Another Psychological Conundrum

There was a recent article given to me by my professor about how friendships between adolescent boys can be more powerful and have more of an impact on those involved than what was originally thought possible. The article talked about how teenage boys use their friendships with others of their kind to not only socialize but to also share their securities and insecurities with in order to mutually boost their mental state. However, the article goes on to show that this can lead to disastrous mental consequences for both parties involved if the relationship is either destroyed entirely or is seen by some on the outside as something to make fun of and take advantage of in their pestering of any involved parties of the relationship. In the end, those involved are left with an “open hole” that shows their insecurities (and we all know how males handle signs of weakness, unfortunately). Quite frankly this article really resonated with me not just because my general demographic is concerned in it, but because I’ve found this to be true throughout my life. People in my demographic often have friends in order to share insecurities and talk about them in a way that boosts their overall happiness and, when that connection goes away they begin to feel all different types of psychological effects that can hurt them for a little while or (more often) permanently damage their abilities to socialize and carry on with life. This article also resonates with me because I’ve been there and done that before to the point where I sorta have it in my moral code as the number one thing not to do to someone, male or female (unless it’s not mutual like the article discussed, of course). In short the article is right in saying that it’s an issue when people break off their friendships or are made fun of for having them and should be addressed appropriately. 

Contemplating College

There was a recent article posted to a news website that would catch most of any high school student’s eye. The article was about whether or not college is worth going to anymore in this day in age. This question has been proposed throughout the school community for decades. With all the talk of parents and relative having massive student debt and just barely being able to scrape by despite having a college degree under their belt, it doesn’t seem at first like college is a very economical option. However, the article that I found begs to differ from this point of view. In fact, it even goes on to state how the US needs more college graduates now in order to fix the economic standpoint of most high schoolers. The reason most people see college as uneconomical is because a degree doesn’t always mean a person will succeed in life, but it does go lengths to closing the wage gap there is between college graduates with a degree and high school graduates without a degree. The reason this happens is because there are not enough college graduates to fill all of the roles open in the economy of America and thus a gap in pay is present. Another point the article made was that if someone were to get a degree in college, of any level, that the cost of that degree in the long run would balance out to be negative 500,00 dollars (meaning that a person would  get more money out of a college degree than what they paid for in the beginning). Personally, I’ve always wanted to go to college no matter the cost, but this article has even further reaffirmed my views on going to college in these times of great uncertainty amongst myself and my peers.  

Chilly Concerns

I was recently given an article involving how certain school districts close more often for certain amounts of snow and just how diversified across the nation this was for all school districts. The results told in the article were surprising to me, since it turns out that school districts in heavily-snowed areas actually close LESS OFTEN than schools in either moderate or lightly-snowed areas of the United States. Although, to a degree, this is understandable. If people live in a climate that has a particular set of weather patterns they will more than likely be better prepared to deal with those patterns than an area with less of that climate’s weather patterns. For instance, the nordic scandinavians have been dealing with an intensely snowy and blizzard-like climate since practically the beginning of time. Since those who could not survive the harsh winters died, the majority of scandinavians in the past were usually hearty and used to the cold to the point where it hardly bothered them anymore. Just like in early scandinavia, certain states are better equipped to deal with heavy snowstorms. Some have altered snowplows to make them more efficient or quicker, have developed new methods of controlling ice on the roads, and have alternate ways of getting from place to place that isn’t hampered by snow (underground metro trains, etc.). In other words, they have adapted to deal with freak snowstorms more often since that’s the climate they live in while states that live in a warmer climate will be easily hampered by snow since they aren’t use to having to constantly deal with it. This would explain why school districts in heavily-snowed areas close for the snow less often than school districts in lightly or moderately snowed areas; those in lightly snowed areas simply aren’t used to that kind of climate. 

A Series of All Too Real Events

There was a recent article I found on the web that really caught my eye. The title of the article was “In Praise of the Ordinary Child” The title alone intrigued me to a high degree, especially since I couldn’t remember the last time I had really seen an “ordinary child” in my school career. The majority of the people currently in my school either have high ambitions and aspirations to accomplish things that would be considered extraordinary to the “ordinary” child. The article then capitalized on my forgetfulness immediately by talking about how you always see students as overworked, stressed, and sometimes generally distraught human beings, with hardly anyone being 100% positive walking through the front door. The article then explains why this phenomenon happens: it’s because parents are continuously criticizing what their kids are doing in school based on their grades and extracurricular activities they participate in. Almost every parent, according to the article, strives for their kids to do their very best or better and it makes students into constantly anxious, depressed and/or all-around angry beings in school. After I finished the article I had to resonate for a minute, because everything the article said was true. Hardly anyone walks into school happy anymore like they did in middle or high school, and those that do are either on a sugar high or are dead on the inside but trying to lighten everyone else’s mood. Everyone constantly complains about their parents being too strict on them and not listening when they tell them so. Everyone’s constantly drained by the end of the day and expected to do a mountain of homework in order to keep their grades. Everyone looks ok at school but could have a mental break any second of the day. Lastly, most students usually end up being in an extracurricular activity they don’t want to be in but are pressured to stay. These points are all too true throughout America, with relatively few exceptions. It’s a vicious cycle that would end but only if parents would just let their children be ordinary and themselves instead of what they want them to be. Unfortunately for most it almost never will.

Surreal Smog

Recently I was given an article that told in great detail how China has been reacting to its massive smog/polluted air problem over the past few years. Quite frankly, I feel that the government’s actions to control the problem haven’t been enough even with the article’s talk of the new regulations that factories and coal plants in the country will face. My lack of faith in this motion is due to several key factors. The first factor is the fact that the businesses being regulated by the new sanctions are in practically complete control over politics and government legislation passage in the country. Unlike the U.S., China has only just recently been industrialized (compared with the rest of the world) and seem to have reached the major point in their country’s life over whether or not government should have power over companies in the country (effectively being the same question America faced and decided on during the first Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson era of presidents). However, unlike the American experience, it seems that the Chinese government has already given the businesses too much power and can’t do anything to retract that power ,at least for a long time. This will undoubtedly stall any and all things relating to governmental regulation of industrial jobs and businesses, which will only lead to the current problem of smog in China to get even worse. The second factor is the fact that this issue has been going on for way longer than it should have already, so much so that it’s becoming a new norm and has been capitalized on by other commercial businesses, such as those who sell facemasks. This will even further stall legislation since fixing the problem will eliminate what is now being seen as normal in China and, while it may receive praise from the people, will give the industrialists an even better reason to stall on bills: the possibility of recession without intense government action taking place (an amount of action it seems the Chinese government is not willing to use). These are just a few of the reasons why I think the change the people of China are looking for will not come for a while now, even with governmental and industrial compromise.

Smart Money

We recently were given an article on how people with higher grades in high school and college end up making more money than people who get low grades in college and high school. The article uses a graph showing the average yearly earnings of a number of people based on their gpa throughout college and high school. The graph makes the valid point on its own that people with higher GPAs make more money. The article then goes on to explain how this is more than likely because of how people with higher GPAs have better work ethic, a greater motivation to get more work done (leading to promotions/raises), and may have better social skills. I can see why this would be the case. The better work ethic would come from taking hard classes and pulling through them with the best grade possible and through this learning that in order to do well one must fully understand what is asked of them and how to efficiently achieve the objective. The greater motivation would come from their achievement of those grades in those hard classes and how they were rewarded for getting those grades by being put in an even better position to succeed in school and in the working world. Then there’s the social skills. Now, several people would argue that nerds/people with high GPAs are usually anti-social, outcast, timid, etc. However, even with the extensively social nerds, who’s to say that they aren’t applying their learning technique that they get through school to social lives and events, analyzing what jokes get the best response, what topics spark interest, and what just flat out doesn’t create conversation and then practicing in private (considering it’s no closely guarded secret that good social skills will get you far in this world).

Sugary Accusations

In a recent article we were given in class there was talk about how added sugars had the potential to increase the risk of death from heart disease in people. The article later explained that by added sugars it meant all non-natural sugars, such as high-fructose corn syrup and not natural sugars like those in fruit and dairy products. The high intake of these added sugars leads to several other health problems as well, such as obesity, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and even stroke, heart attacks, hypertension, and heart failure. To find this, a researcher by the name of Quanhe Yang and his colleagues conducted a study on 31, 000 people who participated in a health survey that examined dietary habits based on in-person interviews. Now, most would think that this would be undeniable evidence, however the American Beverage Association (or the association you didn’t know existed until just now) has claimed that the study does not show that cardiovascular heart disease is caused by drinking sugar-sweetened beverages. Multiple people would probably be enraged, saying this is just another way of protecting big corporations like Pepsi or Coca-Cola to not go bankrupt and, while it might be just that, there’s really no way of knowing since the article says nothing in depth about the experiment other than Yang and his colleagues studied an old survey and drew conclusions. This shows absolutely no scientific method in this experiment and, therefore, causes its finding to come into question. Especially with such a large claim being made about added sugar. Even though it’s not a huge secret that excessive amounts of added sugar isn’t exactly healthy for you, to make a claim such that it increases the risk of heart disease-related death like smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, you’re going to need more in your article than just your finding on the subject.