I have officially dubbed the next three weeks of my life my "Soul Searching weeks". I don't know much about soul searching, and I don't even know what I'm searching for so much, but it's time to find it.
I've never been "soul searching" in the official sense of the word before. I mean, sure, most people probably do something like soul searching at one time or another, but I don't think it's soul searching unless you call it that.
Why these three weeks? Well, it's three weeks off from classes and three weeks away from my new life at the Bend. I'll be travelling a bunch and seeing friends from most major periods of my life (Which, granted, are not that numerous considering I'm only 22) and seeing family.
Once I decided this and started mulling over it, I realized that sometimes when people go "soul searching" they go away... Like on a retreat, where they haul up alone in nature with a journal and some really profound book or something. My next three weeks are going to be pretty busy. So then I was thinking that maybe this past semester was really my soul searching. Can it be soul searching if you didn't know you were doing it at the time, but give it the label afterwards? I doubt it. And in any case, any soul searching this semester has left me with only a bunch of questions. That's why I need to go soul searching now, right?
I'll keep you updated on my soul searching throughout the break... Maybe I'll figure out what I'm searching for at the least (other than a tall dark and handsome, intelligent, older-than-me, eligible bachelor, that is).
Let the search begin!
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
My current research...
I think there's some misconceptions out there about what graduate students do. I don't really know why I think there's misconceptions; I just get the impression that most people think grad students sit around on their butts and read books and drink coffee... I just finished most of my finals and junk today, so I thought I'd let you know what projects I've been working on sociologically speaking. They all involve a whole ton of statistics... woohoo...
My advisor Michael (Emerson) and I are working on a project that looks at the causes of residential segregation (residential segregation being the vast majority of neighborhoods that are all black, or all white, or all Hispanic). A lot of times whites say they don't want to move into a black neighborhood not because of the racial composition, but because black neighborhoods tend to have higher crime or worse schools or something like it. We did a study that pulls apart these non-race factors from race, to see if the racial composition of a neighborhood really does have an effect (even though everyone claims it doesn't). We find that for whites, the higher percent black or Hispanic a neighborhood is, the less likely they are to say they'd buy a house there, regardless of whether schools are great and crime is low and home values are high.
On the flip side, some people say that racial segregation is perpetuated by minorities who want to live together. You know, blacks want to live with blacks, and Hispanics want to live with Hispanics. Our study looks at that, too, and finds that it's simply not true: blacks' and Hispanics' likelihood of buying homes doesn't change based on the racial composition of a neighborhood (unlike whites). Interesting, I think.
I just finished the first draft of a paper yesterday that looks at how the racial composition of a student's high school affects where he or she applies and goes to college. I find that for both black and Hispanic students, the higher the percent minority at their high school, the greater likelihood students will apply (and go) to colleges that are a higher percent minority. I don't know if they are avoiding predominantly white colleges or seeking out predominantly minority colleges, but that's what's going on. And it's controlling for a student's academic achievement and all sorts of other school and individual characteristics. (Sure, this seems like "duh!" but no one has actually shown this phenomenon with data before).
Today I'm working on statistics for a paper Michael is writing with a professor from University of California, Irvine. It looks at health outcomes for foreign born blacks versus American born blacks. (Did you know that America is bad for your health?) In particular, it looks at where these foreign born blacks come from, and it finds that blacks that come from all-black regions (i.e. Africa, the Caribbean) have better health outcomes than blacks from more white regions (i.e. Europe).
A paper I wrote earlier this semester looks at how first, second, and third generation Hispanics' morals and attitudes differ. (The first generation is foreign born Hispanic immigrants, the second generation have foreign born parents but were US born themselves, and third generation means having foreign born grandparents but US born parents). I looked at attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion. The basic finding is that there's no difference between the generations in moral beliefs (i.e. Homosexuality is morally unacceptable, or abortion is morally unacceptable). However, there's a huge difference in attitudes toward policy on these things. The second and third generation are much more likely to support gay rights or legalized abortion, even though they are just as likely to say those things are morally unacceptable.
One other project I'm about to start looks at how feminist attitudes differ by race. Black men tend to be much more conservative than white men in feminist attitudes, whereas black women tend to be much more liberal than white women. We're trying to figure out: why this difference?
Lastly, my big project I'm putting together looks at people we call "Sixth Americans". (we = Michael and I). Most Americans fall into one of the five big racial categories: whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. Not only are most people one race physically, but most people also live in social worlds comprised of people only their race. People tend to live in neighborhoods with people their race, go to church with people of their race, go to school with people of their race, have friends almost entirely of their own race, be married to people of their own race... It's true for all the racial groups: most people just are in a social world that is almost entirely their own race. Unfortunately, tons of research shows that this segregation is what perpetuates racial inequality (for instance, differences by race in income, wealth, health outcomes, educational attainment, etc).
There is a small minority of Americans (we estimate 15% or less) who are different. These people are in diverse social worlds, including living in multiracial neighborhoods, sending their kids to integrated schools, have friends of many races, maybe even have family members of another race. We call these people "Sixth Americans" because they are living outside the social boundaries of the five big racial groups; even though they come from one race, their social lives are not contained by racial boundaries. If segregation perpetuates inequality, then perhaps Sixth Americans could hold a clue to dismantling inequality. For the beginning, I'm working on stuff that looks at how people become comfortable in multiracial worlds, why they prefer multiracial to uniracial worlds, how they differ from people in uniracial worlds, etc. This is going to be my master's thesis, most likely.
Well, I guess it's obvious that I'm up to my ears in research on race! I love it, and find it really interesting. My next entry I'll explain what "I'm working on research..." actually entails day to day.
My advisor Michael (Emerson) and I are working on a project that looks at the causes of residential segregation (residential segregation being the vast majority of neighborhoods that are all black, or all white, or all Hispanic). A lot of times whites say they don't want to move into a black neighborhood not because of the racial composition, but because black neighborhoods tend to have higher crime or worse schools or something like it. We did a study that pulls apart these non-race factors from race, to see if the racial composition of a neighborhood really does have an effect (even though everyone claims it doesn't). We find that for whites, the higher percent black or Hispanic a neighborhood is, the less likely they are to say they'd buy a house there, regardless of whether schools are great and crime is low and home values are high.
On the flip side, some people say that racial segregation is perpetuated by minorities who want to live together. You know, blacks want to live with blacks, and Hispanics want to live with Hispanics. Our study looks at that, too, and finds that it's simply not true: blacks' and Hispanics' likelihood of buying homes doesn't change based on the racial composition of a neighborhood (unlike whites). Interesting, I think.
I just finished the first draft of a paper yesterday that looks at how the racial composition of a student's high school affects where he or she applies and goes to college. I find that for both black and Hispanic students, the higher the percent minority at their high school, the greater likelihood students will apply (and go) to colleges that are a higher percent minority. I don't know if they are avoiding predominantly white colleges or seeking out predominantly minority colleges, but that's what's going on. And it's controlling for a student's academic achievement and all sorts of other school and individual characteristics. (Sure, this seems like "duh!" but no one has actually shown this phenomenon with data before).
Today I'm working on statistics for a paper Michael is writing with a professor from University of California, Irvine. It looks at health outcomes for foreign born blacks versus American born blacks. (Did you know that America is bad for your health?) In particular, it looks at where these foreign born blacks come from, and it finds that blacks that come from all-black regions (i.e. Africa, the Caribbean) have better health outcomes than blacks from more white regions (i.e. Europe).
A paper I wrote earlier this semester looks at how first, second, and third generation Hispanics' morals and attitudes differ. (The first generation is foreign born Hispanic immigrants, the second generation have foreign born parents but were US born themselves, and third generation means having foreign born grandparents but US born parents). I looked at attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion. The basic finding is that there's no difference between the generations in moral beliefs (i.e. Homosexuality is morally unacceptable, or abortion is morally unacceptable). However, there's a huge difference in attitudes toward policy on these things. The second and third generation are much more likely to support gay rights or legalized abortion, even though they are just as likely to say those things are morally unacceptable.
One other project I'm about to start looks at how feminist attitudes differ by race. Black men tend to be much more conservative than white men in feminist attitudes, whereas black women tend to be much more liberal than white women. We're trying to figure out: why this difference?
Lastly, my big project I'm putting together looks at people we call "Sixth Americans". (we = Michael and I). Most Americans fall into one of the five big racial categories: whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. Not only are most people one race physically, but most people also live in social worlds comprised of people only their race. People tend to live in neighborhoods with people their race, go to church with people of their race, go to school with people of their race, have friends almost entirely of their own race, be married to people of their own race... It's true for all the racial groups: most people just are in a social world that is almost entirely their own race. Unfortunately, tons of research shows that this segregation is what perpetuates racial inequality (for instance, differences by race in income, wealth, health outcomes, educational attainment, etc).
There is a small minority of Americans (we estimate 15% or less) who are different. These people are in diverse social worlds, including living in multiracial neighborhoods, sending their kids to integrated schools, have friends of many races, maybe even have family members of another race. We call these people "Sixth Americans" because they are living outside the social boundaries of the five big racial groups; even though they come from one race, their social lives are not contained by racial boundaries. If segregation perpetuates inequality, then perhaps Sixth Americans could hold a clue to dismantling inequality. For the beginning, I'm working on stuff that looks at how people become comfortable in multiracial worlds, why they prefer multiracial to uniracial worlds, how they differ from people in uniracial worlds, etc. This is going to be my master's thesis, most likely.
Well, I guess it's obvious that I'm up to my ears in research on race! I love it, and find it really interesting. My next entry I'll explain what "I'm working on research..." actually entails day to day.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
My people WERE meant for this?
In July I wrote an entry about how white people just weren't meant to live at lattitudes like those of Texas. (See My people weren't meant for this). Well, now comes the hard truth: it's winter here, and if my people weren't meant for the scorching sun, it means we were meant for this. This = sub-freezing weather, snow, blistery wind...
If the snow just fell down from the sky, that would be fine. But snow in the Bend has a mind of its own. It likes to fly horizontal. Yes. Horizontal. It's windy like a bugger here, so instead of snow falling down on you, it flies right at you. That wouldn't matter, but when the flakes are big and a little ice-like, it feels like you're getting little paper cuts all over your face.
Next to where our printers are there are some big windows, at by these windows the snow flies straight up. It's in a corner of the building and somehow the air currents create a vaccuum updraft there, and so the snow constantly flies straight up. If I stood out there, instead of getting snow down my scarf, I would get snow up my nose. Interesting thought.
For some reason I think snow would be so much more tolerable if there were mountains. Then it's all majestic, and maybe the majesticness could help me overlook the wet jeans/ice on car/slippery walk to school/windburned cheeks aspects of the snow. Then again, I probably just think snow would be cooler in the mountains because I love the mountains, so anything there is better by association.
If one more person says to me, "But you grew up in Philadelphia! You should be used to the cold!" I might slap them. That's like saying, "But you grew up sleeping on a bed of nails! So what if now you are used to sleeping on a mattress? You should be used to sleeping on nails!" Come on, I obviously headed out ASAP to warmer climates. Life in flip flops for 10 months of the year ain't bad!
Sadly, the fact is that my people (aka the whites of the world) were designed for this weather exactly, right? The origins of us light skinned ones are north, north, and norther. I am a disgrace to my fair skinned ancestors. Then again, I'm probably a disgrace to my fair skinned contemporaries as well considering I 1-would prefer to see whites out of domination in the American government, 2-like to dance (to music other than techno), 3-don't aspire to live in Vanilla-ville, and 4-prefer pretty much any kind of Asian/Middle Eastern/Latin American food to any American or European food (The only African food I've tried is Ethiopian and Moroccan, but safe to say I be I would prefer it as well). Apparently all I've got going for my white-ness is my love of country music... and of course, my ability to tolerate snow IF there are majestic mountains around.
If the snow just fell down from the sky, that would be fine. But snow in the Bend has a mind of its own. It likes to fly horizontal. Yes. Horizontal. It's windy like a bugger here, so instead of snow falling down on you, it flies right at you. That wouldn't matter, but when the flakes are big and a little ice-like, it feels like you're getting little paper cuts all over your face.
Next to where our printers are there are some big windows, at by these windows the snow flies straight up. It's in a corner of the building and somehow the air currents create a vaccuum updraft there, and so the snow constantly flies straight up. If I stood out there, instead of getting snow down my scarf, I would get snow up my nose. Interesting thought.
For some reason I think snow would be so much more tolerable if there were mountains. Then it's all majestic, and maybe the majesticness could help me overlook the wet jeans/ice on car/slippery walk to school/windburned cheeks aspects of the snow. Then again, I probably just think snow would be cooler in the mountains because I love the mountains, so anything there is better by association.
If one more person says to me, "But you grew up in Philadelphia! You should be used to the cold!" I might slap them. That's like saying, "But you grew up sleeping on a bed of nails! So what if now you are used to sleeping on a mattress? You should be used to sleeping on nails!" Come on, I obviously headed out ASAP to warmer climates. Life in flip flops for 10 months of the year ain't bad!
Sadly, the fact is that my people (aka the whites of the world) were designed for this weather exactly, right? The origins of us light skinned ones are north, north, and norther. I am a disgrace to my fair skinned ancestors. Then again, I'm probably a disgrace to my fair skinned contemporaries as well considering I 1-would prefer to see whites out of domination in the American government, 2-like to dance (to music other than techno), 3-don't aspire to live in Vanilla-ville, and 4-prefer pretty much any kind of Asian/Middle Eastern/Latin American food to any American or European food (The only African food I've tried is Ethiopian and Moroccan, but safe to say I be I would prefer it as well). Apparently all I've got going for my white-ness is my love of country music... and of course, my ability to tolerate snow IF there are majestic mountains around.
Grad school finals week
Well, I was going to blog yesterday, but I didn't. Thank goodness, too, since I was in the last 24 hours of writing one of my final papers. It was due at noon today. Yesterday I went to my professor's office around 2 to ask him some questions about my data. (Data that I had to run tons of analyses on, mind you. Like 100 steps worth... and I was on about #7 when I went to him).
"So, remind me when this paper is due, Valerie?"
"About noon tomorrow"
"That's what I thought, just checking."
=)
So people wonder what being a graduate student is like.
"So, remind me when this paper is due, Valerie?"
"About noon tomorrow"
"That's what I thought, just checking."
=)
So people wonder what being a graduate student is like.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Blog-vent on blogging
I am facing a crisis in my blog life. What to blog on? My basic dilemma is that of audience. Every writer has to know who he's writing to, and that's my problem.
First, what do people want to know? I could blog about my life and friends here, since everyone who reads this (other than one person) is not at Notre Dame and knows very little of my life here. But do you care? And would that be interesting? I always aspired to having a blog that actually said something, not just was a narrative. So the question of audience here, is what does the far-away nature of my audience mean for my blog?
Second, there's the problem of the diversity of the audience and what I can write on. I've decided too many people read my blog. I don't talk about just Rice stuff, because not everyone reading is a Rice kid, and that would bore you all. I don't talk about my family, because my sister reads my blog. I dont talk about deep faith stuff like Dallas and David, because not all my blog readers are Christian so that would probably bore them. Or, conversely, I don't talk about deep faith stuff because some of my blog readers are Christian, and sometimes I prefer not talking with them about it. Thankfully only Steve from here at the Dame reads my blog, so I can vent about stupid things that set me off here, like militant Republicans and annoyingly oblivious classmates and just generally people who have never met a non-white person in their entire lives (and I know Steve won't mind, you're the coolest, Steve). But I can't shake the feeling that a blog is a one-sided conversation with everyone I know...
Third, the problem is that you all know me. Why is this a problem, you ask? Well, it's a lot easier writing to a nebulous audience than an actual audience who knows you. You can't lie, you can't make up wild pasts for yourself, you can't make yourself sound cool (because everyone reading knows the truth: you aren't). Of course, on the upside it's a lot more fun to write to an audience that knows you, and sometimes it's a lot easier because you can leave out a lot of explanations and people still understand.
Lastly, a non-audience related problem, and that is topics for blogging. There is only one time when blog topics come easily: when life is somewhat, but not very, busy. When life is very slow, it seems there is nothing to write about. When life is really busy, there are first too many possible topics to blog on, and second, no time to blog on any of them! My life has been too busy and changing in the past few months to keep up with the five thousand topics I want to blog on. I was looking through my entries the other day and there has been a marked decline in quality of writing, quality of topics, quality of blog in general in the past few months. That's saddening to me, pretty much just because I'm vain and self-centered and want my blog to be cool. That and I want to keep my loyal readers interested.
All this, and I still love my blog. I don't know if I would love it if no one read it or commented. What does that say? I don't really care, because you all are still reading it, so I don't have to think about that yet. But from one blogger to another, I'm sure you've all faced these problems. Glad to have had my first blog-vent on blogging. It makes me feel very blog-vain, but whatever.
First, what do people want to know? I could blog about my life and friends here, since everyone who reads this (other than one person) is not at Notre Dame and knows very little of my life here. But do you care? And would that be interesting? I always aspired to having a blog that actually said something, not just was a narrative. So the question of audience here, is what does the far-away nature of my audience mean for my blog?
Second, there's the problem of the diversity of the audience and what I can write on. I've decided too many people read my blog. I don't talk about just Rice stuff, because not everyone reading is a Rice kid, and that would bore you all. I don't talk about my family, because my sister reads my blog. I dont talk about deep faith stuff like Dallas and David, because not all my blog readers are Christian so that would probably bore them. Or, conversely, I don't talk about deep faith stuff because some of my blog readers are Christian, and sometimes I prefer not talking with them about it. Thankfully only Steve from here at the Dame reads my blog, so I can vent about stupid things that set me off here, like militant Republicans and annoyingly oblivious classmates and just generally people who have never met a non-white person in their entire lives (and I know Steve won't mind, you're the coolest, Steve). But I can't shake the feeling that a blog is a one-sided conversation with everyone I know...
Third, the problem is that you all know me. Why is this a problem, you ask? Well, it's a lot easier writing to a nebulous audience than an actual audience who knows you. You can't lie, you can't make up wild pasts for yourself, you can't make yourself sound cool (because everyone reading knows the truth: you aren't). Of course, on the upside it's a lot more fun to write to an audience that knows you, and sometimes it's a lot easier because you can leave out a lot of explanations and people still understand.
Lastly, a non-audience related problem, and that is topics for blogging. There is only one time when blog topics come easily: when life is somewhat, but not very, busy. When life is very slow, it seems there is nothing to write about. When life is really busy, there are first too many possible topics to blog on, and second, no time to blog on any of them! My life has been too busy and changing in the past few months to keep up with the five thousand topics I want to blog on. I was looking through my entries the other day and there has been a marked decline in quality of writing, quality of topics, quality of blog in general in the past few months. That's saddening to me, pretty much just because I'm vain and self-centered and want my blog to be cool. That and I want to keep my loyal readers interested.
All this, and I still love my blog. I don't know if I would love it if no one read it or commented. What does that say? I don't really care, because you all are still reading it, so I don't have to think about that yet. But from one blogger to another, I'm sure you've all faced these problems. Glad to have had my first blog-vent on blogging. It makes me feel very blog-vain, but whatever.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Where do moods come from?
In my analyses of human interaction (AKA my own life and relationships), I have noticed that a good deal of conflict and trouble comes from people's moods. So sure, everyone is in a good mood sometimes and a bad mood other times. But then there are moody people. These are people who go back and forth between moods pretty often. A lot of times when someone is called "moody" it means their bad moods are particularly bad compared to their good moods. No one has called me moody lately, and I don't think people here even think I'm moody. But I'm frustrated with my own moodiness as of late.
I know I am sometimes moody, and I don't like it. I like consistency, and my moods are far from consistent. I feel bad for my friends when I get easily annoyed or pissed off because I'm in a bad mood. It's not fair to them, and I'm always afraid someday one of my bad moods will actually drive a friend away.
Plenty of my friends and people I know are moody also. Usually it seems people are wary of moody people; no one wants to say the wrong thing to a moody person when they are in a bad mood. Girls are often accused of being more moody than guys. My own experience says that's not necessarily the case, as I know PLENTY of moody guys.
So my question is... what makes people moody? And where do moods come from? Some people say that biology can affect your moods: obviously some people are crankier when they are tired or get moody when PMSing. So maybe that's part of it. Some people say you choose how you feel. When something bad happens, you can choose to be pissed off or mopey or to learn from it and move on. I somewhat agree with that. I think you do eventually make a choice of dwelling on something or moving on, but I don't think we choose our feelings most of the time.
It seems like usually when people talk about "moodiness" they are implying that it's a moody person's own fault that they are moody, that they could do something to change it. Here I see there are two sides to the moodiness coin: your emotions, and your outward expression of your emotions. Maybe we don't choose our emotions, but we choose how and how much we express them. Everyone seems to imply moody people need to learn to control and express their emotions better. There is probably some truth to that, but I have a problem with it too: it's not good to bottle up your emotions. Are we not telling moody people to be less honest when we tell them to express less? Or to bottle things up more? Ug.
So, my fundamental question: Why are some people moodier than other people? And is this choice (and so changeable) or not? So, therefore, can I somehow become less moody?
(This is NOT a rhetorical question, folks. I expect some thoughts from you all! =)
I know I am sometimes moody, and I don't like it. I like consistency, and my moods are far from consistent. I feel bad for my friends when I get easily annoyed or pissed off because I'm in a bad mood. It's not fair to them, and I'm always afraid someday one of my bad moods will actually drive a friend away.
Plenty of my friends and people I know are moody also. Usually it seems people are wary of moody people; no one wants to say the wrong thing to a moody person when they are in a bad mood. Girls are often accused of being more moody than guys. My own experience says that's not necessarily the case, as I know PLENTY of moody guys.
So my question is... what makes people moody? And where do moods come from? Some people say that biology can affect your moods: obviously some people are crankier when they are tired or get moody when PMSing. So maybe that's part of it. Some people say you choose how you feel. When something bad happens, you can choose to be pissed off or mopey or to learn from it and move on. I somewhat agree with that. I think you do eventually make a choice of dwelling on something or moving on, but I don't think we choose our feelings most of the time.
It seems like usually when people talk about "moodiness" they are implying that it's a moody person's own fault that they are moody, that they could do something to change it. Here I see there are two sides to the moodiness coin: your emotions, and your outward expression of your emotions. Maybe we don't choose our emotions, but we choose how and how much we express them. Everyone seems to imply moody people need to learn to control and express their emotions better. There is probably some truth to that, but I have a problem with it too: it's not good to bottle up your emotions. Are we not telling moody people to be less honest when we tell them to express less? Or to bottle things up more? Ug.
So, my fundamental question: Why are some people moodier than other people? And is this choice (and so changeable) or not? So, therefore, can I somehow become less moody?
(This is NOT a rhetorical question, folks. I expect some thoughts from you all! =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)