In my group, we are doing research about performing arts. Our topic is so broad, so we have hard finding useful articles. So, we decided to didvid the work between three of us. I decided to work on dance, my other two partners are doing music and drama. In all the time till last Thursday, we were so worried and overwhelmed because we could not make any progress, but now we are doing better.I have found some useful articles about history of dance and the study of dance. 

The problem that we have in my group is that every time one of us does not show up, so it makes it harder to collaborate and discuss the ideas. My concern about my project is the way i want to describe the dance community as a discourse community having the five criteria, membership, behaviors, common goals, method of communication, and their language!!!It gets complicated. However, we are trying our best to make this project a success.

                                             Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever

In the article “Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever"? Returns to Physical

Attractiveness over the Life Course Jaeger analyzes the influences of physical attractiveness (facial attractiveness, Body Mass Index and height) on socio-economic and marital success over a lifetime. Jaeger uses previous research, and he built up his argument base on their results, but he adds up more information. The Jaeger’s argument is basically that men and women that have better physical attractiveness have higher earnings and socio-economic statue than short and not attractive men. Also, men and women with more attractive faces are more likely to get married when they are younger, and physical attractiveness is unrelated to the income and socio-economic statues of their partners.

            Jaeger indicates that there have been lots of researches on this hypothesis, but none of them had accurate results because it wasn’t done as efficiently and in the way that could get valid results as Jaeger did. Jaeger claims that the previous research was not accurate as his because the data collected in the previous research are from two periods of time or data collected at one point in time or in a short time. However, Jaeger used more longitudinal data over time in his research, and he used longer period of time that most research had been done on, and he combined all type of different kind of research to show the effects of attractiveness on success.

Jaeger found out that a person gets advantage from being attractive in whole life. Despite other research that was focus on one situation, socio-economic or marital or spousal socio-economic, he analyzed all the situations and the effects of attractiveness on each of them. At the previous research physical attractiveness is divided in different component like facial, BMI, and height, and each of this components are studied separately. However, Jaeger incorporated all the component of physical attractiveness and analyzed them.

                       The Bell Curve

            The bell curve was invented in the eighteen century as way to show binomial probability. But the mathematical notion of bell curve and normal distribution got involved with human sciences in the nineteenth century. Since then the bell curve idea is used in so many different areas, like business, sports and politics and education. The argument in this article is not about whether the bell curve is good or bad, is about if the bell curve idea exists or not, or the argument is about how bell-curve thinking gains its historical function. Lynn Fendler and Irfan Muzaffar argue that, “The acceptance of bell-curve thinking in education is a part of recursive project of governance and normalization”. There are so many arguments that are made in the article about the usage of bell curve idea in education by Muzaffar and Fendler, but their main goal is to show the contradiction that exists in the history of the bell curve.

The statistician Karl Pearson noted that Statistic was nothing than knowledge of the art or skill of conducting government affairs without any trace of mathematics in the time of Gauss, the founder of the idea of normal distribution. Statistics had nothing to do anything with numbers. They accept that this emerging relation between mathematics and the human sciences was historically accidental and not rationally certain. This article is not for the scholars or educators that are not aware of the bad effect of the bell curve idea is for the educators that are aware of the negative influence of the bell curve idea who resignedly accept what appear to be a natural law. It is for the open-minded educators who regret the injustices of sorting, but feel force to accept it or apply it.

I agree with the most of the arguments that Muzaffar and Fendler make as a person that have seen or experienced the negative influences of the bell curve in education. However, this question is coming to my mind that if they do not use the bell curve or some kind of standards what they can use? How about tests and grades? How the system of education will work? Who get the degree who does not? 

Trough of the curse the earth history, there has been many individuals known as great and successful people. All these individuals have defined success in different ways. At the interview, Bruce Lee is explaining how he taught his students, and how he wanted them to be. He trained students how to defend themselves during attacks, or when they are facing anger. He believed that natural instinct and control are combined, and it is very hard for individuals to express themselves honestly. He believes that if people can express themselves honestly and can become one with the moment, and can train their mind, and they match themselves with the situation they can be successful people, like he says empty your mind, be formless, be shapeless like water. In Bruce Lee’s world, when you can be honest, be yourself and more importantly respond to problems instead of reacting is a big success.

Michael Jordan is another extraordinary person. He defines success learning from failure. If you fail do not give up and keep trying and trying to be successful. Like, the geometric variables, trials fail and fail and fail, but there is always success, even the probability of success can be very small, but it is never zero.

           There are different groups that I meet with in my weekly or monthly life. First group is my family members and my first cousins and second cousins. The second groups are my coworkers. Third group is my American friends, which I hang out with them on weekends at bars or any other parties. Forth, my mathematics and Actuarial science classmates. 

My family is the most important discourse community that I belong to. For Assyrian, the most important thing is to save our culture and language, so we assyrian most of the time get married to Assyrian. That is how we Assyrian have saved our language and our culture for over 7000 years. In my family, at home everyone speaks Assyrians, even all my cousins that were born in the US they have to speak Assyrian. There is no excuse if someone speak English or any other language in home. Speaking Assyrian is “ Mandatory” If we have family re union, no one can use bad words in front of others because is so disrespectful. The younger must respect alders. When the older walking into the door the younger have to get up and show their respect.  Most of my family members help each other a lot. All of my older family members have the same goal of raising healthy, educated and beneficial people for the society. In addition, they want us to be helpful and honest to each other because we are the same blood. Our membership is just being family, someone might be Assyrian, be a friend, but we never consider them as a family members, and someone can get the membership in my family either to get born in our family or get married to one of our family members. My family members just get married to either Assyrian or just white Christian. No any other religious is allowed to get into our family. If one of my family members get married or fall in love with Muslim or another non Christian person his or her family membership get revoked. Everyone including myself would hate that person , and that person  need to change his or her name, and we pretend that that person is dead for us.  Usually, the older and more knowledgeable people have the authority of our family. Even if we do not agree with it for sake of our parents and the respect we have we usually fallow the

roles.

All the groups that I belong to are very different and they interpret the world differently. For my family all is important is to live peacefully with each other and help each other and rise good kids. At my work place all is important is customers’ satisfaction and happiness and making money as much as they can.  My math classmates just study more to learn more, and my actuarial classmates just think about passing the actuarial exam. I behave and even dress differently when I am in different groups.

Malcolm Gladwell introduces us to the 10,000 hours rule in chapter 2. He says that certain studies have shown that individuals that master the skill set in their profession have at least ten thousand hours of practice under their belt. Gladwell also points out that you must have a supportive family that encourages you to continue to practice. Since ten thousand is such a huge amount of time it would be hard for someone to reach that time without being in some sort of special program. These special programs allow individuals to get more practice with the best equipment and the best teachers available. Gladwell isn’t saying that if you practice ten thousand hours you’re going to be a profession hockey player, the best musician in the world, or the most successful computer programmer. But that seems to be the number the most successful people in certain professions have hit before they found their stride. There is no doubt that the people he uses as examples are very talent, smart and hard working. He also points out that in order for someone to have a chance to reach such a number they need a great amount of support and encouragement from their family and or friends. Even with talent and support and encouragement the individual still needs opportunity. Opportunities are presented from the year you were born, to where you grew up, and who you know. Gladwell outlines how being born in a certain year and being a certain age helped Bill Joy and gave him better opportunity. Joy didn’t have to program with punch cards, he was able to use a time sharing system. I do agree with Gladwell that everything needs to line up perfect and one must be presented opportunity to make the most of something. There is no way to argue the research that he uses and the breakdown of the information proves his point. Even though the individuals he talks about are very smart and put in hard work to get where they’re, they still needed ten thousand hours, they still needed opportunity, and they still needed support and encouragement. But to their credit they grabbed that opportunity and made the most of it. Lots of people are given opportunities and choose to do nothing with them. So even if someone puts in the ten thousand hours and was born in the right year in the right place with a supportive family it’s still up to that individual to make the right choice and choose to capitalize on that opportunity and not just let it slip away or wait for something to be handed to them because they put in that many hours and feel that they are owed something for it.  

    

    According to Gladwell the Outlier is a scientific expression that phenomenon lies outside of their every day experience. The outlier book is about those who achieve extraordinary things, and the ways that those people can accomplish such a success. Gladwell in the Outliers indicates that for so many people success is defined working hard, talent, perusing their goals, exceeding expectation placed on them, and people see success as a personal quality. However, through out his observation of the hockey game and other evidences, he believes that we should get away from the idea that people are born with intelligence and luck. Success is beyond that. There are other factors that play into it such as the place that you were born, your family, and your cultural upbringing. Individuals that surround the successful person also share some importance and impact that person in ways they are unaware of. Gladwell’s inspection of hockey tries to prove that other things factor into being successful besides hard work and talent.

     Gladwell’s research has shown that high percentages of professional hockey players were born in the beginning of the year in January, February or March. The kids that were born in the second half of the year have less opportunity to make into the team because they are not as physically and mentally developed as the kids that were born in the first half of the year. People have the wrong impression that theses kids are just born to be hockey stars. In addition, sociologists think that success is not just talent is actually accumulative opportunities and advantages. Successful people are given a little opportunity when they are younger, and it helps them to improve and be better than their peers. The success from those subtle opportunities prepares them for the bigger opportunities that come from take advantage from smaller chances.

     Another factor is the system and rules that are set up benefit those that have little bit more talent. The system has advanced leagues and honor programs that identify these opportunities. But this has a negative impact on ordinary individuals, they become very passive and accept the fact that they cannot be hockey player or be successful. Gladwell’s observation does not apply to just hockey; it applies to every day life. The system and rules should be balanced so that everyone has an equal chance to achieve success no matter what month you were born in and your talent.

         I do agree with Gladwell that the term self-made man is thrown around. He uses the example of Jed Busch saying he is a self-made man, but in reality he is not a self-made man; he is a person that come from money and was awarded opportunities based on his families success.