First Step to Contemporary Civil Disobedience Identification of the Paradoxical Issues

The Paradox: HOW EXACTLY WE Teach and What Our Instincts Require

Note: I'll being using 'our' 'us' and 'we' often; consider I am speaking with respect to the majority of America and in reflection to the American system and culture.

**Please reread Summary, and continue

The American Dream (AD) is an expression where has evolved in one image to another. Arguably, it originated from the campaign and national desire to have 'slightly above' mediocrity in living conditions; a house, white fence and two cars in the drive way, in a suburb. And for those times that image was wealthy living, compared to the majority of the planet; which still is quite definitely true. However, today the AD is more materialistic than it existed originally... A rich and leisurely life; house on the beach or apartment in a significant city, a six figure income and a 100,000 dollar sports/luxury car - merely to start the dream off! This expression the AD gives today, is the one I will reference to any extent further; the majority of Americans act as should they were rich or will eventually become rich. The above explanation will undoubtedly be discussed further in argument B. This part of the conflict, at quick glance, appears to contradict the idea you want to be sociable. However, evolutionarily, it proves to create sense of the way the American Dream in addition has evolved.

I do not suggest 'altruism' in broad terms; the practice to do selfless actions of welfare for others. We've reasons for our want in aiding others; if they be socially or individually influenced desires (nurture) -and/or- instinctual requirements (nature). The altruism I will discuss could be more refined as the following: the practice that is consensually accepted in/by a group as altruistic. A group can vary from a social circle of friends to international identities of a nation or continent. The fact there can be groups within groups might lead to confusion; because of this paper's purposes the culture of America and the subcultures which exist in America are being referenced: majorly education [from media and school], but also fashion trends and thought movements both underground and mainstream. Exemplory case of group altruism: Participating in church events is deemed charitable by the church's community members. My altruism definition is a parallel of social altruism - (so far as I know) coined by Nigel J. Barradale. The difference between social altruism and how altruism is generally viewed is mildly significant. Rather than assuming altruism means to be charitable in an over-all sense; the social altruism perspective is apparently more realistic. People tend to want to help those who will later help them in return, and this mutual payoff sometimes appears majorly in dynamics of groupthink theory; which is slightly referenced.

What follows is a more precise expression and explanation of social altruism from Barradale himself from his theory paper - Social Incentives and Human Evolution: "... behaviors are exhibited that benefit the group at the apparent cost to the average person, when the social incentives are excluded. This behavior is termed social altruism. As per the above, social altruism may be displayed due to: genetic predisposition; behavioral conditioning; awareness of intrinsic incentives; and awareness of social incentives. Of the, the first three can lead to behaviors which are costly to the average person, even though the social incentives are included. For example, genes could be selected because they encourage us to behave social altruistically, which has a fitness benefit on average; but those genes are unlikely to perfectly distinguish instances which are fitness enhancing from those that are fitness detracting, and so both behaviors are likely to be exhibited. This is not, of course, to suggest the opportunity to better distinguish between the behaviors will be socially desirable. Quite contrary, in fact-the many times when people behave altruistically at a personal cost is a wonder of human societies and may have been a required prerequisite for the evolution as a species" (Barradale). In section C. I am going to propose another reason why we don't have "the ability to better distinguish between your behaviors [that] would be socially desirable" however in fact behave in a fashion that is only socially desirable to our sought out and indoctrinated groups. For the reason that another cognitive argument; our reptilian brain complex being the cause for us to guard and protect our group thoughts.

A. Paradoxical Problem Finding

Barradale, in the above, has expressed a few of the reasoning for the paradox's conflict; as value forming involves both instinctual and social dimensions, it would appear that there are conflicts of conflicts. These conflicts seem to involve majorly: i. the concern of what does the system/culture look like, where is prepping people to perform their metaphysical desires (of being altruistic) ii. as well as the irrational (or definitely not rational) tendencies in which we are likely to appeal to groups. Ideally, after these conflicts of conflicts are illuminated, we are able to better find examples of such conflict in the paradox.

Concerning the first conflict of conflict: What/who socially creates the guidelines in which we are to react instinctual-ly? Or to be more specific; what is [/does] the foundation of our education [look like] in which we have to adjust to, to be able to create values? We've this instinct to want to figure out how to be socially altruistic to be able to benefit from certain groups, but additionally we are given the training of the American Dream. To begin the conflicts within conflicts - involves our education system (although only apart of the complete education we receive).

Andrea Kuszewski in her article The Educational Value of Creative Disobedience crudely but accurately has summarized the methods of modern education systems. The methodology is listed the following:

1. Encourage linear, single-solution thinking, rather than exploratory learning (rewarded for the single correct answer, i.e. standardized tests, conformity is expected)

2. Hinder creativity and discourage innovative thinking (once students have the answer, they aren't motivated to look for alternate solutions; errors are not rewarded when resulting from a potentially beneficial risk)

3. Don't measure up to other types of integrated teaching models with regards to the amount of information retained by students (less able to actually teaching material)

4. Aren't as motivating or engaging for the students (students report less satisfaction and show poorer attendance)

5. Really aren't that much fun for the teachers, either (Kuszewski)

A troubling list to simply accept as accurate. Yet, because of this paper's purposes we shall assume the list is accurate to most (if not all) primary to secondary education methods in the U.S. Will there be is one systematic solution to being socially altruistic to others? Will there be only going to be one or perhaps a few group(s) in which we need to socially respond to? Definitely not! Depending on the group in which altruism is being attempted for, depends also on the method. Also, this methodology of education in schools is not preparatory for how to respond to many different groups (how exactly to join/associate). The contrary seems more likely; education that molding abilities to only manage to react to one or few group(s) at most. Which can further stifle PSD to HTML . If these are early attitudes, without doubt will they be at minimal, partially internationalized. Perhaps there should be a method (or section of method) in which is open-ended enough to anticipate change in group dynamics being the foundation of the lesson plan or being an entire class: Group Method!

The second conflict of conflict: What makes us interest certain groups and/or distance us from others? Just how much does nature entail where we have been likely to be attracted to; as far as group identification? These questions are no more limited to philosophic and literary critique (although resources should/do result from such), but science has something to state! Namely evolutionary paradigms of research; majorly biology and psychology studies in evolutionism. These very real factors of how exactly we have adapted during our evolution over the course of history, ought to be taught in a class room; in a roundabout way but designed into the lesson plans to relate permit the material to be more relevant towards societal thinking.

Although scientific evidence would be great to defend the argument that the paradox exist; I don't feel it necessary. One must be just open to the idea, we respond to groups to be able to self identify. Seems common sense filled - so, I will appeal to such. Almost all will do whatever is essential to be accepted by the groups they elect to wish to be apart of; in return to get recognition. Exaggerated when I say 'whatever' maybe, but objectively what you can do to gain access to a group isn't nearly as extreme as another would. For instance: is paying 40,000 dollars more of less crazy than giving 100 hours weekly to a group to become a member? I feel this question is preference-based and variable based on who we have been discussing with. So, keeping the theory as general as you possibly can can avoid vagueness while maintaining ability to argue; individuals will sacrifice in order to be apart of a group.

Having said that; "what does an individual wanting to be part of a group have in common with how our education system was created?" Well this is the gist of the paradoxical problem at hand. While we've this natural tendency to associate with groups, we also have to be educated within a system. Does that education system teach to respond to our natural really wants to associate with others? No. Does groups have a tendency to educate us of their social guidelines? Yes. So... We get educated from the groups we are associated with, but there are a lot of groups existing... How do we understand how to respond to them? Are we forced to rely strictly on our groups to learn how to respond to the rest? In mention of the main method Kuszewski notes - linear thinking (one answer is best) may be the normative inside our education system. Does this overlap into our other educations? What else teaches us; which groups teach everyone?

B. Pop-cultural Paradoxes

As defined earlier the American Dream (AD) is the ideal of rich materialism; in a nut shell - celebrity idolizing, in both properties and personalities. The concern of being wealthy is really a prime example of the fact our education outlets hinder the majority's value forming; in schooling especially making use of their linear methods; one answer for every question. The thought of being rich can be an easy considered to entertain; little to no work, anything you want and fun whenever one wants. This argument suggest almost directly; linear ways of education create the AD, in addition to the rest of American education.

How our media demonstrates rich and luxurious lifestyles depict selfish attitudes, especially because the means of obtaining the riches will not usually involve bringing others into rich status as well. The AD does not have any intention of bringing others with the given individual to achieve this type of goal. You can find no shows about charity, none about humanitarianism and definitely none about morality and ethics - aside from the Jersey Shore. Possibly the biggest source in which progressive ideologies are displayed are in our contemporary documentaries. Still overall, as far as public media goes, t here is absolutely no source in which teaches multiculturalism, humanitarianism and tolerance - but, rather in the norm, display examples of materialization of people and possessions; people going to prison, people [re]decorating places and things, and folks gossiping about celebrities (politicians, actors and artist).

"Well media and entertainment usually do not necessarily guide our values." That's true but they are apart of where we take what we realize from and can existentially be looked at apart of the complete value making process. As a exemplory case of how media and entertainment can influence the population of America; yolo and swag. These words spoken five years ago would hold no significance. Yet, today, through the power of media they are standard used words in the young generation. Although this is simply not a value-based argument, it can still dictate clearly media does influence our perspectives with fades and fashions; in both thought and style of outfits.

What does the appeal to 'celebrity-ism' have to with groupthought and group-following? A counter question: What does the majority think is actually popular and notable to discuss? Celebrities. How the most fashioned are formed seem to be lead by popular figures of our culture. Musicians particularly, but also authors, actors and athletes are apart of the pop-culture dominating American education. I'd even go as far to argue they are central figures, which historically is no different than any times, except today we idolize what they usually 'do' rather than 'say' more often than not. If we cared about what they had to state... I really do not think most of the pop-icons today will be very popular.

Having noted probably the most powerful way in which we gain values as a national identity; pop-culture through entertainment. There still are unanswered questions: So how exactly does this effect our abilities to be altruistic with others? In what manner does our linear education and the American Dream cause us to either good or bad at dealing with groups among others? Do these two 'manners' really conflict to the stage of fabricating a paradox, if that's the case, how does it alter our perceptions in value forming?

C. The Infection of the Paradox on Our Lives

Argument A. discussed how our education system uses linear ways of crafting our pursuits of knowledge, and how we are naturally susceptible to wanting to identity with groups. Then concludes the training system will not accurately prep children to keep company with various groups; rather more likely does the opposite; encourages children to get safety in one or perhaps a few groups. Argument B. discusses that our pop-culture is a major form of our overall education together with creating values of the American Dream. Concluding almost check here of value forming from pop-icons and celebrities. So, how do we summarize all of this up together? As a nation, in the majority, we are terrible at forming collective values, but why? How can we naturally have an aptitude for social altruism, but still prove to be so individually selfish? Do we've a culture that inspires individualism? If we do, then, what can cause us to defend these individualistic attitudes of selfishness? Perhaps the reptilian brain complex might help provide clarity of the above questions, but first let's tie together what we have discovered so far.

Did we ever have a chance to be proficient at value forming? Between a linear education, the American Dream, the celebrities who we idolize, and insufficient group-reflection... This all results in a sort of culture which is concerned about self preservation and identity safety; a culture of individuals (inspired by Nick Tingle); that is the source of the paradox at hand. Part of any American, who has not stopped and reflected on nearly all what I have tried to argue thus far, has this paradoxical individualistic attitude. We'd no capability to not be individuals in this sense of being worried about the AD in a linear scope of mind, because our nature and public nurturing conflict(ed) so to create this paradox of values (which escalated overtime into our national identity). On the nature side; the need to be grouped with others and to associate in order to be apart of something larger than oneself (group-identity). The nurture side: our academic education system and our superficial pop-culture.

Since apart of our nature would be to identify with others, we will automatically do so; this is without question. We shall always require others as a way to develop both individually and socially. And since we have no other environments besides our immediate ones, in which to gain resources, to fulfill our natural needs... The paradox manifests... A culture of people... A working, functional contradiction of a system - well at the very least seemingly functional. What keeps this absurd mindset going? This crazy aptitude of a national identity? Well, that's where our reptilian brain complex could enter into the discussion, among the three elements of the theorized triune brain, and could have something to say about all this paradoxical conflict.

"The neurologist Paul MacLean has proposed our skull holds not just one brain, but three, each representing a distinct evolutionary stratum which has formed upon the older layer before it, as an archaeological site. He calls it the "triune brain." MacLean, now the director of the Laboratory of Brain Evolution and Behaviour in Poolesville, Maryland, says that three brains operate like "three interconnected biological computers, [each] with its own special intelligence, its subjectivity, its own sense of time and space and its particular memory" (Kazlev). Interesting to consider, nonetheless, but what does this have to do with being like a reptile? "MacLean has shown... that the physically lower limbic system, which rules emotions, can hijack the bigger mental functions when it requires to" (Kazlev) In essence, another argument and only a natural, evolutionary development in our thinking; our most primitive brain still exist and takes charge, since it is foundational for the entire 'interconnected' machine (ourselves); the R-complex or the reptilian complex may be the base for the developed brain. This argument means nothing without the description of what the R-complex actually does for several animals, not only humans: "It is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it really is "filled up with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating exactly the same behaviours again and again, never learning from past mistakes. This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions, such as for example breathing and heartbeat. This portion of the brain is active, even yet in deep sleep" (Kazlev). The reptilian complex is essentially what I am discussing as part of the natural reasoning for the paradoxical issues in this nation.

We, naturally, desire to survive; no one can deny otherwise. The reptilian brain is concerned about survival and is supported by instinctual drives. For connecting this with this drive to be socially altruistic, it could immediately seem contradictory, but such incite couldn't be further from the truth. What has and continues to permit us to survive is grouping with other folks. So, at the core of our 'rigid, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid' R-complex also exist the group mentality we used to survive through an incredible number of years. Consider the group, and the individual in the group are not separate entities at this stage! Our brain would not only evolve to be worried about our survival, but the survival of our [pre]selected groups. Without reflection of who we group with, we shall unconsciously follow the group over the cliff, because we instinctively are already apart of the groups we identify with. But, the cliff isn't physical, it is a mental cliff, and falling off doesn't kill you, it just keeps you struggling to break through the nurture v. nature which creates your reality; just how much can you allow your groups to dictate your thoughts?

How Evolution, Groups and Ourselves Clash

The above scientific concern appears to not effect how exactly we educate at all, yet, this theory of the Triune Brain has changed many mindsets, in psychology, about how exactly to look at the evolution of the brain, and it is time education specialist, theorist and politicians followed the mindset of thinking evolutionarily. That is available knowledge! Internet search engine anything I have said and one will see no fictitious information was used to argue with, but perhaps my conclusion will never be suffice enough for most. No matter, we are all in a position to understand our entire 'self' - the biology, the neurology and the spiritual/self-actualization. Yet, we don't care to... In America, we could care less, not because we discover the information useless, but because we don't have musicians composing lyrics about how exactly the reptilian brain is the core of our thoughts, or perhaps a reality show about living as hunters and gatherers in the center of a forest or jungle (w/ the theme of our dependency on others). It seems we meet our primitive needs on a far more superficial level... A more direct and reflective level... We truly exist within an individualized culture; groups of people will believe their group is the foremost, and will reject dealing with others unless proven beneficial by group standards; usually the American Dream is the standard...

At this point, I am hoping the question going through your brain is: why, oh why, do we as a nation of over three hundred fifty million people continue steadily to give into a system which proves to only stimulate our most primitive desires, and does not care to improve our evolving social desires... ? Why are we so obedient to this system that predicates ideals of shallow-mindedness and non-divergent thinking? How? "Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can indicate. Some system of authority is a dependence on all communal living, in fact it is only the person dwelling in isolation who's not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others. For many people, obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct." (Milgram) Because we were never given another option of a society to find authority with, because there is never an option, because they are the cards we were dealt (we were born into what we get)... This random occurrence eventually will be honored and defended our predestined live, without or little reflection, because that is our nature. Had we an education where we have been taught to be divergent (many answers to a question), we'd quickly see how our bodies of politics and public education are magnificently terrible, and reward winningly awful.

But that does not answer the way the herd (the system) continually runs off of the cliff, so long as it has, without significant notice of the overall population. As if the herd receive blinders from subtle sources; I am not one to call conspiracy, but also for over 60 years we have went from the world's industrial leader to the world's entertainment source. Either we as a nation unconsciously ingrained these paradoxical issues onto ourselves, or their might have been a more impressive hidden agenda at hand. From who? I do not know, but, to go off topic for an instant... The first rule of Capitalist politics ought to be "follow the money" because that's the reality of the philosophy in which Capitalism presents and practices. Who ever has the most to gain from the nation of mindless consumer zombies, may also have the most influence on keeping a nation's mindset in the realm of linear dreaming (the primitve brain)... But that will not be the conclusion to this paper! Leave the conspiracy talk to the blogs and websites which already exist, this paper is concerned about how to solve the issue, not to point fingers at and also require caused the paradoxical issues.

The main paradoxical issue I am concerned with may be the poor value forming between what is -and- is not essential to being an average American; are charity, multiculturalism and tolerance our foundational values? Social altruism provides advantages to the individual from the groups, but in argument A. the thought of altruism was privatized towards selected groups; mainly probably immediate ones like family, friends, business patterns, churches, etc. Whether or not we are designed to only with the capacity of being altruistic to some choice groups or everybody we come into contact with - does not seem clear. Regardless, we still have this instinct, and if our instinct can guide us to naturally form relationships with people (as evolutionary psychologist suggest) unconsciously - I finalize my position, with the idea: alternatives to how education is presented can not only develop a more well rounded individual, but, also a better nation in which we can be proud of, one void of superficial tendencies of wealth and singular positions of answer finding. And set up - social idealism; the quest for creating a nation where in fact the abuse of others and the system is not wanted, because the need to improve oneself and their groups (ultimately everyone) will become primary inside our values. This social idealism would satisfy our natural intents of taking and giving back to groups, without posing threats to our overall developments - both socially and individually.

Idealism of Group Methodology

Having suggested heavily that evolutionary issues have become real factors in how we perceive the world and respond to other people. I believe that is knowledge we ought to not ignore. Education systems need to take into account the very real psychological factors which exist as a way to educate children to being better thinkers, learners and overall humans. The reality where the world works isn't individualism; individuals get nothing done without the support of others. Anything one really wants to do is dependent on a system in place, and the system is carried forth by a society. Our education as noted in argument A. does not educate in groupthought, but the contrary; education that the individual is the key to success and that certain answer, is desirable. This singular/linear thinking will not allow for 'surprise' or 'quick change' and makes these moments with time more often scary than interesting. I would recommend we educate in a fashion that is beneficial to both individual and to their future relationships with others, by educating in the mindset the will undoubtedly be doing just that.

An organization method class for primary and secondary school - structured to challenge the normative natures presented here (namely group-following) by creating situations where children will have to think about the 'checks and balances' of picking either group, or picking never to pick either group. Basically the goal of the class would be to allow children to challenge the natures which will guide them through their lives. Unfortunately, such a proposal seems very problematic in structure. Perhaps group method should be the backbone of other types of classes that impose critical thinking? Science Fiction Appreciation. Nonfiction Writing. Poetry. Basic Philosophy. Any of the above will be excellent classes to allow exploratory thinking that occurs; creatively inspired classes (the design for each class are pending papers of mine). With a group methodology at the core, however, exploratory thinking may prove a lot more than to spur creative juices, but additionally provide tools for practical everyday use. We are social animals in the end; although, almost ironically, being social to multiple groups rather than few selected ones appears to not be natural. So, we should allow education systems to nurture us beyond our short sighted attitudes of conforming to some choice groups; beyond our reptilian brain. Educate in the quest for multiple consciousnesses, in another sense, and the huge benefits will be immense.

Put kids in groups! Give them assignments with roles for everything, not really a project one per year! Work out how to allow them to configure with one another so that you can succeed. A good example of a project is always to co-author or group-author papers; assign a ten page paper instead of five for two kids, this way they need to collaborate on the paper and agree. Personally i think this value will undoubtedly be revolutionary, because there already exist co-authored books, and group authored - it makes sense; people tend to share the same thoughts and impressions but have two modes of considering a problem; put two different minded people together on a single topic, the results can be amazing! Imagine a philosopher of mind (specialist) and a neuroscientist collaborating a book that explains to teenagers about their developing bodies, or their minds (within their degree of understanding, w/ relative examples). To market collaboration early in education will platform the rest of the students live; our whole lives derive from collaboration! Whether it be natural or nurtured.

A group method class could possibly be organized to do so, and by doing so, individual grading is not done but group grades. One will argue, think about the kid who'll not do anything? All of those other group will scold him/her needless to say, but is that any different than the real world? Why must we protect children from how things are actually? We can only achieve this much for the bullying problems existing today, and direct attempts to solve them seem to only make things worse. More group work will benefit a lot more than there would be draw backs. Especially, objectively considering, the way the rest of their lives will be probably involved with group activity. Again, just like the above suggest classes for exploratory thinking, the idea of group method is unheard of in academic training. Yet in the end game, after college, this is the reality of the situation; we are immersed in groups forever - let's start early in educating children how to be better at reacting and relating to others, because again, they will be doing it anyways 1 day. This group method, in either a class or a part of class, may (I pray) help our future of America destroy the current paradox we have been in; this culture of individualism. The average person is not the future, you are not the future! The group - a nation, a religion, a movement - will be the future, we are the near future. Start acting like it, question where it is you gain your primary values from and question those values. If they're 'good' or 'true' they'll last through inquiry, that's this writer's promise to whom ever read this absurd paper. "What does it try be entirely in charge; with one's own thoughts and environment?"

"Social Incentives and Human Evolution" by Nigel J. Barradale

"Theory, Common Sense, and Narcissistic Energy" by Nick Tingle

"The Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram

"Why Socialism?�?�" by Albert Einstein

Source for Triune Brain information: [1] Information provided by M. Alan Kazlev

Groupthink theory research is rolling out plenty of my thoughts here - credit goes to, too many visitors to source. I recommend personal research in to the topic of group-thought, when i believe strongly a part of our (- all persons) everyday mentality is owed to the groups we identify with.