Comments on others' blogs...

Comments I've made on others' blogs since Blog 1 was submitted:

In response to Debbi: (polls on illegal immigrants and English standards for citizenship)

http://119076.blogspot.com/

I recorded my response to the two polls on where I thought the largest number of illegal immigrants came from and whether I thought immigrants trying to obtain citizenship should have a high level of English. I do have some personal opinions on this - the major one being that it depends on the circumstances of the immigrant - are they coming here as a refugee or choosing to start a new life in Australia for other reasons, joining family, etc. If they are fleeing their own country because of atrocities taking place there, then English shouldn't be a condition - the grounds are humanitarian which is very different to people coming here just trying something new. I think personal circumstances need to be taken into account.

27/10/07

In response to Fi: (poll on political voting)

http://psychfi.blogspot.com/

I recorded my response on what would most influence my voting choice from options: personality; policies; already formed ideologies; other

I'm the only one to have voted 'personality'. I think this would be what might sway my vote - sounds like a shallow thing to sway my vote really, but I think I need to like the person to a degree to vote for them, so if I was initially undecided and one of the party leaders did something I really disliked, with bad being stronger than good, it would probably turn me against them. I'm not a particularly politically motivated person, so this might be evident in my voting technique!

26/10/07

In response to James: (poll on essay topics)

http://7125-6666.blogspot.com/

The question asked: How much choice do you think should be given for social psychology essay topics?

I responded that I would prefer up to 100 topics to choose from.

I think that in 3rd year, we should be encouraged to focus on topics that interest us personally, in preparation for less guided research in post graduate study. It also helps in that we can explore what we think really interests us - for instance, it may turn out that upon investigation we find other areas more interesting. For those not intending to study past 3rd year, it could help them to focus on where they would like to work.

In response to James: (flash mobbing)

http://karensocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/10/psychodrama-and-flash-mobbing.html

22/10/07

In response to Sam: (poll on altruism)

http://sammyt1.blogspot.com/

I responded to Sam's poll on the question: Do you believe in genuine altruism?

It is interesting that there is an even split between responses: Yes, No, Sometimes

It may well be a case of how one interprets the term "altruism".

22/10/07


In response to Brett: (poll on religion)

http://kayeb.blogspot.com/

I recorded my response to the question: Are you religious?

The people who responded so far have all answered "no" which prompts the questions:

Are there more non-religious than religious people in the Social Psych class? or
Are non-religious people more likely to respond to that question?

22/10/07

In response to Bec: (Bystander Effect)

http://becblair.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-own-bystander-effect-experience.html

Karen Woods said...
Hi Bec,I've experienced bystander effect and it has fascinated me ever since.
I was working in Civic, on my way home loaded up with shopping from lunch time, walking to my car. At a busy intersection, which I'd just crossed,there was a car crash. I stood looking at the car that was hit and saw 2 ladies in the front, who weren't moving. I assumed they were in shock or injured. There were several other people standing around witnessing this - it was rush hour.

As I was fully loaded up with bags etc, I hoped someone else would go and check on them. Nobody budged - just stood there watching. I couldn't believe it. So after a minute or two I went to them myself and saw the middle-aged woman driver and her elderly mother looking shocked but also clearly not being able to open the door to get out. I was worried they'd get hit again if they stayed there so I opened the door from the outside and got the driver out. And then I noticed the toddler in the car seat in the back seat.

It was eerily quiet by the way - nobody saying anything, nobody crying. By this time, the young male driver of the car who hit them (he was not at fault by the way) had parked his car safely and come back to help. We got the driver and passengers out of the car and walked them over to a nearby office building, got the elderly lady a chair and drink of water, and then we pushed their car to a safer place.

In all this time, not one other person came to help us.Incredible but true, and so I've found the bystander effect quite a fascinating theory after seeing it for myself.
October 2, 2007 9:19 PM

In response to Josie (re: Narrative Therapy & crossover divisional topics)

http://jo-socialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/09/narrative-therapy.html

This is great - thanks so much for sharing this with us. I'm very interested in Narrative Therapy - bought a book from the Co-op Bookshop on it and have chosen Psychodrama as my Blog 2 topic as an extension of my interest in art based therapies - I'm doing a creative writing major as part of my degree and want to eventually incorporate psych with it in wherever I go in my psych career - I'm doing a double degree so my 3rd major is counselling - they should all marry up quite well.

I'm disappointed I didn't hear about the Narrative Therapy lecture, I would love to have attended it. In fact there are a few crossover fields of interest here at UC but the depts don't seem to be communicating which is a shame - there could be a lot of stuff we're missing which would be really useful.

For instance, I know someone who is doing Law and they have had some lectures on Domestic Violence which would have been interesting for psych students.

I'm sure some of the nutrition-based unit lectures would also be interesting to psych students interested in body image issues, and even social psych in general. Here's a unit description for Nutrition, Society and Health as an example:

"This unit examines the factors influencing food habits and food choice in different populations and age groups. The social, economic, political and ecological influences on food supply and food policy will be examined. The focus includes public health nutrition, community health approaches and strategies for change. The role of agriculture and industry and the effects of income, religious beliefs, traditional cultures and social customs on food use will be discussed. Information is taken from demographic, epidemiological and anthropological sources."

I think there's a "talk to the VC" session coming up soon, maybe I'll bring this issue up with him then. It would be a very good use of resources to share information/knowledge/educational resources across divisions. If anyone has any comment on this, let me know and I'll bring it up at the VC talk-session.
cheers
Karen (kazwoo)
September 28, 2007 5:06 PM

For those who are interested, the talk session (student forum) with the VC is on Wednesday October 17th at 12.30pm in room 2B9.


In response to Michelle (re:Communication):

http://michelle-socialpsychology.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-well-do-you-communicate-and-listen.html

That was an easy and quick test to do and did reveal some interesting things to think about when we are in a conversation with others.I did well on the test scoring 11 but this is because I was told many years ago that I was a bad listener - I was horrified! I'm not sure if the comment was really accurate or not, but it has made me work hard on my listening skills ever since.I've been on some team-building type exercises when I was working in the public service years back, and I was picked out as one of the very few people who are good talkers as well as good listeners - so I think I've done a lot of work with my listening skills with some degree of success. Phew!
September 22, 2007 9:38 AM

Comments made on others' blogs before submission of Blog 1:

Hi there,
I've made comments on others' blogs and thought I'd take the recent advice to post links to them on my own blog, however, I can't locate the others' blogs again as they are not listed under a recognisable name. I did happen to take copies of some of them so I shall just post them here below, although you can't see the comments I'm responding to, so feel free to claim yourself as the originator and post a link to your blog:

In response to Mike: (re: Rwanda)

I had the same thoughts when considering why the US did not intervene in Rwanda but went in with all guns blazing in Iraq - the incentive, the interest.

Seems like moral responsibility, honour, protection, empathy, saving lives, etc are not strong enough incentives to get involved in another nation's conflicts.

Of course, there was the situation in Somalia to consider which occurred not very long before Rwanda - so it would be very hard to decide to take the same action again and risk the same result - imagine the outcry from American citizens - "didn't you learn from last time?".

I also understand the predicament of not enforcing Western power and values on other nations - just look at the reaction after Iraq - nobody's thanking Bush for his decision to intervene. And I don't think it's just the issue of the US's real "interest", what they might gain from it materialistically/economically. I think it is also an issue of involving a third party in the conflict and assuming the third party is superior in its values and beliefs. This undermines the citizens of that country - suggesting they are not capable of making their own decisions or rules for their society.

I believe I heard in a news report at some stage after the invasion of Iraq, some Iraq people saying they don't feel much better off, the country is in chaos, and that they would have preferred support in letting them make decisions for themselves and having some say in what happens next.

I think this is also a major issue with the government intervention in the remote Aboriginal communities. Support in assisting Aboriginal leaders gain control and respect from their communities would have been better than military force which resembles the white invasion of Australia all over again.

In response to Lauren: (re: Genocide)

I don't think there's any doubt that Western nations knew what was going on in Rwanda - but perhaps there was the disbelief that it was really happening on the scale that it was. Even seeing the evidence of what happened, it is still hard to comprehend the enormity of the atrocity - and distance assists that feeling of separation, and cultural differences assist the excuse of ignorance.

Oh, and I meant to say, thanks for the link on the 8 stages of genocide which I found interesting and horrifying all at the same time. It does make me wonder if genocide will ever cease - I'm sorry to say, I don't think it ever will.August 16, 2007 5:19 AM

In response to James: (Impressions after watching Rwanda DVD)

I can find James, of course, aptly named 'Convenor's Blog' and the link is:
http://7125-6666.blogspot.com/2007/08/reactions-to-ghosts-of-rwanda.html#links

I don't think (hope not) that anyone could watch Ghosts of Rwanda, how ever many times, and not feel terrible.I totally relate to the "mini-depression" situation. My initial reactions were disgust at the human race, shame at being a part of it, and incredulous that such incredible atrocities continue to take place in this world.I did have to leave it for a day before I could post a comment about it.I had trouble switching off from it and ridding my mind of the images of slaughtered families. Even when going to sleep that night I had to incorporate a few strategies I'd used after a car crash to stop re-visualising the trauma.I think the images will stay with me forever and give me a whole new respect for regugees that come here (and other places) to rebuild their lives. How they do it, I'll never know, but I wholeheartedly respect them for having the faith in themselves (and others) to go on with their lives and succeed. August 17, 2007 12:36 AM

Words from Carl Wilkens

I asked Carl Wilkens (via his personal blog) how he made the decision to remain in Rwanda when all the other Americans left - including his wife and children - here's my question to him and his response:

Hi Carl,
I have questions which I haven't properly put into words yet, but they mainly focus on how you came to the decision to stay in Rwanda when the genocide began. I can't even imagine having to make such a momentus choice - to escape death and move to safety with my family - or send my family to safety and risk never seeing them again to stay with my friends and colleagues in such a perilous situation. Are you able to share some of the 'weighing up' that you must have gone through when discussing this with your wife? And how was it explained to your children at the time and since? I'm guessing your religious faith played a major part in the decision making process? Thank you, by the way, for providing this valuable resource.
Kind regards,
Karen in Australia
----------------
Thanks for your message Karen, It seems like each time I look at the question of our decision to stay, what always come out on top is that it was very much a heart decision as opposed to a head decision. And it was heart decision that was very much made together with Teresa.

Thursday, Friday, and Saturday April 7-9 we made many trips back to the bedroom where there were lots of talk, prayer, and tears ...
Key factors in the decision were defiantly;
-A call of God to remain with our friends... also know as a feeling that "it was the right thing to do"
-Teresa's rock solid support
-My Dad and wonderful friend was there to drive the family out
-Teresa and I had passed though other "tough" experiences that helped prepare us....

There is more on this in the radio interview with the US Holocaust Museum "Faith and Trust in Rwanda" http://blogs.ushmm.org/index.php/COC2/360/

With regards to our children, they were very young and we tried to make this more of an adventure for them... In the days before the evacuation we dipped into the stock of things we had brought with us form our last furlough in the states for their birthdays and Christmas... I believe today that they understand we are always going to be healthier and happy when we "do the right thing" irregardless of the personal cost...
Thanks for writing
Carl Wilkens
August 21, 2007 11:45 AM

Carl Wilkens - Video Conference Info - Ghost of Rwanda Discussion: Q&A

Carl Wilkens - Video Conference Info - Ghost of Rwanda Discussion: Q&A

Carl Wilkens Link

Thanks for the link, James. I've followed it to Carl Wilkens' own blog where people can ask him questions etc. He's interested in helping students who are studying genocide, so if any of you have any burning questions, visit Carl here: http://carlwilkens.blogspot.com/

Relating size to Rwanda:

Relating Size to Rwanda: A funny connection, I know, but I think size has some relevance in social behaviour/thinking. In the first lecture where we considered the Earth's size in comparison to the universe, I felt pitifully small, quite insignificant and remembered my teenage depressive years where I thought that nuclear war was inevitable in MY lifetime so what was the point in even going to school or planning on a family if it was all going to be blown to smithereens anyway. I felt I had no control and that my opinion/input/impact was insignificant - I couldn't make a difference, the problem was too big.

A bit sad really as I had earlier gone through a naive optimistic period where I campaigned to save the whale!

Times, they are a changin'....

Anyway, I felt that people who knew about the Rwandan genocide may have felt too small, too far away, too lacking in power or control, to really make a difference. But then there was one man in the DVD who felt completely differently - the UN guy (whose name escapes me right now but I will check the transcript later and get back to you) who believed without doubt that he could make a difference. He was unarmed but fuelled with charm, charisma, and absolute belief in himself, that any one life was worth saving and that it was worth the risk of losing his own life - which he did in the end.

That kind of blew me away. It was uplifting and shaming at the same time.

What makes this guy different to others? Why was he so successful? How could he hold such belief in his own capabilities? And was it this strong belief that shined from him and convinced others of his integrity?

And also in the same vein - is it this type of self-belief and determination that turns a human into a monster?

I remember a comment in the DVD that said humans have the capacity for so much good and also so much evil - or words to that effect.

The extremist who convinced ordinary people to slaughter innocent men, women and children may have had the same traits as this unarmed UN guy who almost single-handedly saved 100s, against all odds. Extreme opposites who chose to use their personal power for either good or evil - of course, depending on whose side you're on.......

Did Hitler believe he was doing the best for his nation when he tried to wipe out the Jews? Probably. Sadly...

The other guy that stood out was the one American, Carl Wilkens, who decided to stay behind with his Rwandan friends - he couldn't leave them there to die, even though he had his own family to consider. He wasn't as confident of his capabilities to change anything as the UN guy was, but he did believe that staying behind was the right thing to do. And he did make a difference - he saved the lives of all those kids in the orphanage by asking the very man whose aim it was to wipe them all out to spare them.

Human to human - the extremist must have felt a connection and ordered his troops to spare those children. They were no longer seen as vermin - but real people that at least one man cared about. The 'dehumanised' became 'humanised' again - see Lauren's link on the 8 stages of genocide.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we can surprise ourselves with the 'power of one'. Some of us believe it from the 'off', some of us need to see it to believe it, and some of us don't believe we are 'the one' to make that difference - leave it to someone else.

Our perception of this may change as our circumstances change - for instance, in my teens, early twenties, I would have been the first to jump in to save a mate in a punch-up, regardless of the risk to me. But now I'm a mother, I have to think first about the consequences of my actions on my children - do I risk harming/losing THEIR mother?

That's why I think the lone American who stayed behind with his Rwandan colleagues made the ultimate sacrifice - risking depriving his own family of a husband and father - but would his family have thanked him for that if he'd been killed? They may have been proud, but may have felt neglected.

Who knows....It's a difficult dilemma and one I'm so thankful that I've not been put in the situation where I'd have to decide....