BeSC 106 Soceity and Culture with FP

Group Discussion
Choose a moderator who will manage the whole process.
Your group is given 20 minutes to do this.

The group discussion should have the following:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction use the case

Discussion all members should be heard contributing his/her thoughts
Conclusion summary and overall conclusion of what the group discussed.
Open forum your classmates are given time to ask questions

Case 1: how to produce geniuses

Case 2: how males and females differ
Case 3: the role (or lack) of parents
Case 4: generation z
========================================================================
[please fill this up and return to me. MV Aguilar]

Topic: ___________________________________________________
Moderator: ______________________________________
Members: _______________________________________
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
________________________________________
_______________________________________

Millennial Workers: Entitled, Needy, Self-Centered?

How true are our perceptions of this generation?
By Jada A. GravesJune 27, 2012 | 12:45 p.m. EDT+ More
Reporting on two particular workplace trends has become de rigueur. One, the number of baby
boomers preparing to retire, and two, the professional nature of the green twentysomethings
poised to fill the desk chairs of their predecessors.
This generation, known as Gen-Y, echo boomers, or millennials, spans those whose birth years
fall between the early 1980s to the mid 2000s. And as workers, they've been described as "selfcentered, needy, and entitled with unrealistic work expectations," says Dan Schawbel, the
author of Me 2.0 and founder of the Gen-Y research and consulting firm, Millennial Branding.
This unsavory list of descriptors is in sharp contrast with how this generation views themselves,
says Lauren Stiller Rikleen, founder of the Rikleen Institute who has been doing a survey on the
perceived and actual work ethic of this age group. "They don't see themselves as entitled," she
notes. "They see themselves as very hard-working, dedicated, and loyal."
Both Schawbel and Rikleen agree that the contrast in how this generation is described has to do
with limited transparency and compromise between various generations of workers. To dispel
some of the workplace confusion, here are three of the most common descriptors for millennial
employees that may cause conflict:
They're Needy
Members of Gen-Y like to have their work assessed and seek recognition for their contributions.
For older colleagues and managers, however, this attitude seems like a constant, cloying need
for ego-stroking.
"It has to do with how [millennials] were raised and coached," says Rikleen, who also works as
executive in residence for the Boston College Center for Work & Family. "They had a voice in
family dynamics, and in school activities They've gotten a report card in every phase of their
life. In school and extracurricular activities, they were always encouraged to do more, and they
received constant feedback on how they were doing."
What millennials should do: It's reasonable to expect feedback on your performance, but it's
also important to remember that your manager's sole job isn't to manage you. Ask if you can
scheduleperiodic evaluations to discuss your projects and progress.
What older managers should do: Be transparent about how each worker's responsibilities
contribute to a large overall project, and remain receptive to giving official evaluations.
They're Entitled

Telecommuting and flex-time aren't seen as work privileges to this generation, but rather, work
requirements. Some Gen-Yers enter the workforce indignant to receive remote access,
demanding an office Blackberry, and inquiring about their summer-hours schedule. Their ease
with technology means they also expect leniency to visit social media sites and use personal
electronics during work time.
"This is a generation that always grew up with computers," Rikleen says. "So they don't
understand why they would need to come in [to the office] every day if their work is primarily
done on a computer."
What millennials should do: Although you may be able to do all your work from
home,telecommuting is still a privilege, not a right. Don't begrudge an office that doesn't extend
this luxury. If a lack of flexibility is a deal-breaker for you, then do plenty of research on
corporate culture before sending in a resume. As you progress in the hiring process, begin
asking questions about the company's stance on telecommuting.
What older managers should do: Use this generation's tech acumen to the benefit of your
company. Involve younger colleagues in developing a social marketing strategy.
They're Disloyal
Let's say you're a young employee working in an entry-level position. You haven't been working
very long, but you no longer feel challenged. This might cause you to jump the gun on
requesting a promotion, or to begin job searching. You might see your job-hopping as
opportunistic, but older workers probably view it as disloyalty.
According to Rikleen, "millennials measure respect by being heard," while older workers
measure respect with experience and longevity. "Millennials [also] expect to develop and move
up faster. But what's interesting, however, is that data shows that millennials that felt needed
and wanted in their workplace were less antsy [to receive promotions or leave]."

Why Parents (Still) Don't Matter

By Kathleen Kingsbury Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009
Dangerous. Misguided. Untenable. Those were just some of the criticisms leveled at amateur
psychologist Judith Rich Harris and the conclusions in her controversial book The Nurture
Assumptionwhen it was first published a decade ago. In it, Harris argues it's not what parents do
or say that determines who their children become what really matters is the influence of
peers. (See pictures of Americans at home.)
Ten years on, however, with parents seeming to worry more than ever about what it takes to
raising a smart, decent kid, Harris's message may even sound reassuring. The 10th anniversary
edition of her book hits bookstores Feb. 24. TIME's Kathleen Kingsbury caught up with the New

Jersey grandma to discuss whether parents still don't matter, why her theory didn't catch on in
1999 and the future of helicopter parenting and the kids it produces.
How strongly do you believe The Nurture Assumption's assertions hold up a decade on?
They've held up quite well. I took an extreme position: that parents have no important long-term
effects on their children's personalities. By doing this, I was making myself an easy target,
inviting developmental psychologists in the academic world to shoot me down. But their attacks
have been surprisingly ineffectual. One traditional developmental [psychologist]even admitted,
not long ago, that they still can't prove that parents have any long-term effects on children. She
continues to hope, however, that someday they will find the proof they are looking for proof
that can stand up to the scrutiny of skeptics like me. (See the best and worst moms of all time.)
You distinguish between moral attitudes and personality traits in terms of the extent each
are molded by influences outside the home. What sets them apart?
It hinges on the distinction between socialization and personality development. The strongest
influence on morality is the local culture or subculture. But this influence may be different in
different situations. For example, according to the local culture, it might be okay to cheat on a
test in school but not okay to cheat in sports. Socialization adapts children to their culture
they learn to behave in the manner approved by their culture.
Personality development, on the other hand, is not about conformity. Differences in personality
don't go away during childhood and adolescence they may even widen. Explaining why this
happens, and why even identical twins reared in the same home have different personalities, is
a challenge.
Where
does
genetics
come
in?
Genetic influences account for a little less than half of the variation in personality within a given
population. Some of the variation may be due to random biological processes: just as identical
twins don't have exactly the same freckles, they don't have exactly the same brain. Some small
amount may be due to socialization for example, some cultures foster a more aggressive
personality. The remainder depends on the experiences people have over the course of
childhood and adolescence experiences they have outside the home, often in the presence
of their peers.
One of the things children have to do while they're growing up is to find out what kind of people
they are. Am I smart or dull? Pretty or plain? Strong or weak? They find out the answers by
comparing themselves to their peers. And they put this knowledge to good use. They find out
what they're good at and concentrate on that, and give up competing in contests they are sure
to lose. They try out for leadership, for example, by finding out whether other kids are willing to
follow them. Research has shown that boys who are taller than their peers in adolescence tend
to have more dominant, self-assured personalities in adulthood. On average, they earn higher
salaries in adulthood, even though the others may have caught up to them in height. (See 9 kid
foods to avoid.)

So if they can't influence the adults their children become, then what, if any, steps can
parents take to help ensure their kids succeed? Or become "good" people?
I believe the most important function of parents is to give their children a happy home not
because it will make them more likely to succeed but because everyone has a right to a happy
home life. Aside from that, there are other things parents can do, such as providing training in
music or sports. Parents have some ability to decide where they will live and where their
children will go to school. Some schools have an atmosphere that is more favorable to
academic achievement.
As for making them into "good" people, the evidence shows that parents cannot do this. A child
who is well behaved at home who doesn't lie or steal, for instance may lie or cheat in
school if that's what all the other kids are doing. It works the other way, too: some kids are
terrible troublemakers at home but little angels in school.
Research now suggests that much of the achievement gap in the U.S. is in place before
children even reach kindergarten, suggesting parents play a huge role in their kids'
academic success. How does those conclusions fit into your own research?
Adoption studies show that being raised in an intellectually rich environment can give a
temporary boost to a child's intelligence and knowledge. The reason it's temporary is that bright
children raised in less advantageous environments eventually catch up. But there's another
factor here: subculture. A child raised in a subculture that values intellectual activities and takes
schoolwork seriously has an advantage that doesn't go away. So even if the early achievement
gap is due to deficiencies in the children's homes, the later achievement gap may be due to
subcultural attitudes toward schoolwork and learning.
Once peers form personalities, can those effects be reversed? For instance, if a child
changes friends or classmates or teachers, how much will his personality evolve with
those
shifts?
I wouldn't say that personalities are formed by peers. I would say that experiences with peers
are one of the influences on personality. Can these influences be reversed? Depends in part on
the age of the individual. Also, in some cases the new environment may turn out to be not very
different from the old one. For example, a child who is well-liked by her peers in first grade is
likely to be popular in second grade as well, even with an entirely new set of classmates. So the
peers may be reacting to characteristics the child already has, rather than influencing these
characteristics.
How
do
so
called
"helicopter"
parents
fit
into
your
conclusions?
Parenting practices are a product of the culture. Just in my lifetime, the philosophy of parenting
has undergone a complete reversal. I was born in 1938, and my parents didn't worry about my
self-esteem: they worried that too much praise or attention would "spoil" me and make me
conceited! Parents showed very little interest in their children's schoolwork in those days that
was the teacher's business, not theirs. And of course, physical punishment was used routinely.
Despite these sweeping changes, personality traits have not changed people today are no
nicer than the people in earlier generations. But it does no good to tell that to the helicopter

parents. They are convinced that they are playing an essential role in their child's life. Perhaps
their children will look back at these efforts with amusement someday.

7 Ways To Become a Genius

http://www.ego.com/7-ways-to-become-a-genius/
Is it possible that only 10,000 hours of hard work separate any one individual from attaining
mastery in a complex field? According toMalcolm Gladwell, what we refer to as genius isnt
necessarily an inborn genetic trait, but rather a combination of factors, including culture,
economic background and, most importantly, the willingness to work hard to achieve a goal.
Gladwell theorizes that the most successful people spend at least 10,000 hours working on
refining their skills in a particular area before they become experts. So how can you master
anything you set your mind to? Here are seven ways to transform yourself into a world-class
expert in the field of your choice.
1.
Do
What
You
Enjoy.
Theres no fun in hard work, unless you are deeply invested in what you will achieve. By
gravitating toward something that you have a natural interest in, it will be easier to stay focused
and motivated.
2.
Broaden
Your
Social
Circle.
Nobody not even Einstein makes it alone in this world. Geniuses are as much a product of

who is around them as what they bring to the table. Knowing more people helps you make
better connections, which leads to new opportunities. As Gladwells example of Christopher
Langan proves, even an IQ of 195 wont bring you success unless you have someone who can
help you take advantage of it.
3.
Focus.
As we already mentioned, 10,000 hours of hard practice is the minimum amount of time to
achieve mastery in anything, whether its architecture, writing, physics, or playing the piano.
Setting aside regular 90 minute chunks of time where you can intensely focus is the best way to
rapidly improve your technique.
4.
Ritualization.
Because time is so precious, spending it wisely is the key. Committing to doing something
relatively rote as part of your practice sessions every day at a certain time doesnt require you to
invest consciously, freeing up that part of your brain to develop other skills. For example: a
tennis player may spend 15 minutes a day stretching to remain limber. If he can stretch without
having to think about it, he saves that mental energy for pursuing more advanced techniques.
5.
Sticking
to
a
Schedule.
If youre serious about achieving mastery, you wont slack off when you feel like it, but will
remain dedicated to your pre-arranged practice sessions. Training to become a master takes
uninterrupted concentration. Much like a regular job, you have to show up each day and give it
your best shot.
6.
Set
Goals,
and
Rest
After
Achieving
Them.
As part of your practice regimen, factor in regular intervals of rest that coincide with achieving
major goals. No one is a machine; we all require periods of rejuvenation to recharge our
batteries. Scheduling time to rest lets you reflect on all the progress youve madeand spurs
you on to achieve even more.
7.
Seek
Feedback
and
Criticism.
Part of what made Robert Oppenheimer great was not only his incredible understanding of
physics, but his exposure to other scientific luminaries who gave him feedback on his work.
While practice makes us better, criticism helps us refine our techniques and understand the
flaws in our own work. Without it, we can become too introspective or obscure. Becoming a true
master involves being able to converse with anyone in the world, and prove that you are not
only knowledgeable, but that you have solutions or abilities no one else has. You cant know
how much farther you have to go until you compare yourself with others, but dont expect them
to give you the answers that only comes with hard work.