First Step to Contemporary Civil Disobedience Identification of the Paradoxical Issues

The Paradox: HOW EXACTLY WE Teach and What Our Instincts Require

Note: I will being using 'our' 'us' and 'we' often; consider I am speaking with respect to the majority of America and in reflection to the American system and culture.

**Please reread Summary, and then continue

The American Dream (AD) can be an expression where has evolved from one image to some other. Arguably, it originated 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 all those times that image was wealthy living, compared to the 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 major city, a six figure income and a 100,000 dollar sports/luxury car - just to start the dream off! This expression the AD gives today, is the one I 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 be discussed further in argument B. This part of the conflict, at quick glance, seems to contradict the idea we 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 will discuss can be more refined as the following: the practice that is consensually accepted in/by a group as altruistic. An organization can vary from a social circle of friends to international identities of a nation or continent. The actual fact t here could be groups within groups could cause confusion; for this paper's purposes the culture of America and the subcultures which exist in the us are increasingly being referenced: majorly education [from media and school], but also fashion trends and thought movements both underground and mainstream. Example of group altruism: Taking part in church events is deemed charitable by the church's community members. My altruism definition is a parallel of social altruism - (as far as I am aware) coined by Nigel J. Barradale. The difference between social altruism and how altruism is generally viewed is mildly significant. Rather than assuming altruism methods to be charitable in a general sense; the social altruism perspective seems to be more realistic. People have a tendency to want to help those who will later help them in return, which mutual payoff is seen 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 individual, once the social incentives are excluded. This behavior is termed social altruism. As per the aforementioned, social altruism may be displayed due to: genetic predisposition; behavioral conditioning; knowing of intrinsic incentives; and awareness of social incentives. Of the, the first three can lead to behaviors that are costly to the average person, even though the social incentives are included. For instance, genes could be selected since they encourage us to behave social altruistically, which has a fitness benefit on average; but those genes are unlikely to perfectly distinguish instances that are fitness enhancing from the ones that are fitness detracting, therefore both behaviors will tend to be exhibited. This is simply not, of course, to suggest the ability to better distinguish between your behaviors would be socially desirable. Quite the opposite, in fact-the many instances when people behave altruistically at an individual cost is a wonder of human societies and may have been a necessary prerequisite for our evolution as a species" (Barradale). In section C. I'll propose another reason why we do not have "the opportunity to better distinguish between your behaviors [that] will be socially desirable" but in fact behave in a fashion that is only socially desirable to your searched for and indoctrinated groups. The reason being another cognitive argument; our reptilian brain complex being the reason for us to defend and protect our group thoughts.

A. Paradoxical Problem Finding

Barradale, 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 there are conflicts of conflicts. These conflicts appear to involve majorly: i. the concern of what does the system/culture appear to be, where is prepping people to carry out their metaphysical desires (of being altruistic) ii. in addition to the irrational (or not necessarily rational) tendencies where we are likely to interest groups. Ideally, after these conflicts of conflicts are illuminated, we can better find types of such conflict in the paradox.

Regarding the first conflict of conflict: What/who socially creates the rules in which we are to react instinctual-ly? Or to be more specific; what's [/does] the building blocks of our education [look like] where we have to adjust to, so as to create values? We have this instinct to desire to figure out how to be socially altruistic in order to reap the benefits of certain groups, but additionally we are given the training of the American Dream. To begin the conflicts within conflicts - involves our education system (although only apart of the entire education we receive).

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

1. Encourage linear, single-solution thinking, rather than 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 watch out for alternate solutions; errors are not rewarded when caused by a potentially beneficial risk)

3. Don't measure up to other styles of integrated teaching models with regards to the quantity of information retained by students (less effective at actually teaching material)

4. Aren't as motivating or engaging for the students (students report less satisfaction and show poorer attendance)

5. Really aren't that much fun for the teachers, either (Kuszewski)

A troubling list to simply accept as accurate. Yet, for this paper's purposes we shall assume the list is accurate to many (if not all) primary to secondary education methods in the U.S. Is there is one systematic method to being socially altruistic to others? Is there only likely to be one or a few group(s) where we have to socially respond to? Absolutely not! With respect to the group in which altruism has been attempted for, depends also on the method. Also, this methodology of education in schools isn't preparatory for how exactly to respond to many different groups (how to join/associate). The contrary seems much more likely; education that molding abilities to only have the ability to react to one or few group(s) at most. Which can further stifle exploratory attitude formations. If these are early attitudes, no doubt will they be at minimal, partially internationalized. Perhaps there should be a method (or section of method) in which 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 next conflict of conflict: What makes us interest certain groups and/or distance us from others? Just how much does nature entail where we are likely to be drawn to; as far as group identification? These questions are no more limited by philosophic and literary critique (although resources should/do result from such), but science has something to state! Namely evolutionary paradigms of research; majorly biology and psychology studies in evolutionism. These very real factors of how we have adapted during our evolution during the period of history, should be taught in a classroom; in a roundabout way but designed in to the lesson plans to relate allow the material to become more relevant towards societal thinking.

Although scientific evidence would be great to guard the argument that the paradox exist; I don't feel it necessary. One must be just open to the idea, we respond to groups in order to self identify. Seems good sense filled - so, I am going to appeal to such. Almost all will do whatever is necessary to be accepted by the groups they choose to wish to be apart of; in exchange to get recognition. Exaggerated when I say 'whatever' maybe, but objectively what you can do to gain usage of a group isn't nearly as extreme as another would. For instance: 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 have been discussing with. So, keeping the idea as general as you possibly can can avoid vagueness while maintaining capability to argue; individuals will sacrifice to become apart of an organization.

With that said; "what does a person wanting to participate a group have as a common factor with how our education system was created?" Well that is the gist of the paradoxical problem accessible. While we have this natural tendency to associate with groups, we also have to be educated within a system. Does that education system teach to respond to our natural desires to associate with others? No. Does groups tend to educate us within their social guidelines? Yes. So... We get educated from the groups we are associated with, but there are a great number of groups existing... Just 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 number one method Kuszewski notes - linear thinking (one answer is most beneficial) is the normative in our education system. Does this overlap into our other educations? What else teaches us; which groups teach everyone?

B. Pop-cultural Paradoxes

As defined earlier the American Dream (AD) is the ideal of rich materialism; in a nut shell - celebrity idolizing, in both properties and personalities. The concern to be wealthy is really a prime example of the fact our education outlets hinder the majority's value forming; in schooling especially with their linear methods; one answer for every question. The idea of being rich can be 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, as well as the rest of American education.

The way in which our media demonstrates rich and luxurious lifestyles depict selfish attitudes, especially since the means of acquiring the riches does not usually involve bringing others into rich status aswell. The AD does not have any intention of bringing others with the given individual to achieve this type of goal. There are no shows about charity, none about humanitarianism and definitely none about morality and ethics - besides the Jersey Shore. Possibly the biggest source in which progressive ideologies are displayed come in our contemporary documentaries. Still overall, as far as public media goes, there is no source where teaches multiculturalism, humanitarianism and tolerance - but, rather in the norm, display examples of materialization of individuals and possessions; people going 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 however they are apart of where we take what we realize from and may existentially be looked at apart of the entire value making process. As a example of how media and entertainment can influence the populace of America; yolo and swag. These words spoken five years back would hold no significance. Yet, today, through the energy of media they're standard used words in the young generation. Although this is not a value-based argument, it could still dictate clearly media does influence our perspectives with fades and fashions; in both thought and style of outfits.

What does the appeal to 'celebrity-ism' need to with groupthought and group-following? A counter question: What does the majority think is actually popular and notable to go over? Celebrities. How the most fashioned are formed look like lead by popular figures of our culture. Musicians particularly, but additionally authors, actors and athletes are apart of the pop-culture dominating American education. I'd even go as far to argue they are central figures, which historically is not any different than any other times, except today we idolize what they often 'do' instead of 'say' more often than not. If we cared about what they had to say... I really do not think a lot 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: So how exactly does this effect our abilities to be altruistic with others? In what manner does our linear education and the American Dream cause us to either good or bad at dealing with groups among others? Do both of these 'manners' really conflict to the point of creating a paradox, if so, so how exactly does it alter our perceptions in value forming?

C. The Infection of the Paradox on Our Lives

Argument A. discussed how our education system uses linear ways of crafting our pursuits of knowledge, and how exactly we are naturally susceptible to attempting to identity with groups. Then concludes the training system will not accurately prep children to keep company with various groups; rather more likely does the opposite; encourages children to get safety in one or perhaps a few groups. Argument B. discusses our pop-culture is really a major form of our overall education together with creating values of the American Dream. Concluding almost all gains their impressions of value forming from pop-icons and celebrities. So, how can we summarize all this up together? As a nation, in almost all, we have been terrible at forming collective values, but why? How can we naturally have an aptitude for social altruism, but nonetheless prove to be so individually selfish? Do we've a culture that inspires individualism? If we do, then, what causes us to guard these individualistic attitudes of selfishness? Possibly the reptilian brain complex might help provide clarity of the above questions, but first let's tie together what we have discovered so far.

Did we ever have a chance to be good at value forming? Between a linear education, the American Dream, the celebrities who we idolize, and insufficient group-reflection... This all adds up to a sort of culture which is worried about self preservation and identity safety; a culture of individuals (inspired by Nick Tingle); which is the foundation of the paradox accessible. Part of any American, who have not stopped and reflected on the majority of what I've tried to argue so far, has this paradoxical individualistic attitude. We'd no capability to not be individuals in this sense to be concerned about the AD in a linear scope of mind, because our nature and public nurturing conflict(ed) so to form this paradox of values (which escalated overtime into our national identity). On the type side; the desire to be grouped with others and to associate to become 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 will automatically do so; this is without question. We will always require others as a way to develop both individually and socially. And since we have no other environments besides our immediate ones, where to gain resources, to fulfill our natural needs... The paradox manifests... A culture of people... A working, functional contradiction of a system - well at the very 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 parts of the theorized triune brain, and could have something to state about all of this paradoxical conflict.

"The neurologist Paul MacLean has proposed that our skull holds not just one brain, but three, each representing a definite evolutionary stratum which 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] using its own special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time and space and its particular memory" (Kazlev). Interesting to take into account, none the less, but what does this have to do with being like a reptile? "MacLean shows... that the physically lower limbic system, which rules emotions, can hijack the bigger mental functions when it requires to" (Kazlev) Essentially, another argument in favor of a natural, evolutionary development in our thinking; our most primitive brain remain and takes charge, as 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 really is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it is "filled up with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating exactly the same behaviours again and again, never learning from past mistakes. This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions, such as for example breathing and heartbeat. This area 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 the paradoxical issues in this nation.

We, naturally, desire to survive; no-one can deny otherwise. The reptilian brain is concerned about survival and is supported by instinctual drives. To connect this with this drive to be socially altruistic, it may immediately seem contradictory, but such incite couldn't be further from the truth. What has and continues to permit us to survive is grouping with other people. So, at the core of our 'rigid, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid' R-complex also exist the group mentality we used to survive through an incredible number of years. Think about the group, and the individual in the group aren't separate entities at this stage! 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 will unconsciously follow the group on the cliff, because we instinctively already are apart of the groups we identify with. But, the cliff isn't physical, it is just a mental cliff, and falling off doesn't kill you, it just keeps you unable to break through the nurture v. nature which creates your reality; how much do you allow your groups to dictate your ideas?

How Evolution, Groups and Ourselves Clash

The aforementioned 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 look at the evolution of the mind, in fact it is time education specialist, theorist and politicians followed the mindset of thinking evolutionarily. That is available knowledge! Internet search engine anything I have said and one will see no fictitious information was used to argue with, but perhaps my conclusion will never be suffice enough for some. No matter, we all have been able to understand our entire 'self' - the biology, the neurology and the spiritual/self-actualization. Yet, we don't care to... IN THE US, we're able to care less, not because we discover the information useless, but because we do not 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 far more superficial level... A more direct and reflective level... We truly exist in an individualized culture; groups of people will believe their group is a good, and will reject dealing with others unless proven beneficial by group standards; usually the American Dream is the standard...

At this point, I hope the question going through your mind is: why, oh why, do we as a nation of over 3 hundred fifty million people continue steadily to give right into a system which proves to only stimulate our most primitive desires, and does not care to improve our evolving social desires... ? Why are we so obedient to this system that predicates ideals of shallow-mindedness and non-divergent thinking? How? "Obedience is as basic a component in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is really a dependence on all communal living, and it is only the person 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 find authority with, because there is never a choice, 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's our nature. Had we an education where we have been taught to be divergent (many answers to a question), we'd quickly see how our bodies of politics and public education are magnificently terrible, and reward winningly awful.

But that does not answer how the herd (the machine) continually runs from the cliff, so long as it has, without significant notice of the overall population. As though the herd are given blinders from subtle sources; I am not one to call conspiracy, but also for over 60 years we've went from the world's industrial leader to the world's entertainment source. Either we as a nation unconsciously ingrained these paradoxical issues onto ourselves, or their might have been a more impressive hidden agenda at hand. From who? I do not know, but, to set off topic for an instant... The first 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 has the most to gain from a nation of mindless consumer zombies, may also have probably the most influence on keeping a nation's mindset in the realm of linear dreaming (the primitve brain)... But that won't be the conclusion to the paper! Leave the conspiracy speak to the blogs and websites which already exist, this paper is concerned about how to solve the issue, not to point fingers at who may have caused the paradoxical issues.

The main paradoxical issue I am concerned with is the poor value forming between what is -and- is not necessary to as an average American; are charity, multiculturalism and tolerance our foundational values? Social altruism provides benefits to the average person 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 designed to only with the capacity of being altruistic to some choice groups or everybody we touch - 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 idea: alternatives to how education is presented will not only create a more well rounded individual, but, also a better 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 quest for creating a nation where the abuse of others and the system is not wanted, as the desire to improve oneself and their groups (ultimately everyone) can be primary in our values. This social idealism would satisfy our natural intents of taking and giving back again to groups, without posing threats to our overall developments - both socially and individually.

Idealism of Group Methodology

Having suggested heavily that evolutionary issues are very real factors in how we perceive the planet and respond to other folks. I believe that is knowledge we ought to not ignore. Education systems need to take into account the very real psychological factors which exist to be able to educate children to being better thinkers, learners and overall human beings. The reality where the world works is not individualism; individuals get nothing done minus the support of others. Anything one really wants to do is dependent on a system set up, and the system is carried forth by way of a society. Our education as noted in argument A. does not educate in groupthought, but the contrary; education that the average person is the key to success and that one answer, is desirable. This singular/linear thinking will not allow for 'surprise' or 'quick change' and makes these moments with time more regularly scary than interesting. I suggest 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 must consider the 'checks and balances' of picking either group, or picking never to pick either group. Basically the goal of the class is always to allow children to challenge the natures that may guide them through their lives. Unfortunately, such a proposal seems very problematic in structure. Perhaps group method should be the backbone of other types of classes that impose critical thinking? Science Fiction Appreciation. Nonfiction Writing. Poetry. Basic Philosophy. The above would be excellent classes to permit exploratory thinking to occur; creatively inspired classes (the design for each class are pending papers of mine). With a group methodology at the core, however, exploratory thinking may prove a lot more than to spur creative juices, but also 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! Give them assignments with roles for everything, not just a project once a year! Work out how to allow them to configure with one another so that you can succeed. An example of a project is always to co-author or group-author papers; assign a ten page paper instead of five for two kids, this way they need to collaborate on the paper and agree. Personally i think this value will undoubtedly be revolutionary, because there already exist co-authored books, and group authored - it makes sense; people tend to share exactly the same thoughts and impressions but have two modes of looking at an issue; put two different minded people together on the same topic, the results can be amazing! Imagine a philosopher of mind (specialist) and a neuroscientist collaborating a book that explains to teenagers about their developing bodies, or their minds (within their degree of understanding, w/ relative examples). To market collaboration early in education will platform the rest of the students live; our whole lives are based on collaboration! Whether natural or nurtured.

An organization method class could be organized to take action, and in so doing, individual grading isn't done but group grades. One will argue, what about the kid who will not do anything? The rest of the group will scold him/her of course, but is that any different than the real world? Why must we protect children from how things are actually? PSD to HTML can only achieve this much for the bullying problems existing today, and direct attempts to solve them appear to only make things worse. More group work will benefit a lot more than there would be draw backs. Especially, objectively considering, how the rest of their lives will be probably involved with group activity. Again, like the above suggest classes for exploratory thinking, the thought 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 to be better at reacting and associated with others, because again, they will be doing it anyways 1 day. This group method, in either a class or a part 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 future, you are not the near future! The group - a nation, a religion, a movement - will be the future, we are the near future. Start acting truly like it, question where it really is you gain your primary values from and question those values. If they're 'good' or 'true' they'll last through inquiry, that is 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 Einstein

Source for Triune Brain information: [1] Information provided by M. Alan Kazlev

Groupthink theory research has developed 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.