My problem with this article is that ” the research doesn’t answer whether Facebook attracts narcissists or turns us into them” so I don’t really see a point in this article. It seems an obvious point that many people on Facebook are guilty of posting narcissistic photos and statuses, and similarly obvious that having a plethora of Facebook friends to like said pictures and statuses can fuel narcissistic qualities in a person. The study mentioned in this article says that “those who frequently updated their Facebook status, tagged themselves in photos and had large numbers of virtual friends, were more likely to exhibit narcissistic traits” and that “high levels of narcissism were more likely to spend more than an hour a day on Facebook, and they were also more likely to post digitally enhanced personal photos” which are both quite obvious. All the aspects of the study are linked in obviousness: having less privacy settings and more Facebook friends allows more and more people to like your digitally altered photos of yourself and therefore giving you encouragement to post more. I don’t see why a study needs to be done to prove this, all you need to do is have a Facebook and you can witness it firsthand.
I really do not understand economics at all (which is going to make IB Econ next year very difficult) but I can tell that the first myth’s explanation doesn’t make much sense. If “countries such as China and Russia have more power than ever to obstruct U.S. foreign policy goals” then how can the United States be “the world’s only superpower”? If the superpower can be over-powered by other countries, why aren’t the countries on top of the superpower also considered super powers? And what does it mean when it says the US economy “is more than twice the size of second place China’s”? I don’t understand how the economy can be large or small in size, I believed economy to be an intangible word for the US’s well-being financially and technologically compared with other countries. What makes an economy big or small or medium-sized and how can an economy, which is indeed intangible, be a size at all? I wish I understood economics, but I just can’t.
The first article made no sense to me at all, I cannot see the correlation between alcoholism and intelligence. If anything, I would think that the intelligent would be the ones not drinking alcohol because they realize how dangerous it is to the body and mind. But the article states that smart people created alcohol and the concept of getting drunk. So, one must ask what defines a “smart person” according to the article? The smart people of this article may be book-intelligent but if they are alcoholics, they are certainly not intelligent in any other way.
In the Psychology Today article a specific line stuck out to me because it was the first line I read that made sense: “more intelligent people occupy higher-paying, more important jobs that require them to socialize and drink with their business associates.” That is definitely true, for business associates tend to be smarter than janitors (sorry if I offended any janitors) and also need to consume alcohol at important meetings. But, upon re-reading this I realized the article actually states that “It appears to be their intelligence itself, rather than correlates of intelligence” that induce drinking in the intelligent. Why would the article put forth a point that actually made sense and then say it had nothing to do with their studies? I’m confused, honestly.
I am going places. I do not plan to spend the rest of my life anywhere near Vestal. No offense, Vestal, but I’ve seen the same streets, the same houses for almost 17 years. I don’t see why anyone would not want to try a new place, or new places as they grow older. The article states that young Americans “have become risk-averse and sedentary” which the article attributes to the internet and to the economy. I disagree with both. I think each individual person decides whether or not they’re homebodies or risk-takers. For example, I am not a homebody and enjoy every vacation my family takes and my sister despises vacations and enjoys lounging on the couch. As sisters, we have the same economic standing and I spend way more time on the internet than she does. Just because I enjoy spending a lot of my time on the internet does not foreshadow me staying in Vestal and not exploring new places.
Weather can be my best friend one second and my enemy the next. What I mean is that out of all the things in my life, weather has the most impression on me. It has about a 95% influence on my attitude and perspective, which in turn, can make or break my day. Bad weather, bad attitude. And I know you’re probably thinking that this is a very bad thing to do, to let the weather influence me this much, but weather influences everything! What we wear, what we do, how we interact with people, etc. Because of my weather-related issue I tend to get semi-depressed in the fall and winter months, making spring my absolute favorite month ever. This year has been so kind to me because it skipped winter and went right for spring. Today was one of my favorite days because walking outside, I can smell spring, feel it, be it. I can listen to music and skip and laugh and play basketball with my brother and just stop caring about things that would normally bog down my mind. The weather, especially spring, can make me happier than any person could on days like today.
The phrases “wow, this’ll be a long week or” “gee, why is the winter always so long?” are phrases that enter everyday conversation and are literally inaccurate but are so completely true in our perceptions. I’ve been noticing recently (and people have pointed this out to me) that I’m more cranky than usual during a week that I have to work a lot, which makes it a week that I consider a “long week”. However, the weeks that I work a lot actually go by faster for me because I’m more busy than on non-work weeks. So, if the weeks that I work a lot go by more quickly because I am more active, why do I call them “long weeks”? Clearly, in my perception they go by faster but have a lot more substance to them. So, I propose a change from calling weeks inaccurately long or short to deeming them either saturated or unsaturated. It makes more sense because it explains if I’ve got a lot to do that week or not and it doesn’t make any incorrect references to my perceived length of the week.
First, getting drunk is one of the stupidest things anyone could ever do. Due to my extreme hate towards people who actually want to get drunk, I am on McCarren’s side. Moving on from my hatred of alcohol, it seems totally reasonable that the kids would get mad at McCarren for blowing their cover if their parents punished them, but the article made it seem like all the parents were on their kids’ sides. So, why were the kids mad at all? If they didn’t get punished at all and could continue buying and drinking alcohol, why were they mad? Perhaps because McCarren’s story gave evidence of alcohol-related deaths that the kids don’t want to accept could happen to them? And regardless of the the why, it’s completely ridiculous that McCarren, who is really just trying to make teenagers see that nothing good comes from being drunk , was targeted AND her kids were targeted as well. Kids that do stupid things need to realize that there are consequences for the stupid things they do, and a potential consequence could very well be a “carload of drunk kids wrapped around a tree”.
Over the long weekend I went out of town and therefore, had a long car trip in which I could read a lot. In the car, there and back, I finished I Am the Messenger by Markus Zusak, then started and finished When Lightning Strikes by Meg Cabot and Code Name Cassandra by Meg Cabot. It was a good weekend.
This is not the norm.
In this survey I would have got them all right (not trying to up-sell my intelligence; Ms. Harris asked how we would do). I think the hardest questions were naming countries that start with ‘u’ (United States is so obvious that no one even thinks of it) and naming the capitol of Washington (not many of us New Yorkers really need to know the capitols of other states, but many of us do know them, making the fact that some of the Washington highschoolers in this video seem stupid). Indeed, they do lack obvious bits of trivia and common knowledge, but hey, they could excel in other areas the video does not test. I don’t want to degrade other people just because they don’t know things that I know. In conclusion, the fact that some people can’t regurgitate facts when spontaneously asked doesn’t make them bad people, but I would be a bad person if I talked about their stupidity any more.
So I’ve got an affinity for French things that I don’t understand but I love French music and history and names and plays and books and fashion etc. However, I’m the farthest thing from French there is, because my entire family is immersed in Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish culture and therefore, no one else shares my affinity. France is stereotypically equivalent to elegance (relaxing music, small food portions, overall snobbishness) and the nationalities I am are stereotypically equivalent to loud parties with a lot of food and being over-hospitable. Hence the reason when I saw Les Mis at OFA on Friday night, my mother and sister didn’t really understand/enjoy it as much as I did, because they don’t really see the beauty in French things. So, I wonder if everyone’s’ brains are wired to stick to what they know, or maybe overtime people grow to reject cultures that aren’t theirs? I wonder if there’s a scientific explanation for all of this that I’m missing.