Notes

FIRST RUNG ON THE LADDER to Contemporary Civil Disobedience: Identification of the Paradoxical Issues
The Paradox: How We Teach and What Our Instincts Require

Note: I'll being using 'our' 'us' and 'we' often; consider I am speaking on behalf of nearly all America and in reflection to the American system and culture.

**Please reread Summary, and then continue

The American Dream (AD) can be an expression where has evolved from one image to another. Arguably, it originated from the campaign and national desire for 'slightly above' mediocrity in living conditions; a residence, white fence and two cars in the drive way, in a suburb. And for all those times that image was wealthy living, when compared to 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 major city, a six figure income and a 100,000 dollar sports/luxury car - just to start the dream off! This expression the AD gives today, is the one I'll reference to any extent further; the majority of Americans act as if they were rich or will eventually become rich. The above explanation will be discussed further in argument B. This area of the conflict, at quick glance, seems to contradict the idea we want to be sociable. However, evolutionarily, it proves to make 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 have known reasons for our want in aiding others; whether they be socially or individually influenced desires (nurture) -and/or- instinctual requirements (nature). The altruism I will discuss can be more refined as the following: the practice that's consensually accepted in/by a group as altruistic. An organization can vary from the social circle of friends to international identities of a nation or continent. The fact there may be groups within groups could cause confusion; for 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: Taking part in church events is deemed charitable by the church's community members. My altruism definition is really 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 methods to be charitable in a general sense; the social altruism perspective is apparently more realistic. People have a tendency to want to help those that will later help them in return, which mutual payoff sometimes appears majorly in dynamics of groupthink theory; which will be 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 individual, when the social incentives are excluded. This behavior is termed social altruism. According to the above, social altruism may be displayed because of: genetic predisposition; behavioral conditioning; awareness of intrinsic incentives; and knowing of social incentives. Of these, the first three can lead to behaviors which are costly to the individual, even when the social incentives are included. For instance, genes could be selected since they encourage us to behave social altruistically, which has a fitness benefit typically; but those genes are unlikely to perfectly distinguish instances that are fitness enhancing from the ones that are fitness detracting, and so both behaviors will tend to be exhibited. This is not, of course, to suggest the opportunity to better distinguish between the behaviors will be socially desirable. Quite the opposite, in fact-the many times when people behave altruistically at a personal cost is really a wonder of human societies and may have been a necessary prerequisite for our evolution as a species" (Barradale). In section C. I will propose another reason why we do not have "the ability to better distinguish between your behaviors [that] will be socially desirable" but in fact behave in a fashion that is only socially desirable to your sought out and indoctrinated groups. For the reason that another cognitive argument; our reptilian brain complex being the cause for us to defend and protect our group thoughts.

A. Paradoxical Problem Finding

Barradale, in the aforementioned, has expressed a number of the reasoning for the paradox's conflict; as value forming involves both instinctual and social dimensions, it would appear that you can find conflicts of conflicts. These conflicts appear to involve majorly: i. the concern of what does the system/culture look like, where is prepping visitors to carry out their metaphysical desires (of being altruistic) ii. along with the irrational (or not necessarily rational) tendencies where we are more likely to interest groups. Ideally, after these conflicts of conflicts are illuminated, we can better find examples of such conflict in the paradox.

Regarding 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] where we have to adjust to, as a way to create values? We've this instinct to want to work out how to be socially altruistic so as to reap the benefits of certain groups, but also we are given the training of the American Dream. First of the conflicts within conflicts - involves our education system (although only apart of the entire education we receive).

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

1. Encourage PSD to HTML , single-solution thinking, instead of 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 solution, they aren't motivated to watch out for alternate solutions; errors aren't rewarded when resulting from a potentially beneficial risk)

3. Don't measure 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, for this paper's purposes we shall assume the list is accurate to many (or even all) primary to secondary education methods in the U.S. Will there be is one systematic method to being socially altruistic to others? Is there only going to be one or perhaps a few group(s) in which we have to socially respond to? Definitely not! Depending on the group where altruism is being attempted for, depends also on the method. Also, this methodology of education in schools isn't preparatory for how exactly to respond to a range of groups (how to join/associate). The contrary seems more likely; education that molding abilities to only be able to respond to one or few group(s) at most. Which can further stifle exploratory attitude formations. If these are early attitudes, without doubt will they be at minimal, partially internationalized. Perhaps there must be a method (or part of method) where is open-ended enough to anticipate change in group dynamics being the foundation of the lesson plan or as an entire class: Group Method!

The next conflict of conflict: Why is us interest certain groups and/or distance us from others? How much does nature entail where we have been likely to be drawn to; as far as group identification? These questions are no more limited by philosophic and literary critique (although resources should/do come 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 we have adapted during our evolution during the period of history, should be taught in a classroom; in a roundabout way but designed in to 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 should be just open to the idea, we respond to groups to be able to self identify. Seems common sense filled - so, I am going to appeal to such. The majority will do whatever is necessary to be accepted by the groups they elect to want to be apart of; in return to receive recognition. Exaggerated when I say 'whatever' maybe, but objectively what you can do to gain usage of a group is not nearly as extreme as another would. For example: is paying 40,000 dollars more of less crazy than giving 100 hours a week 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 idea 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.

With that said; "what does an individual wanting to participate a group have in common with how our education system is designed?" Well that 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 desires to keep company with others? No. Does groups tend to educate us of their social guidelines? Yes. So... We get educated from the groups we are associated with, but t here are a great number of groups existing... How do we understand how to respond to them? Are we forced to rely strictly on our groups to know how to respond to the rest? In mention of the number one method Kuszewski notes - linear thinking (one answer is best) may be the normative in 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) may be the ideal of rich materialism; in a nut shell - celebrity idolizing, in both properties and personalities. The concern of being wealthy is a prime example of the actual fact our education outlets hinder the majority's value forming; in schooling especially with their linear methods; one answer for each and every question. The thought of being rich is an easy thought to entertain; little to no work, anything you want and fun whenever one wants. This argument suggest almost directly; linear methods of education create the AD, as well as the rest of American education.

How our media demonstrates rich and luxurious lifestyles depict selfish attitudes, especially since the means of obtaining the riches will not usually involve bringing others into rich status aswell. The AD does not have any intention of bringing others with the given individual to achieve this type of goal. There are 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 come in our contemporary documentaries. Still overall, as far as public media goes, there 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 likely to prison, people [re]decorating places and things, and people gossiping about celebrities (politicians, actors and artist).

"Well media and entertainment do not necessarily guide our values." That's true however they are apart of where we take what we realize from and may existentially be considered apart of the entire 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 back would hold no significance. Yet, today, through the energy of media they're standard used words in the young generation. Although this is not a value-based argument, it could 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 almost all think is actually popular and notable to go over? Celebrities. How the most fashioned are formed seem to be lead by popular figures of our culture. Musicians particularly, but additionally 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 often 'do' rather than 'say' more often than not. If we cared about what they had to state... I do not think the majority of the pop-icons today will be very popular.

Having noted the most powerful manner in which we gain values as a national identity; pop-culture through entertainment. There still are unanswered questions: How 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 point of fabricating a paradox, if so, so how exactly 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 prone to attempting to identity with groups. Then concludes the education system does not accurately prep children to keep company with various groups; rather more likely does the contrary; encourages children to find safety in one or a few groups. Argument B. discusses that our pop-culture is a major type of our overall education together with creating values of the American Dream. Concluding the majority gains their impressions of value forming from pop-icons and celebrities. So, how can we summarize all this up together? As a nation, in the majority, we have been terrible at forming collective values, but why? How can we naturally have an aptitude for social altruism, but still end up being so individually selfish? Do we have a culture that inspires individualism? If we do, then, what causes 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've 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 lack of group-reflection... This all adds up to 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 accessible. Part of any American, who has not stopped and reflected on nearly all what I've tried to argue so far, has this paradoxical individualistic attitude. We'd no ability to not be individuals in this sense of being concerned about the AD in a linear scope of mind, because our nature and public nurturing conflict(ed) in such a way to create this paradox of values (which escalated overtime into our national identity). On the type side; the desire 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 is to identify with others, we shall automatically do so; that 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, where to gain resources, to satisfy our natural needs... The paradox manifests... A culture of individuals... A working, functional contradiction of something - well at the very least seemingly functional. What keeps this absurd mindset going? This crazy aptitude of a national identity? Well, this is w here our reptilian brain complex could come into the discussion, one of many three parts of the theorized triune brain, and may have something to state about all of this paradoxical conflict.

"The neurologist Paul MacLean has proposed our skull holds not 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 own subjectivity, its own sense of time and space and its particular memory" (Kazlev). Interesting to take into account, none the less, but what does this want to do with being such as a reptile? "MacLean shows... that the physically lower limbic system, which rules emotions, can hijack the bigger mental functions when it requires to" (Kazlev) Essentially, another argument and only an all natural, evolutionary development in our thinking; our most primitive brain still exist and takes charge, since it is foundational for the whole '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 a number of animals, not only humans: "It is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it really is "filled with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating exactly the same behaviours over and over again, never learning from past mistakes. This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions, such as for example breathing and heartbeat. This part of the brain is active, even in deep sleep" (Kazlev). The reptilian complex is actually what I am discussing within the natural reasoning for our 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. To connect this with this drive to be socially altruistic, it may immediately seem contradictory, but such incite couldn't be further from the reality. What has and continues to permit us to survive is grouping with other people. So, at the core of our 'rigid, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid' R-complex also exist the group mentality we used to survive through millions of years. Consider the group, and the individual in the group aren't separate entities at this point! Our brain wouldn't normally only evolve to be worried about our survival, however 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 just a mental cliff, and falling off doesn't kill you, it just keeps you unable to break through the nurture v. nature which creates your reality; 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 we educate at all, yet, this theory of the Triune Brain has changed many mindsets, in psychology, about how to check out the evolution of the brain, and it is time education specialist, theorist and politicians followed the mindset of thinking evolutionarily. This is available knowledge! Search engine anything I've said and one will find no fictitious information was used to argue with, but perhaps my conclusion will not be suffice enough for some. No matter, we all have been able to understand our entire 'self' - the biology, the neurology and the spiritual/self-actualization. Yet, we don't care to... IN THE US, we could care less, not because we find the information useless, but because we don't have musicians composing lyrics about how the reptilian brain may be 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 appears we meet our primitive needs on a far more superficial level... A far more direct and reflective level... We truly exist in an individualized culture; groups of people will believe their group is the best, and will reject dealing with others unless proven beneficial by group standards; usually the American Dream may be 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 enhance our evolving social desires... ? Why are we so obedient to the system that predicates ideals of shallow-mindedness and non-divergent thinking? How? "Obedience is as basic a component in the structure of social life as you can point to. Some system of authority is really a requirement of all communal living, in fact it is only the individual dwelling in isolation who is 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 a choice, because these are the cards we were dealt (we were born into what we get)... This random occurrence eventually will undoubtedly 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 how the herd (the machine) continually runs off of the cliff, for as long as it has, without significant notice of the general population. As if the herd receive blinders from subtle sources; I am not just one to call conspiracy, but 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 bigger hidden agenda accessible. From who? I do not know, but, to set off topic for an instant... The initial rule of Capitalist politics should be "follow the money" because that is the reality of the philosophy where Capitalism presents and practices. Who ever gets the most to gain from the nation of mindless consumer zombies, could also have probably the most influence on keeping a nation's mindset in the realm of linear dreaming (the primitve brain)... But that won't be the conclusion to this paper! Leave the conspiracy speak to the blogs and websites which already exist, this paper is worried about how to solve the problem, not to point fingers at and also require caused the paradoxical issues.

The primary paradoxical issue I am concerned with is the poor value forming between what is -and- is not essential to as 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 idea of altruism was privatized towards selected groups; mainly probably immediate ones like family, friends, business patterns, churches, etc. Whether we are made to only capable of being altruistic to a few choice groups or everybody we come into contact with - will not seem clear. Regardless, we still have this instinct, and when 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 will not only create a more well rounded individual, but, also an improved nation in which we can be pleased with, one void of superficial tendencies of wealth and singular positions of answer finding. And in place - social idealism; the quest for creating a nation where in fact the abuse of others and the machine is not wanted, as the need to improve oneself and their groups (ultimately everyone) will become primary in our values. This social idealism would satisfy our natural intents of taking and giving back again to groups, without posing threats to your overall developments - both socially and individually.

Idealism of Group Methodology

Having suggested heavily that evolutionary issues are very real factors in how exactly we perceive the world and respond to other people. I believe this is knowledge we have to not ignore. Education systems have to look at the very real psychological factors that exist so that you can educate children to being better thinkers, learners and overall humans. The reality in which the world works is not individualism; individuals get nothing done without the support of others. Anything one wants to do is dependent on a system set up, and the system is carried forth by a society. Our education as noted in argument A. does not educate in groupthought, however the contrary; education that the average person is the key to success and that one answer, is desirable. This singular/linear thinking will not allow for 'surprise' or 'quick change' and makes these moments in time more often scary than interesting. I suggest we educate in a fashion that is beneficial to both individual also to their future relationships with others, by educating in the mindset the will undoubtedly be doing just that.

A group method class for primary and secondary school - structured to challenge the normative natures presented here (namely group-following) by creating situations where children will need to think about the 'checks and balances' of picking either group, or picking never to pick either group. Simply the goal of the class is always 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 ought to be the backbone of other styles of classes that impose critical thinking? Science Fiction Appreciation. Nonfiction Writing. Poetry. Basic Philosophy. The above would be excellent classes to permit exploratory thinking that occurs; creatively inspired classes (the design for every class are pending papers of mine). With an organization methodology at the core, however, exploratory thinking may prove more than to spur creative juices, but also provide tools for practical everyday use. We are social animals after all; although, almost ironically, being social to multiple groups rather than a few selected ones appears to not be natural. So, we must allow education systems to nurture us beyond our short sighted attitudes of conforming to a few choice groups; beyond our reptilian brain. Educate in the pursuit of multiple consciousnesses, in another sense, and the huge benefits will be immense.

Put kids in groups! Give them assignments with roles for everything, not just a project one per year! Figure out how to permit them to configure with one another so that you can succeed. An example of a project is always to co-author or group-author papers; assign a ten page paper rather than five for just two kids, this way they must collaborate on the paper and agree. I feel this value will be revolutionary, because there already exist co-authored books, and group authored - it seems sensible; people have a tendency to share the same thoughts and impressions but have two modes of looking at an issue; 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 level of understanding, w/ relative examples). To promote collaboration early in education will platform the rest of the students live; our whole lives are based on collaboration! Whether it be natural or nurtured.

An organization method class could be organized to take action, and by doing so, individual grading is not done but group grades. One will argue, think about the kid who will not do anything? All of those other group will scold him/her needless to say, but is that any unique of the real world? Why must we protect children from how things actually are? We can only achieve this much for the bullying problems existing today, and direct attempts to resolve them seem to only make things worse. More group work will benefit a lot more than there would be draw backs. Especially, objectively considering, how the rest of their lives will be most likely involved with group activity. Again, just like the above suggest classes for exploratory thinking, the thought of group method is unheard of in academic training. Yet ultimately game, after college, that 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 associated with others, because again, they'll be doing it anyways 1 day. This group method, in the class or a part of class, may (I pray) help our future of America destroy the existing paradox we are in; this culture of individualism. The average person is not the near future, you are not the near future! The group - a nation, a religion, a movement - are the future, we are the near future. Start acting like it, question where it is you gain most of your values from and question those values. If they are '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 control; with one's own thoughts and environment?"

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

"Theory, GOOD SENSE, and Narcissistic Energy" by Nick Tingle

"The Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram

"Why Socialism?�?�" by Albert Einstein

Source for Triune Brain information: [http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htm#reptilian] Information supplied by M. Alan Kazlev

Groupthink theory research is rolling out a great deal of my thoughts here - credit goes to, too many people to source. I would 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.
Read More: https://www.instapaper.com/p/potterberry0