get color wrong and another with the minority being inconsistent (24 vs 12 times right) -Consistent group had majority yield 8.4% of the time, had 32% of participants yield at least once -1.3% only in the inconsistent group -Minorities must make their proposition clear at the outset and stick to their original proposition and withstand majority influence in order for minorities to have influence. Consistency amongst time and across individuals and strength of conviction is key. Disrupts established norm (produces doubt and uncertainty in majority) makes itself visible (calls attention to itself) shows an alternate point of view, shows certainty and confidence and does not compromise or move, implies only solution is for the majority to accept the minority view -Minority influence is DEEP, can influence the basis of others judgements despite not having substantial overt acceptance. Challenge beliefs and produce private conversion (indirect, delayed, private effect of social influence) -Majority influence is shallow and can make almost all accept its point of view without affecting the underlying perceptual-cognitive system. Produce public compliance rather than conversion (direct, immediate, temporary effect of social influence) SIT of Intergroup Behavior -Conformity is a fundamental group process and is brought about naturally by identification and categorization of the self as a member of a particular social group -We tend to follow conformity behaviors of our specific groups -Crowd behavior reflects not a loss of identity and hence rationality and control, but a shift from personal to social identity, and hence to social-identity based self-control. -These are signals that gain us entrance into a group (we belong) -Where there are scarce resources, conflicting interests develop through competition and turn into overt social conflict -Enhances intra group morale, cohesiveness and cooperation but conflict creates antagonistic intergroup relations and also heightens identification with positive attachment to the “ingroup” -Interpersonal behavior: 2 or more individuals fully determined by their interpersonal relationships and individual characteristics not at all affected by social groups or categories. -Intergroups behavior is when 2 or more people fully determined by their respective social groups and categories not at all influenced by the interindividual personal relationships between the people involved CONDITIONS FOR ADOPTING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR -How do people adopt these extreme social behaviors or come close to either of the 2? -The more intense the intergroup conflict the more likely it is that the individuals who are members of the opposite groups will behave toward each other as functions of their respective memberships rather than in terms of their individual characteristics or interindividual relationships INTERPERSONAL-INTERGROUP CONTINUUM -refers to individuals’ belief systems about the nature and the structure of the relations between social groups in their society. -social mobility is the belief system based on the general assumption that the society in which the individuals live as a flexible and permeable one so that if they are not satisfied with the conditions imposed upon their lives by membership in social groups or social categories to which they belong, it is possible for them to move individually into another group that suits them better -Moves/Potential moves sanctioned -social change implies that the nature and structure of the relations between social groups in the society is characterized by marked stratification, making it impossible or very difficult for individuals to divest themselves of an unsatisfactory, underprivileged, or stigmatized group membership. -The nearer members of a group are to the “social change” extreme and the intergroup extreme, more uniformity they will show in their behavior towards members of the relevant out group Categorization and Intergroup Discrimination ●Real-world ethnocentrism resembled by in-group bias - the tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group in evaluations and behavior. ●Incompatible group interests not always sufficient to generate conflict - good experimental evidence that these conditions are not always necessary for development of competition and discrimination between groups. ●In-group bias, remarkably an omnipotent feature of ingroup relations. ●A lot of researchers including Tajfel show: mere perception of belonging to two distinct groups (social categorization) is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination favoring the ingroup. ●The mere awareness of the presence of an out-group is sufficient to provoke intergroup competitive or discriminatory responses on the part of the in-group. Research on this showed that participants... ...made "decisions," awarding amounts of money to pairs of other subjects (excluding self) in specially designed booklets. The recipients are anonymous, except for their individual code numbers and their group membership (for example, member number 51 of the X group and member number 33 of the Y group). The subjects, who know their own group membership, award the amounts individually and anonymously. The response format of the booklets does not force the subjects to act in terms of group membership ●Fairness also an influential strategy ●Maximum difference more important than maximum ingroup profits - competing with the out-group rather than following a strategy of simple economic gain for members of the in-group. ●Biling (1973) and Brewer and Silver (1978) - Even explicitly arbitrary social categorizations are sufficient for discrimination.●Does the experimenter produce the in-group bias (maybe by reference to group membership)? Social Identity and Social Comparison ●Social Categorization - Cognitive tools that segment, classify and order the social environment, and thus enable the individual to undertake many forms of social action ●They also provide a system of orientation for self-reference: create and define the individual’s place in society. ●Social groups provide their members with an identification of themselves in social terms. ●These identities are mostly relational and comparative defining the individual as similar to or different from, as “better” or “worse”, than members of other groups. ●Tajfel: Pressures to evaluate one’s own group positively through in group/outgroup comparisons lead social groups to attempt to differentiate themselves from each other. What influences differentiation 1.Individuals must internalize their group membership as an aspect of their self-concept: they must be subjectively identified with the relevant in group 2.The social situation must be such as to allow for intergroup comparisons that enable the selection and evaluation of the relevant rational attributes 3.In-groups do not compare themselves with every cognitively available out-group: the out-group must be perceived as a relevant comparison group. Similarity, proximity and other variables determine out-group comparability Why we differentiate ●To maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some dimension, therefore it is competitive. ●Mutual comparison + differentiation on shared value dimension = competition between groups. Turner (1975): Social and “realistic” competition ●Social (instrumental) - Motivated by self evaluation and takes place through social comparison ●“Realistic” - Based on “realistic” self interest and represents embryonic conflict ○Incompatible group goals are necessary, and often sufficient for competition Status and Hierarchies How do we react to a negative or threatened social identity? Individual Mobility Individuals (mostly closer to the social mobility pole discussed earlier on) may try to leave their former group to achieve upward social mobility or pass from lower to higher status. Associated with tendencies to dissociate oneself psychologically from fellow members of low-prestige categories. Examples of this? NB feature: Low status of one’s own group not changed - designed to achieve a personal, not a group solution. Implies disidentification with the erstwhile in-group. 2. Social Creativity ●Group rather than individual strategy. ●Group may seek positive distinctiveness for the in-group by redefining or altering the elements of the comparative situation ●My focus on: ○New dimension of comparison ○Changing values assigned to the attributes of the group, so comparisons which were previously perceived as negative are now positive e.g black manikins ○Change the out-group with which in-group is compared, avoiding higher status out-group as a comparative frame of reference. SOCIAL REPRESENTATION THEORY -How humans interpret events and understand their social and physical surroundings depends on political context in which they are embedded -Humans are agentic. Actions are not merely behavioral responses but volitional, purposive, and meaningful. -Humans are inherently social. Their psychological activity is oriented towards others in a systemic way. When people come together, they form social groups. -Rather than simply responding to stimuli, human beings must associate that stimuli to a social representation. SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS -Social representations are systems of values, ideas, and practices with a two-fold function: To establish an order which enables individuals to orientate themselves in their material and social world and to master it, and to enable communication to take place among members of a community by providing them with a code for social exchange and a code for naming and classifying unambiguously by various aspects of their world and their individual and group history. -Constitute the stock of common knowledge and information which people share in the form of common-sense theories about the social world. WHAT IS REPRESENTATION -To present or to depict through an image or to stand in for (re-present) -Double meaning: presence + absence -Produces meaning: Reality + Distortion =Assumes a shared conceptual map or knowledge system SHARED CONCEPTUAL MAP KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM -Classification through code/language. Many things like colors on a stop light do not have any true or fixed meaning, they have been set through social organization and shared conceptual meanings WHY DO WE REPRESENT -An object or event has no meaning until it has been represented. Many “potential” meanings. -Act of representing is the condition of existence of the object or event -Establishing meaning and enabling communication as the physical world (objects and events) exists independently of us but we have a need to make sense of it through representation -Prescribe and reify certain ‘ways of knowing’, representations are socially constructed and a function of a shared knowledge system. They are conventional and prescriptive can lead to exclusion and discrimination. -Social change because representations change because meaning can never be completely fixed. Social context determines the creation, development and transformation of social representations. HOW DO WE REPRESENT -Capacity to represent objects/events (social categorization) is a cognitive structure -The particular content of representations are learnt through social organization (representational system) -Hegemonic representations are social representations that are shared by all members of a highly-structured group -Emancipated Representations are social representations that are characteristic of subgroups who create their own version of reality -Polemical Representations are social representations marked by controversy Two forms of knowledge that exist in Contemporary Societies -Scientific knowledge is the dominant form of knowledge in modern societies -Common sense knowledge is science made common transferred through the media or by the act of individuals -Social Representations are produced through anchoring and objectification -Anchoring and objectification transform science into common sense -Anchoring refers to a process of classification by which the new and unfamiliar is placed within a familiar frame of reference. -Objectification is a process of externalization by which the meaning of an object or event is projected in the world through images or propositions. SOCIAL REPRESENTATION AND INTERGROUP RELATIONS EXAMPLES IN RESEARCH (methods are qualitative using interviews, focus groups, media analysis, and participatory research) -Madness to protect community identities against the threat of madness and otherness. Psychiatric hospitals is an example, using mechanisms to establish distance between “us” (sane) and “them” (insane). A representation of DANGER since they’re locked up and people are scared of them and put distance, DIRT or CONTAGION because contact between their things and bodies are kept separate. -Health enables a community to sustain and defend its cultural identity. Serves to strengthen possibilities for multicultural communities. Examples include finding hybrid representations that combine understandings and knowledge, like in Chinese traditional medicine and western biomedical knowledge. -Community to portray people from the area as criminal, deviant, and threatening. Serves to maintain social exclusion across communities. Examples include representations of black learners as trouble-makers or as underachievers (Race) and representations of institutional constraints and resistance. -Development portrays people as victims of poverty, miseducated, incapable of hard work, corrupt, promiscuous, and serves to maintain difference and control of Africa through discourses of pity and the uncivilized. To be developed one must have a western education, speak english or study in europe. “Poverty is ignorance, laziness, and lack of education”. Blaming victims for their own oppression like blaming women for them having to sell their bodies or using pregnancy for money, neglecting their children, and do not want to work, PREJUDICE -Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience -Allport says it is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole or toward an individual because they are a member of that group --Samson says its an unjustified usually negative attitude towards others because of their social category or group membership. -Brown says prejudice will be regarded as any attitude, emotion, or behavior towards members of a group, which directly or indirectly imply some negativity or antipathy towards the group. Problems with this definition include the implication that It can manifest directly or indirectly, is synonymous with all other forms of oppression and it expresses itself in behavior -Prejudice primarily originates from in group processes. Orientation towards whole categories of people rather than isolated individual and its often a socially shared orientation. RACISM -An institutionalized system whereby certain racialized groups are systematically dominated or marginalized by another racialized group or other groups. -Racial discrimination is the verbal or non-verbal or paraverbal social acts that result in negative or unfavorable consequences for the dominated racial-ethnic groups. Actionable, unlike prejudice which is feelings and beliefs, racial discrimination is the enactment of racial prejudice (but not always) -Forms of racial discrimination include direct unequal treatment based on racial or related criteria or indirectly discriminating by ignoring unequal conditions under the guise of equal treatment. -Subtle discrimination is not obvious and intentions are hard to prove. Like Paternalism and Condescension or behavior that is superficially polite and nice but paternalistic in that members of the target group are treated as inferior or lacking in something. Or supportive discouragement because of uncertainty about one’s abilities intelligence or accomplishments RACISM AND PERSONALITY -Adorno and authoritarian personality type where prejudice and racism develop from -Authoritarian Personality does not necessarily lead to prejudice and racism, as thats traced to a person’s childhood experience RACISM as a consequence of COMPETITION -Competition between racial groups over scarce resources leads to hostility and conflict and that superordinate goals or cooperative activities between these groups induce social harmony -Racial conflict and racism would diminish if there is cooperative intergroup activity in attainment of superordinate goals. RACE-CATEGORIZATION, IDENTITY, COMPARISON -Social constructionism refers to identities being harnessed by, flowing from, or developed in opposition to, the phenomenon of racism are not fixed or static but shifting or in flux and socially constituted through language. -SIT shows social catgorization forms the fundamental cognitive process -Every person has a need to be regarded positively. PRIVILEGE -Prejudice + Power (power is access to social, cultural, and economic resources) WHITENESS -A discursive strategy that maintains whiteness as normal and ‘others’ as different. -Location of structural advantage/race privilege -Standpoint, a place from which white people look at themselves, at others, at society. -Whiteness refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. This makes it invisible -Whiteness studies aim to make whiteness visible and problematize it. WHITENESS STUDIES -Originated as a critique of white feminist racism by black feminists -Standpoint theory discusses the link of where one stands in society and what one perceives. The oppressed can see with the most clarity not just their own position but that of the oppressor/privileged and the shape of the social system as a whole. SOUTH AFRICA -Wealthy white South Africans tend to defend white privilege, resist power redistribution, and champion individualism -Ideological discourses of privilege are systems of meanings that dominant or powerful groups attempt to fix as ‘truth’ in order to constitute and maintain their dominance. -Legitimization is the strategy of presenting relations of dominance as legitimate. This is a strategy for justifying unequal power distribution. They appeal to traditionally established, rational, or charismatic grounds, dominant groups use this strategy to argue their dominance is justified, it’s “just the way things are and should be” -Dissiumulation is the strategy of concealing or denying relations of dominance and presenting them as something other than what they are If relations of dominance are hidden or invisible they cannot be challenged. -Reification is the strategy od denying history and presenting the state of affairs as if it was permanent, natural,, and existed outside of time. This strategy functions to ideologically separate the current state of affairs from this history that informs them. DEFENDING WHITE PRIVILEGE -exhibits the discourse of denial, a discursive strategy to deny the ways which white South Africans were implicated in the apartheid system and to deny the effects of this system that continue to structure the present. -exhibits the discourse of a just world, a discursive strategy to present the world as a place where people get what they deserve. -separation between new South Africa and the history of apartheid and glosses over current unequal relations to power and legitimizes class privilege using work ethic and racist discourse RESISTING POWER DISTRIBUTION -Discourse of undeserving ANC, a discursive strategy to construct post-apartheid South Africa as a ‘fiasco’ of decay, corruption, greed, and incompetence -Discourse of business over politics, a discursive strategy to subvert black power by valuing the economic realm controlled by whites and devaluing the political realm controlled by blacks. INDIVIDUALISM -Discourse of the good white Samaritan, a discursive strategy that locates solutions to poverty and racism within individuals. Maintains white privilege by resisting structural transformation. -Discourse of reverse racism or non-racialism, a discursive strategy to challenge equal distribution to power. Like saying white South Africans are the victims of affirmative action programs. -Individualist discourses conceal the structural relations of domination between wealthy white and poor black -Whites are constructed as saviors of black poor -Discourse of non-racialism removes white South Africans from the history of apartheid RISKS OF WHITENESS STUDIES -Fantasy of transcendence by problematizing whiteness, do whites transcend race? -Narcissism because academic disciplines are already about whiteness. MODELS OF DISABILITY -Medical model views disability as a personal tragedy. Morality position views it as pathology and evidence of sin needing divine intervention. Essentially located in the individual. Attempts are to fix people rather than the context -Social Model is a distinction between impairment and disability. An impairment is a physiological limitation. Disability is the disabling social and material conditions experienced by disabled people. -Minority-group model does the same, inspired by civil rights movement and queer politics. People-first language is stressed recognizing the person before the disability. -Both of these criticize context rather than individual. -Cultural Model is the work of disability as a cultural construct aimed at regulating normalcy. Biology and culture are not mutually exclusive. -Nordic Relational Model focuses on how disability is created through the relational process of the mis/match of the person/environment, the context, and the disability as a relative constructive. -Biopsychosocial Model devised by WHO to bridge the divide between medical and social models. Acknowledges that disability is a complex phenomenon and centers around functional limitations of the body, participation, and activities. ICFDH intended to provide comparable data and was used to measure disability prevalence for 2011 and globally vulnerable groups like women the poor and older people had higher rates of disability prevalence -Data on gendered disability is sparse -Studies treat people with disabilities as a monolithic and ahistorical group, type of disability, its onset, severity, and visibility determine the degree of gendered expectation. 50.6% of boys with disabilities have completed primary school and 41.7% of girls. 20.1% of disabled women in lower income countries are employed and 58.6% of men. -Women with disabilities are infantilized and imagined as helpless victims. Despite great risk of sexual violence they are treated as asexual and expected to forego motherhood as they are perceived to transmit faulty genes that are incapable of raising children. They are 3 times more likely to experience sexual, emotional, and physical abuse compared to non-disabled women. higher maternal morbidity and mortality rates due to lack of reproductive and sexual health and education - less health care because they are perceived as asexual LAND QUESTION -Disposession of land is experienced by black SA’s historically. Laws displaced 80% of population from over 80% of the land. -Subjected them to rural poverty and social exclusion. 50% of South Africans are now considered poor and 70% live in rural areas. Qualitatively, the full extent of social exclusions of rural residency is technically not shown but impoverishment and exclusion often follows land ownership and access patterns CONTEXT OF LAND DISPOSESSION -Native Land Act of 1913 allocated 13% of land for ‘natives reserves’ and the balance of 87% to whites (could either be bought or rented by blacks) -Laid down the foundation for racial segregation through the creation of homelands. Africans had to embrace communal agriculture. Land in the present Bernstein- Different patterns of historically constituted countryside generate very different social and political dynamics Neves- Homelands assumed their role as a dumping ground for the estimated 3.5 million surplus people forcibly removed from 1960 to 1983. Former homelands continue to bear the imprint of their apartheid construction, marked by spatial exclusion from markets, services, and opportunities. Inter-group relations and commercial farmland 900,000 black South Africans work and live on farms owned by 55,000 overwhelmingly white commercial farmers LAND REFORM -Land restitution would be a return of land or its equivalence to people who lost it after the historic watershed of 1913 as a result of a racial motivated legislation. 63500 claims received by the ‘98 cut off date have been settled. -Land Redistribution is the transfer of land to previously disadvantaged people who need it. Has been relatively slow. -Tenure Upgrade is improving and legalizing the status of people with land residency. More complex and contended. Requires grappling with overlapping and contradictory system. MEANING OF LAND -A sum of its instrumental and property values -Connections between ancestors, parents, and passed to children. -Land defines a group, its origins, asserts memberships, belonging and validates citizenship. Discourse of space, shaping subjectivity -Identity - Boer and Zulu identities and the concentration -It mediates identity and community and rupture of this social fabric causes psychological stress. Land theft/13 and 87% land partition and local accounts of displacement all contribute to this. LAND AND SOCIAL CLASS -19th century agrarian accumulation and social differentiation affected both blacks and whites (emergence of poor whiteism) -Resolved by the ‘ethnicization’ of poverty, still seen today -Walker says if agriculture was completely deracialized overnight, and 55K white farmers were replaced with black farmers, less than 10% of rural households that need land would receive it and everyone else would still be poor . -Poverty and social exclusion compounded by traditional patriarchal forms of land tenure. ‘It is in control of land that patriarchal power ultimately resides’. CONTACT THEORY - The role contact plays within the whole repertoire of relations between groups in a changing South Africa, exploring its effects on attitudes towards ongoing processes of restitution and quality, and more standard measure on prejudice. -Concrete behavioral and spatial patterns of intergroup contact. Main focus ‘micro-ecology’ contact: spatiotemporal unfolding of interaction and isolation at relative levels of analysis and across a variety of everyday life settings.

Self-Test report of Contact Theory Survey -1,119 grade 10 and 11 students from 19 Cape Town schools -strong, statistical relations between self-reported contact and prejudice measures -2010 Another 3277 students from 4 SA varsities reported moderately strong relations between reported contact and various measures of racial prejudice for black and white SAs. Students concerned about outgroup evaluation of ingroup have higher levels of prejudice toward the outgroup, outgroup blame. -2010 and 2011 surveys on white and colored high school students found cross-group relationships is a strong predictor of positive out-group attitudes and a negative predictor of negative action tendencies mediated by intergroup anxiety affective empathy. -Results are consistent showing that there is unambiguous evidence of the inverse relationship between self-reported contact and self reported prejudice in post-Apartheid SAn youth. However they do not provide an answer to questions about the impact of contact on relationships in SA. RACIAL ECOLOGY OF CONTACT -Contact theory and the utopian approach in historically divided societies -Accounting for racial and ethnic contact and also transformation challenges -Seating patterns of students helps to explore use of shared spaces. Observation and “mapping techniques” used in capturing the spatial arrangement of social relations. -Two UCT dining rooms studied (App 60% blacks and 40% whites) High levels of segregation in results, 92% of tables were highly segregated per observational period on average. -UKZN self-segregation studied the distribution of seating in first year classes over the first two weeks. They began uneven and only became uneven as the end of semester approached. Friendship patterns determined seating arrangements rather than race. Monoracial groups could predate enrollment. -Fixed meal times of dining halls likely reintroduced social rituals, rendering seating patterns more determinate than they may really be OVERALL FINDINGS, UKZN Findings:Very few students entering residence for the first time knew any of their fellow students at the time of entry. The seating preferences of first-time students were strongly racialized from the very first few days they spent in residence.Eating preferences remained consistent for the duration of the year Rate of cross-race friendship was low, even though opportunities for making cross-race friends were good. OVERALL FINDINGS UCT DINING Self-segregation shown - black and white students typically occupy the same territorially distinct areas on a daily basis Long term replication of this normative racialization despite replacement through grad and new enrollment White students - chose to sit in open spaces that were closer to in-group neighbors than out-group neighbors EXPERIMENTAL CONTACT THEORY Explored Consequences of intruding in racially homogeneous spaces. Three types of intrusions mounted:First 2, confederates were placed at a residence dining table usually occupied by students of the same, or different, racial group membership as confederate.In the 3rd, a racially mixed group of confederates was placed at dining room tables that were racially homogeneous. Results- Confederates fetched meals from the kitchen, and then occupied an end portion of the predesignated table, usually before other students occupied the table, and remained seated for an hour. Records made of any person who joined, “the intruder” tables. Few intrusions were mounted to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn Racialization of table spaces remained intact: disruptions did not promote or produce any breakdown of racial boundaries in the space. Avoiding contact - Black and White response contrast 53% Black students (opposed to 13% Whites) agreed that mixing with White students amounted to dissociating with their own group 72% Black students (only 52% White students) concurred that class differences made interracial mixing difficult 47% Black students did not want to mix with White students because white students did not have an understanding of their culture (vs 27% White Students). 49% White students thought Black students did not want to mix because they were preoccupied with race issues (vs 36% Black students) Conditions that must be met to ↓ prejudice; if not met, ↑ tension equal status – similar backgrounds, qualities, and characteristics working together on common goals (superordinate goals) rather than competing institutional support / support of authorities, laws and customs should be present intergroup cooperation – intimate rather than casual contact, personal interaction all of these conditions are not always necessary / possible; more that are met the greater the potential is for prejudice reduction. MODELS OF SOCIAL CHANGE Improving intergroup relations = Reducing stereotyping and prejudice Social change = strengthening social justice and reducing inequality Strategies to reduce prejudice tend to have + effects for the advantaged group, weakens motivation of disadvantaged groups to take collective action PREJUDICE REDUCTION VS. COLLECTIVE ACTION Theories of social change – mostly focus on prejudice reduction (e.g. contact theory) Limits of prejudice reduction for meaningful social change:Unitary focus on + attitudes and intergroup liking has obscured considerations of critical features of intergroup inequality, e.g. structural inequalities & differences in power and privilege Wright and Baray (2012) suggest successful social change emerges out of a balance of conflict and harmony, segregation and contact, antagonism and positive regard School of thought: Psychology of collective action Question why members will act on behalf of their group, in an effort to improve ingroup’s (their group’s) status and treatment Social change can be facilitated by direct confrontation by the disadvantaged group. Goal of prejudice reduction = promoting intergroup harmony and social cohesion Conflict is seen as bad that needs to be prevented, avoided/stopped quickly when it occurs Collective action views dichotomies of harmony/good, conflict/bad as problematic. Goal of collective action = promoting equality across groups and social justice Suggests that conflict is essential because it helps to expose, challenge and reduce inequalities and injustices (e.g. Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall) Prejudice Reduction focuses on the advantaged while collective action focuses on disadvantaged (advantaged might have reactionary CA) Prejudice reductionCollective actionLow salience and identification with one’s ingroupHigh salience and identification with one’s ingroupFocus on similarities across groups; identify with a larger superordinate category blurring lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’ – common ingroup identity; work towards superordinate goals, collective learningCross-cut categorisation: some members of outgroup = ingroup, previous ingroup members = outgroupKeenly aware of membership; membership meaningful part of social identityLow salience of group-based inequalityHigh salience of group-based inequalityEqual status interactions; structuring contact situations to temporarily erase group status differencesDisadvantaged group compare their collective condition to that of the outgroup (advantaged group)Perceive group boundaries permeablePerceive group boundaries impermeableEmphasis similarities and the blurring of group boundariesOne cannot simply move from one’s disadvantaged group to a more enviable, advantaged groupHigher group identification, feelings of injusticePositive characterisation of the outgroupNegative characterisation of the outgroupProduce improved evaluations, liking, and respect for the outgroupOutgroup = villain responsible for the group’s position COLLECTIVE ACTION CRITIQUES Collective actionAgency for change in the hands of disadvantaged groups, seen as key catalysts to alter the status quoChange depends on disadvantaged group’s motivation, determination, appropriateness of the tactics it uses AND resistance from the advantaged group (i.e. conflict is essential)Disadvantaged group has a direct, decisive role in improving status PREJUDICE REDUCTION CRITIQUES Models of prejudice reduction shifted problem to group that benefitted, making the situation and treatment of disadvantaged hard to ignore or legitimiseShifted the blame for group-based inequality from the disadvantagedDisadvantaged group relieved of responsibility for inequalitybut it does not shift the agency of the solution to disadvantaged (does not empower the disadvantaged) 🡪 remain passive targets of the advantaged groups actions, who will now move from discriminatory to egalitarian position as prejudice is removed Considering that mass protests can result in:repression that intensify inequality and leave the disadvantaged group in a worse situation unanticipated conditions – one repressive regime being replaced by another so is collective actionreally best DEVELOPMENTAL -Development is systematic changes and continuities in the individual that occur between conception and death -Goals of studying human development are for description/prediction/explanation/optimisation -Central issues are nature vs nurture (is development determined by biological factors like heredity or enviornmental factors or both?)/Continuity and discontinuity (Are the changes we go through gradual and quantitative or abrupt and qualitative and stage-like or both? do we all follow same developmental path or develop in unique ways),/ Universal and context-specific development. PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE -Children move through a series of stages in which they experience conflicts between biological drives and social expectations. Freud’s Psychosexual stages: Five stages associated with a sequencing of sensual pleasurable zones. Stage 1 Oral (Birth to 18 months maybe 12) - Sucking and oral satisfaction are not only vital to life, but also extremely pleasurable in their own rights. Late in this stage, the infant begins to realize that the mother/parent is something separate from self. Disruption in the physical or emotional availability of the parent could affect an infant's development. Stage 2 Anal (maybe 12 or 18 months until 36 months) - The focus of pleasure changes to the anal zone. Children become increasingly aware of the pleasurable sensations of this body region with interest in the products of their effort. Coping with demands or control. Stage 3 Phallic maybe Oedipal (3 to 6 years) - It is during this stage that the genital organs become the focus of pleasure. This is the time of exploration and imagination as the child fantasizes about the parent of the opposite sex as his or her first love interest, known as the Oedipus or Electra complex. Coping with incest feelings. Stage 4 Latency (6 to 12 or puberty) - This is a stage in which Freud believed that sexual urges, from the earlier oedipal stage, are repressed and channeled into productive activities that are socially acceptable. Stage 5 Genital (Puberty onwards) - Final stage. This is a time of turbulence when earlier sexual urges reawaken and are directed to an individual outside the family circle. Unresolved prior confilicts surface during adolescence. Once the individual resolves conflicts, he or she is then capable of having a mature adult sexual relationship. ERIKSON’S 8 STAGES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Theory that describes the development of identity of the self and the ego through successive stages that unfold throughout the life span. Trust vs Mistrust- (Birth to 1 year or maybe 18 months) Establishment of a basic sense of trust is essential for the development of a healthy personality. Autonomy versus Sense of Shame and Doubt-(1 to 3 years) A growing child is more accomplished in some basic self-care activities, including walking, feeding, and toileting. Is the result of maturation and imitation. The toddler develops his or her autonomy by making choices. Initiative versus Guilt-(3 to 5 years) Children like to pretend and try out new roles. Fantasy and imagination allow children to further explore their environment. At this time children are developing their superego, or conscience. Conflicts often occur between the child's desire to explore and the limits placed on his or her behavior. These conflicts sometimes lead to feelings of frustration and guilt. Industry versus Inferiority - (5 to 13 years) School age children are eager to apply themselves to learning socially productive skills and tools. they learn to work and play with their peers. Thrive on their accomplishments and praise. Sensation of inadequacy and achievement without proper support. Identity vs Role Confusion - (13-21 years) Dramatic physiological changes associated with sexual maturation mark this stage. There is a marked preoccupation with appearance and body image. "Who am I?" Intimacy vs Isolation - (21-39) Young adults, having developed a sense of identity, deepen their capacity to love others and care for them. They search for meaningful friendships and an intimate relationship with another. Generativity vs Stagnation - (40-65) Following the development of an intimate relationship, the adult focuses on supporting future generations. The ability to expand one's personal and social involvement is critical to this stage of development. Achieve success in this stage by contributing to future generations through parenthood, teaching and community involvement. Integrity vs Despair - (65 to death) As the aging process creates physical and social losses, some adults also suffer loss of status and function, such as through retirement or illness. Learning Theory -Developmental change is mainly caused by the environment Behaviourism - Behaviorism is a worldview that assumes a learner is essentially passive, responding to environmental stimuli. The learner starts off as a clean slate (i.e. tabula rasa) and behavior is shaped through positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement[2]. Both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement increase the probability that the antecedent behavior will happen again. In contrast, punishment (both positive and negative) decreases the likelihood that the antecedent behavior will happen again. Positive indicates the application of a stimulus; Negative indicates the withholding of a stimulus. Learning is therefore defined as a change in behavior in the learner. Classical conditioning (John Watson )Operant conditioning (B.F. Skinner) In classical conditioning, the stimuli that precede a behavior will vary to alter that behavior. In operant conditioning, the consequences which come after a behavior will vary, to alter that behavior Social Learning Theory (Bandura) Pioneered the idea that to understand behavior it was also necessary to understand how people think. Current model emphasizes interaction among behavior, environment, and personal/cognitive factors. He views learning as active and occurring withing a social context. Incorporates the personal factors of self-understanding, self-confidence, and self-efficacy in development. Mediating processes occur between stimuli & responses.Behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning. Child is more likely to imitate one similar to them. Is most likely going to continue if they are given PROPER reinforcement. And then they observe other people’s consequences. The cognitive-developmental perspective Piaget’s theory of Cognitive Development Includes four periods that are related to age and demonstrate specific categories of knowing and understanding. Period l: Sensorimotor (Birth to 2 Years) During a time of unparalleled changes, the infant develops the schema or action pattern for dealing with the environment. Including hitting, looking, grasping or kicking. Period ll: Preoperational (2 to 7 Years) this is a time when children learn to think with the use of symbols and mental images. Children see objects and persons from only one point of view, their own. Period lll: Concrete Operations (7 to 12 Years) Children now achieve the ability to perform mental operations. The children are now able to describe a process without actually performing it. Period lV: Formal Operations (12 Years to Adulthood) During this stage the individual's thinking moves to abstract and theoretical subjects. Cognitive processes: Assimilation: trying to understand new information in terms of our existing schemes Accommodation: changing our existing schemes or developing new schemes in response to new information.Enable us to move from a state of disequilibrium to equilibrium. Information processing theory Likens the human mind to a computer with hardware and software with input being processed into sensory image, if not forgotten into working memory, and if still not forgotten then is stored. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory Focuses on the impact of social and cultural experiences on cognitive development The ecological and systems perspective provide more complex explanations of how biological and environmental influences – including culture – constantly interact with one another to influence development Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory Microsystem: Refers to the institutions and groups that most immediately and directly impact the child's development including: family, school, religious institutions, neighborhood, and peers. Mesosystem: Interconnections between the microsystems, Interactions between the family and teachers, Relationship between the child’s peers and the family Exosystem: Involves links between a social setting in which the individual does not have an active role and the individual's immediate context. For example, a parent's or child's experience at home may be influenced by the other parent's experiences at work. The parent might receive a promotion that requires more travel, which might increase conflict with the other parent and change patterns of interaction with the child. Macrosystem: Describes the culture in which individuals live. Cultural contexts include developing and industrialized countries, socioeconomic status, poverty, and ethnicity. A child, his or her parent, his or her school, and his or her parent's workplace are all part of a large cultural context. Members of a cultural group share a common identity, heritage, and values. The macrosystem evolves over time, because each successive generation may change the macrosystem, leading to their development in a unique macrosystem.[1] Chronosystem: The patterning of environmental events and transitions over the life course, as well as sociohistorical circumstances. For example, divorces are one transition. Researchers have found that the negative effects of divorce on children often peak in the first year after the divorce. By two years after the divorce, family interaction is less chaotic and more stable. An example of sociohistorical circumstances is the increase in opportunities for women to pursue a career during the last thirty years TYPES OF RESEARCH DESIGN for DESCRIPTION purposes 1. Cross-sectional design Compares the performances of people of different age groups at a single time. Advantage:Provides information about age differences Disadvantage:Cohort effects 2. Longitudinal design One age group (cohort) is assessed repeatedly over time. Advantages:Longitudinal designs can tell us:Whether most people change in the same direction or whether the characteristics measured remain consistent over time Whether experiences early in life predict traits and behaviours later in life Disadvantages:Time of measurement effects Costly and time-consuming Participants drop out 3. Sequential design Groups of people of 2 or more different ages are studied repeatedly over a period of time for PREDICTING or OPTIMIZING purposes 1. Experimental studies Investigator manipulates some aspect of environment to see what effect this has on people’s behaviour. Basic logic:Select a random sample. Randomly assign the participants to an experimental or control group Manipulate the independent variable Keep all other factors constant Measure the dependent variable Use statistics to see whether any differences between the two groups are more than you would expect by chance Advantage:Can establish cause and effect Disadvantages:Artificiality. Cannot address many questions for ethical or practical reasons 2. Correlational studies Involve determining whether two or more naturally-occurring variables are related in some systematic way Disadvantage:Cannot establish cause-and-effect Advantages:Allow us to predict behaviour Can suggest a causal relationship in situations where experiments would be unethical or impossible. Have a “real world” quality 3. Qualitative studies Involve gaining an in-depth understanding of human behaviour Advantage:Can provide a rich and detailed picture of development Disadvantage:Conclusions may not hold true for other people or in other settings PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT germinal(fertilisation to 2weeks) embryonic(3 to 8 weeks) foetal(9 weeks to birth) FOETUS MOVEMENT MovementsGestational age (weeks)Just discernible movement7Startle8Hiccup9Breathing movements10Hand-face contact10Yawn11Sucking and swallowing12Eye movements16 Sensory abilities 8 weeks: responds to touch around lips and cheeks 15-16 weeks: responds to flavour of amniotic fluid 22-24 weeks: responds to sound Foetal learning Newborns prefer to listen to their mother’s voice, and to music and stories they heard prenatally. The foetus also learns about tastes and smells. The importance of foetal behaviour Practice makes perfect Forming joints and muscles Getting ready for the breast Attachment Language Boosting brain cells Environmental influences on prenatal development Teratogens-Any disease, drug, or other environmental agent that can harm a developing foetus The mother’s state: -Age The safest time to bear a child is from about age 20 to 35. -Emotional condition Babies of highly stressed mothers tend to be small, premature and irritable, and are at increased risk of behaviour problems in childhood.Possible explanations include:Stress hormones Poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle Ongoing stressors after birth Genetic transmission -Nutritional condition Maternal malnutrition associated with:Low birth weight, Intellectual and social deficits Effects of environmental hazards depend on:Timing Severity and duration Genetic makeup of child and mother Postnatal environment BIRTH PROCESS -This stage begins when the cervix starts to dilate and to open. First stage is complete when the cervix has opened to around 10 centimetres. Contractions. -Stage 2 is when the baby’s head appears and it passes through the vagina -Stage 3 is the placenta being pushed out APGAR test used to provide a quick assessment of the newborn’s heart rate, respiration, colour,muscle tone and reflexes Postnatal depression Affects about 13% of new mothers. Risks increased for those with:Histories of depression. Other life stresses Lack of social support Depressed mothers may:perceive their babies as more difficult interact less positively with their infants have trouble responding to their babies’signals and establishing reciprocal, give-and-take relationships with them NEONATES AT RISK Premature infants born before the 37th week after the woman’s last menstrual period Low birthweight babies weigh less than 2 500g at birth(due to prematurity, foetal growth retardation, or both) Potential problems with:respiration maintaining body temperature immune system digestion parent-infant relations. Developmental consequences Low birthweight infants are at risk for academic and behavioural problemsBut long-term consequences are not inevitable, and depend on:biological condition and quality of postnatal environment KANGAROO CARE 4 components: Kangaroo position (Skin-to-skin contact) Kangaroo nutrition(Breastfeeding) Kangaroo support Kangaroo discharge Benefits include: Improves survival Infants calmer, less distressed Infants show improved cognitive performance Mothers feel more positive Improves quality of parent-child and family interactions Reduces hospital costs. Culture and thought both what people know and how they think are shaped by the mental tools (mediators) the culture values and makes available. Social interaction and thought Cognitive development occurs as children interact with more skilled partners on tasks that are within their zone of proximal development. Language and thought As social speech is transformed into private speech and then inner speech, the culture’s preferred tools of problem solving work their way from the language of competent guides into the thinking of the individual. Evaluating Vygotsky’s theory Contribution:Increased awareness of social and cultural contexts of cognition.Limitation:Does not provide a detailed description of how children’s thinking changes with age. WHAT IS LANGUAGE? a form of communication based on a system of symbols consists of the words used by a community and the rules for varying and combining them Language’s rule systems Phonology Phoneme: the smallest unit of sound in a language Cat = /k/ /a/ /t/ Phonology: rules regarding how sounds are perceived as different and which sound sequences may occur Morphology rules that govern the makeup of words Morpheme: the smallest unit of sound that conveys a specific meaning helper = help + er walks = walk + s Syntax rules that govern the ways words are combined to form acceptable phrases and sentences. The farmer chased the cat that killed the mouse. √The mouse the cat killed ate the cheese. √The mouse the cat the farmer chased killed ate the cheese. χ Semantics rules that govern the meaning of words and sentences Pragmatics rules that govern the appropriate use of language in context LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Infancy Recognising language sounds Newborns are sensitive to the sounds, rhythm and intonation of language and can recognise the language their caregivers speak. 6-12 months: Change from universal linguistto language specific listener 8 months: Begin to detect word boundaries 8-12 months: Comprehension of words appears PRODUCING LANGUAGE Before the first words Birth:Crying,other prelinguistic sounds 2 months: Cooing ± 5-6 months:Babbling 8-12 months: Gestures The first words10-15 months: First word spoken (holophrases) 18 months: vocabulary spurt starts Overextension: the tendency to apply a word too broadly Underextension: the tendency to apply a word too narrowly Telegraphic speech at 18-24 months: two-word statements appear Early CHildhood Transition from telegraphic speech to complex sentences.Increased understanding of language’s rule systems. Overregularization of morphological rules (e.g. “foots”) shows that preschoolers understand the rules of grammar and are applying them. As for semantics, Speaking vocabulary increases by 5-8 words per day, to ± 8000-14000 words by age 6. 6-year-olds learn 22 new words every day. Fast mapping is a possible explanation Pragmatics “Daddy, did your hair slip?”(3-year-old son, to his bald but long bearded father) “I wish someone we knew would die so we could leave them flowers.”(6-year-old girl, upon seeing flowers in a cemetery)“ How will that help?”(preschool student, when the class was told to hold up two fingers if any of them had to go to the bathroom) Middle Childhood Further advances in vocabulary and grammar Realise that the surface content of speech (what is said) and what is meant are not necessarily the same Adolescence Increasingly sophisticated understanding of metaphor, satire, and complex literary works. Often adopt a dialect when speaking with peers

HOW IS LANGUAGE ACQUIRED? Language acquisitiondepends on learning through imitation and operant conditioning (reinforcement).

The Nativist Explanation

Chomsky: children are biologically “prewired” with a language acquisition device that enables them to detect the features and rules of language. Broca’s Area produces speech and Wernicke’s Area develops language The Interactionist View Children are biologically prepared to learn language, but in order to do so they must actively participate in human interaction.

What is important in the environment to promote language development?

Live language exposure Interaction Focused on the child’s interest How can caregivers enhance language development?Talking to children Book sharing (dialogic reading)Associated with improvements in vocabulary, comprehension, sustained attention, sociability, andempathy (Murray et al., 2016) Infant-directed speechExpandingLabelling Self-awareness: Knowledge of the self as a separate, permanent entity. I-self (sense of self as an agent) emerges during the first year Me-self (sense of self as an object of knowledge and evaluation) develops during the second year. From about 18 months, toddlers show self-recognition. Self-awareness leads to:Self-conscious emotionsPerspective-takingEmpathy Compliance: obedience Self-control: the capacity to resist an impulse to engage in socially disapproved behaviour Requirements:Self-awarenessAbility to remember commandsAbility to shift attention Compliance begins to appear between 12 and 18 months.Self-control first appears around 18 months. Influences on self-controlTemperament (effortful control)ability to sustain attention, control one’s behaviour, and regulate one’s emotionsCulture (Lamm et al., 2017)Environmental reliability (Kidd et al., 2013) Self-concept:Perception of self; your understanding of what you are like. Developmental changes in self-concept Early childhood: From about 18 months, toddlers begin to classify themselves and others into social categories.Preschoolers define themselves in concrete, physical terms. Middle childhood: Children develop a more complex self-concept incorporating:Internal, psychological characteristicsSocial aspects (e.g. social groups)Social comparison Adolescence:Self-concepts become more:Self-consciousAbstractFluctuatingIntegratedAnd adolescents increasingly start to think about possible selves. Cultural influences on self-conceptIn individualistic cultures, self-descriptions focus on unique personal characteristics and emphasise positive qualities.In collectivist cultures, people are more likely to describe themselves in terms of their social roles, and are more modest and self-critical. SOCIAL COGNITIONThe ability to understand other people’s perceptions, thoughts, emotions and behaviour Theory of mind: the understanding that people have mental states such as desires, beliefs, and intentions and that these mental states guide their behaviour. During the first 5 years, children gradually come to understand: 1.PerceptionsFrom about 9 months, infants engage in joint attention. 2) IntentionsIn the first months of life, infants understand that others have intentions – that actions are directed toward particular goals. 3) Pretence/make-believeAge 1-2: Pretend play emergesAge 3: Children know the difference between real and imagined objects 4) Emotions3-months: can distinguish between emotions posed by adults in photos.7-10 months: infants use social referencing to guide their own behaviour.Age 2: talk about emotions and have some understanding of what will comfort and hurt others.Age 4 to 5: can correctly infer whether a person is happy, sad, angry, scared or surprised from his or her facial expression, and can identify situations that are likely to cause these emotions. 5) DesiresAge 2: children have a “desire theory of mind”: they understand that people have desires, and that these desires guide their behaviour. 6) BeliefsAge 3 - 4: Children have a “belief-desire theory of mind”. False belief task: assesses the understanding that people can hold incorrect beliefs and be influenced by these beliefs, even if they are wrong. Deception:By about age 4, most children understand that, by telling something that is false, they change the beliefs that another person has about a situation. How do we explain the development of a theory of mind? Neurological maturationAdvances in languageAdvances in cognitionSocial experiencessiblingspretend playmaternal mind-mindednessCulture What is morality?The ability to:distinguish “right” from “wrong”, and act on this distinction Kohlberg’s Theory Level 1: Preconventional moralityPersonal consequences of action determine whether it is judged good or bad.Stage 1: Punishment-and-obedience orientationobeys rules in order to avoid punishment.Stage 2: Instrumental hedonismobeys rules in order to gain rewards or satisfy personal needs. Level 2: Conventional moralityMoral reasoning is guided by doing what family, society, or people in power expect.Stage 3: “Good boy”/ “good girl” moralityWhat is right is that which pleases, helps or is approved of by others.Stage 4: Authority and social-order-maintaining moralityWhat is right is what upholds “law and order.” Level 3: Postconventional moralityIndividual defines what is right in terms of broad principles of justiceStage 5: Morality of contract, individual rights, and democratically accepted lawperson is still guided by the general consensus about right and wrong, but believes that society must also fulfil its part in the bargain.Stage 6: Morality of individual principles of conscienceperson follows a self-chosen ethical code based on principles of justice. Critiques of Kohlberg’s theory Stage model is too rigidCultural biasOverlooks nonlegalistic forms of moral reasoning(Prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg): deciding whether to share with, help or take care of other people when doing so involves a cost to oneself).Fails to explain relationship between moral reasoning and behaviour Aggression: committing an act intended to hurt another Instrumental aggression: directed at getting something (a means to an end). Hostile aggression: specifically aimed at hurting another person (an end in itself). Individual factors:Genes:Influence aggression indirectly through their effects on children’s temperaments and physiologically based characteristics What causes individual differences in aggressive behaviour? Social information-processing (Dodge):The individual’s reactions to frustration, anger or provocation depend on the ways in which the person processes and interprets the social cues present in the situation.Highly aggressive individuals tend to show faulty or biased information processing (e.g. quickly attributing hostile intentions to other people), or to respond impulsively “without thinking”.

Interpersonal factors: Social learning perspective:people learn to behave aggressively through reinforcement and modelling. Patterson’s coercive family environments:Family members are locked in power struggles, each trying to control the others through coercive tactics like threatening, shouting and hitting, and parents gradually lose control of children’s behaviour. Broader contextual factorsPoverty, inequalityand social stressCommunity violencePeer influencesCultural context Violence prevention:Should start in infancy or toddlerhood with an emphasis on positive parenting, followed by programs to improve the social skills and impulse control of young children at risk. Bullying:Repeated, systematic acts of physical, verbal and/or relational aggression that are directed towards particular peers.Bullies:act aggressively (without provocation) to achieve domination over other children.have quite a good understanding of social interaction, but use this knowledge in an antisocial way. Victims:tend to be anxious, insecure, lacking in self-esteem and socially isolated. Effects of bullying:Victims are at increased risk of depression and low self-esteem. Bullies are at increased risk of becoming involved in criminal behaviour What can we do about it?: Whole school approach (Olweus):Target entire schoolIntervene earlyEvaluate programs The Development of Prosocial BehaviourProsocial behaviour (behaviour that is intended to benefit others)appears by 18 monthsincreases with age Perspective takingEmpathyMoral reasoningSkills underlying prosocial behaviour Influences on prosocial behaviourGenestemperamentSocial learning (modelling)Opportunities to behave prosociallyDisciplineMoral training: DisciplineDiscipline refers to methods of teaching children self-control, moral values and appropriate behaviour. What are effective ways of disciplining children?InductionPunishmentTime outPositive disciplineNote: parents will need to adjust their discipline strategies according to the child’s age and temperament. GENDER DIFFERENCES Physical differences23rd pair of chromosomesMale XYFemale XXDifferent balances of hormones (androgens and oestrogens)Genitals differ Only females can bear childrenGirls mature physically faster than boys do Masculinity: Instrumental or agentic traitsFemininity: Expressive or communal traits Development of gender roles (the patterns of behaviour and traits that define how to act the part of a male or a female in a society) involves acquiring:Gender identityGender (labellingGender stabilityGender consistency)Gender stereotypesGender-typed behaviour patterns Middle childhood: extend gender-stereotyped beliefs, but also acknowledge that people can cross gender lines. Early adolescence: Possible gender intensification. Theories of gender role development Biosocial Theory (Money & Ehrhardt)Gender role preferences determined by a series of critical events:Prenatal: exposure to hormonesPostnatal: Parents and others label and react towards a child on the basis of his or her genitals. Social learning theory (Bandura)Children learn gender roles through:Differential reinforcementObservational learning Cognitive approachesCognitive-developmental theory (Kohlberg)Children try to behave in a way that is consistent with their identity as boys or girls. Gender schema theory (Martin & Halverson)As soon as children can label their own gender, they form a gender schema and process information on the basis of this schema. Functions of the family (Levine, 1974)Survival goalEconomic goalCultural goalFamily systems theoryThe family consists of interrelated parts, each of which affects and is affected by every other part, and each of which contributes to the functioning of the whole. PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS Parenting styles High emotions/control=authoritative High emotions/low control=permissive Low emotions/low control=uninvolved Low emotions/high control= Autoritarian Outcomes:Children of authoritative parents: cheerful, self-controlled, cooperative, socially and academically competentChildren of authoritarian parents: unhappy, irritable and/or dependentChildren of permissive parents: impulsive, rebellious and poor achieversChildren of uninvolved parents: aggressive and antisocial Criticisms:Cultural biasCertain parenting styles are more popular and more effective in some cultures than in others.“Competent” parenting is not necessarily middle-class western patterns of child rearing, but rather the style of parenting that encourages the particular abilities that children will need for success within their particular (sub)culture. Direction of influenceChild effects on parents:Children’s personality characteristics influence the parenting they receive.Transactional influences in the family:Parents and their children influence one another reciprocally as they interact over time. Parent-adolescent closenessAdolescents who are securely attached to their parents tend to be better adjusted and more socially competent.Parent-adolescent conflictIn most cultures, conflict with parents increases in early adolescence.However, conflict is more common in cultures that value autonomy than in those that value interdependence. Fathers are just as capable of sensitive and responsive caregiving as mothersBUTFathers in many culturesSpend less time interacting with infantsSpend more time in rough-and-tumble play Effects of father involvementChildren of single mothers are more likely to have psychological problems than children from two-parent families.However, this is probably not due to the absence of a parent per se.Having a father is not essential for a child’s psychological development.However, positive father involvement (e.g., economic support, authoritative parenting) is linked with desirable outcomes among children. Sibling rivalry – a spirit of competition, jealousy or resentment between siblingsMinimised if:Parents continue to provide first-born with love and attention (without being over-indulgent)Parents help the older child to see the infant as a person, and involve them in caring for the infantAmbivalence in sibling relationshipsSibling relationships involve both closeness and conflict.From adolescence, sibling relationships become less intense and more equal, but ambivalence remains.Sibling relationships are more positive when:Children have “easy” temperamentsParents have a good relationshipParents treat siblings fairlyHOW DO SIBLINGS CONTRIBUTE TO DEVELOPMENT?Direct contributionsPositive effects:Emotional supportCaretaking servicesTeachingNegative effects:Younger siblings growing up with aggressive older siblings are more likely to develop adjustment problemsIndirect contributionsChildrearing:Parents’ (and teachers’) experiences with older siblings influence their expectations of subsequent children and the child-rearing/teaching strategies that they consider effective.Differential treatment:is associated with poor emotional and behavioural functioning if:the child has a poor individual relationship with his/her parentsthe child perceives this differential treatment to be unfair/unjustified What effects does divorce have?On average, children from divorced families have more psychological, school and peer problems.How long do these effects last?Most problems disappear within a few years, although some may persist for longer.Why do these effects occur?Loss of a parentReduced economic resourcesMore life stressPoor parental adjustmentDeterioration of parenting – N.B.Exposure to interparental conflict What factors help children adjust to divorce?Positive family relationships includingAuthoritative parentingCooperation and low conflict between parentsAdequate financesSocial supportMinimal additional stressors Remarriage and reconstituted familiesThe more marital transitions primary school children have experienced, the poorer their adjustment is likely to be.But long-term outcomes are influenced by:AgeGenderParentingBROADER CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON THE FAMILY: THE EXAMPLE OF POVERTYChildren raised in poverty are more likely to:perform poorly at schoolbecome involved in delinquent behaviourhave unwanted pregnanciesdevelop emotional problemsWhy does this occur?Direct effects:Children in poverty often have less adequateprenatal and postnatal environmentse.g., exposure to environmental toxins and infectious diseaseshousing, nutrition and medical careschool and play environmentsIndirect effects:Poverty has negative effects on the emotional well-being of caretakers, and in turn on family life and the quality of child care. A characteristic of a group of people that is associated with an increased probability of negative outcomesResilience: Capacity of a system to adapt successfully to challenges that threaten its life, function, or development (Masten, 2017)What differentiates resilient children from those who develop psychological problems?Number of risk factorsProtective factorsLater experiencesNumber of risk factorsThe accumulation of multiple risk factors tends to have far more negative effects than any one risk factor aloneProtective factorsCharacteristics of children or their environment that enhance good outcomes under conditions of risk or adversityPersonal characteristics such as good problem-solving skills,Family characteristics such as competent parenting, andBroader environmental characteristics such as social support and good schools.Later experiencesLinks do exist between childhood and adulthood, but adverse early experiences do not inevitably cause irreversible damageNegative childhood experiences often trigger a chain of events that may result in psychological problems in adulthoodBut if the child’s circumstances improve, the course of his/her life may also change for the betterConclusionsThe effects of particular experiences on children depend not just on the experience itself, but on the context in which it occurs.How can developmental psychology make a contribution?Policy developmentEducation: what works well?DemocratisationUnderstanding resilienceHIV/AIDS preventionViolence prevention

1 note · View note

yongmamedia · 5 years ago

Text

Defend the Video games

written by Yongma Lee

“Video games are the reason for the children’s aggression,” this is an often heard, serious accusation with little evidence to back it up. While there have been several recent violent incidents like “Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting”, there is no clear indication that video games were the cause of such incidence. Despite the lack of evidence, many still believe that video games have a connection with them. Additionally, parents and other adults claim that video games are a bad influence on children. The government also accuses video games of influencing violent behavior after only playing it for a few hours. Several news reports and articles state that “violent video games” can turn children into violent criminals. Because of this wave of reports and public opinion, the U.S. Congress is attempting to take action against violent video games (Wrigley). Many opponents say such an action would be a violation to the freedom of speech - any attempt to ban video games viewed as an attempt to ban popular culture in general. Unfortunately, unless steps were set to lessen this perception of negative influence of certain genre in video games, this might be exactly what happens.

Many have speculated in reports that video games were the violent incidents’ source. However, despite these many reports there does not seem to be any proof that video games could actually have an effect like triggering violence in children. Additionally, it is important that parents fulfill an important role – they are responsible to ensure their children play games appropriate for their age. Some parents may have overlooked this when they did not set security measures to prevent younger kids from playing Mature - rated games. One theory suggests that kids who exposed to graphic violence in some video games can lead to having violent thoughts and aggression and have connections to violent crimes, including robbery and assault (Porter and Starcevic 423). Another hypothesis states that playing violent video games can lead to higher aggression levels than merely watching them (Polman, de Castro, and Van Aker 257). Yet another research project indicated that boys behave more aggressively than girls do when they exposed to actively violent video games (Polman, de Castro, and Van Aker 261). While this much data does show higher levels of aggression in kids, it does not show a tendency to plan and initiate an overtly violent act or attack. Furthermore, exposure to the violent video game is not the cause of a player’s rampage regardless of the duration of exposure to these games. But rather, it is more due to an emotional arousal to violence (Bowen and Spaniol 907). However, if the exposure is low in terms of time and content, there is little chance of impact (Bowen and Spaniol 901). It is a fact that some parents carelessly let kids play “mature” rated games without knowing the consequences, yet those same groups of people are setting a bad example for them. Parents should provide positive reinforcement by example and by setting limits on what their kids allowed to play. Although there is significant data that suggests elevated aggression levels because of violent video game exposure, it is difficult to prove violent video games can create aggression in a child’s behavior. If video games are the aggressive behavior’s origin, then the parents should take the blame for not seeing that type of behavior beforehand.

Although there are a few negative reviews that state that video games are a bad influence that is primarily because younger kids exposed to mature rated games far too much. Certain organizations like the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and Common Sense Media (CSM) provide some good examples based on what type of specific game content information parents could expect to find in age-appropriate games for their children. For instance, Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch is one of those neutral games that includes a bit of violence, but positive themes can outweigh the negative thinking about video games. Themes such as self-sacrifice, getting along with others, and working for the greater good along are good with stronger themes, such as dealing with tragedy, self-reflection, and rising to the occasion could help with personal growth. Another good example would be Professor Layton and the Miracle Mask. Although dangerous peril appears in scenes of the game, this game encourages kids to use their brains to solve their problems and puzzle, as well as using imagination and deduction skills. The last example is a 3DS game called Rhythm Thief, as its genre is music and rhythm. Even though the game has some violent sequences, kids can learn about musical concepts. In addition to appreciating music, there is some history of Paris along with puzzles in the game. Parents can help their kids learn from certain games by using parental rating systems and reviews in assisting their purchasing decisions. Unless the government can present some physical, irrefutable evidence that video games are responsible for violent criminal activities, the government should be careful not to meddle with freedom of speech. It also due to those children lacked the rational thinking that a few, sensible adults currently have. For example, a few kids while watching TV happen to see a video game trailer despite the ESRB group’s rating guideline warning of mature content and preview a video game like Mortal Kombat or Halo. After seeing the preview, they ask their parents to buy that game and do not recall or do not reveal the game’s parental rating. There may be many reasons why the kids either did not remember or tried to hide the parental rating, including peer pressure (friends saying the game is cool or awesome). What is important is that the parents take some time to preview game selections and carefully monitor their children’s activities. It is generally viewed that it is the parent’s role to help their children make good choices and to differentiate between right and wrong. There are many tools that parents can use, such as setting limits and (if needed) therapists to prevent such controversy.

Although some violent incidents do occur and people assume that video games are the cause, there is another side as well. Some video games present positive messages and role models to provide a good learning structure for kids and adolescents. Although these rated games sometimes contain mild to moderate violence, some multiplayer games encourage social interaction through cooperation and teamwork. For example, Cooperative play of aggressive games has found to decrease the level of aggressive cognitions and arousal associate with playing violent games due to the exposure of high levels of violence (DeCoster 277). Increased cooperative behavior can lead to a better outcome in their gaming and their teamwork activities (DeCoster 277-278). In other words, a method to increase an individual’s social behavior is for the gamer to be a member of a group like a team or guild. “The current study examined how playing a violent video game cooperatively influenced future cooperative behavior” (DeCoster 278). Furthermore, children will get the individual idea through playing positive games that can activate an ideal self for a “good” role along with other games with similar positive qualities, whereas a violent video game could activate an antisocial self for a “bad” or socially undesirable role (Annie Jin 1175). In addition, some video games reviewed to have positive messages that will help children to learn and grow from them. Parents and teachers would never understand how games and their messages could create a positive impact unless they try these games along with the children. These positive results from video games tend to outweigh the negative ones as long as they keep in mind the messages these games will bring. Just give video games one more chance and play them.

It’s time to silence the accusations towards games. Most video games do not cause kids to behave violently. In one sample, 88 percent of kids played video games, out of which only 8 percent exhibited pathological use while the 5 percent had impulse control disorder in Singapore (Eloise Dunlap, et al 155). Although first-person shooter games, brawler games, and certain violent games like Grand Theft Auto have, a tendency to get kids riled up into getting involved in trouble or starting a fight, there is not any evidence that video games influence kids to, let alone force them to commit crimes. Because of this situation, it would seem that many people would be safe to assume that video games were the source of where did that person get his intention to start violence in real life. Many reports state that mentally ill people just grab a weapon and attack innocent people indiscriminately. The government should focus more on their intention of restricting people from having access to weapons in order to keep the rest of citizens safe from future incidents. If researchers from the National Institute of Mental Health examine the condition of each mental patient, then the possibility of video games being the cause is a lie. Despite what others claim, they are saying, but video games are not the real source of the aggression in children. the two things that everyone should be thinking about are the consideration of what harm game ratings higher than the kid’s age can cause and whether mentally ill should learn the difference between reality and fiction. Therefore, this concludes that there is little evidence to go against violent video games.

Congress intending to ban video games nationwide can present troubling consequences if a bill like that would pass. Congress banning video games would create conflict with the bill of rights as the first amendment ensures the freedoms of the press, race, religion, and free speech. Everyone also has the freedom to think and come up with new means of innovation. The government banning video games also means they are chaining down freedom of speech. Allowing the government to ban video games would be a bad thing. Video games are now a part of the entertainment industry. Placing a ban on video games could interpreted as meaning the government is banning the entire entertainment industry – all because of a few violent incidents that were assumingly linked to video games. Entertainment like video games has become a big part of our world’s culture. Not everyone would expect a video game ban being a good thing because gamers need something to channel their frustration into games. Many kids also feel that banning video games is a bad thing as it also potentially bans everything else relating to entertainment. Even if the government would say “yes” to the ban, many US citizens would still go against that idea. The government seems like they always looking for someone to play the scapegoat and place the blame on in order to cover up their mistakes for not seeing the incidents beforehand. Everyone should calm down and think instead of blaming things like video games.

In the near future, I believe there will be a great deal of evidence that will clarify the positive outcome of video games as well as make the news reporters retract their exaggerations. There already is evidence that will outweigh the negative criticism about video games influencing kids through surveys and statistical data via demographics. One of two studies prove that pro-social games, that are relative to neutral could possibly decrease direct and indirect aggressive behavior as long as the game doesn’t have stronger violent means (Christina Gschwendtner, et al 236). After the participants finished with the experiment, games with pro-social game conditions reported to perform more positive acts than violent condition games and neutral while those who are lingering to violent game conditions would perform violent acts than the others, which designates similar results (Christina Gschwendtner, et al 237). The data represents an increase in a desire for violent acts. However, their findings suggest that aggressive behavior can also decrease through video game exposure (Christina Gschwendtner, et al 238). Both pro-social and neutral games states in the analyses that gamers are behaving less aggressively than violent video games (Christina Gschwendtner, et al 238). The data contained evidence that violent video games can create violent intentions in gamers that might prove that some violent video games can cause aggressive behavior. Although some neutral video games may present a bit of violence, their positive messages can outweigh their violent content. Furthermore, video games and their quality depend on the content that each game programmed. Non-profit organizations like Common Sense Media can specifically identify both appropriate and inappropriate content for viewers to see. When thinking about the positive qualities in the game, it just turns out that not all video games considered a bad influence to kids who enjoy playing games. Video games meant to play and to have fun, but many people with severe disability cases should learn to differentiate between the two factors. Too much exposure from violent video games would influence the gamer to have dangerous behavioral issues. Video games are supposed to entertain gamers and that interactive entertainment is all the fun they could ever need.

Video games often framed for these false accusations. The government and news reporters put the blame on them just to scare US citizens into thinking that video games are just something bad for kids. In reality, not all video games considered bad influences. Just as there are no bad students, only bad teachers. Careless parents are to blame for buying violent video games for their kids without knowledge of the consequences. Because they allow kids to play violent video games, they would end up behaving like bullies and delinquents because of the endgame by negligence. Even if some video games might have some violent content, it does not change the fact that video games are not responsible for real life violence amongst gamers, including the sandy hook elementary shooting. Those accusations hardly stated as a fact without further evidence about video games being the source of a person’s violent behavior. Video games act as something any gamer want to play on, not something to take it seriously. Those video games meant for playing and interacting with others through multiplayer, or online. They did not tell you to commit a crime, or jump off a bridge. Regardless, video games do not have the capacity to influence someone into harming an innocent bystander. Video games are just harmless, mindless entertainment and nothing more than that. Many people find the video games are innocent due to a lack of concrete evidence. Thus, gamers of all ages should feel relieved that they are not the cause of the problem, but it is more of a misunderstanding because of fear and assumptions.

Works Cited

Bowen, Holly J., and Julia Spaniol. "Chronic Exposure To Violent Video Games Is Not Associated With Alterations Of Emotional Memory." Applied Cognitive Psychology 25.6 (2011): 906-916. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 May 2013.

Christina Gschwendtner, et al. "Acting Prosocially Reduces Retaliation: Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Aggressive Behavior." European Journal of Social Psychology 42.2 (2012): 235-242. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 June 2013.

Eloise Dunlap, et al. "Video Game Genre as a Predictor of Problem Use." Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 15.3 (2012): 155-161. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 June 2013.

Fagone, Jason. "Toward A Future in Which Pixels, Code and Computers Will Make You Cry and Feel and Love." Esquire 150.6 (2008): 160-188. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 June 2013.

Ferguson, Christopher. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-Analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects Of Violent Video Games." Psychiatric Quarterly 78.4 (2007): 309-316. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 May 2013.

Jamie DeCoster, et al. "Effect of Playing Violent Video Games Cooperatively or Competitively On Subsequent Cooperative Behavior." Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 15.5 (2012): 277-280. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 June 2013.

NNIE JIN, SEUNG-A. "My Avatar Behaves Well and This Feels Right": Ideal and Ought Selves in Video Gaming." Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 39.9 (2011): 1175-1182. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 June 2013.

Polman, Hanneke, Bram Orobio de Castro, and Marcel A.G. van Aken. "Experimental Study of the Differential Effects of Playing Versus Watching Violent Video Games on Children's Aggressive Behavior." Aggressive Behavior 34.3 (2008): 256-264. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 June 2013.

Porter, Guy, and Vladan , Starcevic. "Are Violent Video Games Harmful?." Australasian Psychiatry 15.5 (2007): 422-426. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 May 2013.

Wrigley, Will. “Dianne Feinstein: Congress May Take Action On Video Game Violence.” Huffington Post. AOL. Web. 11 June 2013.

#videogamedefense #videogaming #playstation #nintendo #microsoft

0 notes