Chris, Jane, and Heider's Balance Theory

Hey all! I hope everyone enjoyed Thanksgiving and what not! I'm definitely enjoying the time off from school and figured it would be nice to be able to write something. I'm probably gonna disappear soon since finals will be rolling around for me soon enough. So, an entry before then sounds like a good idea!

Anyways, one of the theories that came up in my Psychology of Motivation class that I thought was rather interesting is called Balance Theory. This theory was developed by a man named Fritz Heider who was a rather big name in the field back in the mid 1900's. Anyways, to somewhat simplify his theory, Heider was interested in not only how two people view each other, but also some other object/person/idea. Balance Theory says when situations will be in balance, and thus there should be low motivation to change the situation itself, and when situations will not be in balance, or when there should be motivation to change the situation itself. Let's take a look at an example to make things a little more clear...

Let's say that we have two people named Chris and Jane. To fit with Balance Theory, we assume that Chris and Jane share the same feelings towards each other, which is positive in this case. For the object or idea of interest, let's say that we're going to look at their views towards something significant, such as Obama. Now, Chris loves Obama. Chris rallies, makes phone calls, and basically does everything he can to support Obama. Yet, Jane doesn't really like Obama. She thinks he hasn't done much as President and is planning on voting for someone else come election time (Note: Please remember these people are hypothetical! I am not trying to offend anyone. Thank you!). After considering these three factors, Heider would say that this is a situation not in balance, and that Jane and Chris should have motivation to change the situation. Let's break it down and take a closer look at why...

Heider proposed that the three factors that determine if a situation is in balance are:

1. How the two people feel towards each other.
2. How person A feels toward the object/person/idea.
3. How person B feels toward the object/person/idea.

Now, if person A and person B like each other (like Chris and Jane do), then that is assigned a positive value. For simplicity's sake, let's just give it a value of a positive one. If a person likes the object/person/idea of interest, like Chris, then we would also assign that a value of a positive one. But, if a person doesn't like the object/person/idea of interest, like Jane, then we would assign that a value of a negative one (this is one of the things that's easier seen visually in the form of a triangle, but I know better than try to impress you with my MS Paint skills since I'm not finding a fitting picture). Now, to see whether the situation is in balance or not, we simply multiply all three values together. If the result is positive, then the situation is in balance. If the result is negative, then the situation is not in balance. As you can see by multiplying our values together (1 x 1 x -1 = -1), our situation is one that Balance Theory would label as not being in balance.

So, what happens when an unbalanced situation arises? There is supposed to be a great deal of motivation to change, and the change can take place in usually three ways. If we look at this situation from the perspective of Chris and how he can change the situation to be in balance, his options are...

1. Get Jane to like Obama. If this is the case, then Jane will have a positive value assigned to her liking of Obama, resulting in three positive ones and getting a balanced situation.
2. Chris decides to stop liking Obama. If Chris does happen to change his view, then Jane and him will both share a negative view towards Obama, resulting in two negative ones and a positive one. When multiplied all together, the result is a positive one, showing that a new balance has arisen.
3. Chris decides to not be friends with Jane. Even though I think it would be rather extreme to stop liking a friend simply because they don't share the same view as you towards something, it is still a way to achieve a balanced situation. Not liking Jane gives a negative one for the feelings Chris and Jane have towards each other, resulting in two negative ones and a positive one. Again, when multiplied together, the result would be a positive one, resulting in a new balanced situation.

Thus, there are quite a few options available to Chris to change the situation. The strength of motivation to change the situation depends on how attached to the object/person/idea the people in the situation are, though. If it wasn't Obama, but rather Chris's like of apple sauce, then maybe he wouldn't care as much if Jane liked apple sauce or not. Yet, politics and what not are typically things viewed seriously, and thus a greater motivation to change the situation may arise for such an issue. It is important to note, though, that a balanced situation does not indicate a "good" situation. For example, if person A loved person C, person B loved person C as well, and person A and person B are best friends, the situation would be in balance, but it would more likely than not be a "good" situation...

So yes, this is essentially the basic idea of Balance Theory... Even though it may sound a bit abstract, it does provide an interesting way to look at some real-life situations, esp. in terms of advertising. Let's say that you like some celebrity (and we'll just assume that you think they like you back haha) and you find out the celebrity likes some product. In order to keep the situation balanced you may adapt a positive view towards the object. But, if you already knew about the product and disliked it, then your view towards the celebrity may be lessened (possibly to the point of no longer liking the celebrity) so that the situation could achieve balance. Of course, the latter is rather extreme and something I don't think would be that likely to happen, but it would depend on how significantly the person viewed the object. Hum... As is the case normally, I seem to have written a bit more than I would have initially intended by this point. Thus, I'll just call it quits for now and just write more of a continuation later. But for now, I think this is a good place to stop... Goodnight!

Bet You Can't Have Just One!

Hey all! Long time no write, but midterms were upon me... Thankfully, I have a rather light schedule this quarter, and I finished with all of my midterms in two weeks. So, now that those are out of the way, I've got a little bit of time to relax. Good luck to anyone and everyone that still has midterms!

Anyways, one of my friends suggested that I write on food for today's entry. Initially, I was kinda put off by the idea of it, for I just had a really dinner and dessert, so any mentioning of food made me feel somewhat nauseous... Yet, it has brought to mind an interesting point and a fitting anecdote to go with it...

Let's say that you just found a hit new restaurant. You decide to attend the grand opening with a friend. Upon looking at the menu, you see Dish A, which is a personal favorite of yours. Yet, you also see Dish B, which is a dish you like but not as much as Dish A. But, to spice things up, sometimes you go with Dish B when you've had too much of Dish A recently. Well, being the close friends that you are, with both of you being unable to make up your minds over Dish A and Dish B, you each decide to get one and then just share . Thus, you order Dish A, your friend orders Dish B, and you share each other's food.

Amazingly, as part of the promotion of coming on the grand opening day. you win a dinner every other month for the rest of the year. In other words, you get six dinners for free over the span of one year. Yet, as part of the promotion, you have to choose all your dinners right now. Seeing as how you sometimes get tired of Dish A, even though it is your favorite, the most natural choice is to switch it up so as not to wear it out. So, you decide to get Dish A every other time, while getting Dish B the times you don't get Dish A (Dish A -> Dish B -> Dish A ->and so on...).

This would be for the best and what not, right? You got tired at dinner of having Dish A, so it would make sense not to wear it out and switch it up with Dish B, since you like that as well. Hence, this would the seemingly logical choice to go with. Yet, as Daniel Gilbert points out in Stumbling on Happiness (which is where the anecdote and this point comes from), this would not be the best way to make us happy. Or, if we get all econy, this is not the best way to maximize utils. Let's take a look...

You see, assuming a very Hedonistic view towards life, one of our main goals is to maximize our happiness. In a very simplified and broad sense, the quantification of happiness is into the form of utility, or utils. Acts that we aren't forced or coerced to do are supposed to give us some form of utility. Yet, unfortunately, utility goes down over time for the same action, which is known as the law of diminishing marginal utility. For example, the first bite of Dish A may give you 10 utils initially, yet it only give you 9 utils on the second bite. Economists would say that you would keep on participating in the action (in this case, eating Dish A) until you would get 0 utils from taking that next bite. Hence, that's why it's good to have variety. By having Dish A and Dish B to eat, you alter what utils go down since they're different foods and actions. Thus, it's good to have variability at that moment in time!

Yet, humans are funny in the sense that we tend to think of the long-term in terms of the short-term. That sounds funny, but it makes sense I assure you. The law of diminishing marginal utility is something that holds true, but only in the short-term. You see, utility gained from an object is subject to recovery. In most situations, you don't eat something until marginal utility gets to 0, and then never eat it again. You could refuse to eat the same dish twice if you wanted to try a variety of foods, but most people end up eating something again later, especially if what something they liked in the first place. Thus, marginal utility is subject to recovery, meaning that you'll be able to get 10 utils from eating Dish A again. Yet, how does recovery occur? There may be a variety of ways, such as possibly eating different foods (a potential reason as to why people eat kimchi in between rolls when doing all-you-can-eat sushi haha), yet one of the most obvious factors is time. Over time, you may get hungry again, and thus you'll desire to eat that food again, or in this case, Dish A.

The main idea is that, yes, at the same time, having variety of Dish A with Dish B will maximize your utility since you'll be able to switch off. If we keep to the assumption that Dish A gives 10 utils, and we assume Dish B gives you 8 utils, and then you can eat enough of Dish A until your next amount of utils (marginal utility) is below how many utils you would get from Dish B. Thus, that night at the restaurant, you would trade off from eating Dish A and Dish B in order to maximize utils. So yes, this is the best strategy to take in the short-run. Yet, the long-run differs than the short-run, yet many of us choose not to acknowledge that.

Going back to what I previously said, recovering utility happens over time, and two months is quite a bit of time in terms of having food. So, if we assume that your utility would be able to recover in two months, the best way to maximize utils would be to order Dish A every single time. Even though it sounds like you would get tired of having it all the time, the thing is we would be ignoring the recovery of utility over time. Thus, in the short-run, it may sound like a bit much (or even nauseous...), but it is something that would make sense in the long-run. Of course, we have to assume that Dish A would always give you 10 utils at that first bite (and it wouldn't decrease at a faster rate than before) as compared to Dish B which would always give you 8 utils upon first bite. So, Dan Glibert states that sometimes it may be better go against our gut instinct for planning and what not if we truly want to make ourselves feel happy in the long-run. Alas, many people focus so much on the short-run over the long-run, it might be hard to break out of this cycle of thinking. But, knowledge is power, right? Just even becoming aware of this phenomena may be a good way to change it and help yourself out in the future. So yes, hopefully I've entertained you for a few minutes and what not.. Thanks, and see ya soon enough...

The Plank in Your Other Eye...

Hey everyone! Hopefully everything's going well with school and what not for everyone. I know some quarter people are going through midterms (just had two myself today haha), and I bet semester people are recovering from them/prepping for their next ones. Oh, the crazy business of academia...

Anyways, I figured I'd just post a quick little thing to finish off of what I was talking about last time. For everyone who's thought tl;dr for the last post, essentially it was talking about the "'Cuz it's True Constraint," which states the idea of us being bias to think that we believe what we believe for absolutely logical reasons and it has to be true. We ignore the bias in our own perspective yet are able to point out bias in other people's perspectives. Our core beliefs are maintained this way by also assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with our viewpoint is either ignorant, an idiot, or evil. Last post I talked about the ignorant assumption. I'm just gonna finish off today with talking about the idiot and evil assumptions...

The idiot assumption essentially states that yes, people have heard your idea before. Yet, the reason why they choose not to believe it is simply because they're stupid/idiots. This is kind of a harsh statement, and not something exactly thought/stated explicitly sometimes. It may be seen that someone who disagrees is simply misguided, even though the "truth" has been presented to them. The important part of this assumption is that these people have heard/of know the truth, yet they choose not to believe it. Thus, it's easiest to remember this constraint by just labeling others who don't agree with our ideas as "idiots."

It may be obvious, of course, but labeling these people as idiots is not helpful to changing their perspective. One of the recent experiments I learned about in Social Psych had to do with the Insult Effect (I don't know if this is the exact name given to it, but it shall hopefully suffice). The experimenters essentially measured viewpoints towards a certain issue and gauged how much people believed in that viewpoint. I don't remember how, but the participants were somehow involved in a debate (or by that point, an argument) where the opposing person insulted that person for having stock in that belief. Essentially, the participant felt as if they were called an idiot... What the experimenters saw was that this caused the person insulted to pull back even farther into his belief and was very closed to any form of rationally debating at that point. Thus, insulting another person during a discourse is actually quite harmful if you're attempting to change their minds about the issue. Of course, a few people may insult others because it may make them feel more secure in their own beliefs, but that's not anything I really have experimental evidence that I can presently recall...

Finally, the last assumption people may make for why others don't believe what they believe is the evil assumption. This assumption states that people don't share the belief due to the fact that these people are evil or evil has some form of control over them. Honest to goodness, Schwarz doesn't even go too far with talking about the evil assumption in Being Wrong, so I may be extrapolating just a tad here But yes, this is an assumption that is again very prevalent in religious communities. If you see someone that doesn't believe what you believe, and just simply label them as evil, it would make sense as to why they wouldn't believe your "truth" that is "good and right." One of the most dangerous things about this assumption is that not only may you view these people differently or label them as evil, but that this is probably the hardest view to reconcile/change the person to see your view. For ignorance, you can educate the person. for idiocy, you can attempt to make the person learn more/see their own bias. Some people may stop here if they simply see others as idiots, yes, but I think it would be even more difficult to change those that they saw evil, if they even attempted to in the first place. This is just personal speculation at this point (but something I think would be good for testing if an experiment could be designed!), but it's a lot harder to change someone that's evil rather than those that are idiots. I don't know, though, for one may think they can "fight the darkness" and help purge the person of evil so that they may "see the light." Yet, again, this is only hypothetical, and definitely very odd to write...

Mainly, it's just easy to stay in our beliefs and think that others may not believe simply because they're ignorant, stupid, or evil. Ignorant is something that can be readily changed, assuming that the person is willing to listen. Yet, if a person refuses to hear the truth, others may just see them as an idiot, and thus everything would be dandy as to why everyone believes what they believe. Just as a word of warning, the main problem that accompanies the "Cuz it's True" Constraint is that our own bias is much harder to see than the bias of others. Thus, even just reading this may not be a way to become aware of bias, especially since it's something so natural to us we don't even recognize that we have bias. Yet, that is part of what bias is in the first place haha. Oh well, I think that basically finishes it up for this topic. I shall be back writing hopefully soon! Then again, that's what I've said almost every other post up till now... Oh well, we'll see where it all goes soon enough...

The Plank in Your Own Eye...

Hey all! I know it's weird for me to be writing two posts somewhat close to each other considering how horrible I am with consistency, but I have quite a few issues/topics on my mind due to lots of discussions here and there. So, before I forget everything, I figure I would log a few things here and there to share with others...

Anyways, one of the books that was assigned for Social Psychology is Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz. It definitely is an interesting read and something I would recommend to anyone who is held fast by certainty or knows somebody who is. Unfortunately, I can't cover too much of the book (since it would just be better to read the book itself haha). But, one of the parts I found very interesting was the idea of the "'Cuz It's True Constraint." This constraint has to do with the bias people have in their own beliefs and not recognizing it. Yet, people are readily able to point out what they believe is the bias in other people's beliefs. Even though this may sound confusing to say (since I'm getting confused just typing it haha), the essential idea is that people think that what they believe in has to be true, simply because they believe in it. In other words, people don't believe in something they know is wrong (possibly not morally, but truth wise).

People are far less able to accurately point out their own bias when it comes to things. There tends to be some form of justification that makes it so we sound even and fair, yet we readily may see questionable aspects about other people's beliefs. To make this a little bit easier to understand, let's say your friend is part of some tea company. Your friend constantly raves about how good the tea is and how you should try some. When you ask him why he likes his tea so much, he says something to the degree of that it just tastes so good. Yet, you think that this is not the case, and part of the reason why he promotes so much is so that he gets more sales for his company, thus leading to possible recognition in the company and commissions. But, if you were in the position of the one working for the tea company, you may be not so readily to accept those answers as explanations to your own behavior.

Sigh, that is a rather crude example, but hopefully it gets the point across... Anyways, sometimes one may be questioned as to why another's belief, assuming that it is ultimately true, is not believed by everyone. In other words, if you have the ultimate truth, and it's so easy to grasp, then why hasn't everyone taken it and believed? Schulz said that we have three assumptions to defend against this question: the Ignorance Assumption, the Idiocy Assumption, and the Evil Assumption. All of these assumptions I find interesting, but for space's sake (and for the attention span of anyone who actually has read this far), I'll just be focusing on the Ignorance Assumption for now.

The Ignorance Assumption states that the reason people may not believe in something is simply because they have not heard of it yet. Thus, how can one believe in something that they have not heard of and thus know nothing about? The idea that follows out of this belief, then, is to let others know of your belief. This typically can happen through just talking with others, debates, discussions, messages, etc. Thus, the idea is to get out your message to other people, since if other people know about your truth, they'll come to believe too, right?

Humm... Even just writing that sarcastically sounds awfully funny to me. The sad thing is, though, that this seems to be a heavily purported belief, whether or not it's apparent at first. Of course, those not made aware of this bias may not even recognize that it's affecting them, which is part of the funny business of bias itself...

Just coming from a Christian environment, I have to say this is one of the most common assertions I've heard as to why not everyone believes in Christianity. Personally speaking, I've heard so many teachers and religious figures tell me that we need to go out and spread the Gospel since so many people have not heard it before. Yet, from those I've talked with and from what I've heard, I don't know if that's truly the case... Of course, I recognize that I haven't run through every single environment (in fact, my sample is rather limited...), and thus I cannot speak for every single possible case. But, regardless, many of the people that I've talked to about religious beliefs have heard of the message of the Gospel, and they have said that others around them have heard as well. In fact, some people have felt insulted for the question ever being posed. They have heard of the Gospel and assertions for why it is the truth, yet they choose not to believe in it due to other reasons.

But wait! A possible interjection is that maybe they haven't heard the true message of the Gospel. In other words, the "Gospel" that they came across may be a misconstrual of the actual message. Thus, it would be important to go out and tell more people, so the true message may be known. I guess it would be nice if that was truly the case, but this does raise a major concern, for lack of a better word. Yes, it may be true that not everyone has heard the Gospel in its truest form. The question arises, though, of how people come to know about it (the Gospel) in the first place. Going to a little bit of what I've heard, read, and posted before (for those that have read previous entries), most of the information that we come to learn about others and their beliefs is simply through others themselves. If we see someone who labels himself as a Christian and have no other form of exposure to Christianity, we may think that what that person says and does truly represents Christianity, whether or not it is actually the case. Thus, others may have learned about Christianity from others, whether or not the representations accurately reflect the religion. If it is negative, then yes, it may be good for them to see Christianity accurately.

Yet, going out and telling people without any preparation or personally having a full understanding of Christianity itself may cause more harm than good, especially if the person being witnessed to correctly understands Christianity. If one goes out without being fully prepared, they may push people farther away from Christianity rather than close to it, thus indirectly causing the problem they're trying to solve. Thus, it would be important to accurately for one to know why they believe what they do believe. Unfortunately, many people have taken this Ignorance Assumption quite seriously and have gone out preaching to others without fully understanding Christianity itself nor fully understanding other people's viewpoints. I may just be somewhat adverse to this idea simply because I've grown up in a Christian environment for so long, and this is one of the ideas I've heard constantly advocated. So yes, I recognize that I may be bias in this issue, but I still think it's something important for others who may have faced such a similar environment to recognize as well. Please don't think that I'm trying to say it's not important for one to be able to represent and share their beliefs, but I am advocating to correctly understand why one believes what they believe so it can be shared properly with others.

How ironic... Every time I start to write, I keep on trying to cut down how much I say so I can keep people's interest until the end. Alas, I seem to have gone a tad bit long-winded again, and I didn't even get to say all of what I wanted to say... Hum, my bad... Well, thank you to anyone who has actually read all the way until now, and I hope, at the very least, that I have given you some food for thought.

Elevators, Etiquette, and Empathy

Hey all! I hope everyone's doing well with classes and what not! For quarter systems, we're just starting out and just getting familiar/prepped for midterms. I think semester schools might be past their first round of midterms right now... Good luck to everyone!

Anyways, today I did something that I don't do very often: I went to a professor's office hours. I decided to stop by Professor Lieberman's office and just talk to him about social psychology stuff, considering that is what he teaches haha. Usually I just go to a TA's office hours if I need to know something about the class or check up on grades, but even for course material it's rare for me to stop by a prof's office directly. Well, considering it's only 2nd week, I didn't actually have too much course material to ask about...

Instead, we ended up talking about random extensions from the stuff he was teaching in class. One of the things I found most curious was the idea of changing the way how we see other people's behavior. The example he gave was about elevator etiquette. It might be confusing to some, but for anyone that has lived on a high floor elevator wise, I'm sure you will at least get the gist of this... Anyways, one of Professor Lieberman's pet peeves is when people take the elevator one floor up. It can be quite aggravating after a long day to see the elevator stop at the very first floor when you're travelling four floors up or so. Also, it can be annoying to be going down four floors and have to stop at the last possible stop before the lobby...

So, according to Lieberman's elevator tier chart, taking the elevator one floor is lazy, two floors is understandable, and three floors is perfectly fine. Yet, Lieberman acknowledged that part of the reason why he views things this way is simply because he lives on the fourth floor. If he lived on the second or third floor, he said that he may have had to refine his elevator tier chart. Yet, since he lives on the fourth floor, his tier chart is biased to fit him. He even acknowledged that his tier chart had changed in the past due to having an illness that made him have to take the stairs one flight at a time. Thus, at that point, he viewed others taking the elevator only one floor alright, since that's what he had to do as well with his illness. Yet, when the illness stopped acting up, he immediately reverted back to his old elevator tier chart. Anyone who took the elevator for just one floor he again saw as lazy...

Hm... It's almost sad to see one's beliefs be able to change so quickly, especially in the sense of empathy. For those that have read To Kill a Mockingbird, hopefully you remember that empathy is one of the huge themes advocated by Atticus. He's always mentioning walking a mile in someone else's shoes in order to understand them. Yet, it seems even in this case, after walking a mile in someone else's shoes and changing back to your own, empathy was not something readily maintained...

But, Lieberman pointed out, it could be maintained if he so desired. To battle his automatic thoughts of seeing someone else as lazy, he could keep on his mind constantly that people that may take the elevator one floor may have other, legitimate reasons (such as medical reasons) for doing so. Thus, he would still be able to have a sense of empathy. But, the cost would be quite large... It would have to be something focused on rather constantly and something present in consciousness, otherwise it would not be able to combat his automatic thought of seeing others as lazy. Not only would this be something difficult to do, it would be highly inefficient and even impractical to do so he argued.

If we accept Lieberman's explanation, then it would seem nearly impossible to keep up a sense of empathy in a daily case... Yet, there was another way that he did mentioned. If you somehow were able to change your priming from viewing others taking the elevator one floor as lazy to viewing them as having other reasons, this new automatic thought would replace the old one. In other words, your first, automatic thought would be that the person taking the elevator one floor down has a good reason. In social psych terms, the automatic thought process that remains in the long-term for how you're primed to view others are known as being "chronically accessible". Thus, if you change the thought that's chronically accessible, maybe you can instill a sense of empathy rather than viewing the other as lazy. Thus, you would avoid the problem of having to constantly think otherwise since the initial thought you have would be the one of empathy.

Unfortunately, for those that have read my other posts, this goes back to the idea of invoking internal conformity. How can you make it so that some form of change is relatively permanent (thinking those taking the elevator one floor have a good reason in this case), with or without a stimulus invoking that behavior (In Lieberman's case, having a disease that made it hard for him to take the stairs)? Even after discussing with Professor Lieberman, he said that it was a hard question and something he didn't really have the answer for. Of course, neither do I, nor do I think that there exists some really clear answer for evoking this type of change. Thus, even if the possibility does exist, I don't think it's something that's easily attained on a generic basis...

Yet, the first process is still somewhat interesting to me. Even with its limitations, I think there can possibly be some merit. Instead of thinking specifically about viewing those that take the elevator one floor, maybe it would be possible to somehow a wider view... For example, anytime someone does something that you automatically think is lazy, stupid, bias, ignorant (all words Lieberman loves hahaha), or anything else that gets on your nerves, the automatic thought that you focus on is that maybe they have something else going on/some valid reason. Thus, you may have this initial moment of annoyance, yet that initial automatic thought is counteracted by this new thought you are focusing upon. In this case, it wouldn't apply for just elevator etiquette, but any other situation such as seeing people speeding by you on the freeway.

This, of course, is something I'm only postulating and not something I've actually researched/seen happen. Personally speaking, I've been trying to focus more on an empathetic approach recently, so it's somewhat the same idea. But, in that sense, it's also like a life devotion, so it could fit more into the brand of a "chronically accessible" thought and not a constantly focused on thought. Even though it sort of is something I constantly focus on... Oh bother... Even if it is chronically accessible, I don't know exactly how it became that way, which puts it at a standstill for helping others to get that point (assuming that it's a good point to be at, of course). Hum, at this point I'm not really saying anything, so I think it's a good sign I'm exhausted and should call it quits for tonight. Well, hopefully what I wrote made some form ofsense, and at the very least, I hope it gave you some food for thought...

C'mon, everyone else is doing it!

Hey all! I hope everyone is doing well and what not. School just started back up for the UC system, so I'm finally delving back into the life of academics haha. Classes look interesting right now, but of course, that's the start, so it's hard to accurately say so just yet. Hopefully everyone else is enjoying their classes!

In fact, this post is somewhat inspired by one of my classes... I'm taking Social Psychology this quarter with Professor Lieberman. I had heard him speak before at a psychology conference and thought he was interesting, so I was down to take his class. Anyways, at the start of the class, Lieberman told us to follow a set of online instructions (anyone who may take Lieberman, spoiler alert!). The first slide instructed us to stand up from our seats, and the following slides told us to do a series of stretches to the right, left, back, and so forth. We ended up doing stretches about twice in a row, and at this point most people seemed kinda annoyed. Well, the last two slides were a bit different... The first slide said "Give Professor Lieberman the finger" and the second slide said "Say 'F*** you, Professor Lieberman.'" Needless to say, this was something that most of the class did not see coming. Yet, it was surprising that so many students in the class actually did give him the finger and curse him out. I'm not positive how many people actually did do it due to my location, but it looked/sounded that at least half of the class did so...

Afterwards, Lieberman thanked us all (how ironic haha) and told us to sit down. He then proceeded to ask us why we gave him the finger and cursed at him, which was something clearly against university policy? A brave student replied that it was his (Lieberman's) instructions and thus everyone was just following what they were supposed to be doing. Lieberman told us that this is the common answer he gets every year, and something that he thought would illustrate a good point about the diffusion of responsibility and peer pressure... You see, an act such as cursing out a teacher is something done a lot easier in a group than by yourself since everyone else around you is doing it. It's hard to pinpoint just one person since there are multiple people contributing, hence the term "diffusion of responsibility." The funny thing is, we tend not to recognize the reason that we find it so easy to do these things is because everyone else is. There are attempts at rationalization and justification (such as following online instructions), but the ease still comes from the fact that we're not alone in doing these things.

Don't get me wrong, though. The number of people may not be the only reason why we do such things, but part of the reason why it's easier. To demonstrate this point, he had one girl that cursed him out earlier come up to the front of the classroom and had her stare directly at him. He then asked her to give him the finger once again. This girl, in front of all her peers, did not even hesitate and blatantly threw Professor Lieberman the middle finger. This was quite hilarious, for Lieberman look taken aback, even if only for a moment. Typically, he explained, when someone comes up alone and he asks them to give him the finger, the person usually just stares awkwardly at the floor and doesn't do anything else... Yet, this one student was audacious enough to do it in front of everybody and while completely alone. This helps to show that a group setting isn't the only reason/motivation people may have for doing things, but it may help to affect the ease/difficulty of the action itself...

It's a little bit of an extrapolation, but it makes me curious as if groups can cause people to do things/further their beliefs in something they wouldn't do alone. For example, let's say that someone is discriminatory against other people's races. Alone, he may be afraid to be openly discriminatory by committing acts of hatred against another person simply for their race. But, if he joins a group, the person may know that they're not alone anymore. This may cause acts for one's beliefs to be done with more ease since he knows he's not the only one doing it anymore, or at least that's what he may subconsciously observe around him. Thus, acts of hatred and violence can be easier to commit in groups simply due to this idea of diffusion of responsibility.

What I've been saying may not be something horribly new to you as a reader... It's an idea that has been passed along somewhat before, but the most interesting point I thought of is that many religious groups may function this way as well... If there's some belief/idea that one may hold onto, and a certain religion's ideals are in line with it, then that person may join/stay as part of the group so that way they can feel justified in having a belief that the rest of society may not hold onto. Since it's probably the easiest possibility to see, let's just say that someone has views against homosexuality. As time is progressing, the view towards acceptance of homosexuality is something that is definitely gaining ground. Yet, there are still those that are against the idea of homosexuality and try to find some way to justify their thoughts against it. Thus, if one joined/is part of a faction of Christianity that is openly against homosexuality, their beliefs would be justified by having everyone else around them doing the same thing. Thus, alone, they may be afraid to say/do such things, but with a group front it may be easier for such beliefs to become present. Please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying that all Christians preach hate towards homosexuals and what not, but it's true that there are many groups out there today that do. I am referencing those groups as a possibility for what one may join in order to have their beliefs in line with others and thus make them feel justified in believing and doing what they do.

Hmm, this is post is a little bit shorter and haphazard than most, but hopefully it's still able to make sense and what not. My brain seems to be slipping even though it's not too late yet... So, it probably makes sense to just call this a post. Even though this isn't much, it'll probably function as a good springboard for some posts I make later on... So yes, hopefully this post makes some form of sense, and at the very least, I hope I gave you some food for thought...

A Price to Love?

Hey all! Sorry for not writing for a long time... I seem to be in a huge writing funk or something. Maybe it's just because I've been at work quite a bit or I'm still getting used to moving again... Interestingly enough, I've started a few times here or there, but I just can't seem to finish. So, I hope this time is different at the very least and I'll be able to get something out here...

Anyways, one of the other nights around here I was talking with my roommate Jose, and we happened to get into a good conversation over one of his random stories. Essentially, Jose was busy studying for summer finals and was studying outside Ackerman (the building where I work) due to the library being closed. While he was out there, two people came up to him and asked if he wouldn't mind being surveyed. Jose decided to be nice and consented. The people started asking him questions, and he quickly realized that is was a religious survey (Just for background info, Jose identifies himself as Catholic). Some of the questions involved whether or not there is a God and whether or not Jesus existed, which is something he agreed yes to.

Yet, one of the questions that stuck out to him was whether or not someone can be saved simply by believing in Jesus Christ as one's Savior, which is the key point of typical Protestant denominations. But, followers of Catholicism typically advocate works as the way to be saved. One of the things Jose mentioned is that when talking to a pastor about afterlife uncertainty, they would suggest that he do more works in order to be saved. Of course, this doesn't mean that Catholicism doesn't neglect importance on belief itself. It seems, at least from Jose's viewpoint, that what you do is more important than just believing itself.

This is always something I find quite interesting, for this is a point where many Protestants and Catholics tend not to see eye to eye (or I 2 I hahah. Good song!). Protestants typically advocate that belief in Jesus as your personal Savior is the most important part, and works shall follow as a result. Yet, from the little knowledge I have of Catholicism, Catholics typically place a huge precedence on the works that you do for your beliefs. So, beliefs are important, but what you do as a result are huge. In fact, Catholics have seven sacraments. Wiki has a good description of them and what not if you're curious, but they're sort of like important acts of grace that are imitable of Christ (for some). Some of these things include giving alms, baptism, the Eucharist, and more. Now, not all of these acts are necessary for salvation, but they should be done to acquire salvation. From the impression of research I've done, they're things you should do to ensure salvation but not all of them have to be done... Of course, that's slightly ambiguous and up in the air, but hopefully it gives some form of info...

Anyways, Jose brought the idea to me that he doesn't think one can be saved simply by beliefs. The example he used involves someone who's involved in some type of constant sin. Just for some form of objectiveness, let's just say this person constantly murders people. Thus, this person, who labels himself as a Christian and believes he will be saved, constantly murders people. After he murders someone, though, he prays to God for repentance, and thus he believes he's saved afterwards. The cycle continues, and this person goes about his daily life occasionally murdering people and then repenting. According to the idea that one can be saved simply be belief, Jose said that this person who is constantly murdering would be saved. Thus, it would be more important to place an emphasis on one's works, for the person's works involve him occasionally murdering people and nothing else really religious except for saying that he believes in God and what not.

This is something quite interesting and it could be quite problematic for the Protestant viewpoint, for this person who would saved according to the idea that as long as you believe you are saved would not be demonstrating Christ-like actions. Yet, if it is true that he would be saved simply by his beliefs, why does it matter what he demonstrates? Other people may not be led towards Christianity due to his actions, but he himself would still be saved, right?

Humm... This is really a tough call to make. And, what I may say next may sound funny, so please don't take this the wrong way. But, in the previous case, I don't know if the person who is murdering others occasionally is somebody that loves God... According to Scripture (Since we are trying to argue from a Christian standpoint; not trying to offend anyone who's not Christian), "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38 for anyone who's wondering). This is something that Jesus directly says, so I would think that it would have some significance in that sense. But, what makes this different than before is that it advocates love, not just belief. Belief in God may be necessary for Salvation, but possibly not sufficient... James 2:19 states, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." It would seem, then, that the author of James is advocating that there is more to being saved than just simply believing in God. Thus, the component for Salvation could be present in love, as Jesus advocates.

This could be a possible solution to the previous problem... For, if it's truly whether or not someone loves God, then belief would not be the only determining factor. Thus, the person who goes around murdering people may believe in God, yet if he didn't love God, then he wouldn't be saved, even if he did proclaim himself as a Christian. To make this statement, though, we have to assume that one's actions change as a result of one's love. For example, the idea would be that if you love your family/significant other/friend or what not, you would do stuff to demonstrate your love (For those that know their econ, think of this as essentially revealed preference). Just as a personal tidbit, I think this may be why Catholicism may advocate so strongly the use of works. For, anyone can say that they believe/love something, but not everybody does acts for what they love.

Yet, this is where this gets really tricky to write... I purposefully chose murder as something that most people would agree on as wrong and thus wouldn't be something one would do as a Christian. Yet, what about the sins that Christians struggle with? What about things such as constantly watching porn? Or coveting? Or thievery? Are people that may struggle with these sins saved? If they do truly love God, then why hasn't their behavior changed in order to avoid these things Christians typically view as sins?

Hum... This is tough stuff to write on, so if I offend you in any way, I am sorry. But, it's really hard to say whether or not these people truly love God if they struggle with such sins. I mean, the idea is that we're all human, and thus we sin as a part of that nature. Who hasn't offended or hurt someone they love? Yet, even if we do, does that mean we no longer love them? Would just one offense mean that we don't love that person, whether God or another human, enough? This idea seems quite ridiculous, even though it would be nice if it were near impossible to hurt someone if you loved them enough.

Well, if we come to the new conclusion that you can love someone, yet still can do something that hurts/is offensive to someone, that would mean people that struggle with sin could still be saved (according to Protestant ideals). If that is the case, what about the original person we brought up that occasionally murders someone? In the example we gave, the person didn't do anything to demonstrate his "love" to Christ other than saying that he did. So, in the case, people may still agree that he's not really demonstrating his love. But, again, this was meant to be a very extreme objective example to draw some form of boundary. So, now we must ask about everyone else... What about those that go to Church and pray and what not, yet still struggle so much with sins? How do we know at what point that these people have been saved, since it's so hard to gauge how much they love God by their actions, which seem so conflicting? In other words, do their actions mean that they truly love God? How much do we have to do to show that we love God? If the person went to Church in addition to killing the people occasionally, would that be enough to be saved? How about if he added more acts, such as praying and getting baptized? Or, would he have to get rid of that sin altogether? If he would have to, would that have to apply to other people and other sins as well?

I don't even know if it's possible to be 100% positive about the answer to these questions... I've heard Protestants say that Catholicism has problems with the certainty of salvation. Yet, it seems that Protestants may have the same problem, even if it's not as obvious, so to speak. It could be possible that we're not able to properly judge whether or not another person is saved, since it may be impossible to accurately judge whether or not someone truly "loves" someone else. This would also bring into question those that convert on their death bed. Even though they are no longer able to commit any acts (due to passing away), did they truly believe and love God before they died? Like I said before, maybe it's not something we can know and it's something personal between the person and God. Unfortunately, whether or not we can accurately judge whether or not a person is saved, others may still try to judge, whether or not those people are Christians. This can lead not only to possible issues of self-righteousness but it can also turn others away from Christianity...

Humm... I feel like I've said a lot, but it's really a mess of thoughts here and there... Hopefully it made some sort of sense... Honestly, I don't know if there's that much to take from this post. It is quite a bit of ramblding haha. But, at the very least, hopefully people may broaden their perspectives on love and salvation... But yes, thank you Jose for striking up such an interesting conversation, and hopefully I've given everyone some food for thought...

Loving, or an idiot?

Hey all... When I finally thought I might be close to being consistent, I realized I haven't posted for about five weeks haha. Summer just seems to be flying by... Before long, I'll be back in LA, continuing with academic goodness... Madness!

Anyways, during the expanse of summer, I've read through a few books here and there. Being a fan of Dostoevsky, I happened to read a few of his stories. The one that struck me the most was a novel called The Idiot. The title struck me as something different, and I was quite curious to see what the book was all about. Well, the protagonist of the novel is a man named Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin. Yet, due to his family lineage, Myshkin is a prince, and thus is typically addressed as Prince Myshkin.

Anyways, in a very brief summary of Myshkin's character, he's quite different than the rest of society. Myshkin suffers from epilepsy, which caused him to be pulled out of a normal education as a child and to be raised in the countryside without "proper schooling". Considering that this novel is set in 19th century Russia, there's some prejudice against him not only for a lack of education, but also for his disease. Thus, most people that don't know Myshkin personally (or those that don't like him) tend to reference as "the idiot" (hence the title! Partially at least...). Yet, this doesn't really do his character justice, for Myshkin is also a very loving person. He tends to be willing to help those that are in need, is very friendly with children, etc etc. But, his character may be better explained with a direct story reference... (If you want to avoid being spoiled, please refrain from reading any farther!)

Without giving too much of the story away, Myshkin comes to acquire a moderate sum of money. It doesn't make him filthy rich, yet it does make him more acceptable to higher parts of society. But, since the sum was received from someone who passed away, many debt collectors go after Myshkin to collect dues. Myshkin ends up paying a large amount of these debt collectors, even though they have no physical evidence that some debt it owed. In fact, many collectors come to know of this, and many come to Myshkin to collect, even if nothing is owed to them, essentially taking advantage of Myshkin. Even though Myshkin's friends warn him of what's happening, he still intends to pay the collectors, even if it's just to make up for some wrong that may have happened earlier in their lives. Hence, this is another reason for why Myshkin is referred to as an idiot. Yet, in a way, it shows how loving Myshkin is toward others. As further evidence (without saying too much), Myshkin offers to marry someone he doesn't love (romantically in this case; Myshkin pities her a great deal, which may be seen as love, yet not the same kind exactly) if it would simply be a form of recompense for the woman's harsh past.

Hm... I think the second example tends to show Myshkin's loving character better, but the first is hugely important as well, for it raises the question of what love truly is. Essentially, through his love, Myshkin is getting taken advantage of. Myshkin is receiving a negative outcome and giving a positive outcome to others. This would not necessarily be a bad thing, since it is a thing of sacrifice, which can be an important quality of love, yet it depends on what it's for I would think... For example, giving your life to save a child could fit the previous description, yet also giving money to those in need who may use the money for negative purposes (however we may describe that... Hopefully you get the idea) would fit the bill. It seems both acts could be reinforcing to the recipients... Yet, if you're reinforcing a negative act (such as in the second case), would it really be an act of love?

At this point, we would have to define what love is... Of course, this is one of the bigger problems, due to how many definitions the word tends to have. Let's assume that love is desiring the best for another. Of course, this definition also runs into a number of problems, for how do you determine what is best? At here, I think this is where love becomes horribly confusing... You see, one person may view Myshkin's first act as loving, due to how he's helping others. Yet, I find it questionable, for he seems to be reinforcing negative behavior. By giving his money to those that he doesn't owe, he may be encouraging them to collect on others in a similar way. Of course, one may argue that collectors already do that, etc. etc. But, it can still help to reinforce their behavior. Also, if this example is generalized to other acts, then it could be more questionable for behavior that's not as routine (such as calling on a friend to drive you at three in the morning simply because you know they can't say no). Thus, even if you're doing a kind thing for them, is it truly loving? It's a big question that may not have a clear answer, but it's definitely something to think about...

Interestingly enough, most of the people in The Idiot that originally were against him become friends with him. Many of the people closest to Myshkin in the end are those that were against him in the beginning parts of the story. Yet, once they witness his kindness and love, they start to recognize he's more than an idiot, and thus they become affectionate to him. Thus, his love and kindness does seem to have a profound effect on others, even if he is taken advantage of at some points. It's really an interesting predicament, for it seems there can be both positive and negatives in the varying situations... Maybe there's some way to distinguish when it would be more or less loving, but I don't think there's some over-arching guide that would be able to answer the question so easily haha. And just for clarification, the title is meant to be a false dichotomy (meaning that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing, as witnessed by Myshkin's acts of love, even though he's labelled as an idiot). Also, to make the matter of love more pressing, Myskin is a Christ-like figure. Not only is this noted by him being referenced as a prince (like Prince of Peace, among other names of Christ) and his religious devotion, but also his many acts of selfless love, only a few of which I mentioned.

Anyways, love is definitely a very interesting concept (not to mention one of the most important commands Christ gives), yet something that doesn't exactly seem the easiest to define... Please don't get me wrong; I don't want to encourage people not to help others at all, but simply to become aware of what is happening. It's an interesting problem, but not exactly something that should be avoided. Hm... I'll probably return to the issue of "love" in some other post since there's so much to say about it... But for now, my thoughts are dwindling, thus probably meaning it's a good time to call it a night. So yes yes, I hope you have enjoyed this post, and, at the very least, I hope I have given you some food for thought...

Self-Reinforcing Cycles of Prayer...

Hey all! I hope everyone's having a good summer! I know a lot of people are doing summer school and what not, so good luck to them haha. Anyways, I've still been melding ideas for my big writing project, which I'm probably going to start this week... Of course I keep on telling myself that, so we'll see hahah.

Regardless, one of the issues that's been on my mind goes back to one of the core components of Christianity. Lots of people that I've talked with have said that part of the reason why they know their faith is well-placed and genuine is due to their prayers. It may be due to me growing up more in a Christian environment (Valley Christian, Church, etc.), but some older people that I've talked to have told me stories about how their prayers have come true and that's how they know God is listening. These things range from really small things, such as being able to find some lost object, to pretty large things, such as healing from cancer.

Now, even though it may be of interest to address the actual effectiveness of these prayers and their differing sizes, that's not something I believe I can do accurately. Lots of it is hard to analyze due to simply so many factors that may be present, such as whether or not something is divine (getting a job due to God's will), self-inspired (praying gives one self-confidence), or whether something self-inspired can be divine (the confidence came from God). This is something I also hold interest in, yet do not feel that I should write on just yet.

Rather, the part of prayer that I am more interested in is the outcome. Or perhaps, it would be more accurate to say the different outcomes that may arise. To bring things to a somewhat simple model, there are typically three outcomes for prayer: Yes, No, and not yet. 'Yes' means the prayer was answered, 'No' means that the prayer wasn't answered, and 'not yet' means that the prayer was a 'No' for now, but may be a 'Yes' later (these may have been self-explanatory, but are still important to have clarified!).

Now, it would be quick to notice that not all prayers get answered, even the prayers of the heavily devout. How could this fit mentally for those that believe prayer has such a power, yet their prayers don't come true? Essentially, the simplest explanation came from an Air1 Broadcast I heard the other day (they seem to give me good material for writing, at the very least haha). The person speaking presented the idea of a kid at a place like a candy store. The kid, who is fascinated by sweets, wants to eat just about everything he can. Yet, the parent, knows that if the kid does eat everything he'll have a stomach ache and thus be worse off in the end (The speaker didn't use this exactly analogy, but it had the same idea...). The speaker then likened this idea to God and us when it comes to prayer: perhaps us getting everything that we want through prayer may not always be best for us. This may bring up issues from others saying that the prayer is truly questionable if you can't pray for anything to happen right away. Even though this is (again) another point of interest, what is important is that this prayer, even though it didn't not come true, is reinforcing to the person who prayed. Thus, a 'yes' answer to prayer would be reinforcing to a person praying, but a 'no' answer can also be reinforcing.

A 'not yet' answer is interesting, for it's hard to tell whether or not it's truly a 'not yet' or a 'no' until you look in hindsight. Thus, it may be more appropriate to look to a 'not yet' as a no in the short-run, which is probably the way people are going to be analyzing the issues at the time anyways. Yet, if this is the case, we seem something interesting arise: A 'yes', a 'no', and a 'not yet' can all be positively reinforcing to the person praying, for they all have some form of acknowledgement by God to the person.

BUT! This conclusion is only one person's perspective. You see, to one who is a Christian, the answer may seem satisfactory. Yet, for those that are not Christians all answers are quite questionable. A 'yes' could be something divine, but for those that don't believe in something/someone divine can attribute something simply to chance (There are many other possibilities, of course, but it's just one example to give you an idea). Also, the 'no' and 'not yet' I have commonly heard to as cop outs; how do you know a divine being is there without any form of recognition? Thus, all three answers, which may be openly accepted by a Christian and are self-reinforcing, can be seen as quite questionable as though that aren't Christian.

This would lead to a conflict of perspectives... Hm, I guess other than trying just to establish a difference of viewpoints is to show that sometimes speaking from Christian principles may not be the best way to make someone more recipient to the views of Christianity. Like, arguing about the power of prayer may do nothing for one who doesn't believe prayer can even be effective. Of course, this is not something that can be true for all situations, but may be a general rule of thumb to stick to... Overall, it's important to try and see stuff from other people's perspectives rather than just our own. Even though arguing for something you believe in may make your convictions in it stronger, how much does that do for another who doesn't agree with you? Of course, please don't think I'm saying not to fight for what you believe, but just to realize that you're not the only one in the world... Oh well, food for thought...

The Closer You Get to Something...

Hey all! Hopefully everyone is (finally) enjoying the goodness and relaxation of summer. I just got off last week and hung out in SoCal for a week with some family. It was good stuff, but makes it really hard to believe I've already been on break for about 10 days haha. Anyways, I'm still gonna be trying to write every two weeks and what not while also working on a bigger writing project. So, these posts might be a bit shorter/not as thought out as liked, but we'll see!

Anyways, one of the things that I've noticed (and other people that I've talked to as well) is that there seems to be some people that are harder to talk to than others. I'm not trying to reference a social setting, such as that some people are just more socially awkward than others (something I'm victim to hahah). But, there seem to be some people that hold onto ideas so tightly that there is no changing any of what they think. Sometimes, just disagreeing with one of their idea can seem like a personal insult to them. Thus, talking about anything different just seems futile and a waste of time...

It's interesting to meet people like this, for it can be cool to see such dedication and passion towards ideas. Yet, at some points, it can also be frustrating, for someone who won't change their views on anything can almost seem irrational at some points. For example, just bringing up ideas for discussion sometimes just go ignored or get shot down before a full presentation, as if it's all been seen before...

Now before anyone says anything, yes, I am also thinking of Christians when I say this. It's interesting, really... Sometimes, inside the Christian community, one with such resolution and dedication can be viewed as quite admirable and an example for others. Yet, outside of the Christian community, some of the stuff dedicated Christians can be seen as religious fanatics... In a very stereotyped sense (again, please don't think I'm saying everyone is this way!), these people can seem irrational since they hold on to their beliefs so tightly. Again, no matter what one must say, it seems as if there is no convincing them that there may be other possibilities to a situation. There are many hypothetical situations where one may have seen this, such as the use of Bible verses to support any situation one may be in. Please note that I'm not saying whether or not the usage of these verses is accurate, but simply that the usage of them can help to reinforce one in their beliefs...

Hmm... Even though this does seem to be a situation really prevalent in today's Christian community, not everyone has to be this way. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to reference Dr. Lennox, a speaker at UCLA's Veritas Forum. Dr. Lennox is a Christian who got his degrees in philosophy of science, among other things. One of the things that someone asked him is if he would ever change from his belief of Christianity (somewhat poking at the irrationality of some Christians). His answer was yes, but it would honestly be very difficult. Christianity is something that he's researched for many years and believes that there is a great deal of evidence for. Yet, if sufficient evidence was to present itself going against the cores of Christianity (such as the falsification of the resurrection), then he would be likely to change his beliefs. But, such evidence would have to be very convincing and great... Dr. Lennox compared it to his belief in his wife's fidelity. If I remember correctly, he said that he's been married to his wife for about 34 years, and she has given no sigh that she's ever been unfaithful. Thus, it would be very difficult to convince him that his wife was/is unfaithful, yet there is still that possibility.

I think this is possibly the best mentality to adapt... It's not conviction to the point of irrationality, but it also shows passion and dedication towards what one may believe. Yet, some people may point out that it's good in theory and not practice, since evidence may be presented against ideas yet people still believe in them. Thus, I guess this may be more of a prescriptive (how it should be) view of beliefs rather than a descriptive (how it actually is) view of beliefs... Nevertheless, just being aware of this balance may help guide some people towards having more of an openness towards this sort of idea... So yes, this ending is somewhat abrupt, but my brain does not seem to be wanting to think of what to write next. So, I think I'll just end on this quick note, and I hope that I have given you some food for thought...

Stimulus Generalization and Stereotyping

Hey all! Right when I thought I was going to finally be consistent with writing, I end up missing last week's deadline haha. In my defense, I got pretty sick, so I didn't feel like writing. Regardless, I've been thinking a bit here and there, so hopefully I should be able to keep up after this haha. Anyways, on with the writing (and even a bit of continuity haha)!

Anyways, some of you may remember from two posts back that I talked about Wes and his affiliation with Grace on Campus, or GOC. Like I mentioned, one of the things that GOC very heavily pushes is evangelism. This may work for some people, but for others it may push them away, and I personally did not take a super positive view towards this method...

I realized in hindsight, though, that this may have created the wrong idea. I was not trying to rag on GOC, nor was I trying to give negative views towards all of those who are GOC. Anyone who may read this and is actually at UCLA may know of GOC people other than the one person I mentioned, and thus have a different view of them. Yet, for anyone that doesn't go to UCLA, I may have just inadvertently painted an image of what all GOC people function like, whether or not it is entirely true.

Thinking about this reminded me of a classic psychology of learning experiment... Essentially, in this experiment, there was a set of rats. A tone would be played, and the rats would be able to press on a lever to get food. Essentially, this tone served as a signal for when the rat could press on the lever to obtain food, thus being a form of classical (or Pavlovian) conditioning. For anyone that cares about specific psych terms, the tone was a conditional stimulus paired with bar pressing (the unconditional stimulus) to obtain food (the unconditional response). But yes! Anyone may notice that this isn't really that spectacular and lots of experiments have been emulated to do this. Yet, in this experiment, the frequency of the tone was changed in the second phase. For example, all the rats may have been conditioned to an 800 Hz tone initially, with the amount of times they responded measured. In the second phase of the experiment, the researchers may have used 770 Hz, 740 Hz, or 700 Hz tones and measured the amount of response for the rats then.

Depending on how far away the new tone was in comparison to the original tone, the amount of bar presses by the rat went down by the same comparison. Thus, the rats may have responded more to the 770 Hz tone over the 700 Hz tone. In fact, when the measurements were all plotted out on a frequency distribution, it gave a nice little bell curve type of shape. The researchers labelled the idea of responding to stimuli that are somewhat similar to one thing a sign of stimulus generalization. Or, for a more specific definition from About.com, stimulus generalization is "...the tendency for the conditioned stimulus to evoke similar responses after the response has been conditioned. For example, if a rat has been conditioned to fear a stuffed white rabbit, it will exhibit fear of objects similar to the conditioned stimulus." Hence, this is why the rats would still exhibit bar presses even if the tone was not exactly the same: the tone was subject to stimulus generalization. Of course, this is only a very small example of something that is much bigger in life, whether or not we are exactly conscious of it (esp. since classical conditioning arguably tends to function this way hahah).

So, other than throwing in some psych spheal (I have to give my major some recognition here and there haha), what exactly was the point of this? Well, it's a bit of a stretch, honest to goodness, but like I said, I believe a lot of our learning happens this way in real life. Whether or not this is noticed, we tend to learn a lot about certain phenomena by making generalizations from specific instances. In this case, think back to Wes from GOC. Now, from what I presented before, you (as the reader), should know only about GOC through Wes (again assuming you don't actually go to UCLA/have heard of GOC before). Yet, if we take a step back, how accurately do Wes's actions, just one person I've met from GOC, represent GOC's actions in general? You see, Wes can be totally indicative of GOC, yet he may also represent a tiny fraction, if even any, of what GOC's like. Of course, I realize in my other post I did mention that the idea of evangelism is something that GOC purports and holds on to very strongly. Yet, we can ignore that and try to gauge GOC's tenets simply be Wes's actions, and we can even question my perceptions as to whether they are entirely accurate, since I have so little interaction with GOC.

I guess what I'm essentially trying to get at here is that sometimes our generalizations/judgments of things may not be always accurate of the larger picture. In a sense, this can function as stereotyping, since you're simply taking one instance and making it representative of the entire population that you're applying it to (such as Wes for all of GOC). Of course, there may be other ways to find out about some larger organization thing, such as asking other members/looking directly into their goals and what not. Yet, asking other members can fall victim to the same problems as before, assuming you don't find out from enough people... Hence, that's why in Stats you have to use a large enough sample size to find out something representative of the population you're applying it to, for using a sample size of one is quite risky for not correctly representing the population. Of course, that is something more quantitative as compared to qualitative, yet the same principles could still apply. Also, one must remember that there is still a room for error, even with a large number of people.

Thus, looking for what demonstrates something's core principles can be the most efficient way to learn about something. Yet, due to laziness and/or time constraints, how many of us actually do this? I mean, imagine how many groups there are out there, or even religions... How many of us have taken the time to look into any religion that is not our own? I know I'm definitely victim to this, for most other world religions I don't know about except through a few followers of that religion and stuff I learned from (most likely, even if unintentional) biased people. This information acquisition should be something important, yet the difficulty of acquiring correct information is hard to do, especially with how many conflicting sources there are about something, thus making it hard to get at the "core" of a group or religion. Thus, while not obtaining perfect information may be understandable, it still doesn't exactly make it right...

All in all, I just want to confer the idea that maybe we shouldn't be as quick to stick with judgments that we make or have. For example, it's definitely a possibility that one member could be representative of the population (also taking note that some people may more accurately represent the population/core tenets than others), yet to stick to that judgment after just one person almost seems too hasty. It may be a normal just to classify things and easily think that we have groups/things figured out, whether or not that picture is accurate. Just becoming aware of how we make judgments, though, may be an action towards reducing such quick steps, and possibly a re-evaluation of our own thoughts towards other groups that we may already have. So yes, hopefully we'll all be aware now not to be so quick with our inferences of groups, and I also hope that I've given you some food for thought...

A bit of respect...

Hey all! It looks like I have a somewhat semi-consistent thing down now. I'll probably just be posting every two weeks or so since that seems to be best schedule wise. Maybe every now and then I'll break tradition, but for now, I'm just gonna bank on two weeks... But, I did get a flurry of ideas the other day. I happened to attend the Psychology Undergraduate Research Conference (PURC) to see Dr. Lieberman speak. It was quite enthralling in a very nerdy sense, but it has given me a bit of food for thought. So, any of those ideas may work their way here soon enough haha.

Anyways, this post starts off with another story (for some reason lots of my posts seem to be quite anecdotal now...). Well, I was walking down Bruin Walk with two of my Christian friends and we were just having a basic talk about our days. We were telling stories here and there to catch up and what not, and happened to pass a few of the religious protesters with the giant signs. The interesting thing about today, though, was that there seemed to be a counter movement. Some people seem to have assembled and were fighting against the Christian movement present by advocating the merits of science and what not (I personally have a beef with this, since I don't think that science and Christianity have to be mutually exclusive, but that's another post entirely...). Anyways, one of the things that the people were pushing was evolution. We just kindly refused to take any of the fliers and just kept on moving on. But, this time, when we passed by, one of my friends simply snickered and said, "Evolution, wow..." The other friend snickered as well and we all ended up continuing on our way back to grab food.

Honest to goodness, I'm almost somewhat hesitant to put this story in for fear of offending people. I know that evolution is essentially the norm of how humans came to be, and even the Pope has advocated that the way humans came to be can adhere to the principles of Evolution. Yet, there are still a large number of people in the Christian community who don't believe in Evolution...

In fact, this spot is ideal for a history lesson! Haha. Anyways, I've heard that the founding of private schools was actually an anti-intellectual movement. I never really understood why people would say that, since I simply thought that they were separate institutions for academia. Yet, I learned from my brother Dave and also Professor Phelan that after the Scopes trial and that whole fallout, there was still a large group of people that did not want to teach Evolution in their schools. Thus, this fraction of people broke off and happened to form a section of private schools. Of course, I bet there's a whole lot more to it than this, but the basis of the foundation of private schools seemed to stem from a wanting to avoid teaching Evolution, which is quite interesting... I didn't know if that was just something my high school did (being Valley Christian and all), or if it was something generalizable. Of course, I don't know how true this may be of schools now, but it does have interesting implications...

Anyways, for anyone who's reading this that believes in evolution, it would only be natural to scoff at the snickering of my friends. I don't know if they were trying to come off in such a way, but that's certainly how it appeard to me... And yes, that is why I am so hesitant to include this story. Yet, it illustrates my point quite well, so I think it is worth it...

Regardless of what a person believes, please have the decency to show them and their beliefs respect. If you scoff, snicker, or anything of that manner towards what someone believes, they're typically not going to take such things lightly. The thing is, people tend to view beliefs, possessions, values, etc. as an extension of themselves. If you insult someone's beliefs, they may have put a lot of time into thinking what they think, and thus are not going to respond kindly if you insult what they hold to. Also, the situation could potentially worsen if they view your beliefs as silly as well, just creating one big quarrel...

The thing is, insulting one's beliefs doesn't really help the other person out. It may help the person insulting out, because it can reinforce their beliefs while demeaning other options available. Yet, if you're trying to get someone to see different sides of the spectrum, you may just turn them farther away rather than closer... For some people, this may not matter, and that's alright and something I can respect (Catch that there? Haha). I'm mainly calling out my Christian friends here and hoping that they shall take heed to what I'm saying. Of course, don't get me wrong and think that I'm saying all Christians act this way, but sometimes it's easy to fall prey to dogmatism and think that your belief is entirely right without listening (or respecting) anyone else.

If you really want someone to see your beliefs/respect them, I suggest just listening to them. People like to talk, and if you act in a non-judgmental way to hear what they have to say, they may be more willing to hear what you have to say. At CCM one night, I saw a documentary called Craving (I believe that was the title, anyways). In this movie, a man goes out to talk to people who claimed themselves to be staunch atheists. All this man does is simply go out, talk to these people, and listen to what they have to say. As the documentary progresses, the people become more and more open to talking to him and tell him more of why they believe what they believe. In the end, these people all tend to view the man in quite a favorable way. I don't think any of these people were converted, but that wasn't the point exactly. What the man set out to do was to show that these people are human and have beliefs, just like us, and that they should be respected. Just having a Christian that wasn't dogmatically trying to disprove their beliefs seemed to create a favorable impression on them, which may have greater context for their future interactions with other Christians, or just thoughts about Christians in general.

So yes, in conclusion, please have the open-mindedness and respect to hear out any other viewpoints that people may have. Shooting down views before you hear them, simply because they don't align with what you believe, doesn't really seem to help anyone but yourself. Please, just be respectful and listen to what people have to say. I don't mean you have to agree with everything someone else says, but just being able to listen to them without jumping to conclusions is a sign of respect and decency and can have a positive impact on them. So yes, I hope I have given you some food for thought...

Loving a Game of Numbers...

Hey all! I hope everyone is doing well and what not. For some reason, I feel like writing and thinking a lot more this quarter, and that leads to more posts of course haha. It's probably due to the fact that I'm not taking four crazy upper division courses and thus have some time for free thought without it seeming like diving into the world of academia...
But yes, anyways, this post starts with a little story... Way back when on Monday, as I was walking back from work, I saw a sign for hot dogs and a soda for 25 cents. Well, being the sucker for a good deal that I am, I decided to walk over to the line and try to get a cheap lunch. As I was walking, my mind kept on thinking: What would be the point of selling something for cheap? Well, I decided to think for the best and just decided that they were trying to be nice to everyone at the start of a new quarter, and just rolled along with it...
Oh naivety... Well, needless to say, the line was pretty huge for such an event. There was about 30ish or so people in front of me, with about two cashiers. So, this process was going to take a while... As I was waiting and walking, I heard a voice from behind say hello. I turned to look and saw a dood wearing a GOC sweatshirt. At that point, everything just clicked; GOC stands for Grace on Campus, or a Christian group on campus. GOC is a group that places a huge emphasis on evangelism. I don't know if it's the central part of their doctrine, but I know that it is something very purported, regardless. So yes, if you haven't already put the pieces together, GOC purposefully made their food cheap so that way a line was built. In this line, members from GOC would go in and evangelize to people, for people couldn't leave without losing the deal of such cheap food. Thus, most people would go through the line to get their food, yet would most likely have to talk to a GOC member at the same time.
The dood's name that came and talked to me was Wes (or maybe West... One of the two). We had a nice little talk about religious backgrounds, ministry groups on campus, and different viewpoints on evangelism. All in all, it was a nice chat, even though I ended up leading it most of the time since he was kind of a quiet guy haha. As I was leaving, though, I saw my friend Jane being talked to by two other members of GOC. I joined in on their conversation, even though it was essentially the same as what Wes talked about with me...
After that nice little convo, I ended up talking with Jane just to get her perspective on these things... Essentially, the common perspective garnered was that of a bit more pressing than is comfortable... The GOC people really pushed to make sure that everybody knew what the Gospel is, and if there were any doubts they really seemed to push it. And of course, I mean, this is all in good intentions... These people view that they have this knowledge, this medicine, that will not save your physical life, but one greater than that. From that perspective, wouldn't it make sense to save as many people as you could? Thus, it makes sense to go and evangelize to as many people as possible and try to save them all... Show everyone how much you love them, right?
Of course, a big question comes up here: What is loving? Of course, trying to save everyone's life seems to be loving. But, this statement assumes that there is only one way to show this love. I would like to think that this is truly not the case... Take, for example, if you do have this form of love in the form of medicine. Now, if you take that medicine and force someone to take it, they're probably going to reject it and try to stay away from it, even if you believe the medicine will save them. Yet, if they take the medicine out of their own volition, they'll be saved, which is the point of the medicine. Now, again I shall ask, what act is more loving?
Please don't get me wrong at this point... I think that evangelism can be important and you shouldn't feel afraid to approach people, hoping that they may receive this medicine from somewhere else... It's just that the way the medicine is administered is such a key part to see as whether or not people are saved... Of course, some people may be more willing to take medicine over others if it is pressed upon them, yet I question if this would be true for the general population...
Of course, it is all a balance, but I just think that the problem with evangelizing to just about anyone and everyone is that instead of love for the other person, it can become love of a game numbers... Yes, Christianity does call for evangelism towards others, but don't forget that there are multiple ways for evangelism? You might ask, "Is this message really going to affect them for the better, or am I doing it simply for myself?" You see, the problem with evangelizing without proper connections or proper knowledge is that it could actually make people more averse to Christianity, which would be detrimental and actually taking a step backwards rather than forwards... You see, please don't get me wrong and think that I'm saying all forms of evangelism are bad... I just think that going through such a routine and attempting to evangelize to every stranger may give them a negative impression of not only you but also of Christianity itself... Thus, if that would be the case, would that truly be loving to the individual in question?
At this point, one may point out that I'm seeing problems but not really solutions. Granted, that is the case for now, but I believe that there is a solution. I'm not really a theologian that has a doctorate in evangelism, or anything close to it for that matter, but from the little knowledge of psychology I know, I believe that the more personal the interaction, the better... I mean, if the person you are talking with thinks that you actually care for them, and are not just treating them as "just another person to convert," don't you think they would be more willing to listen? This sort of goes back to my post "Big Brother's Watching You...", but I believe that the more personal the stimulus present, the greater the chance that internal conformity, or a rather relatively permanent change in behavior, is more likely to happen. Even if the person doesn't accept what you're saying as true, at least you can present it in a more personal matter and thus allow them to give it more of a chance for consideration rather than being turned off quite suddenly...
Jane stated this idea in quite an interesting way... Simply put, she said that perhaps the ideal standard should be empathy, not sympathy... Of course, sympathy is a good thing to have, but it's something that can exist without a strong personal connection. Empathy is something that seems to be built up the farther and stronger one's bonds with another are. Thus, if empathy is more present than sympathy, the act of evangelism may be more of a personal thing, rather than just a way to do something that one feels called to do... Of course, distinction of these feelings may be quite hard to do, which means it may just be best to focus on how personal/strong one's bonds with another may be. Again, this may be begging the question, for what is personal, but that is something that may be a bit more clear, if only intuitively, than the distinction between sympathy and empathy...
As I close this post, please let me clear up a few points. Again, I'm not trying to rag on evangelism. I believe that it's not only important in itself but also the way it is done is quite important as well. And to all of those who are not Christians yet still take the time to read my posts, I'm sorry if you feel as if you were treated as just another number for an attempt at conversion... People have good intentions, but sometimes they just don't manifest themselves in proper ways... So yes, thank you all for the time to read this post, and hopefully I have given you some food for thought...

Squirrels, Altruism, and Sir Karl Popper

Hey all! Sorry for not writing again for so long... I'm quite questionable when it comes to consistency it seems. Last quarter was academic madness for me since I attempted four classes of all upper divs... I did well in the end, but it didn't leave much time for leisurely goodness, such as writing and what not haha.
Oh yes, I must give credit where credit is due. The last post about Big Brother and the use of stimuli was thought out with my friends Christine and Nitya. We all had a good talk and they helped further ideas/inspiration to write on that, so yes, thank you to them!
Anyways, before I start really discussing for this post, we have to flash back to Fall Quarter... I was enrolled in Life Sciences (LS) 15, which is essentially LS for those that aren't hard-core sciencey yet need to take a science of some sort. My professor was Jay Phelan, and he's quite a smart guy. He studied at UCLA, Harvard, and Yale for Bio I believe, so he totally knew his stuff. Anyways, one of the things that was most intriguing to me at the time was his discussion of altruism.
Altruism is somewhat like the opposite of selfishness. It's hard to pin an exact definition down, but essentially it's doing something completely for another, with no real selfish intentions in mind. Thus, an altruistic action has no intrinsic selfishness/motivation, but is purely for another/something else.
One of the most common examples is Belding's Ground Squirrels. Essentially, if I remember my LS 15 somewhat correctly, these squirrels live out in the prairies and have to keep an eye out for aerial predators such as hawks. What happens is that there is a chance that one of the squirrels will give out a distinct call to let the other squirrels know that a predator is coming. Yet, as a result, 50% of the time the squirrel that called out is the one that gets attacked by the predator. Thus, this act is coined altruistic because one squirrel gives their own life (most of the time) in order to save the other squirrels present.
Well, that would be one way to look at it, but not the commonly accepted way... Professor Phelan presented to us the "selfish gene" approach. For those not familiar with biology, the "selfish gene" approach is essentially that animals are subject to survival of the fittest, which is a measure of reproductive success, and not living itself. Thus, even if one may die, yet its genes are passed down, it is still in the contest. To over simplify, the whole idea is to get as many of your genes passed down as you can, whether it be through having sex with as many mates as possible or by ensuring a healthy life for future offspring... Thus, the squirrel is able to further the chances of its offspring living a healthy life, leading to more babies in the future, by sacrificing itself and giving in to the survival of the fittest.
As first, I was quite hesitant to accept the viewpoint of this second view. What evidence was there really to show that the squirrels just wanted to pass on their own genes and not actually commit an act of altruism? (Ok, that sounds funny in hindsight, since a squirrel may not seem the best indicator of altruism, but it was a naturally occurring thought!) Well, there's a little bit more to when the squirrels will call or not. The thing is, only females that have some form of kin are the ones that will call out. To boil down lots of bio and not really do it justice, lots of animals that are males don't care so much about losing offspring since they have the ability to reproduce continually, whereas females are limited by gestation periods and what not, thus making individual offspring quite valuable. (I highly suggest for us Valley Kids to take some form of bio while in college, since we never got too great of a view in high school haha). And the thing is, the females won't call in every situation. In one experiment, females with some form of kin were transported into a new habitat and assimilated with other Belding's Ground Squirrels. When an aerial predator attacked this group, though, the female would not call. Thus, it seems as if the only times females will call is when they have some form of kin/genetic relationship with the squirrels present. Thus, it seems like this quite a bit more in support for the "selfish gene" theory rather than the existence of altruism...
As the course continued, Professor Phelan elaborated that genes are not only selfish in squirrels, but in all forms of animals. Any act that may appear altruistic on the surface usually has some ulterior, intrinsic motive, whether it be for one's personal gain or for one's offspring, thus contributing further to reproductive success somehow. In fact, when he mentioned all animals, he included humans. Any act humans commit, whether for prestige or personal gain, may appear altruistic yet has some form of ulterior motive.
Honest to goodness, I was curious to hear more since I liked to think that altruism does exist. Thus, I visited his office hours one day, just to try and figure out more to this thing called "altruism." As I asked him to elaborate on all acts being selfish, we proceeded to look at things such as giving to charity, or helping out a friend. From his viewpoint, he saw charity as a possibility for simply title gain. Imagine that you are with a group of people, and then you decide to donate $20. People at this point will think you are kind and generous, and thus more likely to have positive actions in the future, such as may when you need something from them. Or, let's imagine you have a sick friend that you help for the night. After helping them, you now have a favor to hold over their head. Since you helped them, and gave up something relatively small, you should now be able to ask them a favor since you gave them a favor. Thus, things such as charity or helping others can be trickled down to selfish intent.
Ok, writing things this way may portray the wrong idea, so let me just clarify: I really liked, and still like, Professor Phelan. He's a really smart and nice guy who was eager to talk to me about ideas like this. I'm afraid that presenting only this stuff about him may make him seem like some crazy egoist, but that's not really true haha. So yes, he's a good guy and a good teacher. Don't get me wrong!
So in conclusion, I remember asking, "So you don't really believe there's any such thing like altruism that exists?" He replied to the degree of, "No, I don't think so. I mean, you don't see anyone taking a homeless person off the street and giving him food and shelter. It just seems to me that it doesn't exist... Yet, here I am, talking to you, when I'm going to have no further interaction, and thus it wouldn't make sense really either, now would it.." Frankly speaking, what Professor Phelan said does seem to hold some merit. I mean, on initial thought, if someone was truly altruistic, why don't they just give everything away? They could give their house, their money, their possessions, and just everything to someone else. That would be a sign of altruism, yes? Yet, I don't think anyone really does that... Any time an "altruism" act is committed it seems to have some form of net-gain for the actor. Thus, it seems that "altruistic" acts only happen for personal gain and thus aren't truly "altruistic."
It's easy to see why this viewpoint holds so much merit... It just seems to fit so well, and it's quite easy to see from animals that this seems to be the way things truly are. Yet, I don't think life is quite that simple (Kingdom Hearts reference anyone? hahah). First things first, let's look back at the total charity example Professor Phelan mentioned. If someone really did give everything the had away, would that still really be considered "altruistic" by his definition? It would just be so easy to say that he's doing it for prestige, or he's doing it to make a name for himself and thus be remembered in history, thus making the person still be selfish.
It's at this point that one raises the question if there is truly any act that would be considered altruistic. Or, in other words, is there any way that we can prove that humans are not totally selfish? Even with a large number of thought experiments/hypothetical scenarios, it seems like there can always be some point that can be linked back to the person, thus making altruism purely possible to exist, and thus making this "selfish gene" theory impossible to disprove...
At this point, I think it's time again to say hello to our old friend Sir Karl Popper. For those of you that may remember, I talked about Popper and why he favored deduction over induction... Well, anyways, one of Popper's biggest interests was the clarification of what is true science and what is pseudo-science, or what is labelled the Demarcation Problem. Science is something objective and testable, whereas pseudo-science is something that looks like science, yet is not truly science because it is not objectively falsifiable. As for an example, Popper points out Dr. Adler's theory of Selfishness (Well, who would have guessed, eh?). Essentially, Dr. Adler believed that everyone was truly selfish and did things only for themselves (again, this should sound familiar!) Imagine someone is drowning in the river. You have two choices: Jump in and save them, or just pass on. Well, if you jump in, Dr. Adler would say that you're being selfish because you gain prestige and also have the chance for reward. Yet, if you pass them by, you're being selfish because you're just letting them drown. So, no matter what happens, you're selfish and thus all humans have this form of selfishness complex (Again, I bet there's a lot more to it than this, but this is just a general understanding...).
You see, it seems kinda weird to have a science where you can't really disprove anything but can only find examples to further it. In fact, Freud's theories about dreams and sexual behavior also function this way, basically speaking. Part of science is through testing and disproving, for the function of science is to disprove and not prove (this has to do with induction being fallible and deduction not; crazy to think and oversimplified, I know, but it's the basic idea). Thus, when you have a theory that is not able to be disproved, Popper believed that that was not actual science. Thus, any theories that cannot be disproved are considered pseudo-science, for they seem to hold some merit, yet are not truly testable in the same means that actual science is.
Thus, this theory of the "selfish gene" seems to have been presented before and pushed down. The thing is, even if it's not true science, there still may be some merit to the theory since it seems to fit society so well. Even if it's not totally true, or falsifiable and thus probably not the best way to really think, it does appear that selfishness is so true in today's society. I mean, favors are usually talked about ways of getting help later rather than being done just to purely help the person out. Again, I may be looking at this through a universal selfishness complex, but part of it does stand out...
The thing is, as Joey and Dave mentioned, life does not seem to be governed by extremes as simple as this... Let's take two different scenarios; in scenario a, a person mugs and kills a random stranger. In scenario b, a person donates $20 to a local charity. Granted, both of these acts could be linked to selfish ties, yet something would seem horribly strange to give these acts equal weight... I mean, is mugging someone as selfish as donating? I guess one could argue that both are just forms of selfishness, yet I still don't think that would make them equal. If someone argued that all selfish acts are equal, then I think I would be stuck there. Yet, if that is the case, again, I think it would be best to refer back to Popper and classify a theory so extreme as simply pseudo-science. But, in an attempt to give some merit, I would say yes, much of the world is selfish. It's so easy to classify the world that way since so many acts are committed with something in return. Yet, maybe I'm just naive, but I like to think that some acts are committed without an expectation of something in return. The problem with this idea is that you have to measure intentions, which of course is not something measurable... And, even if you could somehow find out someone's intentions, people could argue that the motivations are not only conscious but also subconscious, thus making it possible that everyone is still victim of a universal selfishness complex.
But, if we adapt the first view that not all selfish acts are equal in weight, it seems that acts could be classified on a gradient of selfishness, with one pole representing altruism and the other pole representing selfishness. All acts would fall on this gradient, but depending on where they fall would represent if one act would be more selfish/more altruistic as compared to another. Thus, this view would seem more accurate, since it seems more plausible that if all acts are selfish, how selfish they are and how altruistic they are may vary. It seems like this may be a more accurate way to represent the world, but the question of whether or not an act can be truly altruistic or truly selfish, where the influence of the other is not present, can actually exist. I don't know if it's whether or not I have a pessimistic viewpoint, but it seems much easier to link something as being purely selfish over something being purely altruistic... All in all, though, this may just simply be a problem of viewpoint, whether or not it is actually the case. Of course, I think the view of universal selfishness may be more universal (hence the prominence of the "selfish gene" theory) over the idea of altruism possibly existing... Again, it may just be the way society's current viewpoint is, but nonetheless it is interesting to note...
Hmm... If I had to just sum up everything, I guess it would be important to note that some theories that permeate today are forms of pseudo-science. These theories may seem to fit the world well, but it's questionable as to how far they should be taken since they can't truly be disproved and thus their measure as science should be questioned. Nevertheless, it seems fitting to say that a great deal of the world is selfish, yet to say all selfish acts would be questionable... It may seem more fitting to say that acts may fall on a universal scale, where acts have a certain degree of altruism and a certain degree of selfishness. Yet, if any acts can be fully selfish or fully altruistic is something questionable, and may not even be able to be fully known... So yeah, some food for thought, at the very least, and thank you for reading!