Media Literacy is Essential!

I think my biggest conclusion throughout this Psychology of Media class was that everyone needs to know about media literacy. It is a great concept that still has some traction to gain within mainstream society. I was struck by the video presentation in class today; specifically by the fact that most adults (even college students) don't necessarily know what media literacy means. It is not about learning how to use media devices, rather, it is about learning how to navigate the ever-expanding world of media. It is about acquiring the skills necessary to consume media with skepticism and some underlying understanding that ultimately, media is trying to sell itself to the consumer.

It was easy in class for us to be in our bubble of understanding the concept of media literacy. I think the most important thing to do at this point with what we know is to share this information with others. We need to spread the word to others: media literacy is important!

Not only is it important, but we need to start teaching it as soon as children begin to consume media. As children are introduced into the world of media, parents need to take on the responsibility of educating their children about the content that they view. What do media images teach young children? The media teaches all people, regardless of age, about what is normal and what is ideal. It tells us what kind of lifestyle to want, what kind of friends to make, and what kind of romance is desirable. If these messages are not mitigated through media literacy taught by parents or teachers, our children will continue to grow up with a skewed perspective of reality. If we want our children to have realistic hopes and dreams, we need to be able to educate them about what in the media is real and what is pure fantasy. Without making this important distinction, children (and even adults) may find themselves in a constant state of disillusionment as media tells them to expect one thing and they are handed something completely different. The more we can educate about media literacy, the better!  It is essential to a clearer understanding of the world and society that we live in.

Media and Narcissism

While reading The App Generation, I found that there were a lot of quotes connecting media and technology to attitudes of narcissism. Authors Howard Gardner and Katie Davis first acknowledge that, "Individualism goes hand in hand with a focus on the self." Because the United States is an individualistic nation, we are bound to have more self-centered citizens as opposed to a more collectivist nation. However, when psychologists surveyed college students using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) they found that, "...only 19 percent of college students taking the test in the early 1980's scored above 21 (considered a high score). By the mid- to late 2000's, fully 30 percent of students scored over 21." This information seems to confirm that narcissism is on the rise in America. One potential cause of this uprise in self-centeredness could stem from greater access to the internet and media over the last couple of decades.

Gardner and Davis quote an educator who sees a connection between social media and narcissism: "As soon as somebody buzzes you on your phone it's like 'somebody is paying attention to me.' Facebook, 'oh, I got fifty likes on that stupid picture I put up there, I guess people are paying attention to me.' I mean it's so narcissistic, and I'm not saying that [kids] were less narcissistic [before the Internet], there are jus tore ways to be validated now with that." The teacher makes a good point; while it may not be clear whether or not the Internet is creating narcissists, it certainly seems plausible that the Internet may be, at the very least, encouraging those who have slight tendencies toward narcissistic behavior to flout their self-obsession through social media venues.

Gardner and Davis also say, "...it's worth noting that about 30 to 40 percent of ordinary conversation consists of people talking about themselves, whereas around 80 percent of social media updates are self-focused." While this is a fascinating statistic, social media is designed for self-promotion and for sharing things about oneself. Social media is not a conversation and therefore, it seems a bit unfair to compare these two different aspects of communication in this way. I agree that social media must be promoting narcissism in one way or another, but a more interesting statistic would compare how often social media users talk about themselves in a face-to-face conversation as opposed to someone who does not participate in social media.

Clearly, narcissism is on the rise in America. What is not as clear is what factors contribute to this particular mindset. The Internet, the media, social networks, and technology in general may be large contributors to this self-centered state of mind, but until more research is done we can only speculate.

Media, Sex Education, and Misinformation

The articles we read for today made me feel really disappointed in Americans (once again). What struck me the most was our overall tendency to brush over the topic of sex in almost every realm except the media. While the media uses sex as a plot device, as a means to sell products, and as a way to sell magazines, there is an eery silence about the topic throughout almost every other institution. Most American parents don't want to educate children about the issue themselves. Instead, they lean on the public school system to do the dirty work for them. While this may seem like an acceptable way to teach our children, the reality is that parents and schools don't properly address children's questions and concerns surrounding sex education, children will look to media to fill in the blanks.

A quote from Children, Adolescents, and the Media, Chapter Six states that, "Television may offer teenagers 'scripts' for sexual behavior that they might not be able to observe anywhere else." This becomes a problem for many teens, who are led to have unrealistic ideas about what it means to be a sexual being due to misleading portrayals of sex in the media. The same chapter says, "Teenagers often see themselves egocentrically as being actors in their own 'personal fable' in which the normal rules (e.g. having unprotected sexual intercourse may lead to pregnancy) are suspended-- exactly as on the television." This notion of being an exception to the rule is clearly based on the script that media portrays again and again: couples are just "swept away" on a sexual escapade without any consideration for planning to protect against STD's and pregnancy. And as the story progresses after sexual intercourse has occurred, we find that the characters tend to move past the sexual experience without consequences or even concerns surrounding their lack of protection or birth control. In fact, for as much as sex is portrayed in the media it is alarming how little birth control is mentioned. As a result, Americans tend to view birth control as unromantic and a big nuisance. Our lack of birth control use in the United States parallels what our media portrays: if the actors in this film aren't concerned about using protection, I shouldn't be either.

Unfortunately, this media influence is at least partially responsible for the alarmingly high teen pregnancy and abortion rates here in the United States. When children look to media to give them answers about sex, they see that most everybody wants it, most everybody does it, and they all do it without protection. The Guttmacher Report (1985)  found that the United States had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in 37 developed countries. Make no mistake, this is not because American teens are any more sexually active than French, Belgian, or Canadian teens. Teens are sexually active regardless of what country they come from and what media they consume; the difference is the sex education these teens receive and whether or not they are taught to use and value protection and birth control.

Abstinence-only sexual education programs have been found to be largely ineffective, yet the United States government has continued to funnel more than $1.5 billion into these programs, many of which spread misinformation about sex, pregnancy, and STD's. In an article published by AdvocatesForYouth.org states that, "A 2004 investigation by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee reviewed 13 commonly used abstinence-only curricula taught to millions of school-age youth. The study concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but that 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, blurred religion and science, and contained unproven claims and subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding the effectiveness of contraceptives, gender traits, and when life begins." Examples of the misinformation within these curricula includes:
-- A 43 day old fetus is a "thinking person"
-- HIV can be spread by sweat and tears
-- Half of gay male teenagers in the United States are HIV positive
-- Pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals

When misinformation like this continues to be spread as well as financially supported by the government, it is hard to conceive of a United States with fewer instances of teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Children deserve to be given the facts and do with that information what they will. But promoting a view that is warped by religious and conservative opinions and beliefs is doing a disservice to our children. They are looking to adults for answers, but if adults cannot provide a comprehensive, factual sex education for children, then future generations will continue to grapple with issues surrounding sex, STD's, and pregnancy.

Heteronormativity in the Media

One topic I wanted to talk more about in class on Thursday was the underrepresentation of homosexual relationships in the media. I think the media has a big responsibility to portray a wide spectrum of kinds of people and relationships. As we have discussed in the past, the media is both a spreader and shaper of ideas and beliefs. Whether they know it or not, media consumers use TV, movies, video games, magazines, etc. to gauge the normativity of race, gender, and the appropriate social behaviors associated with these identities. Therefore, if all we see in the media is hetero relationships between white people, a huge percent of the American population is ostracized from fitting into society's small box of "normalness."

As we discussed in class, when we do see minority races and sexualities portrayed in the media they are often caricatures that teach audience members to always expect a certain type of behavior from a certain kind of person. The media teaches us that gay men are flamboyant, loud, and stylish. They teach us that black men are dangerous criminals, not to be trusted. And that lesbian women are tomboyish, opinionated feminists. It is important that we see minorities represented in the media, but resorting to using a stereotypical stock character based on someone's race or sexuality is cheap. It does a disservice to the incredibly wide variety of people who identify with these minority statuses. 

I was pleased to see this clip back in January of 2014 of the first openly gay couple portrayed on a Disney Channel show called, "Good Luck Charlie." A Disney Channel spokesperson said that the episode was, "developed to be relevant to kids and families around the world and to reflect themes of diversity and inclusiveness." What a great message to send, and I was somewhat surprised to see it come from Disney who, as a company, is generally known to be more conservative. The lesbian moms are introduced without much fanfare as they should be. This isn't something that anyone should be making a big deal about because gay parent households are becoming normative in America, and they should be represented as such on the screen: just another kind of loving family. 

While many parent viewers of the network had pestered Disney for years to portray a more diverse kind of family on their channel, when Disney finally acquiesced, they received a great deal of blowback from conservative parents and religious organizations. One Million Moms, in particular, had a lot to say: they said that Disney should, "avoid controversial topics that children are far too young to comprehend." They also stated that, “Disney has decided to be politically correct instead of providing family-friendly programming." But my big question in response to that statement is, why is "politically correct" not "family-friendly"? Are these two concepts really mutually exclusive? If they do believe that portraying gay relationships is politically correct, what is wrong with showing our children something that is politically correct? 

Also, claiming that children can't possibly comprehend what a gay relationship is, is truly underestimating the incredible capacity children have to learn new things. Most children understand love in a conventional sense; their families teach them that much. The fact that same sex couples can love each other just like heterosexual couples do isn't a difficult concept for a child or an adult to understand. While some adults may willfully deny it, that is their own prerogative. But children are never too young to comprehend that love knows no boundaries, regardless of sexuality; what an easy and beautiful thing to understand. 

If the media took it upon themselves to portray a wider array of what is "normal" without generalizing and stereotyping, we might see future generations who are more accepting of people who are different from themselves. It might be easy to be racist if you only see white people on the TV, and it might be easy to be homophobic if you only see straight couples represented in the media. Consuming media that portrays minorities in a fair way would be a huge step toward embracing diversity; it would challenge viewers who don't confront minorities on a daily basis, but it would also affirm the normativity of minority groups, helping them to feel less ostracized within this society. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/disney-channel-debuts-lesbian-couple-good-luck-charlie-article-1.1603673#ixzz2zvdyLkMr

Fast Food Media

A quote from The Young And The Digital really stood out to me. In chapter seven, author S. Craig Watkins describes his fascinating perspective on how Americans like to consume media. He says, "No matter where we are, fast entertainment is generally just a click away. I liken the efficient delivery of digital media content to another staple in the daily American diet: fast food. Like fast food, fast entertainment is easy to get, all around us, and typically cheap, but not always good for you." His description intrigues me. Americans like their food and their media fast, but I think we are becoming more and more entitled to getting everything quickly. We want our internet connection to be faster, we want people to communicate with us instantly, and we want successful, high-earning careers right after graduating from college.

Is delayed gratification becoming a thing of the past? It seems to be less popular, particularly in media related realms. This reading made me think of an episode of the Colbert Report in which Stephen Colbert discusses how the news website, Slate, is now telling readers how many minutes it will take them to read an article so they can choose whether or not they want to commit that amount of time to reading it. The idea of not wanting to read something because it would take two minutes longer than you were originally planning seems ridiculous, but it is just proof of the fast tracked, impatient culture we live in.

Slate journalist Farhad Manjoo actually posted an interesting article titled "You Won't Finish This Article: Why people online don't read to the end." After doing some research, Manjoo found that 38% percent of readers leave an article after just mere seconds of viewing it. In fact, on average, readers only stay on the page of an article long enough to read 50-60% of it. Manjoo also writes about his concerns that many "readers" will share an article on Twitter or Facebook without reading even half of it. "There’s a very weak relationship between scroll depth and sharing. Both at Slate and across the Web, articles that get a lot of tweets don’t necessarily get read very deeply. Articles that get read deeply aren’t necessarily generating a lot of tweets." (Manjoo) It seems that more and more consumers of media are getting their information through a title they read on their Facebook account; maybe a few sentences of an article here and there. You couldn't even call it skimming though-- we've left the page before we've even scrolled half way down it.

Americans want their media and they want it now. But what happens when we're so impatient to "get to the point" that we don't even stick around to read all of the information the journalist or author intended us to read? We may be missing out on important information, but equally concerning is the fact that our attention spans are becoming so small that we're bored with an article before we've finished reading the first paragraph. If we don't have the discipline to plow through an article online, what else does that say about Americans and our obsession with fast everything?

Education Is Key

Over the course of this quarter, something I personally struggled with a lot was disillusionment. After learning about what human development can be and should be, I often got caught up in wishing that Americans would educate themselves more before deciding to become parents. After discussing everything from fetal development to death and dying, I find myself wishing that everyone could take a course like this. There were so many times in class where we would come to the conclusion that, "If everyone would just do x, y, or z, then people would be better and the world would be a better place!" Many of my blog posts reflected this same script, in so many words.

For example, back in January, I wrote about my frustrations that oftentimes American cultural practices override scientific facts. After reading many studies that provide ample evidence that breastfeeding is better than formula feeding and that co-sleeping is better than isolated crib sleeping, I find it incredibly disappointing that most people don't give much credence to scientifically supported facts like these. We are so dependent on our culture to set the standard for child rearing that we may ignore helpful information if it deviates from cultural norms.

Instead of focusing too much on my disillusionment though, I want to emphasize instead the importance of education. Even though the United States is a first world nation by most standards, we are falling behind in education. Americans are starting to come to terms with this, but part of the problem may be that we are too financially miserly to allow ourselves to be properly taxed when it comes to schools. Most Americans, if asked, would probably openly claim to value education, but the evidence to back that up is hard to find. We don't pay our teachers enough, we don't pay childcare providers enough, and a college education is becoming more and more expensive every year. So while we may claim to value education, we really aren't putting our money where our mouths are and making that education accessible to everyone. If the government subsidized schooling like they subsidized corn maybe our children's brains would be bursting with new ideas and information instead of their clothes bursting from drinking all of those high-fructose corn syrup filled soda drinks. If we truly valued education, it would be reflected in how our children are cared for, taught in school, and ultimately in how American adults make decisions on a daily basis. If we don't value education, we don't value teachers, and if we don't value teachers, then eventually no one will want to take it upon themselves to teach. We need to break the unfortunate cycle that devalues education and find a way to make it a top priority. Maybe then, people will listen to scientific reason and just breastfeed their infants already!

The Future of Parenting... My List of "What Ifs"

Parenting is a struggle. And not just for couples who are financially, physically, and mentally unprepared for parenthood. Parenting is a struggle even for affluent and available couples who, on paper, seem to be completely ready to bring new life into the world. Parenting is stressful and in a world that is quickly developing an overpopulation problem, what if some couples chose to feel complete without children? If Americans were educated about the stress that comes with raising children and if birth control options were looked upon more favorably by Americans as a collective whole, would couples consider not having children as an option? In some ways, not having children could be more fulfilling to couples, while having children would seem absolutely necessary to others. IF, however, we viewed the choice to not have children more positively in the United States, we might find higher rates of life satisfaction and lower rates of depression among American adults.

How realistic is it to encourage people not to procreate? Most humans, and other species as well, feel an innate, subconscious desire to pass their genes down by making babies. Could we fight this need if it was more culturally acceptable to be in a committed relationship without the prospect of procreation? Another concern would be that more stable (and potentially more disciplined) couples would chose to be childless while couples deemed unfit to parent due to financial, circumstantial, or emotional instability (or those more likely to give in to their hedonistic urges) may continue to procreate without abandon. More children growing up in unstable households certainly doesn't sound like an ideal future for our country. Too many "what ifs..."

Obviously regulating procreation is unAmerican and wrong by most standards. It is unrealistic to assume that we could ever control population in this way, but the more simple solution is to slightly alter our attitudes toward procreation, parenting, and the choice to not have children. We need better access to birth control and abortion clinics in all areas, not just in more liberal leaning states and counties. Attitudes toward birth control and women who use birth control need to be more positive. And of course attitudes toward the choice to be childless need to become more positive. Instead of thinking of childbearing as "the next step" in the sequence of life, we need to think of it as a possibility or a choice to be made at the discretion of every couple when they feel ready. Parenting is difficult, stressful, and time-consuming-- it could be very possible then, that parenting is not for everyone. Having the choice to parent or not to parent could be a relief to future couples if our society starts considering that as a realistic option.

Emerging Adulthood: Extending the Angst of the Teenage Years

In the newly defined stage of "emerging adulthood," young adults in their late teens and early twenties often find themselves struggling to find a unique and individual identity that they can truly call their own. It is common to find emerging adults who either shun their parents or whose parents have thrown up their hands and given up on trying to relate to them. In these cases, young adults will often turn to their peers for advice on who they should be. Ironically, the majority of emerging adults are stuck in this same limbo stage.

It is adaptive for us to have this limbo stage of "emerging adulthood," in our culture because finding your role in society is a big part of moving on to actual adulthood. Right now, the idea of emerging adulthood is still being explored, but as it becomes a more well recognized stage of development, it would be beneficial to use this time to help these youth by enrolling them in programs that will help them learn about enriching job and life opportunities that relate to them.

My personal experience with emerging adulthood has been stressful due to my absolute uncertainty about the future. As I near graduation, my classes have helped me learn a lot about myself, but my post-college career plan is basically nonexistent. My mom (always worried about her children's futures) enrolled me in an aptitude testing program in Seattle that I will be participating in over spring break. I have heard good things about these tests, but can't speak for them from personal experience yet. My hope is that it will point me in a direction where I can find a fulfilling and stable career.

If tests like the one I will be taking are accurate and do tend to push people in a direction that is right for them, I could see this becoming a great college graduation present, especially for students with degrees that don't necessarily have an obvious career associated with them. Emerging adults need direction, but they aren't typically going to find it from their peers. As we learn more about this developmental stage, it will be interesting to see how Americans choose to address people in this age category. Ideally, we will see less ambiguity and more career counseling and direction for this very uncertain and angsty group of prospective adults.

The Misleading Media

This PediaSure advertisement really gets under my skin. It's one of those "quick fix," "easy solution" advertisements. PediaSure uses an experience shared by most, if not all, parents: "My child is a picky eater," or "My child won't eat X, Y, or Z." Never fear though, because instead of disciplining your child or finding some creative way to teach your children to eat foods that are good for them, why don't we just appease your children with a sugary drink we know they'll just love.

It's not just the shameless marketing of their product (which is obviously inferior to actually eating fruits and vegetables) that bothers me though. This ad is promoting and normalizing the lax-permissive parenting style that is becoming more and more prevalent in the United States. It teaches parents to make their kids happy, while avoiding teaching them valuable life lessons like, "Hey, broccoli is good for you!"We can't afford to bend over backwards for children all of the time, because the real world doesn't bend over backwards for anyone. When these hypothetical pampered PediaSure children enter America's workforce, they won't know how to deal with criticism from their bosses because they have always gotten to do things their way. They won't follow directions particularly well because they've always been the boss.

This advertisement also shows parents what "success" looks like. This mom is "successful" by the end of the ad and even claims to have "peace of mind" thanks to using PediaSure to ensure that her child is well-nourished. But what has this parent really succeeded at? Preventing a temper tantrum? Does giving your child a nutritional beverage really make you a successful parent? Obviously not, but many parent viewers are victims of advertisements like this one, promising easy solutions to your parenting problems.

The real solution to this greater, media problem is absolutely education. Promoting media literacy, as we have discussed in class, is incredibly important for children, teens, and parents alike. As consumers of media, we are responsible for understanding the risks involved when we are exposed to commercials like this one. Americans need to learn how to take these advertisements with a whole lot of salt because unless more restrictive laws are passed, advertisers will only learn how to become more and more convincing with their audience analysts and psychologists helping them along the way. It is hard to say what the future of advertising holds, but for now, the easiest solution may be to hit the mute button as soon as those pesky commercials start running.

Delusions of Grandeur

Lori Gottlieb's article from The Atlantic on How to Land Your Kid in Therapy resonated very strongly with some of the topics I am currently interested in studying. Her observations about the connection between self-esteem, narcissism, and feelings of entitlement are very insightful. I found myself linking her discussion of narcissism back to an article that the Huffington Post Blog shared a few months ago entitled Why Generation Y Yuppies Are Unhappy (link below). The post gives a beautifully, brutally honest assessment of why this particular generation of college students (and recent graduates) are ending up in therapy despite their mild, sheltered upbringing. Whereas in past generations, Gottlieb noted that she had no trouble "making connections between [her patient's] grievances and their upbringings," a new trend appeared that was at first difficult to decipher. Patients in their 20's and 30's who had lived relatively privileged, cushy childhoods, were still seeking therapy for feelings of depression or unhappiness.

The Huffington Post blatantly describes what Gottlieb patiently explained in a more politically correct way. Essentially, the blog post explains (with lots of lovely visual aids provided) that there is a disparity between what today's children expect from the so-called "real world" and what reality gives them instead. Children are told that they can do anything they want and that they are exceptionally special. When you set a child's expectations so astronomically high, reality could only be disappointing in comparison to the child's inflated idea of what opportunities the world holds for them. The blogger refers to Generation Y as delusional as a result of being raised to believe that we are somehow more special than all of our peers. Because of our inflated sense of self, we expect that opportunities will be knocking on our door as soon as we graduate from college. We also cringe at the slightest bit of negative feedback because it is in direct conflict with how we perceive ourselves (as essentially perfect).

The blog post concludes with some advice for Generation Y, the most important of which being that we are not special...yet. But we might be able to become special one day if we work incredibly hard for something. And as Gottlieb explains in her article for The Atlantic, we can't continue to tell our kids, "You can do anything you want, you can quit any time..." Kids need encouragement to be sure, but they also need direction, structure, and a grasp on the sometimes harsh nature of reality before stepping into the real world and experiencing it first hand.

Gen Y Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wait-but-why/generation-y-unhappy_b_3930620.html

Pressure to Perform

Academic pressure to perform well in school is a stressor for most high school and college students. When grades can greatly broaden or narrow your chances at getting into a university or getting the career of your dreams, who wouldn't want a boost to set themselves up for success? Doctor prescribed amphetamines administer that necessary boost, and many students are choosing to use these drugs whether or not they have a prescription.

The problem with prospective colleges and employers is that they often love to see their applicants' "stats" on paper (e.g. SAT scores, grades, and other standardized test scores). Unfortunately, the more students feel pressure from teachers and parents to perform better, the more likely they are to turn to questionable means in order to obtain higher scores. If, as New York Times writer Alan Schwarz claims, up to one-third of students choose to take these academic performance-enhancing drugs, will these scores maintain their integrity for much longer? In the end, these scores that colleges and employers value so highly will consequently mean less and less due to the unfair advantage some students using amphetamines have over their non-drug-abusing counterparts. We can't weed out the scores that were enhanced by drugs from the scores that were genuinely earned.

Educational institutions and employers may need to find other ways to measure the aptitude and abilities of their prospective applicants if they hope to provide equal opportunities for everyone. Teaching to the test and pressuring students to study harder if they want to have a future adds enough strain to force some students to resort to some desperate measures. Is this a sign that our educational system needs some revising? Possibly. But the issue also screams "white-people problems!" It is difficult for us to label our upper-middle-class white youth as deviant, but societal pressures can even make our most privileged population turn to illegal means if that's what it takes to please and impress the right people.

Children Can Teach Themselves Beautifully

Children are much smarter than we give them credit for. They have the incredible ability to self-regulate their own learning process without much help from adults. It is amazing to think that although we adults oftentimes view infants as helpless, needy, little people, they actually develop the autonomy to teach themselves from an early age.

In this age of technological advancement, it seems quite natural to create interactive computer programs to teach toddlers and young children. But as David Elkind shares in his book, The Power of Play, "Many infants and young children faced with computer programs and instructional videos...are not sure what they are supposed to be looking at or for. Often they end up being...confused and disheartened... [They] know for themselves what they have to learn. Indeed they are programmed to learn the basic adaptive skills and concepts necessary for survival. Most infants and young children have the good sense to ignore or resist such intrusions into their self-directed learning. But if adults push too intensely on the look harder materials, even infants and young children can get discouraged and give up."

Children come perfectly wired with the ability to teach themselves what they need to know, all in good time. Unfortunately, many Americans, concerned for the future of their children, value education (and the high status that can eventually result from it) so much that they try to force too much information on a child before they are ready. As Elkind discusses in his book, most formal schooling in Europe does not begin until age six or seven. They do have preschool before that, but their preschools do not focus on learning numbers or how to read, rather, they choose to allow their students to develop physically and socially before they start their more formal instruction.

Americans are simultaneously highly competitive in respect to their children's education, while also extremely concerned that their children may be falling behind in their studies. These attitudes toward education in our country have been leading us down a self-destructive path in which we are oftentimes doing more harm than good by introducing concepts too early during a child's cognitive development. I think the lesson to be learned here is that you can't force a learning process that has been biologically wired to work in a certain way. Stop trying to "force it," America! Children will learn, all in good time.

How Is America Screwing Over Parents And Their Newborns?

In a lot of ways apparently. Because the whole system is fucked. There is no simple fix to make the first couple years of a newborn's life ideal for the parents or for the infant (unless you are incredibly rich). There is a large difference between what a child needs in his or her first few years of life and what parents have access to as American citizens. Quality childhood development seems to correlate positively with access to wealth. Socioeconomic status has almost everything to do with how well American children will develop, learn, and acquire new skills. Other countries have found ways to better equip all parents with the information and resources that they need in order to be successful, but the United States is making it difficult for many parents to encourage healthy development.

The problems begin where I left off last week, with a necessity for our children to be independent from the get-go. Infants have no concept of independence, nor do they have a sense of entitlement. Infants need constant care from at least one person so that they can form a secure attachment. Our readings discussed in great detail the importance of healthy attachments between infant and adult. Parents need to teach their newborn that when they have a need, it will be addressed; when they cry, someone will be there for them. But the idea of "appeasing" a child when they cry conflicts terribly with our American ideal of independence. Many parents are led to believe that their child just needs to "cry it out" and that they will be better for it in the long run because their child won't grow up to be a "cry baby." While this belief has proved to be false, Americans still value independence and individualism and many parents remain in ignorance of appropriate ways to care for their child.

The next problem is two-fold: American parents are rarely given any reasonable amount of paid maternity- or paternity-leave and therefore must resort to finding a daycare for their child. Not only does work keep many American parents from bonding with their newborn, but there is an entire spectrum of daycare options to choose from, and the phrase "you get what you pay for" has never been truer. Parents who make enough money can at least afford to send their child to a quality daycare center with reliable and consistent employees where there may be the potential for their child to establish a secure attachment with one of his or her caretakers. Alternatively, parents who are less well off may send their child to a more affordable daycare where there is a higher turnover rate of caretakers. This variety in care providers will make it even more difficult for the infant to form a secure attachment.

If the child is not able to make a healthy attachment to at least one adult within the first two years of his or her life, they will instead form insecure attachments which can lead to anything from minor insecurities to the potential for violent behavior. Most at-risk, American youth formed insecure attachments as babies; these unhealthy attachments have been linked to ADHD, insecurity, addiction, violent behavior, and lack of empathy. In many ways, even parents with the best intentions may still be putting their children at risk for unstable behavior in the future.

So, what do we need to change? We need at least a full year of paid maternity-leave available to new mothers. We need quality daycare centers with long-term, well-paid employees who can create healthy attachments with their children. And we need to ignore our American obsession with independence and recognize that when an infant cries, it is because they legitimately need something.

Culture vs. Science

This week I was struck most by this idea that cultural values override scientifically proven facts. Not necessarily all of the time, but in a nation with incredible access to scientific data that may clearly prescribe a certain behavior as "better"than what is culturally prescribed, culture still seems to beat out science more often than not.

For example, infant care in America: traditionally, infants sleep separately from adults, are fed on a schedule (not necessarily when they are hungry or want to be fed), and are formula fed instead of breastfed. Many Americans consider public breastfeeding, in particular, to be taboo. In order to avoid public breastfeeding, mothers oftentimes supplement with formula when in public or completely forgo the mammalian tradition of breastfeeding by using only formula. As Elizabeth D. Whitaker describes in her writing on Ancient Bodies, Modern Customs, and Our Health, "Common infant feeding practices in Western societies, such as timed, widely spaced meals, early weaning, pacifier use, and isolated infant sleep with few or no nighttime feedings, are very new and rare in human history, and do not reflect 'natural' needs or optimal behaviors, as is commonly presumed." Many of these culturally accepted practices are derived from the American obsession with independence. We think that "indulging" a young infant when she cries may cause her to become overly dependent on her parents or caretaker. However, imposing our individualistic values on an infant is unrealistic at best and potentially abusive at worst. Whitaker describes the benefits of traditional practices like on-demand feeding, constant physical contact between mother and infant, co-sleeping with infants, and breastfeeding's superiority to formula feeding, all of which also happen to align with scientifically prescribed childcare strategies. Contrary to American beliefs, which revolve around how to properly instill a sense of independence in children, infant well-being is closely tied to infant-parent proximity and having near-constant access to breastfeeding.

After reading about how Western society's infant-care practices are relatively incongruent with what has historically and scientifically been proven to work best, I have (somewhat frustratingly) found that cultural practices rule, no matter how much other evidence might suggest that our cultural practices are wrong (or maybe just not ideal). It is hard to break the cultural cycle that perpetuates our value of independence and our societal taboos on natural practices like breastfeeding. I don't know if there will ever be a time when scientific facts are valued equally to culture and tradition, but it would certainly be an interesting time to live in.

What is a cohort?

Cohort refers to a group of people who were born around the same time, and as a result, experience many similar important life events. Our reading gave an example of a boy who grew up during World War II and explained how his life situation, while nuanced and unique in some ways, was also similar to the experiences of others who grew up around the same time that he did. A group that shares these experiences that ultimately shape many of their values and beliefs is called a cohort. What struck me, personally, about this idea of a cohort was how the reading's example of a boy growing up around WWII strangely paralleled many of my grandfather's life experiences. Because of the uncanny connections I drew between this some-what stereotypical life and my grandfather's very own real experiences, I wondered what my own cohort's shared storyline might look like 50 years from now.

As we discussed in class, my cohort's shared experiences may not strongly revolve around a particular war, but instead around the ever-changing world of technology and media that we are constantly exposed to through cellphones, television, computers, tablets, the internet, etc. How are these everyday outside influences ultimately shaping our lives and values? We certainly value communication; having access to at least one communication device at all times makes it necessary for us to communicate on a near-constant basis. Conversely, it would seem rude to wait even a full day to respond to a text or e-mail, and in the context of business, also somewhat unprofessional. But looking back even a quarter of a century ago we can observe that communication patterns were nowhere near so desperate and needy as they have become today. Humans may be pro-social by nature, but should we really feel obligated to communicate at all times? I believe this need for communication is something my cohort shares and I am interested to see how it may affect our values and beliefs as our lives play out.