Survival Reflection
Today’s society is based heavily off of labels. If there were another world war, as people I feel as though we would jump too quickly to be selfish and choose what would only benefit ourselves. We assign people certain values based on their appearances. If someone looks scruffy, we assume they are not intelligent. This is a dangerous habit that people have gotten into.
In class we did a hypothetical exercise based on the apocalypse. Each person had a specific role they were given; a scientist, a priest, a drug addicted couple, a pregnant mother with a five year old daughter, a mentally unstable (yet still useful) army marshall, an elderly person, a lawyer, a person on welfare who was too lazy to get a job before the apocalypse, and a physically disabled person. I was given the role of the drug addicted couple. In this hypothetical apocalypse, there was a bunker. Three people could live there for many years with the resources, or everyone could live there for two years.
My group decided to vote for three people to live in the bunker. We all gave reasons for why they should live, except for myself and the priest. The three we decided on were the scientist, the army marshall, and the mother. This decision was made by a vote. I think that
we decided a vote would be easiest rather than just one or two people deciding. After the three people were chosen, we thought of a way to make the other six people useful somehow. I suggested that the couple (myself) could go out and scavenge for any usable resources outside of the bunker. The priest volunteered to go too. We all then decided that the lawyer and welfare person could also help scavenge. We thought the drug addicts and person on welfare would be good at being resourceful because they don’t have much in their lives.
Nobody was a leader, because everyone wanted a say in what would happen to themselves and everyone else as well. It was a democracy of sorts. Personally, I put myself into the shoes of the role I was given, and tried to imagine what kind of life I live(d). I said that I would be useful when it comes to using the materials in the bunker, but I would also cause problems in the group because I would go through withdrawls and get sick easily.
These hypothetical exercises are good for fixing your perspective on the world and even yourself. They can show you what is most important in life, and that in the end we are all just human beings. That it’s important to help other people and make the most out of things so you can appreciate them later in life when we have less. Like I had said earlier, placing value to people quickly, based on their appearances, and without getting to know them first. It is a very dangerous habit. We assign unnecessary roles to people; it’s getting to be human nature. Someone looks a certain way, we assume their personality based on it.
In conclusion, labels are an unnecessary part of everyday life that should be stopped. Nobody truly benefits from them if you think about it. They close your mind to the idea that someone may not be who you think. You could think somebody is this awful person who is full of themselves, but be completely wrong. Basically, just don’t judge a book by its cover.
In class we did a hypothetical exercise based on the apocalypse. Each person had a specific role they were given; a scientist, a priest, a drug addicted couple, a pregnant mother with a five year old daughter, a mentally unstable (yet still useful) army marshall, an elderly person, a lawyer, a person on welfare who was too lazy to get a job before the apocalypse, and a physically disabled person. I was given the role of the drug addicted couple. In this hypothetical apocalypse, there was a bunker. Three people could live there for many years with the resources, or everyone could live there for two years.
My group decided to vote for three people to live in the bunker. We all gave reasons for why they should live, except for myself and the priest. The three we decided on were the scientist, the army marshall, and the mother. This decision was made by a vote. I think that
we decided a vote would be easiest rather than just one or two people deciding. After the three people were chosen, we thought of a way to make the other six people useful somehow. I suggested that the couple (myself) could go out and scavenge for any usable resources outside of the bunker. The priest volunteered to go too. We all then decided that the lawyer and welfare person could also help scavenge. We thought the drug addicts and person on welfare would be good at being resourceful because they don’t have much in their lives.
Nobody was a leader, because everyone wanted a say in what would happen to themselves and everyone else as well. It was a democracy of sorts. Personally, I put myself into the shoes of the role I was given, and tried to imagine what kind of life I live(d). I said that I would be useful when it comes to using the materials in the bunker, but I would also cause problems in the group because I would go through withdrawls and get sick easily.
These hypothetical exercises are good for fixing your perspective on the world and even yourself. They can show you what is most important in life, and that in the end we are all just human beings. That it’s important to help other people and make the most out of things so you can appreciate them later in life when we have less. Like I had said earlier, placing value to people quickly, based on their appearances, and without getting to know them first. It is a very dangerous habit. We assign unnecessary roles to people; it’s getting to be human nature. Someone looks a certain way, we assume their personality based on it.
In conclusion, labels are an unnecessary part of everyday life that should be stopped. Nobody truly benefits from them if you think about it. They close your mind to the idea that someone may not be who you think. You could think somebody is this awful person who is full of themselves, but be completely wrong. Basically, just don’t judge a book by its cover.
Fixing Favouritism
Favouritism is an issue in many schools. Teachers often select a student, or a few students, and then puts them up on a high pedestal, above the other students. These students can and/or will receive extra credit or better marks than what they are truly capable of, while other students are left to their own devices. Often this happens because these students have aspects to the way they respond to the teacher that the teacher admires. Favouritism, although difficult, can be solved.
If teachers were to look at their students the same way they look at them at the beginning of the year, favouritism could potentially be solved. In the beginning of a school year, teachers don’t know their students well. They look at them objectively, as though they are simply people who need to be taught and evaluated. Even though the students are looked at as simply a task, they are still looked at as a person, of which, whom has feelings.
As a student, I have been exposed to favouritism on both ends. A teacher has put me onto that pedestal, while another teacher put a friend of mine on a high pedestal above everyone else; resulting in that student to receive better marks than other people who deserved them. Many students have also been exposed to favouritism and have seen both benefits and downsides to favouritism.
In conclusion, a teacher should not see a student as someone who is ¨better¨ than other students, but simply as a person. Students should be seen as equals. Sure, people can prefer some people compared to others, that’s human nature. But, those preferences should be put aside, and the students should be seen in a more objective manner. While favouritism is an issue, it can be fixed by seeing things from a different perspective.
If teachers were to look at their students the same way they look at them at the beginning of the year, favouritism could potentially be solved. In the beginning of a school year, teachers don’t know their students well. They look at them objectively, as though they are simply people who need to be taught and evaluated. Even though the students are looked at as simply a task, they are still looked at as a person, of which, whom has feelings.
As a student, I have been exposed to favouritism on both ends. A teacher has put me onto that pedestal, while another teacher put a friend of mine on a high pedestal above everyone else; resulting in that student to receive better marks than other people who deserved them. Many students have also been exposed to favouritism and have seen both benefits and downsides to favouritism.
In conclusion, a teacher should not see a student as someone who is ¨better¨ than other students, but simply as a person. Students should be seen as equals. Sure, people can prefer some people compared to others, that’s human nature. But, those preferences should be put aside, and the students should be seen in a more objective manner. While favouritism is an issue, it can be fixed by seeing things from a different perspective.