No "I" in Team

When entering a new group project, there is always a hint of anxiety that comes along with it.  Questions arise about collaboration, differences in personality, ideas about the project, and the effort put forth by all participating members. Our own personal definitions about success come into play.  My definition is going to be different than the others because we all define success on our own terms.  I could see success as an “A” while another could be completion as being successful.   However, with Group 2 of which includes Kevin and Carmen; it couldn’t be going any better-hopefully that won’t jinx it!! The only initial downfall suffered was the loss of one of the original members of our Group; Lauren to another group.  This should prove to be a little harder on the remaining three because the workload will now be increased. 

So far the work is progressing with ease.  We have taken our subject of criminal justice and narrowed it down to defining success from the accused criminal’s standpoint when integrating into society after their sentence; success in life after rehabilitation.  Now that we have focused on a specific aspect of this rather large discourse community, we have uploaded over 20 articles, all of them having something- big or small-to offer to the success definition. 

Many questions have come up with the progression of this project.  One being, how to form or arrange the annotated bibliography so that it makes sense and flows cohesively.  Another question that I am having is how do we know if the articles that we put into the final bibliography are worthy and the best to be there? Is the professor going to understand what we were trying to say?

When working in a group and trying to define success, each individual is going to have their own opinion or thoughts on the accused criminal’s standpoint on success.  We all come with attitudinal biases that weigh in on how we are to define or think about this subject.  Whether it be because of previous history or expectation, even different beliefs; those attitudinal biases are going to have an effect.  We as a group have decided not to try and define success based on what we initially “think”, but rather keep an open mind about developing the definition that is going to change through the course of this project.  We cannot control what others think or feel and when it comes to a criminal perspective on success, we need to take into account who our audience is going to be.  Our groups’ definition is not the “right” or only one, it is simply just a glimpse of what we have found through our research.   

Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?

What an interesting journal written by Jaeger on the topic of how beauty affects society and success.  Jaeger acknowledges that success is dependent on the usual subjects of socio-economic background and IQ and personality traits but what he expounds on are the physical attractiveness, height and weight, and BMI.  He states that previous research is very limiting because is only has used a "snapshot" of data and collected one point or age or group at a time.  For example, studies such as graduates of West Point have shown that those that had "dominant" traits had higher military rankings.  He also states that the existing research tend to focus on one type of outcome ( psychological, marital, labor market, etc) when defining success rather than include all types of dimensions.  Furthermore, he expounds that aspects such as physical attractiveness, BMI, and height and weight have also been studied individually rather than collectively in the same analysis.  Control is also an issue that he explains in previous research when defining success and such traits as family background and endowments and how they influence the effects of beauty.  His main points of the article surround the theoretical background which includes the evolutionary and social psychology, and constructionist theories in previous research which he in my opinion, bases his argument or point around.  What makes his article so different and better, is that he goes beyond and narrows down the research.  As stated before, most researchers only did a "snapshot" of people which can cause a bias to their research because they can gear it towards what they are saying.  Jaeger studied late teens all the way until their mid-60s.  This is a huge plus because it shows how beauty affects socio-economic success throughout someones life and truly gives an insight to how it can shape and change throughout the course.  He also uses people that have graduated from high school as the only requirement whereas previous research had used specific groups such as MBA lawyers or West Point graduates.  This was also a positive because it allowed for a wide range of opportunity to prove what he was saying.  He also describes the differences between men and women in their view of beauty and success where before researchers did not differentiate.  Men and women do approach beauty and what they view as physical attractiveness very differently and are not equal when defining success.  This article supports all research that says beauty is significantly important to success and how people view one another.  He shows how people hold attractiveness as a "high" quality and those that are, are better off in all aspects of their lives.  It is not rather surprising that society equates beauty with success.  Humanity puts a great deal of stock in beauty, and, despite its constantly evolving definition, people have a markedly biased opinion regarding “beautiful” people.  One important term that Jaeger uses is the "halo effect"which causes society to correlate beauty with nothing but positive characteristics.  He also says that people who marry or associate with "beautiful" people. they too are now held at a higher regard, something I view as very sad but important in research because this I believe skews it.  In my opinion, in the end, while looks do play a significant role in our lives and careers, beauty is not the only contributing factor to success. Aristotle may have claimed that “beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction,” but it’s always wise to remember the often-quoted but still-true cliché, “Beauty is only skin deep"; if only the research supported that.

Are u writing to me????

     After reading “Success, Coping, and Social Exclusion”, I feel that the writer did not have a certain group in mind to who he/she was writing to.  She went in great depth of explaining every last thing to the reader which makes me assume that the writer was assuming that the reader was naive in the topic.  Muck like myself when I was writing on my discourse community, my audience was open-ended because I was to assume that the readerhad no clue of the Catholic community.  I also believe that the audience was anyone who picked up the article because of the five interviews she used.  Each interview was relatable to someone on some level.  There was a reason that she used the diversity of the five out of 61 possible interviews.  At first, I did not agree with how the article was put together but after taking a deeper look, it made sense.  The writer first explained the theory and/or theories that were going to be discussed and then followed up with real life experience stories to collaborate with those theories.  I relate it to to myself if I were to write an article to my fellow classmates stating that I believe the sky to be purple.  I would have to go into very simple but explored resaoning as to why I think this to be.  I would then follow up with people that have experienced the sky to be purple and how that has changed what they have thought in the past.  The writer pulls us in with simplicity and then keeps our attention with the reader wanting to know what the writer has gone on about for so many pages.  If the writer were to have put the interviews at the beginning, the article would not have made sense, and left the reader wondering how credible the writer actually was.  The writer also relies on the emotional side of the article in involving the different interviews.  Their unique social networks in correlation with success provide an emotional appeal to the reader which makes the reader want to understand further.  I believe this is a schoarly article and was meant to students, teachers, and people wanting to know more about success and social capital; very much like Gladwell did. However, it made me wonder if this were to be related to the United States.  I think that the youth in this nation don't rely on the social and cultural capital in the terms that we dont strive to achieve what it takes to learn and be respected on that level, like that of a European country like Finland.  So I wonder if the writer had that in mind when writing this.  I believe that this article is important to the youth studies genre because again like Glad well it looks at the social and cultual coping of what environment you were placed in that you went on to be successful or not; the domino effect once again rears its ugly head.   

And so the bell tolls......

     After reading this article,  I immediately had to take a look at the meaning of a "bell curve".  The term referring to the shape of a normal distribution graph, which bulges in the middle and narrows at the edges. The majority of people, being of average intellect, form the bulge in the middle, while the low and high achievers make up the bell's edges.  What is even more interesting was that society has somehow relied on the bell curve as measurement for people in any aspect of life, specifically education, and where you end up on that bell curve impacted the rest of your life and your "success".  This article struck a nerve just like Gladwell did with the theory of how being born at the "opportune" time influenced the rest of your life with success.  So based on the testing of your IQ influences everything else that would follow, such as college, job and so on without taking into consideration all the other factors such as emotional, social or economic status.  Treating everyone the same and testing regardless of all these things severely hinders the education process and therefore hinders the possibility of success.  This excerpt supporting this from the article really resonated with me, "under a bell curve, teachers are expected to direct their lessons to a fiction called the Average Student, despite the fact that no student actually embodies the characteristics of that statistically generated average. Teaching based on bell-curve assumptions effectively misses the learning needs of every student, defeats motivation by guaranteeing the expectation of failure, and fosters cheating because of administrative pressures to raise test scores."  People coming from different backgrounds with different learning processes are all to be judged and their life determined by a universal test and universal education system?  No wonder why in the United States, a kid drops out of school every 9 seconds, not being able to fit into the mold and hopefully land in the bell of the curve is a lot of pressure.
     It does seems obvious that intelligence is important to succeed in life, but it also seems obvious that social factors play a large, if not larger, role.  For example, I don't think it is a coincidence that the unemployment rate is higher for those without a college education, but economic and social disparities play a role in not being able to receive that college education, not simply an IQ test or the positive or negative education received.  It is simple, intelligence is only one factor among the countless factors that contributes to success.  I seem to go back to the "nature vs. nurture" debate again after reading this article. For example, do I think that I should be tested the same being a suburban white girl that was raised in a middle class home with both parents as a black man that is from a very poor community with only one parent at home?  Is it fair if I score higher and affect the curve?  Am I even smarter or are the circumstances just different and is he at an automatic disadvantage?  Does a standardized test really measure our IQ?  It seems that those such tests are pre-historic nowadays.  Education and society has changed so much,  I feel like we should have a better way to educate different cultures as well as measure intelligence.  Just because a student is a poor test taker, does that mean that success will never happen for them because they are on the low end of the bell curve?  Take a look at the national average ACT score, they range from state to state.  So are the smarter kids in certain states?  Is there a smart state?  It's ridiculous to even say that, let alone think it.
Social factors predict future success far better than IQ; where you come from, the available resources along with education, the exposure to knowledge,etc. etc. etc..... and let's not forget the most important factor, just simple dumb luck-a factor completely out of our control yet is the most important factor in determining success.

"Mark"ed or "Will"ing Success

     I chose to watch Mark Zuckerberg and Will Smith and their videos on "success".  So let's start with Mark Zuckerberg and his definition of success.  I believe that to he defines success as achieving the goal set out and staying focused no matter what; ambition. As he states in the video, he always knew that he was never going to create software but he knew that his goal was to create something that connected people, everywhere.  He had a clearly defined vision to what he wanted to achieve; something big, and he set out to reach it with enough drive and clarity to do so.  He had a plan.  This "works" for two reasons; luck and timing.  Yes, he did come up with the idea of connecting everyone on a greater scale, but we are forgetting that the market was open and needing something like Facebook.  He struck while the iron was hot; his idea could not have had better timing.  He learned from the mistakes of myspace and improved on them.  I am not taking away from his drive or dedication to his vision because that takes a lot of will and time, but when you add an ambition plus luck and timing, everything seems to fall into place.  Zuckerberg had an idea and had the tenacity to stick with it; being smart enough to go to Harvard I am sure didn't hurt.  I truly believe the young kid fell into success accidentally because throughout the video he constantly reminds everyone that all he ever wanted to do was connect his friends, people, and to keep expanding outward on it.  So in those terms, he achieved success, him becoming the youngest billionaire was just an added bonus.
     Will Smith has a very outlined and positive plan to success.  I believe his definition of success is a culmination of all the things he believes in which ironically starts with just believing in what you want to do or become. He then goes on to explain that you must also choose to be great, and that success and/or greatness is not only for the"special people".  Committing to what you want to do is very important in achieving success and something that he emphasizes on.  Very much like Gladwell, Smith states that practice, practice, practice is supremely important to success, and that talent is one thing but to keep improving that talent by practice is the most important.  He then goes on to say not to complicate things by focusing on the end result but rather put the attention on taking the necessary steps you need to do to get to the goal, again as practice.  I thought that his brick wall story provides a great example and support to what he is saying throughout the video.  Along with practice and commitment, staying focused on the future and not looking back is just as vital to success.  This is one point that resonated with me because I along with many others tend to keep looking behind me and spend too much time in the past.  The last couple points seem to collectively go together when he talks about believing in whatever it is you want to because nothing is unrealistic and that once you decide and commit to that, everything else will get out of the way.  That last instruction to success is to protect your belief or whatever you want to achieve because no can decide your fate.  This video was inspirational because for Will Smith achieving success depends on believing in yourself.  It works because he has shown that it can be done.  This also works because the real life character he played in "pursuit of happiness" also followed this guideline that success is simply believing in your dream and making it happen, no matter what or who tries and gets in your way.  If more of us would have the positivity and committment that Smith has, would more of us be successful?  It's hard to say no.  
   
   
   

Gimme a "C-H-E-E-R"

After watching the video on cheerleaders, I decided to look deeper into that specific discourse community.    An important factor in a discourse community is that it must have a threshold level of membership; a means of recognizing who belongs or does not belong to the community, and with cheerleaders you can always tell who is and who isn't.  Cheerleaders have a distinct language and look to them.  Most cheerleaders are physically fit and manicured, usually with a huge bow in their hair and a smile on their face.  They tend to be outgoing and bubbly and their belief is to always be happy and "cheery".  Usually, most cheerleaders are gymnasts and their vocabulary surrounds what they do.  For example, a standing back tuck is an athletic tumbling skill that cheerleaders use but people not involved in the discourse community would have no idea what that would be or mean.  In addition, cheerleaders are very tough and flexible,  and are BOTH men and women.  They put in many hours of training and practice and most importantly have to be very trusting of their fellow cheerleaders.  Being thrown in the air and flipped around and having to rely on others to catch you makes this discourse community a very tight knit group because of that trust and respect; they truly have to believe in each other.  One thing that cannot be denied with cheerleaders is their spirit, especially their school spirit.  They are a squad that stands behind what they are rooting for, no matter win or lose.  They involve fans and supporters to a common goal of cheering for their team to win.  An important way of communication for cheerleaders is through their megaphones with the crowds.  It is their sole responsibility to get everyone involved and revved up.  There definitely is a rank and hierarchy with cheerleaders.  There is always a captain on the squad and different smaller groups within, such as fliers and bases which is also part of the language again.  Those that are fliers tend to be small and light and the bases tend to be more muscular and that is where the men come into play.  Moving up in rank in terms of cheerleaders usually is based on popularity and the captain tends to be the most popular, but to be highly recognized in this community you need to be a great gymnast, flexible and very spirited, it also wouldn't hurt that you were somewhat attractive.
     Another thing that cheerleaders are is competitive, and their common goal for themselves is to win.  The biggest stage for cheerleaders is at the national level where every squad competes to be the best in their division.  I believe that they would define success in terms of winning and losing.  To be a successful cheerleader would mean that you were accredited with a trophy or title, meaning that you were the most spirited and polished with the highest level of difficulty achieved.  Success on the competition floor brings recognition to the university, school, or town where the cheerleaders are from giving those cheerleaders a sense of ownership and pride.  Many cheerleaders would also define success as being in the spotlight.  For example, a successful cheerleader would be one that is popular and well-liked among all other groups.    Cheerleaders are a very distinct group of people that are easily recognizable.  They put in hundreds of  hours of practice in order to achieve their goal and they have a very dedicated focus. Tumbling, stunts, choreography, and spirit surrounds what it means to be part of the cheerleading discourse community.  So gimme a "c-h-e-e-r"!! Go team!

Discourse Communitites

Part One:
family, friends, college students, Catholics, Women, bartenders, blondes, actresses, gym enthusiasts, couples, Bikram yoga students, communication majors, English 102 students, Chicagoan, volunteers, bi-coastal, gymnasts, Caucasians, adults, Facebook users, bloggers, sports fans, elvis fans, Mac users

Part Two:
I am a Catholic, along with both my parents and grandparents, I was born into the Catholic religion.  The first time experiencing the Catholic religion was my baptism; from then I was a member of the group/community.  From this point on, I was to believe what the Bible has taught us and was to attend church regularly as well as follow the Ten Commandments as sort of my "guidelines" to living a Catholic way of life.   In terms of our easy of communicating, all Catholics, or so we try, to be kind and generous to one another and believe that what we do can only be judged by God himself.  We are taught that there is a heaven and a hell and that we will meet our maker when we pass away and he will be the judge of where we sound eternity.
First and foremost, the person that is the most powerful in my community is God himself, followed by the men of the cloth as us Catholics refer to them.  Starting from the top is the Pope, cardinals, the benedicts and priests, deacons and then the nuns.  The Pope is the "leader" of the Catholic church as he is the successor of Saint Peter.  He is voted on by senior cardinals in Rome., by which this power is achieved by leading a life that is most considerable to that of Saint Peter or Jesus.  People achieve power in this group by way of any other group, influence and money.  Catholics have been accused of abusing their power and authority with the scandal of priests abusing young children, but that is another blog in itself.  In establishing the rules, they adhere to the Holy Bible, and the scripture.  We are to lead by the example that Jesus left for us.  Nobody really "enforces" the rules because Catholics also surround themselves with forgiveness.  The true enforcement is at your death when the choice of your eternity is made; heaven or hell.  It is not possible to have your membership revoked, because we are all not perfect and able to repent for the sins we have made; again I remind you here with forgiveness. To gain more authority in this group can be simply said of your love for God, and how much of your life you are willing to dedicate to that.

Part Three:
Of course we as a people acclimate ourselves to the groups we are in differently.  WE say and act differently because the groups and rules that apply are not universal across the board.  Being a catholic, I would not curse in church like I would say hanging out with my girlfriends or working at the bar.  I don't think any group I belong to would hate some aspect of another group that I belong to.  Being a Catholic, I have learned to accept all things no matter how different or that I wouldn't agree with.  I never feel like I disappoint one group to please another, after all, I am just being me.   Success is not universal so in defining it, no group shares the same definition.  Like I stated before, Catholics define success and their love for God or living a good life to reach Heaven.  My friends define success as having a good job, a marriage, and being "popular" among their friends.  In the bar business, they define success as making the most money and being popular among Facebook.  However, in discussing me as a Catholic, I do not agree with everything that they stand behind.  They are 100% against abortion and I am pro-choice and they do not believe in birth control, but as a woman of this generation, I believe in prepared.  Does this make me unsuccessful then as a Catholic?  Does my discourse community shift to a spiritual one then?
A community I do not belong to is one of the KKK.  They believe that their definition of success would be an all white non jewish nation.  A sort of cult that believes and speaks in only one way.  They believe that everyone but white people are evil and deserve to be dead.  They follow that of the Nazi regime years ago; believers of Adolf Hitler and his way of rule.  If I could change their way of thinking, it would be that diversity is good for this world and without it, we wouldn't be open to understanding and difference. The world and our society would be very boring and mundane if everyone looked the same and thought the same.  Where would brilliance come from? the great and different thinkers?   If members of this group were to tell me about their group would be that it is a good thing to be a part of a group and believe whole-heartedly in something; to be committed.  Maybe to remind me that I needed to respect their organization, even if they were different.