The Paradox: How We Teach and What Our Instincts RequireNote: I will being using 'our' 'us' and 'we' often; consider I am speaking on behalf of nearly all America and in reflection to the American system and culture.**Please reread Summary, and then continueThe American Dream (AD) can be an expression where has evolved from one image to another. Arguably, it comes from the campaign and national desire to have 'slightly above' mediocrity in living conditions; a residence, white fence and two cars in the drive way, in a suburb. And for those times that image was wealthy living, when compared to majority of the planet; which still is very much true. However, today the AD is more materialistic than it existed originally... A rich and leisurely life; house on the beach or apartment in a significant city, a six figure income and a 100,000 dollar sports/luxury car - just to start the dream off! This expression the AD gives today, may be the one I will reference to any extent further; the majority of Americans act as if they were rich or will eventually become rich. The above explanation will undoubtedly be discussed further in argument B. This section of the conflict, at quick glance, appears to contradict the idea you want to be sociable. However, evolutionarily, it proves to create sense of the way the American Dream in addition has evolved.I really do not suggest 'altruism' in broad terms; the practice to accomplish selfless actions of welfare for others. We have reasons for our want in aiding others; if they be socially or individually influenced desires (nurture) -and/or- instinctual requirements (nature). The altruism I'll discuss could be more refined as the following: the practice that is consensually accepted in/by a group as altruistic. A group can vary from a social circle of friends to international identities of a nation or continent. The actual fact there can be groups within groups could cause confusion; because of this paper's purposes the culture of America and the subcultures which exist in the us are being referenced: majorly education [from media and school], but additionally fashion trends and thought movements both underground and mainstream. Exemplory case of group altruism: Participating in church events is regarded as charitable by the church's community members. My altruism definition is really a parallel of social altruism - (so far as I am aware) coined by Nigel J. Barradale. The difference between social altruism and how altruism is normally viewed is mildly significant. Rather than assuming altruism means to be charitable in an over-all sense; the social altruism perspective seems to be more realistic. People tend to want to help those that will later help them in exchange, and this mutual payoff sometimes appears majorly in dynamics of groupthink theory; which is slightly referenced.What follows is really a more precise expression and explanation of social altruism from Barradale himself from his theory paper - Social Incentives and Human Evolution: "... behaviors are exhibited that benefit the group at the apparent cost to the average person, when the social incentives are excluded. This behavior is termed social altruism. According to the aforementioned, social altruism may be displayed due to: genetic predisposition; behavioral conditioning; knowing of intrinsic incentives; and knowing of social incentives. Of these, the first three may lead to behaviors that are costly to the individual, even when the social incentives are included. For instance, genes may be selected since they encourage us to behave social altruistically, that includes a fitness benefit normally; but those genes are unlikely to perfectly distinguish instances which are fitness enhancing from those that are fitness detracting, therefore both behaviors are likely to be exhibited. This is not, of course, to suggest the ability to better distinguish between the behaviors would be socially desirable. Quite contrary, in fact-the many instances when people behave altruistically at a personal cost is a wonder of human societies and could have been a required prerequisite for the evolution as a species" (Barradale). In section C. I will propose another reason we don't have "the opportunity to better distinguish between your behaviors [that] will be socially desirable" however in fact behave in a fashion that is only socially desirable to your searched for and indoctrinated groups. The reason being another cognitive argument; our reptilian brain complex being the cause for us to defend and protect our group thoughts.A. Paradoxical Problem FindingBarradale, in the aforementioned, has expressed some of the reasoning for the paradox's conflict; as value forming involves both instinctual and social dimensions, it appears that you can find conflicts of conflicts. These conflicts appear to involve majorly: i. the concern of what does the system/culture look like, where is prepping people to carry out their metaphysical desires (to be altruistic) ii. plus the irrational (or not necessarily rational) tendencies where we are more likely to interest groups. Ideally, after these conflicts of conflicts are illuminated, we are able to better find examples of such conflict in the paradox.Concerning the first conflict of conflict: What/who socially creates the rules in which we are to react instinctual-ly? Or even to be more specific; what's [/does] the building blocks of our education [look like] in which we have to adapt to, as a way to create values? We've this instinct to want to work out how to be socially altruistic as a way to benefit from certain groups, but additionally we are given the training of the American Dream. First of the conflicts within conflicts - involves our education system (although only apart of the entire education we receive).Andrea Kuszewski in her article The Educational Value of Creative Disobedience crudely but accurately has summarized the methods of modern education systems. The methodology is listed as follows:1. Encourage linear, single-solution thinking, instead of exploratory learning (rewarded for the single correct answer, i.e. standardized tests, conformity is expected)2. Hinder creativity and discourage innovative thinking (once students have the answer, they aren't motivated to consider alternate solutions; errors are not rewarded when caused by a potentially beneficial risk)3. Don't measure to other types of integrated teaching models with regards to the amount of information retained by students (less able to actually teaching material)4. Aren't as motivating or engaging for the students (students report less satisfaction and show poorer attendance)5. Really aren't that much fun for the teachers, either (Kuszewski)A troubling list to accept as accurate. Yet, because of this paper's purposes we will assume the list is accurate to most (or even all) primary to secondary education methods in the U.S. Will there be is one systematic solution to being socially altruistic to others? Will there be only going to be one or a few group(s) where we must socially respond to? Absolutely not! Depending on group in which altruism is being attempted for, depends also on the technique. Also, this methodology of education in schools is not preparatory for how to respond to many different groups (how exactly to join/associate). The contrary seems more likely; education that molding abilities to only manage to react to one or few group(s) at most. That may further stifle exploratory attitude formations. If these are early attitudes, without doubt will they be at minimal, partially internationalized. Perhaps there should be a method (or section of method) where is open-ended enough to anticipate change in group dynamics as being the foundation of the lesson plan or as an entire class: Group Method!The second conflict of conflict: What makes us appeal to certain groups and/or distance us from others? How much does nature entail where we are likely to be drawn to; as far as group identification? These questions are no longer limited by philosophic and literary critique (although resources should/do come from such), but science has something to say! Namely evolutionary paradigms of research; majorly biology and psychology studies in evolutionism. These very real factors of how exactly we have adapted during our evolution over the course of history, should be taught in a class room; not directly but designed into the lesson plans to relate permit the material to be more relevant towards societal thinking.Although scientific evidence will be great to defend the argument that the paradox exist; I don't feel it necessary. One should be just open to the theory, we respond to groups as a way to self identify. Seems common sense filled - so, I'll appeal to such. The majority will do whatever is essential to be accepted by the groups they elect to wish to be apart of; in exchange to get recognition. Exaggerated when I say 'whatever' maybe, but objectively what one may do to gain access to a group isn't nearly as extreme as another would. For example: is paying 40,000 dollars more of less crazy than giving 100 hours a week to a group to become a member? I feel this question is preference-based and variable depending on who we are discussing with. So, keeping the idea as general as possible can avoid vagueness while maintaining ability to argue; individuals will sacrifice in order to be apart of a group.Having said that; "what does an individual wanting to participate a group have as a common factor with how our education system is designed?" Well this is the gist of the paradoxical problem accessible. While we have this natural tendency to keep company with groups, we also have to be educated within a system. Does that education system teach to respond to our natural really wants to keep company with others? No. Does groups have a tendency to educate us of their social guidelines? Yes. So... We get educated from the groups we are associated with, but there are a lot of groups existing... How do we know how to respond to them? Are we forced to rely strictly on our groups to know how to react to the rest? In mention of the main method Kuszewski notes - linear thinking (one answer is best) may be the normative inside our education system. Does this overlap into our other educations? What else teaches us; which groups teach everyone?B. Pop-cultural ParadoxesAs defined earlier the American Dream (AD) may be the ideal of rich materialism; in a nut shell - celebrity idolizing, in both properties and personalities. The concern of being wealthy is really a prime example of the fact our education outlets hinder the majority's value forming; in schooling especially making use of their linear methods; one answer for each question. The thought of being rich is an easy thought to entertain; little to no work, whatever you want and fun whenever one wants. This argument suggest almost directly; linear methods of education create the AD, in addition to the rest of American education.How our media demonstrates rich and luxurious lifestyles depict selfish attitudes, especially because the means of acquiring the riches does not usually involve bringing others into rich status as well. The AD doesn't have any intention of bringing others with the individual to achieve this type of goal. There are no shows about charity, none about humanitarianism and definitely none about morality and ethics - besides the Jersey Shore. Perhaps the biggest source in which progressive ideologies are displayed are in our contemporary documentaries. Still overall, so far as public media goes, there is absolutely no source where teaches multiculturalism, humanitarianism and tolerance - but, rather in the norm, display examples of materialization of people and possessions; people likely to prison, people [re]decorating places and things, and folks gossiping about celebrities (politicians, actors and artist)."Well media and entertainment do not necessarily guide our values." That is true but they are apart of where we take what we know from and will existentially be looked at apart of the complete value making process. As a example of how media and entertainment can influence the population of America; yolo and swag. These words spoken five years back would hold no significance. Yet, today, through the power of media they are standard used words in the young generation. Although this is not a value-based argument, it could still dictate clearly media does influence our perspectives with fades and fashions; in both thought and design of outfits.What does the appeal to 'celebrity-ism' have to with groupthought and group-following? A counter question: What does the majority think is in fact popular and notable to discuss? Celebrities. How the most fashioned are formed appear to be lead by popular figures of our culture. Musicians particularly, but additionally authors, actors and athletes are apart of the pop-culture dominating American education. I would even go as far to argue they are central figures, which historically is no different than any times, except today we idolize what they often 'do' instead of 'say' more often than not. If we cared in what they had to say... I do not think the majority of the pop-icons today will be very popular.Having noted the most powerful way in which we gain values as a national identity; pop-culture through entertainment. There still are unanswered questions: How does this effect our abilities to be altruistic with others? In what manner does our linear education and the American Dream cause us to either good or bad at coping with groups and others? Do both of these 'manners' really conflict to the stage of fabricating a paradox, if that's the case, how does it alter our perceptions in value forming?C. The Infection of the Paradox on Our LivesArgument A. discussed how our education system uses linear ways of crafting our pursuits of knowledge, and how exactly we are naturally susceptible to wanting to identity with groups. Then concludes the education system does not accurately prep children to keep company with various groups; more likely does the contrary; encourages children to get safety in one or a few groups. Argument B. discusses our pop-culture is really a major form of our overall education in addition to creating values of the American Dream. Concluding the majority gains their impressions of value forming from pop-icons and celebrities. So, how do we summarize all of this up together? As a nation, in the majority, we are terrible at forming collective values, but why? How do we naturally have an aptitude for social altruism, but still end up being so individually selfish? Do we have a culture that inspires individualism? If we do, then, what can cause us to guard these individualistic attitudes of selfishness? Perhaps the reptilian brain complex might help provide clarity of the aforementioned questions, but first let's tie together what we have discovered so far.Did we ever have to be able to be proficient at value forming? Between a linear education, the American Dream, the celebrities who we idolize, and insufficient group-reflection... This all results in a sort of culture which is worried about self preservation and identity safety; a culture of people (inspired by Nick Tingle); which is the source of the paradox accessible. A part of any American, who have not stopped and reflected on nearly all what I have tried to argue thus far, has this paradoxical individualistic attitude. We had no ability to not be individuals in this sense to be worried about the AD in a linear scope of mind, because our nature and public nurturing conflict(ed) so to create this paradox of values (which escalated overtime into our national identity). On the nature side; the need to be grouped with others and to associate in order to be apart of something bigger than oneself (group-identity). The nurture side: our academic education system and our superficial pop-culture.Since apart of our nature would be to identify with others, we shall automatically do so; this is without question. We will always require others so that you can develop both individually and socially. And since we've no other environments besides our immediate ones, where to gain resources, to fulfill our natural needs... The paradox manifests... A culture of individuals... An operating, functional contradiction of a system - well at least seemingly functional. What keeps this absurd mindset going? This crazy aptitude of a national identity? Well, that's where our reptilian brain complex could come into the discussion, one of many three elements of the theorized triune brain, and could have something to state about all this paradoxical conflict."The neurologist Paul MacLean has proposed our skull holds not just one brain, but three, each representing a distinct evolutionary stratum that has formed upon the older layer before it, like an archaeological site. He calls it the "triune brain." MacLean, now the director of the Laboratory of Brain Evolution and Behaviour in Poolesville, Maryland, says that three brains operate like "three interconnected biological computers, [each] with its own special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time and space and its particular memory" (Kazlev). Interesting to consider, none the less, but what does this have to do with being such as a reptile? "MacLean has shown... that the physically lower limbic system, which rules emotions, can hijack the bigger mental functions when it requires to" (Kazlev) Essentially, another argument in favor of an all natural, evolutionary development inside our thinking; our most primitive brain remain and takes charge, since it is foundational for the whole 'interconnected' machine (ourselves); the R-complex or the reptilian complex may be the base for the developed brain. This argument means nothing without the description of what the R-complex actually does for a number of animals, not just humans: "It is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it really is "filled with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating the same behaviours again and again, never learning from past mistakes. This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions, such as breathing and heartbeat. This section of the brain is active, even in deep sleep" (Kazlev). The reptilian complex is actually what I am discussing as part of the natural reasoning for our paradoxical issues in this nation.We, naturally, desire to survive; no one can deny otherwise. The reptilian brain is worried about survival and is supported by instinctual drives. To connect this with this drive to be socially altruistic, it may immediately seem contradictory, but such incite couldn't be further from the reality. What has and continues to allow us to survive is grouping with other folks. So, at the core of our 'rigid, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid' R-complex also exist the group mentality we used to survive through millions of years. Think about the group, and the individual in the group are not separate entities at this time! Our brain would not only evolve to worry about our survival, however the survival of our [pre]selected groups. Without reflection of who we group with, we shall unconsciously follow the group on the cliff, because we instinctively already are apart of the groups we identify with. But, the cliff is not physical, it is a mental cliff, and falling off doesn't kill you, it just keeps you struggling to break through the nurture v. nature which creates your reality; just how much can you allow your groups to dictate your ideas?How Evolution, Groups and Ourselves ClashThe above scientific concern seems to not effect how exactly we educate at all, yet, this theory of the Triune Brain has changed many mindsets, in psychology, about how exactly to check out the evolution of the brain, and it is time education specialist, theorist and politicians followed the mindset of thinking evolutionarily. This is available knowledge! Search engine anything I've said and one will see no fictitious information was used to argue with, but perhaps my conclusion will not be suffice enough for most. No matter, we are all in a position to understand our entire 'self' - the biology, the neurology and the spiritual/self-actualization. Yet, we don't care to... In America, we're able to care less, not because we find the information useless, but because we don't have musicians composing lyrics about how exactly the reptilian brain may be the core of our thoughts, or perhaps a reality show about living as hunters and gatherers in the middle of a forest or jungle (w/ the theme of our dependency on others). It appears we meet our primitive needs on a more superficial level... A far more direct and reflective level... We truly exist within an individualized culture; sets of people will believe their group is the better, and will reject working with others unless proven beneficial by group standards; usually the American Dream may be the standard...At this point, I am hoping the question going right through your mind is: why, oh why, do we as a nation of over three hundred fifty million people continue to give into a system which proves to only stimulate our most primitive desires, and will not care to improve our evolving social desires... ? Why are we so obedient to the system that predicates ideals of shallow-mindedness and non-divergent thinking? How? "Obedience is really as basic an element in the structure of social life as you can point to. Some system of authority is really a requirement of all communal living, in fact it is only the individual dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others. For many people, obedience is really a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct." (Milgram) Because we were never given another option of a society to get authority with, because there is never an option, because they are the cards we were dealt (we were born into what we get)... This random occurrence eventually will be honored and defended our predestined live, without or little reflection, because that is our nature. Had we an education where we have been taught to be divergent (many answers to a question), we would quickly see how our bodies of politics and public education are magnificently terrible, and reward winningly awful.But that will not answer the way the herd (the system) continually runs off of the cliff, so long as it has, without significant notice of the overall population. As if the herd are given blinders from subtle sources; I am not just one to call conspiracy, but for over 60 years we have went from the world's industrial leader to the world's entertainment source. Either we as a nation unconsciously ingrained these paradoxical issues onto ourselves, or their may have been a bigger hidden agenda at hand. From who? I do not know, but, to set off topic for an instant... The initial rule of Capitalist politics should be "follow the amount of money" because that is the reality of the philosophy in which Capitalism presents and practices. Who ever gets the most to gain from a nation of mindless consumer zombies, could also have the most influence on keeping a nation's mindset in the realm of linear dreaming (the primitve brain)... But that will not be the conclusion to this paper! Leave the conspiracy talk to the blogs and websites which already exist, this paper is worried about how to solve the problem, not to point fingers at who may have caused the paradoxical issues.The primary paradoxical issue I am concerned with may be the poor value forming between what is -and- is not essential to being an average American; are charity, multiculturalism and tolerance our foundational values? Social altruism provides advantages to the individual from the groups, however in argument A. the idea of altruism was privatized towards selected groups; mainly probably immediate ones like family, friends, business patterns, churches, etc. Whether or not we are made to only with the capacity of being altruistic to some choice groups or everybody we come into contact with - does not seem clear. Regardless, we still have this instinct, and if our instinct can guide us to naturally form relationships with people (as evolutionary psychologist suggest) unconsciously - I finalize my position, with the notion: alternatives to how education is presented can not only create a more well rounded human being, but, also an improved nation in which we can be pleased with, one void of superficial tendencies of wealth and singular positions of answer finding. And set up - social idealism; the pursuit of creating a nation where in fact the abuse of others and the system is not wanted, because the need to improve oneself and their groups (ultimately everyone) can be primary inside our values. This social idealism would satisfy our natural intents of taking and giving back to groups, without posing threats to our overall developments - both socially and individually.Idealism of Group MethodologyHaving suggested heavily that evolutionary issues have become real factors in how we perceive the planet and respond to other folks. I believe that is knowledge we should not ignore. Education systems have to take into account the very real psychological factors that exist as a way to educate children to being better thinkers, learners and overall humans. The reality where the world works isn't individualism; individuals get nothing done without the support of others. Anything one really wants to do is dependent on a system in place, and the system is carried forth by a society. Our education as noted in argument A. does not educate in groupthought, but the contrary; education that the average person may be the key to success and that one answer, is desirable. This singular/linear thinking does not allow for 'surprise' or 'quick change' and makes these moments in time more regularly scary than interesting. I would recommend we educate in a fashion that is beneficial to both the individual and to their future relationships with others, by educating in the mindset the will be doing just that.An organization method class for primary and secondary school - structured to challenge the normative natures presented here (namely group-following) by creating situations where children will have to think about the 'checks and balances' of picking either group, or picking to not pick either group. Simply the goal of the class is always to allow children to challenge the very natures that may guide them through their lives. Unfortunately, such a proposal seems very problematic in structure. Perhaps group method ought to be the backbone of other types of classes that impose critical thinking? Science Fiction Appreciation. Nonfiction Writing. Poetry. Basic Philosophy. The above will be excellent classes to permit exploratory thinking that occurs; creatively inspired classes (the look for every class are pending papers of mine). With an organization methodology at the core, however, exploratory thinking may prove a lot more than to spur creative juices, but additionally provide tools for practical everyday use. We are social animals in the end; although, almost ironically, being social to multiple groups rather than a few selected ones appears to not be natural. So, we must allow education systems to nurture us beyond our short sighted attitudes of conforming to a few choice groups; beyond our reptilian brain. Educate in the quest for multiple consciousnesses, in another sense, and the huge benefits will be immense.Put kids in groups! Provide them with assignments with roles for everything, not just a project one per year! Figure out how to allow them to configure with one another to be able to succeed. A good example of a project would be to co-author or group-author papers; assign a ten page paper instead of five for just two kids, this way they have to collaborate on the paper and agree. I feel this value will be revolutionary, because there already exist co-authored books, and group authored - it makes sense; people have a tendency to share exactly the same thoughts and impressions but have two modes of considering a problem; put two different minded people together on the same topic, the results could be amazing! Imagine a philosopher of mind (specialist) and a neuroscientist collaborating a book that explains to teenagers about their developing bodies, or their minds (within their level of understanding, w/ relative examples). To promote collaboration early in education will platform the rest of the students live; our whole lives derive from collaboration! Whether natural or nurtured.A group method class could be organized to take action, and in so doing, individual grading is not done but group grades. One will argue, what about the kid who'll not do anything? All of those other group will scold him/her of course, but is that any different than the real world? Why must we protect children from how things actually are? We can only achieve this much for the bullying problems existing today, and direct attempts to resolve them seem to only make things worse. More group work will benefit more than there will be draw backs. Especially, objectively considering, the way the rest of these lives will be most likely involved in group activity. Again, like the above suggest classes for exploratory thinking, the idea of group method is unheard of in academic training. Yet in the end game, after college, that is the reality of the situation; we will be immersed in groups forever - let's start early in educating children how exactly to be better at reacting and relating to others, because again, they will be doing it anyways one day. This group method, in either a class or a section of class, may (I pray) help our future of America destroy the current paradox we have been in; this culture of individualism. The average person is not the near future, you are not the future! The group - a nation, a religion, a movement - will be the future, we are the near future. Start acting like it, question where it is you gain your primary values from and question those values. If they're 'good' or 'true' they'll last through inquiry, that's this writer's promise to whom ever read this absurd paper. "What does it try be entirely in control; with one's own thoughts and environment?""Social Incentives and Human Evolution" by Nigel J. Barradale"Theory, Common Sense, and Narcissistic Energy" by Nick Tingle"The Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram"Why Socialism?�?�" by Albert EinsteinSource for Triune Brain information: [1] Information provided by M. Alan KazlevGroupthink theory research is rolling out a lot of my thoughts here - credit would go to, too many people to source. I would recommend personal research into the topic of group-thought, as I believe strongly part of our (- all persons) everyday mentality is owed to the groups we identify with.