Longevity

     I decided to do this weeks blog on longevity. Which, basically, is how long someone can expect to live and is partially determined by environmental and genetic factors. There are three types of longevity:

• Average Life Expectancy: Sounds exactly like what it is :) This is the age at which half the people born in a specific year will have died.
• Useful Life Expectancy: This is the amount of time that an individual is free from debilitating chronic disease and impairment.
• Maximum Life Expectancy: The oldest age that someone lives.

     I chose this topic, mainly, because I'm a nerd and wanted to do a little more research on the differences in environmental factors playing a role in how long someone will live. I mean, I get the how the environment can play a huge part in how someone lives. I guess I was just a little confused at the huge age expectancy difference between Angola and Zambia, versus Madagascar. They are relatively close to one another, so I just assumed they would have kind of the same environmental factors... I was wrong (I know, I was shocked too :) and it turns out, Angola has 2 times the amount of homicides. But, as it turns out, there really aren't that many other differences between the two countries... So why the huge difference (20-25 years) in life expectancy? In fact, Angola is said to have 51% more access to sanitation that Madagascar, education levels are about the same, Angola has a higher level of sanitation, and the pollution levels aren't grossly different between the two.

     And then, I found it. HIV levels in Angola are 6 times higher than Madagascar, smoking is 81% higher, and clean water availability is 51% higher in Madagascar. Those are some pretty severe differences in life altering factors. I found it sad to see that water availability and HIV are main causes of death in Africa. It seems to me that if we all just kind of stepped in and helped a little, this could be resolved.

     Off subject a little :) I was listening to the radio around Christmas last year and the news lady was saying that if we all spent the money we spend on gifts for one another, and donated it, we would have enough to end homelessness ALL over the world. That little tid bit of information I found kind of disturbing. We have the ability to help others who don't have the resources to help themselves and yet we squander the money on pointless objects that we'll forget about in a few weeks anyways... Just seems like we all have some priorities to get in line. (Totally my opinion. I don't want to offend anyone :)

     Anyways, I thought it was weird to see all the differences in far away countries versus ones that are close to home. If you guys are interested, here's the web address:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Angola/Madagascar/Health

Also, here's a picture of world life expectancy :)

 

 

Thanks for reading!

 

 

-Keisha

What's Your Personality Type?

     This week I've decided to write my blog on the "Five-Factor Model"; which, basically, is five distinct types of personalities that someone may have when they are in mid-adulthood. These "Big Five" traits were due to the efforts of Paul Costa Jr. and Robert McCrae and include the following:

• Neuroticism: A person high in this dimension tends to be anxious, hostile, self-conscious, impulsive, vulnerable, and depressed. This type of person would likely have difficulties getting along with others and show violent tendencies. People low in this aspect would be calm, self-content, unemotional, etc...
• Extraversion: A person who is high in this dimension tends to be talkative, outgoing, easily expresses feelings and emotions, active, have lots of energy, and love to be challenged. This type of person would likely choose a job with humanitarian goals (social worker, nurse, doctor, etc...). People low in this aspect tend to be quite, passive, serious, and emotionally nonreactive.
• Openness to Experience: A person high in this dimension tends to have a vivid imagination, appreciative of art, and always want to try something at least once. These people are naturally curious and make decisions based on different factors instead of rules that are set in stone. People low in this field tend to be down-to-earth, uncreative, and conventional.
• Agreeableness: A person high in this type of dimension tends to be accepting, likes to work with others, and caring. A person who is low in this field tend to be ruthless, stingy, and irritable.
• Conscientiousness: A person who is high in this type of dimension is said to be hard-working, ambitious, energetic, and preserving. These people have a strong desire to make something of themselves. A person low on this spectrum is said to be negligent, disorganized, aimless, and non persistent.

      Something I really liked reading in this section was about the stability of these traits throughout adulthood. I found it weird that some found these traits to be set in stone, that they stop changing and progressing after the age of 30. And, in contrast to that, new evidence is being shown that these personality traits do, in fact, change over a 30 to 40 year period. They are doing more and more studies on this theory, and are beginning to see that neuroticism tends to increase throughout life, and extraversion tends to steadily decline as we grow older (Oh, the joys of adulthood). I found that this kind of made sense a little though. I mean, as we grow older more and more stress is added to our daily lives. We start out bubbly, full of energy, and just happy-go-lucky everyday, and as life hits us head on everyday (especially if we choose a harder, more demanding type of lifestyle) we become almost bitter to a lot of things we use to enjoy as younger adults.

     I feel like, when I was reading these, I couldn't place exactly which category I would fit under. I wanted to grab a little from every category and make my own personality dimension... Something along the lines of an "Extra-agreeable-open-scientiousness" (Ya, that sounds scientific). I guess it is just difficult for me to see exactly where my strong suits are, and what doesn't quite describe me. I am really curious, outgoing, sometimes impulsive, pretty imaginative, caring, love to be challenged, and I tend to work really hard and be ambitious. So, that being said, I am making my own personality category (feel free to join) :)

Thanks for reading!

Keisha

Why Can't We Be Friends? :)

     This week I've decided to do my blog on friendships in adulthood. I chose this topic mainly because everyone has their own definition and idea of what a friend should be and who they picture to be a "perfect" friend; and even why they choose their friends the way they do.

     Friendships are said to develop in specific stages called the "ABCDE model". This ABCDE model stands for Acquaintanceship, Buildup, Continuation, Deterioration, and Ending. This sequence is not only the way that friendships are built, but also how they change.

     There are basically three expansive themes that govern friendships as adults:

• Affect/Emotional Basis: This aspect is refers to self-disclosure and expressions of things like appreciation, affection, and support and is all based on trust, loyalty, and commitment.
• Shared/Communal Nature: This aspect has to do with the specific way that friends participate, or support, each other in activities which they both enjoy.
• Sociability/Compatibility: This aspect is basically the way in which friends have fun, and enjoy each others company. This can include them being sources of amusement, fun, and recreational partners 

     I found this whole section to be really interesting to read. The part that really got me was the section about how men and women base their friendships. Women tend to base their friendships on emotional and intimate sharing (being able to confide in each other) whereas men tend to base their friendships on sharing activities of interest. When men tend to spend time together they are mainly basing their time on some activity which competition is involved and friendship is based off of that.

     I laughed a little at this (OK, a lot) mainly because it seems so true. Men are constantly (in my opinion) in some sort of "challenge" with one another when girls are off talking and sharing with each other. Not to be stereotypical, but you have to admit, you've seen this a few times before :) Although, in contrast to that, I know a few girls who can constantly suck you into some sort of competition with them and are totally not the "sharing" type, or run their friendships off of emotional aspects. I guess it all just depends on the person. Like it said in the book, men have to live up to the social pressure of being "brave and strong" while women are mainly pushed to gossip and share their feelings with each other.

     I think I can relate to this section because I have a few friends who don't really match up to "my style of friends", or what the book says is the reason, or steps, that we became friends. Some of them I met right off the bat and we were automatically close, others it took about 2 years to really become close to them and open up. I think it all just depends on what you, as a person, are looking for at that particular time in your life. Everyone has different aspects they look for in close friends they choose and the people they pick to be around. I feel like saying friendships have to happen in a specific sequence is like saying everyone falls in love at the same time, or they are move in together at exactly 6 months... Just seems like a really hard thing to categorize as the only way things can happen.

     Anyways, this whole section was fun to read and I definitely learned a lot about how relationships build up and what the potential outcome of most relationships is.

Thanks for reading!

-Keisha
  

Who am I?

     I decided this week to do my Reflection Blog on how adolescents search for their identity. I found this section of reading to be really interesting and full of fun tid-bits of information. It was fun for me to read this and look back at how I developed into he person I am today, and also look into my sons future as an adolescent and kind of guess at how he would be growing up.

     There are 4 phases that teens are said to go through in order to search for their identities; these do not necessarily happen in a sequential order:

• Diffusion: He/She is overwhelmed by having to find an identity and doesn't accomplish the "burden".
• Foreclosure: He/She has an identity that is determined by adults and not by them exploring it personally.
• Moratorium: He/She is analyzing different identities but has not found one that they find to be sufficient.
• Achievement: He/She has investigated alternative identities and has chosen one he/she finds acceptable.

(Most young teens are in either a state of Diffusion or Foreclosure)

    
     I found this section to be interesting because I like that young adults go through a "trial and error" kind of mentality to find what best works for them. In the book it states that most of the identity testing is done through exploration into career paths. It makes sense if you think about it, mainly because most children are envisioning what they will be like when they get older; Rock star, doctor, professional football player, or even a stay-at-home mom. I also found the "Foreclosure" phase to be an interesting one to think about. Pressure by adults on what they want their teens to be like as they grow older is something that I don't honestly believe in. It's really all about letting you child grow and learn on their own; exploring new concepts is a pretty major part in becoming an adult and to strip them of that and impel them to what you want is something I don't see working out so well in the long run.

     I can relate to this section of reading because I want my child to be able to grow up to be the man he wants to be. Of course, I want to help him with his "personality exploration" but only when he feels he needs to ask for advice on the subject. I think I will encounter a few times when I will want to persuade him to be what I would like, but I kind of just have to keep that in check and allow him to be what he wants... as long as it isn't some sort of criminal :) Anyways, when I was growing up my parents were pretty big "pushers" with my siblings and I. They definitely wanted us to take the college route and grow to be lawyers, doctors, or police officers. The good thing about them though, is that they only pushed so far, which I find to be beneficial; a little pushing, but nothing extreme.

     Anyways, I really liked this chapter to be able to relate my growing-up experiences and to look forward to watching my son hit these milestones :)

Thanks for reading!

-Keisha


    

Parenting or Friending

     This week I've decided to do my Reflection Blog on the different "Parenting Styles". Since I am a mother of a 5 year old myself, this is something that I definitely wanted to dive a little further into. Also, the whole TV part in the book was really interesting for me too, and I might bring a little of that up later :)

     There are said to be 4 different styles of parenting:

• Authoritarian Parenting: This style of parenting is a unhealthy mix of high control and little warmth. These kind of parents lay down a lot of rules and expect them to be followed with no back-talk or attitude.
• Authoritative Parenting: This style of parenting is a healthy mix of moderate control and warmth. These parents are responsive and they encourage children to talk about their feelings, and, in return, are open to why they say no to certain things.
• Permissive Parenting: This style of parenting is more of the friend style. They are often warm and caring but show little control over what their children do. They often do not punish their children and just accept what they do.
• Uninvolved Parenting: This, in my opinion, is really not even a "parenting" style. These kinds of parents are rarely warm nor controlling in what their children do. They often see that what their child does is unimportant compared to what they are doing and are emotionally uninvolved.

     One of the things I found most interesting in this chapter was that parents, in the United States, with a lower socioeconomic status, tend to be more controlling over their children and lean more towards the authoritarian style of parenting than those with a higher socioeconomic standing. I guess it would make sense since most parents who are lower in socioeconomic standings are considered to be less educated, thus making it harder for them to realize what they should be doing or seeing how children grow in a child-friendly approach.

     I can relate to this section because I have a small child who I intend to raise with good morals and teach him the difference between right and wrong. I feel that I am more of a "Authoritative" parent. I  really think of most things as a learning experience for my son, and try and be as accommodating of that as possible. Now, do I let him run ramped all over the house on a course of destruction and just peg it as a "learning experience"? Uh, no :) But I am a lot more at ease when I am speaking to him and trying to get him to understand why I don't want him doing what he is doing. In my opinion, telling a child to "knock it off" or "stop doing that" is only going to get you so far since he/she won't understand why they are not suppose to be doing what they are doing in the first place... which will kind of just make it a neverending circle.

     Oh, right, the TV part :) Am I the only one who had parents who said to get outside if it wasn't raining? I just don't understand why parents nowadays are sticking their children in front of TV's all day when they should be out teaching them things, or letting them explore the REAL world on their own. Actually, I take that back. I do know why parents decide to designate the TV as the babysitter, because it's easy. But really, so is coloring, or reading, or letting them go in the yard with a magnifying glass or basketball.... I just really don't see what justice parents think they are doing by allowing their children to sit in front of the TV all day.... And that's my rant :)

     All and all, I found this chapter to be enlightening. The parenting styles was interesting to read about, and the TV part was kind of a common sense reality check.

     Thanks for reading!

-Keisha

Awe-Inspiring Savants

     So, this week I've decided to do my blog a little differently. I was reading through the textbook chapter on "Theories of Intelligence" and came to the term "Savant", and since then (about 3 hours ago), I have been researching and looking in to all sorts of these amazing people and the astonishing and unbelievable things they can accomplish.
 
     A savant, by definition, is an individual with mental retardation who is extremely talented in one domain. But, if I had to define these people in my own words, I would say they are more along the lines of having superhuman abilities, not just talents. Most savants are born with these abilities, but in some rare cases, brain damage can also be the provocateur.

     I looked up quite a few savants and came across 3 or 4 that I found most intriguing.

• Rain Man (Kim Peek): Ok, am I the only one who thought the Rain Man was a fictional character played by Dustin Hoffman? Well, his real name is Kim Peek and he actually was (he died December 21, 2009) one of the world's smartest people. Kim was born with severe brain damage. His doctor had told his parents that he would never be able to walk, or learn anything and suggested they put him in an institution and "forget about him". Tough luck to that doctor because Kim grew to be an amazing scholar and has read over 10,000 books. He reads books 2 pages at a time (the left eye on one page and the right on the other) and remembers every single thing about them! He remembers dates, cities, zip codes, and even when famous people lived in those zip codes and at what time! Amazed yet? Here's a video I really loved :)

• Stephen Wiltshire: I have always thought that being a photographer would be a really fun, and amazing job. To be able to see the beauty in something and capture it with a click of a button would be incredible. If I could see something, just one time, capture it in my head, and then draw it out is something I had never even thought possible. Stephen Wiltshire does just that though, and it's almost too amazing to be true. Although Stephen was born with people believing he was mute and then diagnosed with autism, he grew up to love drawing. Anything from buses and landmarks to entire cities with incredible detail, Stephen could draw from memory. Describing his amazing abilities can only go so far, so, here's an astonishing video of what he can do :)

• Daniel Tammet: Recite Pi? 3.1415... something something something. Ok, so I'm no mathmagician, but I didn't know Pi could be recited up to 22,514 digits, which is how far Daniel Tammet recited from MEMORY. Daniel has a rare form of synesthesia which allows him to see numbers up to 10,000 in different shapes, colors, and textures. He can also speak 10 different languages and learns them extremely quick (He learned to speak Icelandic in 1 week!). Daniel was born with autism and had sessions of epilepsy throughout his childhood. He was told he would never be up to par with most children his age, and would grow to be at the metal age of about 15.

    
     So, after hours of researching, wikipedia skimming, YouTube watching (with my son sitting next to me TOTALLY amazed in what he's seeing), I have to say that I am really excited and feel great about doing this little bit of extra research on savants. They are amazing people who just prove that it is ok to be different, to be seen as "feeble minded" by the public, and to show that you can make a difference no matter who you are. I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did! :)

Thanks for reading and watching!

-Keisha

Interacting With Others

     For this weeks blog I decided to talk a little about Chapter 5.3 in the text book. This chapter basically talks about how, and at what age, children hit different milestones in playing and interacting with one another. Being a mother myself, I found this whole chapter to be very fun, and engaging to read.

Like my previous blogs, I'll go over some main concepts on "The Joys of Play" :)

• Parallel Play: This stage of play normally takes place a little after a child's first birthday. It is when the child plays alone, but remains interested in what others around him/her are doing.

• Simple Social Play: This stage happens when the child is between 15 and 18 months old. Toddlers now begin to semi-interact with one another, such as smiling, or talking as they play.

• Cooperative Play: This last stage of play normally happens around the child's second birthday. This type of play is a when children begin to really collaborate with each other, taking on a more organized type of play that includes each child having a different role.

     One of the things I found most interesting about this chapter was the "Gender Differences in Play". I never really thought about how girls prefer to play with girls on their own, and same for boys preferring to spend their time around other boys. I guess I mainly thought that they were happier playing with their own genders because of their parents encouraging that sort of play. When I read that girls are typically enabling (remarks that sustain or support a certain action) with what they say or do, and boys are often constricting (trying to make one person be the "victor" in the situation, by threatening or contradicting the others), It was a big eye opener. I never really see that in my son, but then again, it's one of those things you don't normally notice until you're looking for it I guess.

     I can definitely relate to this section of reading. Normally, when I'm taking my son to the playground, birthday party, sleep over, or play date of some sort with other kids, I tend to try and get him to interact with all kids his age, be it boy, or girl. I was always a little curious why he wasn't so interested with playing with the opposite sex. If he were one of those kids who was all in to karate, wrestling, or some other type of aggressive play, I think I would have just pegged it as that and left it alone. But since he's very content with just sitting and reading quietly or playing "restaurant" I always kind of figured he would enjoy playing with any kid (boy or girl) who enjoyed the same things as he does. This section definitely helped with explaining the other factors at play with why they choose the same gender in their interplay.

     I think if I could take something and research it further from this section it would have to be on altruism (when a child does prosocial behavior such as helping another child or sharing, where the child does not directly benefit from the action). I just thought it was nice to see that kids are starting this kind of behavior at such a young age (around 18 months of age). In the book it states that scientists believe that we are biologically predisposed to be helpful, to share, and to be concerned with others needs. It also states in the book that people who are more altruistic tend to get more help in return. Which to me, is kind of like "You only get what you give". I just thought it was neat to see that children so young are engaging in this type of benevolent behavior :) For me, I'd just like to dig a bit further into why exactly that is.

     Again, this chapter was really fun and stimulating for me to read about. Seems like every chapter so far has been one to make you take a minute and think about things from another point of view :)

Thanks for reading!

-Keisha