Individualism V.S. Collectivism in Classrooms

Culture permeates every aspect of our lives, from our everyday interactions with people to how we function at work or school. One of the most interesting things to note about culture is that it becomes a part of our personality, no matter where we are. It affects how we behave.


Western classroom
For example, let’s say you step into an American classroom. As the USA is an individualistic culture, where a strong sense of ‘I’ or ‘Me’ is cultivated, students will be produced that aim to pursue personal goals and to be self-reliant and competitive. They will view learning as a process of grasping new knowledge to facilitate their interactions with new people and environments next time. Should a teacher pose a question, they will participate readily, leading to a dynamic classroom environment. Even if the teacher is wrong in a particular question that he/she is solving, students will have no problems pointing out his/her mistakes – the teacher then would readily apologize.


Asian classroom
Now how rare is it to find that kind of behavior in Asian collectivist societies like Singapore or China? It’s much more common to observe a quiet, unresponsive classroom where drones of students listen passively to a single lecturer carrying on and on with his never-ending speech. Like in COMM 101 class, when Ms. Kam asks for volunteers to air their views, it’s so difficult to find willing participants who are not afraid to say their opinions. This is because most of us would either be afraid to lose face, or even to let the lecturer lose face by ‘upstaging’ him or her. Our classroom environment is hence quite static and boring. The whole point of learning in a collectivist culture is to learn how to acquire the customs and norms of that society in order function better as an in-group member. Hence students in collectivist cultures tend to automatically conform to the classroom. The general thinking is that since nobody wants to say anything, then I won’t say anything either! This whole attitude is in complete contrast to the Western individualistic culture.

Even the teachers are affected by culture. You’ll never find an Asian teacher singling out an individual student in a collectivist environment. This means that interaction between the student and teacher would be less likely, allowing the whole student body to be viewed as one entity. Yet, this would suit the Asian student just fine, as many of us would not want to stick out from the group anyways by having to talk to the teacher on a one-to-one basis in front of the whole class.

In the end, since we have all been brought up in different ways, we’d be comfortable with our own culture. If an Asian student were to be placed in a Western environment where he/she suddenly has to depend on her own sense of self and opinions, she might suffer or be at a loss on what to do. On the other hand, the Western student might feel frustrated having to survive in a restrictive, conformist Asian classroom. Is it ever possible to change our preferences? Do you think the Asian student or Western student would ever like it better in their foreign classroom environments, given they had time to adjust? Perhaps it would be that only the Asian student would enjoy her new environment better over time. Once you are ‘liberated’, it is hard to fall back into the other end of the spectrum, where strict rules and codes of conduct govern you.

Are we controlled by tv shows?

The predominantly white cast of How I Met Your Mother, the tv series.
How many of you are aware of how you will be affected by the tv shows that you watch? Take for example popular American shows playing right now like Desperate Housewives, How I Met Your Mother, Gossip Girls, Heroes. Consciously, you will know that you are being entertained by the show’s materials (one of the media’s functions). However, subconsciously, are you aware of the messages of the show that are being drilled into your head, taking a hold of your brain and influencing the very core of who you are? One of the most deceptive forms of racism takes place in the television set. Out of the tv shows that I just mentioned, how many provide a balanced view of the world’s racial demographic? NONE! They are all portrayed as a predominantly white population. Other ethnic groups are subjugated to second class positions and are placed in menial jobs (e.g. John, the sexy Latino gardener having an affair with Gabrielle in Desperate Housewives). The presence of Native Americans are practically non-existant, Asians are stereotyped (Hiro in Heroes, who is played by an actor who speaks perfect English in real life but has to dumb it down to a pidgin Japanese accent during the show), and women are sexualized and placed in sexist positions (Desperate Housewives where all the leading females are extremely feminine and yes, housewives).
The super sexualised Desperate Housewives!
What kind of a message is this sending out? Although you might not be affected by it first, a couple of years later after watching such shows regularly, these televised ideas about the world will no doubt affect the way you think. It may not obvious, but I believe some change would have occurred. This proves the power of the Cultivation Theory, which is that you will inevitably succumb to the media’s chosen dominant ideology. Influenced people will start to believe that your sex and race will determine your status in the world. Such a mean world hypothesis will be formed, as groups of people believe in this skewed reality. Mainstreaming will hence occur too, as people share similar viewpoints after being affected by the shows. American primetime drama shows are relatively consistent in the corruptness and twistedness of the values that they choose to portray in their tv series (free sex, lying, cheating, deceptiveness, insecurity, etc). It makes it all the sadder that these values are even accepted by people in the first place, justified as merely a source of entertainment. Kind of says something about the state of humanity in the first place, don't you think.

Most of us are victims of the powerful effects theory. We are passive, watching tv shows for the fun of it, and hence taking in whatever information they dictate to us. As a result, we absorb their messages. Unless we deliberately choose what shows we want to watch and are aware of any imbedded hidden messages or agendas to resist, we will never be able to subscribe to the limited effects theory.

Which theory do you think you follow? Do you watch such shows knowing full well that they are destructive to your world view or morally corrupt? Can you ever believe that even if you choose to continue watching it, you won’t be influenced in the end?

Online Dating Version 2.0

Online dating is the phoenomena of the 21'st century. Who would ever have thought it possible to find a mate for life through the internet, initiating a relationship and forming bonds of love all without meeting the other partner? A Straits Times article entitled "Online Dating version 2.0" was published this Monday, heralding the introduction of enhanced online dating services. Now, you can find your true love all while sitting down and typing! It's fuss free (browse through hundreds of profiles at a blink of an eye!), simple (double-click to open a conversation window and flirt using realtime games and virtual rooms!), and best of all, you can terminate the relationship/contact immediately (close the online conversation window with your prospective partner if you don't like him!) - all while remaining perfectly anonymous because YOU control what you want to put on your profile or reveal about yourself. With instant connections or rejections and wide flexibility and options on how to date, love has become readily simplified for the immediate-gratification generation of today.

Actually, I felt sad while reading this article. 'What has the world come to?' I asked myself. With online dating, there is a complete disregard for the rules of human interaction. Love has become more impersonal because it is so readily 'available' now. Besides, I believe that you can't truly know a person if you don't meet them face-to-face. You can't pick up on non-verbal cues (), quirks, and mannerisms that the person possesses. You don't know how his perceptual set works and how he will immediately respond to situations, revealing his true personality. There are many things that can only be discovered through careful observation and time.

Deception can easily materialise in online relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a person is lying or not, because one can't pick up on the tell-tale signs of lying, all of which depend on non-verbal cues. For example, if the person blinks rapidly and can't look at you in the eye (oculesics), or if he displays adaptors like chewing his lip (kinesics), or if his speech seems tremelous and stuttery (paralanguage). It is also so easy to cut off all contact and avoid him/her should conflict arise because you can simply stay away from the computer. Hence relational dissolution often occurs with online relationships - it's difficult to establish trust and a sense of closeness in a relationship (haptics) if you can't physically thrive on a person's physical proximity (proxemics), have no way of knowing the truth, and are able to end the relationship immediately anyways.

Relational needs and dialectics are hard to be determined since a great degree of autonomy is possible from online relationships - majority of people's time is spent away from the comp ( the dilemma of autonomy v.s. connection). Also, since it is hard to establish a sense of intimacy through online relationships, the dilemma of intimacy v.s. distance is tricky to balance too - one might need much more effort to get the amount of intimacy they desire. I suppose the dilemma of openness v.s. closeness can be resolved because people can disclose as much or as little as they want - but the lack of combined intimacy might diminish the novelty of such confessions. Lastly, the dilemma of novelty v.s. predictability exists because internet conversations can become routine and very boring since there are limited ways to interact online.

WHAT AM I SAYING?? Well, basically, I abhor internet relationships and find them very messy and complicated to pursue. I believe that old is gold, and that some things should just be done the old fashioned way, human relationships included. Let's all stick to the basis of human interaction, and communicate face-to-face okay? It's the least cowardly and most direct form of communication.

The Curse of the Cliques. xO (OH NOES!)

Most of us will normally form cliques wherever we go. I remember in my secondary school, especially because it was a girls’ school (AH YES. The joys of catty single-sex environments!), numerous tight and exclusive cliques were formed. In particular one such group struck me; the so called ‘popular’ gang, or at least they tried dearly to give off that impression to our fellow secondary classmates. Their group was a conglomeration of the most prominent, attractive, and outstanding personalities in school. Everyone knew about them because they were so involved in organizing and regulating school activities. But… I felt sad for them whenever they walked past me because I felt they were so dearly absorbed and lost in their groupthink.

These people were so insecure that they threw themselves into their group, trying to please everyone and especially the ‘queen bee’ so as to secure their place within the school’s vast social empire. On the outside, there was an illusion of unamity, whereby the group seemed to be in totally synergy, laughing and joking all the time everywhere they went. They collectively took part in activities, with the queen bee normally leading. Some of the things they did weren’t kind, but they did them anyways to avoid being castracised by the other group members (pressure on dissenters). For example, they would make fun of this girl who was socially awkward. I knew that not all of them were at ease with such meanness (you could see it in their faces), but they seemed to collectively rationalize their actions so as to suppress their guilt. They probably molded their minds to think that what they were doing was perfectly right. I remember one of them exclaiming, “It’s no big deal!” when someone chastised her for her mean comments – she seemed as if she really meant what she was saying. The rest of the group would chime in and support their groupmate – all of them seemed to lose sight of their personal moral principles to support the group view. In that way, they believed in their group’s own morality. When they discussed what to do after class, they indulged in shared stereotypes about issues, for instance exclaiming that they should all go to Ministry of Sound or St. James (clubs) and party the night away, biasedly ignoring the fact that they were underage because they all owned fake I.D.s. They obviously had the shared perception that clubbing was a cool thing to do.

I had a close friend who knew some of the group members personally, and she reported that they really were not as happy as they seemed. The group pressure was great, and they realized quickly that they needed to conform in order to acquire idiosyncrasy credit (or brownie points) and gain full membership within the crowd. The more they self-censored themselves to aid in their gradual assimilation, the deeper they fell into the groupthink syndrome. Their need for total acceptance and unanimity altered their logical minds. One of them related to my close friend about how deeply unhappy she was, yet she stuck in this twisted relationship network because she wanted the popularity benefits that came with it. To her, the rewards were worth her suffering. Or maybe she was too cowardly to do otherwise and break out of her situation. In either case, she had evaluated the relationship (costs v.s. benefits) and decided her fate.

It is clear by now that this group’s dialectics was dysfunctional. Their web was one of delusion, deceit and desperation. It is not worth killing a part of yourself to achieve some goal that makes you unhappy in the process. Do yourself a favor, and ensure your relationships are functional and fruitful. To be able to establish a close-knit group of friends, with whom you can feel in sync and comfortable with, is truly a rewarding and great experience. Aim for it. Or clap with me if you are blessed enough to already have one. (:

Ridiculed Singlish Advertisement

One of the most obvious displays of biased perception at work is the reaction to the following AllsWell drink advertisement that has been showing in cinemas and television channels all across Singapore recently.



Today, there was a newspaper article in the Straits Times Lifestyle section (labelled Singlish ad gets laughs, pg6), whereby a dissection of viewer's responses to the ad was discussed. The most immediate negative reaction was one of disgust, stemming from the thick and exaggerated singlish accents and cheesy dialogue that the actors used. Several watchers said vehemently that it was "one of the worst commercials I had ever seen" and that "It oozes so much emo (emotional content) that it makes my hair stand.”

It is odd how Singaporeans are lambasting the very culture that they practise. This ad was set in a typical everyday place in Singapore with typical everyday dialogue between couples. The conversation may be inane but most of our casual conversations are. So what's with everybody trying to be all so high-strung and 'critical' when the ad so closely reflects (and celebrates) the common Singaporean? These people’s cognitive schematas must have already been hardwired to be sensitive towards an exaggerated portrayal of Singapore culture. I think it’s because we are so sensitive to how Singlish can be portrayed in a negative light (especially because of the government’s efforts in having us speak proper English – Thanks PAP!) that we would rather not be exposed to it in avenues that we normally wouldn’t engage with. It’s fine if we’re actually shooting our singlish mouths off among our group of friends, but somehow it’s not when it’s shown on the TV and broadcasted for the whole of the island to see. This could be an example of self-serving bias, where we indeed would judge ourselves more leniently than if we were to see the exactly same thing in another channel. Maybe it is also just part of our script to instantaneously criticize everything – a typical Singaporean mindset. Perhaps we are only lashing out at this advertisement because something in it struck a raw nerve – our mundane normality and broken language is not exactly something to be exulted.

How we have interpreted this situation has been based on our cultural differences and the social context we have been living with. According to our experiences with this subject and the general opinion, so we have chosen to interpret and attribute negative connotations to this advertisement according to our shaped perceptual set.

This ad is uniquely Singaporean, one might add. Only in this context could it have ever been understood in its totality. The presence of the foodcourt, drink-seller selling teh peng (iced tea) and girl shouting “Uncle, no need.” (Imagine if an American were to see this. He’d go, ‘HUH? That drink-seller is your Uncle??? How odd.” Because he would take the meaning literally.) helped to provide a relatable context so that we could understand it. Unfortunately, who would have thought so much negative discussion would be generated? Then again, one might throw forth the argument that for advertising, any publicity is good publicity.

How did you perceive the ad, and what do you think about the hypocrite in all of us? Do give your views. Cheers.

Wall-E - The simplest things are the best.

Wall-E is a modern and charming cartoon that harkens back to the original cartoon shows of yore, where all you would hear was music and all you saw was silent animation. Wall-E depends on very little dialogue to make its point, resorting to an abundance of non-verbal communication instead. Through the numerous robots’ change in body language and facial expressions, one is able to ascertain perfectly well the entire plot of the movie. Indeed, this cartoon makes words look redundant.

Its plot is that Wall-E, the main robot character who has lived alone on Earth for 700 years after humans had abandoned it (due to extreme pollution making the Earth unlivable), finally finds company when Eve, another robot sent from a human spacecraft (where the humans have since been living) enters Earth in search of living life. He falls in love with Eve, and chases her across the galaxies to try and have his love reciprocated. Its a simple story, but one that is made genuine and sweet by the sincerity and innocence of Wall-E and Eve’s actions. Watch the following clip to get an idea of the character and emotions portrayed by Wall-E throughout the movie. Wall-E is the brown cube-shaped robot and Eve is the shiny white Ipod-looking robot on the moving platform.

You notice that he squeals plaintively and reaches out to Eve when she is transported away from him, he flails in confusion and apprehension when the robot picks him up and his head position and eyes constantly shift to try and absorb his new surroundings, but he doesn't say anything to directly express how he is feeling. He communicates mostly through his body language, facial expressions, and the tone and pitch of his voice and vocalics. These factors are the most important because it helps form the basis of what he is trying to tell us. The words that he does speak (“Oh, Eve!”), while complementing his actions, is largely insignificant because I bet you’d still be able to understand him perfectly well if he didn’t say any words. This demonstrates that non-verbal communication is more important than verbal communication, provided that the non-verbal communication is obvious. Disney, catering to kids, of course would have made it apparent enough for everyone to understand.

Speaking of which, since interpreting body language is perceptive and subjective, Disney would have again thought of universal actions to signify the emotions that it would have wanted Wall-E to portray. This way everybody would be able to understand perfectly well what was going on without any confusion or differing in the meaning of Wall-E’s actions. To make it even more dumb-proof, Disney hired a great composer to perfectly encapsulate Wall-E’s emotions through music. Music is universally affecting and understandable, helping to set the mood for the different scenes in the movie. From the tune alone you would have already formed an impression of what would happen next.

Wall-E goes to the root of interaction, letting us absorb its message through a simple but effective form of communication, allowing us to form instant reactions to its appealing visual animations and song. It’s a great movie that made me feel like a kid again. And God knows it’s been a long time since I was one. What are your thoughts? Spill it out, people.

The Paralympics - Are they the same as us?

What comes to your mind first when I mention the words ‘disabled people’? Do you get a mental image of a second-class group of humans? Do you picture a frail populace who are blind, or with no legs, sitting in wheelchairs? Do you view them as retards; feel sad for them, or slightly uncomfortable? Most people fall somewhere in between these lines. Once they are aware that someone is ‘different’ from them, they’ll have more of a negative reaction rather than a positive one. It’s a fault of their social construct, their shaped perspectives based on society’s restrictive ideas and molds about what is acceptable or ‘normal’. These people will go about their lives living in a bubble, clouded by the Idols of their Cave (their prejudices). This influence is passive, as these people would have absorbed ideas unconsciously just by being around other sources – listening or talking to them. But the fallacy is that this means that you have been influenced only by communication rather than actual experiences with impaired people. How then will you truly draw a fair conclusion about them?

2 days ago on the 6’th of September, there was the opening ceremony for the Paralympics, hosted in Beijing. Top athletes with physical, mental, and sensorial disabilities gathered there to compete in a total of twenty sports including cycling, equestrian, judo, and wheelchair fencing and basketball. Perhaps these are sports whom people might not think that disabled people can accomplish well. But if you watch the following clip, you might be surprised. (Watch until 1:30)

Paralympic Sport TV Trailer 2008

Yes, there’s a woman missing a leg. But look at how she is able to still perform somersaults. And witness the swimmer with no arms and one leg missing, striving determinedly to complete his swim in record time. If anything, their disabilities have showcased how focused and strong these people can be. They push themselves so hard to try and be the best that they can. That’s more than can be said of most people. Everybody deserves recognition, no matter what physical appearance they hold, because we are all the same inside. We are all human beings with feelings and minds.


With this new perspective in your consciousness, have I swayed you just the teensiest bit? If previously you held an impaired view against the disabled, has your mindset been altered after reading this post? Did the video clip and pictures, or my words appeal to you through the use of emotions (pathos) or logic (logos)? Be aware of what you think, and why your feelings and beliefs change as you go through life and are exposed to so many different channels. You should not allow yourself to be influenced so by the popular medium and fall into the Idols of the Theatre (the acceptance of fashionable ideas uncritically). For it is only through self-awareness that enlightenment follows.