Does valuing diversity come easily?

I do not think that valuing diversity comes easily.  People are so used to the familiar that they tend to stay away from being mixed and diverse.  We tend to group off with the same, because if feels comfortable and easier to relate to.  An example would be at school.  Usually, people tend to gravitate towards their own kind, but that doesn't necessarily just race.  People may be attracted to age, language, or sex.  It's very rare to see a group of kids come together (specifically middle or elementary) where kids will socialize and have a group of friends that's mixed with boys and girls, spanish only speakers and english only speakers, who belong to different economic classes.  So, to say that valuing diversity comes easily, it would be a hard sell.  It doesn't just happen in schools, but in the work force as well.  Diversity comes easier in work because we don't really have a choice of who we work with, so it becomes easier to talk to them or form groups.  But, people in the Bay Area usually have a diverse group of friends, so it's not like we live in a totally segregated society, because diversity is actually very common in the most of this area.

A suggestion i would make to enhance a groups ability to value diversity would be to do more team building exercises, that allows people to have to work together.  Instead of focusing on exterior values such as race, sex, or physical build, it requires you to use your inner strengths.  I think people tend to judge people on what they see on the exterior, that they forget that what makes people valuable to a group is what they can bring internally.  I think that when we use team building exercises, we can build stronger bonds and have more trust in people and then maybe we could value diversity a little bit more.

White Men of Privilege

White men of privilege is where society feels that the economic systems and power are in heavy favor of White males.  It is to believe that in America, the privileged upper-middle-class and middle class hold all the economic wealth and power and are viewed to be the "Top Dogs" in our society.  They are usually the people with the high-end jobs, living in the suburban neighborhoods, driving nice cars and living a comfortable lifestyle.  

Having lived in the Bay Area all my life, it is definitely a place of diversity.  I live in Mountain View and I grew up in a pretty urban area, filled with mixed races, and most people living in nice houses and apartments.    It wasn't until high school where i realized that there was a big difference of successful white people to people of color.  I went to Mountain View High School.  I grew up with average people whose parents had average jobs; some blue-collard and some white-collard jobs.  But, when high school came around, kids from Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto also came to our school.  These kids were driving BMW's and Mercedes  to school, living in 2-3 story houses.  These parents worked in Fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft and Oracle and Google.  I did noticed that mostly all these kids were of White-European descent.  I cannot speak for all of the Upper-Middle Class, but most were White or Asian.  You can sprinkle in a few blacks, but honestly no Latinos.  

Do I believe that there is "White men of privilege"?  Honestly, yes.  Through my own experiences, I noticed that these guys definitely held the power in the society and community.  Can I honestly say it is fair?  Yes and no.  I believe it is fair because not of parents I know are second-generation wealth that has been passed down to them.  These guys have worked for their keeps.  On the other hand, there are a lot of opportunities that White men get that some people of color or gender get.  I've seen well qualified people not get a job over a White person.  I agree that there is a Hierarchy of power.  I will really start to believe that this would be a big problem IF the amount of Colored people increase (which it will and has) and there is a small percent of Colored people that would be considered Upper-Class or even Middle-Class. 

Considering the Alternatives

I think sometimes leaders or groups don't evaluate all possible alternatives to every gameplan.  Too often we think that there is one and only one possible solution for all problems.  Sometimes at my job, we are put in certain circumstances that we face as a group.  For example, we didn't know if we should kick out a kid for his actions that he caused at our program.  A participant brought a BB gun to school, and one of our staff members saw it.  After program was over, we had to talk about the repercussions.  Immediately, our thought was kick him out of our program.  That might have been the easiest decision to make, but the punishment may not have fit the crime.  So, we talked about how he was as a student in our program and if this was a new behavior or if this was a continuing behavior.  After coming to the conclusion that he was not a major threat and this was his first offense, we thought of other alternatives for him.  We could have suspended him from our program, we could let this slide and give him a warning, or we could talk to his parent.  After our meeting, we decided that although he was a pretty disruptive kid, this type of behavior was unlike him.  He was just trying to show off to his friends.  But, this was a pretty serious case because there is no tolerance for that in our program, and in the end, instead of kicking him out, he was suspended by us and the school.  It worked out because he really wasn't a nuisance.

internal and external constraints

An external constraint are outside obstacles that get in the way of decision making like time, money or other resources.  An internal constraint is a hurdle that comes from within that may be caused from government regulations, physical location, or just how it was built.  A personal example of an external constraint would be trying to do a fund-raiser for one of my jobs.  Our group had 4 days to come up with the party, such as location, theme, and guest list.  On top of that, we had a small budget.  Our group was stressed out because we felt like it wasn't going to be a successful turnout in profit or in attendance.  Due to our external constraints of time and money, our fund-raiser was not a success.  An example of internal constraint in my life would be from work.  At an after school program, we have to design a program that ensures kids that they get quality homework time, technology/computer time, and recreation time, but also have a result of better grades.  The constraint we had was the construction of the system.  There had to be a balance of all 3, but there were some kids who needed more homework time than others.  It is mandatory that all kids had to attend all 3 sessions of homework, tech, and recreation.  Our goal was not met of kids getting better grades due to our program because of the internal constraint of how the system is set up.  We fought hard to get more homework time, but the people who were funding our program would not allow for that to happen.

Group Norms Question 1

Are there group norms at SJSU?  I think there is one in every class.  I think there is one in every study group formed.  I think there is one in the student lounge.  For example, in class, the norm that we start off with is asking the class if we watched the Giants game the previous night.  We have asked this every single time we start class.  It has become accustomed to do this.  By week 9, if the instructor doesn’t ask us, it would be a violation of that norm.  In the student lounge, I always meet up with 2 of my friends at 12:15 on the dot.  We then order Jamba Juice and discuss how are week is going or what are plans are for the weekend.

With my group of friends that I hang out with, we usually go to a bar every Thursday, just to relax and have some bonding time.  We usually talk about sports or upcoming events.  It is pretty rare that we talk about our actual personal lives.  It is also rare when we don’t order an alcoholic beverage.  When any of us break that norm or ritual that we have, we know something is wrong with that person at that particular moment. We usually call them out on it and ask to spill the beans.  The focus of our group is to mainly have fun and enjoy each others company.

How did I identify these norms?  Well, in the case of my class talking about the Giants game, one of my classmates decided to talk about a different sport in class other than baseball.  Our instructor and classmates didn’t really pay him no attention as our focus went back to baseball.  You could definitely tell that a norm was broken.  Around my group of friends, we are usually well-mannered people.  A friend tried to bring in another friend to join our circle.  He was quite the opposite.  He cursed and caused a lot of trouble in the bars that we went to.  He did not fit our norms and brought our cohesion down.  He definitely violated a peripheral norm.

How I adapted to these norms was quite simple with my friends.  We all shared the same values as people and how we view treating people.  So, being around them, the group chemistry and cohesion was very solid.  With my class, I had to catch up on baseball and know the scores from the previous night so I could add my input.

question 3: synergy and wholeness

An interesting part in this chapter is wholeness and synergy.  From my other blogs, you can tell how much I really love basketball, and this topic has a lot to do with it.  Wholeness is the result of a group working together rather than a group of individuals in the same group working as individuals.  It’s a great team building concept.  No matter where you go in life, whether you play a sport or you join the work force, you will always be a part of a group, even if your job requires you to work in a cubicle.  Let’s take for instance rowing.  4 people are on a boat trying to paddle to win a race.  Without having team chemistry or having togetherness, a team would fail in rowing.  There’s a certain rhythm and cohesiveness that the team must have.  If one person is pulling their weigh, the team knows it effects the team as a whole.  Another example would be at work.  If your boss is asking your department to put together a marketing strategy, the group has to work as a team in order to fulfill the task.  But, if one person tries to do everything, that person might cause some members of the group to feel left out.  Or, some people might take it as stepping on each others toes.  Eventually, the synergy of the team will be lowered because not everyone would feel important to the group, causing team chemistry to be lowered and people to be unhappy.  I’ve been on a basketball team where the bench players never got a lot of playing time.  But, the flip side to that was we were winning.  The moment a player voiced out his frustration of playing time to the other players and coaches, the vibe of the team had lowered.  Others felt bad, teammates started to not get along, and pretty soon practices weren’t as intense because the other players who didn’t play much wouldn’t push the starters to get better.  Eventually, what started as a great season, ended up being something mediocre.  

Question 2: Entropy and Equifinity

According to the book it says that the systems tend toward entropy, “disorganization, stagnation, and chaos.” (31)  Groups develop disorganization, stagnation, and chaos when a group is under stimulated or over stimulated.  When a group is under stimulated, it means that the group is lacking new and fresh ideas.  Without new ideas to bounce off one another in the group, the group feels mundane and creates that stagnant feeling.  When a group is over stimulated, it may steer the group away from its intended purpose.

Equifinality basically means that there are several different paths to get to your destination.  This allows flexibility and versatility in a group, making it more open to achieve goals for the group.  An example of Equifinality could come from basketball.  You don’t play basketball with all guards, instead you have a balance of guards and height.  Some are taller than others, some are shorter, some are faster, and some are slower.  But, as a team they have different qualities and strengths to achieve their goal of winning.  Some are good at dribbling, some are good at shooting, some may be good at rebounding, and another might be good a setting screens.  All of these characteristics are important and vital to winning basketball games.  This is important because most people assume that in order to win basketball games, everybody needs to be a scorer, when in fact, that is one of the main problems why teams fail.