Learning Journal #8

Our discussion about cults in class made me think about something I've been learning in my psychology classes, which is how certain personality traits can make people more likely to engage in particular behaviors. I'm currently taking a class on attitudes and persuasion, so I started wondering whether certain traits make someone more susceptible to joining a cult. After looking into it, I found that traits like agreeableness, a strong need to belong, and a desire for certainty may make people more vulnerable to manipulation. What I found especially interesting, though, was the idea that almost anyone can become susceptible under the right circumstances, as we talked about it in class.

This made me think about something that has fascinated me for a while: how much of who we become is actually within our control? Psychology states that our behaviors, attitudes, and personalities are shaped by a combination of genetics and environmental influences. In a way, these factors create certain probabilities of how we might turn out, even before we consciously make decisions about the people we want to become. I find that both fascinating and somewhat scary. We tend to look at people who join cults or commit crimes as fundamentally different from ourselves. But how much of that difference comes down to circumstances? If we had been born with different genetic predispositions or raised in different environments, would we really be the same people making the same choices?

I think what unsettles me most is the possibility that we have less control over our identities than we'd like to believe. Of course, our circumstances don't completely determine our futures, and we still can reflect on and change our behavior. But even that ability to question our beliefs is influenced by the experiences that shaped us. It makes me wonder where the line between personal responsibility and psychological conditioning really lies. We place so much importance on individuality and free will, yet so much of what makes us individuals comes from things we never chose. Ultimately, learning about cults made me reflect on why certain people join them, but even more on how different our own beliefs and decisions might be if we had grown up under different circumstances.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

JOURNAL ENTRY #1

 One thing I was excited about when looking at the syllabus for this class was the number of films we would be watching and discussing. A personal goal of mine is to work through a list of 50 classic movies. I feel like there is a simplicity to older movies, even when they are exploring complex themes. I had never heard of "Paper Moon" before this class, so I went into it knowing absolutely nothing. It has now become one of my favorites. Although we have not yet gotten deeply into discussing the film, learning some of the basic facts surrounding it already led me down an interesting rabbit hole. We were asked to think about the title of the movie. While there is an obvious visual reference to the paper moon during the photograph scene, I wondered whether “paper moon” was also a common saying that I was missing. Being from Mexico, I occasionally miss the meaning behind common English expressions. So after looking into it, I found that the film was originally based on a book w...
Read more

Journal Entry #5

I watched Primetime (film about early 2000s reality show - To Catch A Predator) recently, and I had so many thoughts after watching, and even more after seeing reviews online. What interested me most was how uncomfortable the movie was willing to let its subject become without necessarily telling me how I was supposed to feel about it. The premise behind To Catch a Predator seems morally straightforward at first. They are "catching" adults who are attempting to meet minors, and I do not really have an ethical problem with exposing that behavior. What became more complicated for me was thinking about the fact that the show was also entertainment. The people producing it were making money because predators existed, and, even more uncomfortably, a more shocking or bizarre predator made for better television. I do not think that automatically makes the show or the people behind it bad. If anything, that is what I liked about the movie. It allowed two things to be true at once. T...
Read more

Journal Entry #3

One thing that stood out to me this week was discussing Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Tuesday and talking about how con men get portrayed in film and media in general. It's interesting because the movie clearly wants you to root for Lawrence and Freddy even though they spend the entire runtime lying to people and taking their money. The writing does a lot of work to make that feel okay: the marks are usually wealthy, a little oblivious, or somehow deserving of getting fooled, and the cons themselves are framed as clever rather than cruel. It made me think about how differently we'd probably react if the same tactics were used on someone sympathetic instead of someone rich and gullible. The movie is really just using the same psychological tricks we've been discussing all along, authority, charm, confidence, but it dresses them up as entertainment instead of manipulation. That distinction between a "con man" and a "scammer" in pop culture seems to come down ...
Read more