Someone was finally noble on "Scare Tactics"

This is what I've been waiting for!
A man named Bob from Chicago was told he would be on a show called "Dog Catchers", which exposes cheating boyfriends and husbands in the act. Bob watched with the "girlfriend" and tv crew as the boyfriend and a woman went into a relatively isolated commercial building. They went in a few minutes later to hear the man screaming. When they came into the back of the building, a warehouse area, they were confused because they couldn't find the boyfriend. As they looked around, wouldn't you know it, boyfriend came in screaming at girlfriend, saying things like "I told you I would take care of this" and "why can't you leave this alone?" He slammed the door shut, revealing the trashbag-wrapped body of the mistress. As screaming ensued, Bob stood back wondering what to do. Then, the boyfriend grabbed the girlfriend, appearing to be attacking her. Bob shook his head and ran headlong into the guy, and would have beat him senseless had the team run in and dragged him back, quickly explaining to Bob that he was on Scare Tactics. Everyone on the team shook Bob's hand, including the "boyfriend", who commended Bob for caring about the girl. Bob said that he wasn't about to stand by and let some guy hurt a woman especially after he already hurt another one.

Bob, I commend you. I have been watching this show waiting for someone to put their fear aside and take a stand for right and courage. I am not an advocate for violence, but sometimes action has to be taken to protect yourself and others.

Still to come: my Milgram experiment post.

Scare Tactics and Ethics, among other things.

Hidden camera shows are a guilty pleasure of mine. I love seeing how people react to situations. With shows like Candid Camera, these reactions were largely annoyance or disbelief. No harm was intended. But in this cutting edge world, we have developed a more aggressive taste. Hidden camera shows have become more focused on totally manipulating the victim (as some shows call them) into a certain reaction using elaborately set up scenes. I am ashamed to admit it, but I love one of thos shows; a show on the Sci Fi network called Scare Tactics.

http://www.scifi.com/rewind/?sid=35626&eid=273526

On Scare Tactics, people nominate their "friends" to be scared in one of what I have narrowed down to three categories: supernatural, wrong place at the wrong time, and victim-caused scenarios. The categories are rather self explanatory: supernatural may be an alien (the episode I link to has a young woman believing she has just seen the birth of Satan's baby) or bigfoot, etc, wrong place at the wrong time implies a runin with a crazy or homicidal person (one episode had a chimney sweep find the body of the grandmother hanging in the chimney), and victim-caused usually means the victim has been recruited to a show called "Fear Antics" to scare someone else (really a Scare Tactics actor) and some tragedy befalls them (usually a reaction to fear like a heart attack or something of that nature) leaving the actual victim to stand in shocked guilt and dismay at what they have done. At the end of the stunt, one of the actors always says "Are you scared? Well you shouldn't be, because you're on Scare Tactics".

These clips are interesting on a psychological level because they allow us to see a person's reaction in what would be considered unethical for a psychological experiment (try something like that and you'll never get a license anywhere). They put me in mind of Milgram's experiments in the 1950s. Milgram tested obedience by telling participants that they were to give a small electric shock to a second participant behind a partition in increasing severity with every wrongly answered question. In reality there was not another participant and the first participant was listening to a casette recording. You can read more about Milgram's experiments here: http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

and an updated version of the milgram experiment can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3498891302995765561

While the Milgram experiments aren't along the same line as Scare Tactics, they do deal with similar emotions. The "Teacher" in the experiment likely feels the same emotions as many of the "wrong place wrong time" situations in Scare Tactics.

Scare Tactics opens up a can of psychological worms. One question that came to mind as I watched these episodes is "Why do we enjoy enducing fear in others?"

I love my best friend dearly. I lived with her for a year and a half in college. For the life of her, though, she could not stop herself from scaring me. She used to hide for up to half an hour waiting for me to come to the dorm just so she could jump out and scare me. My brother got a kick out of jumping out from behind doors at my mom and making her scream. Why do we enjoy this so much? Is it because by manipulating fear in others we ourselves have power over fear? Is it the old middle school child in us creeping out saying "If I put her down, no one will be able to put me down"?

Another question that the show itself seems to ask is "What would you do if placed in an abnormal, frightening situation?" Many people think that they would not be fooled (many of those get the supernatural scenario) or scared, and that they would react in a cool manner. Social psychologists will be the first to tell you that the only way to know what someone will do in a situation is to put them in that situation. That is why training for the armed forces is so psychologically assaulting. They are trying to recreate as best they can the situations a person will face at war. Nursing clinicals are a bit tamer, more realistic example of seeing what someone will do in a situation before they are fully immersed (gotta hand it to the nursing school for really preparing these RNs!). Resident Assistants go through a similar training scenario (but that's top secret).

I would love to say that I would not resort to begging or obey someone in a situation I thought immoral or threatening of my life. I would love to say I would not be fooled if I suddenly saw a dwarfish figure covered in viscus spring from an "alien pod" and down my boss, but who knows what I would do in a given situation?

I don't think that I would be a prime candidate for Scare Tactics, despite my jumpiness. I have been brought up to look around and observe my situation and evaluate whether or not it is a safe place to be in, to always be taking in my surroundings (my room mate, by the way, hid behind the coke machine, which is why I didn't see her). I've also been taught some basic self defense and while many people don't believe me, I know I could do some damage and hopefully get away. I would venture to say that people who are not constantly thinking up their own plausible scenarios and how to get out of them would be better candidates. Growing up, I used to look around and see where I could climb up and run away if someone was chasing me...a habit I haven't grown out of. My dad would not be a prime candidate because he carries a gun on him everywhere he goes.

Which opens up another question: How do they screen their victims? How do they decide whether the victim is a good candidate or not?

What are your thoughts on Scare Tactics? I hate to see people so afraid, but I also find it fascinating to see the way people act in given abnormal situations.

Hmm, this Milgram experiment deserves another post. Look for that in the future.

How Many Kids' Menus?

This past weekend my family and I went to Galveston and had a wonderful time. I hadn't been there in eleven years and really love the atmosphere there. Besides that, though many people complain about the dirty water you can't see through, I don't mind and still love the view.

One night my family and I went to eat at Fish Tales, which is right on Seawall and has a view of the water. I put our name on the list and we all waited together for our little diner thing to vibrate. When we went back up to the hostess, she, looking directly at me, said "how many kids' menus?" Then, seeing the look on my face, she followed up "none?" I think I said something like a very affirmative "NONE" in response.

In Texas (I don't know about the rest of the world) you are too old to recieve a kid's meal when you turn twelve years old. In September I will turn 22 years old. Tell me truly, do I look ten years younger than I am? I was dressed nicely, I didn't have my hair in pigtails or anything like that. However this girl who is likely more than four years younger than I felt it necessary to ask if I needed a kid's meal. This is at the same dinner where a bunch of teenage girls flirted with my brother (who just recently turned 18).

I understand that being short makes me look younger, and on top of that I have a bit of a babyface. I have very petite features and an annoying high pitched voice (really I like how it sounds in my head better than in real life) that someone once described as sounding like a child. I realize the odds are against me. However, it is more important now than it has been before that I look my age. I am looking for a real job, a job where I will interact with people. If I cannot find a way to demand respect from my coworkers immediately off the bat I am afraid I will be walked all over. Many times I let this roll off, but people treat eleven year olds much differently than they treat twenty one year olds. I would rather be treated my age than like a preteen.

EVERYONE who misjudges my age immediately tells me that when I'm forty I will appreciate this, but at 21 this has become more than a nuisance. I cannot stand eighteen year olds treating me like a child.

The problem is I have no idea how to make myself appear my age. I suppose that when I get my braces off it will help, but not by a lot.

Sorry I had to rant, I just hate being told over and over again how young I look and how I'll appreciate it when I'm older. Not hate, but I am tired of it. People in my summer class even thought I was fifteen.

This is probably one of the most recent photos I have of me. Tell me, is that the face of a twelve year old?

Eep...

I just read an article about people who took revenge on their siginificant others after being dumped. Some of these people were dating for five or ten years, had moved in together but not married, and were surprised when the relationship failed. There were phrases like "I got tired of his constant cheating" and "I can't believe I lived with him for five years without realizing what a psycho he was".
Now, I know these relationships aren't the norm, but I find it disheartening nonetheless.
For those of you who don't know, I have NEVER been in a romantic relationship before. I've never been asked out on a date before either. A little over a year ago one guy asked me for my phone number and nothing happened afterwards. I'm sure that my guy is out there somewhere, and when I'm at the right place in my life I'm confident that he will come along. In a way I'm grateful that I don't have a lot of baggage (well, in that area...ergh) to bring into a relationship.
What I have trouble understanding is how someone can live with another person for five or more years with no apparent progress or regress and not stop to think, "Hey, what am I doing here? Where is this going?"
What makes people stay in dead-end relationships? I know I've heard and read that people stay in abusive relationships because the partner facilitates a low self esteem in the abused, promises to change, etc. And the abused usually comes from previous abuse and already has a low self esteem. What about just "there" relationships? Is it just an insensitivity to time?
Reading all these stories and seeing how long these people stuck with really bad relationships makes me worry a bit about when I finally do start dating (or start getting asked out). Will I be able to be objective enough to realize if it's headed south and either needs work or needs to end?

I have some good friends who will honestly tell me what they think, but I'm going to have to remind myself to listen to them! I think if I am ever in a relationship where I find it difficult to ask someone what they think, that should be a red flag in and of itself.

On the other hand, at times I wonder if I put too much stock in what other people think. It must be a fine balance because the only people who know what goes on behind closed doors are the two people in the relationship, and it may be something completely different from what everyone else sees.

I'm sure, however, that I won't have to worry when I meet my folktale-loving, semi-free spirit, artistic, intelligent, sensitive, handy, dependable literature enthusiast, who appreciates my tongue-in-cheek sense of humor.

Random ending for this entry: I just stabbed my tongue on my braces. Orthodontist said in six weeks we will hopefully take impressions for a retainer, which means that they might come off in the next 7-9 weeks! 10 and a half years of braces and it may be over soon. I'm planning the party now: roasted corn on the cob, caramel apples, chewing gum, all sorts of nuts and seeds, popcorn galore, broccoli, sandwiches, and all sorts of sticky, crunchy, hard-to-chew foods. Then I will floss without it taking an hour, brush my teeth with a brand-new toothbrush that will not be ruined immediately after the first use, and go to sleep not worrying that I've missed a spot and will have a hole eaten into one of my hard-to-reach teeth. It will be a beautiful day. A day of glory. A day of deliciousness. Assuming this day happens. I think my orthodontist just wants me to be around forever. I wonder if he would take my braces off earlier if I promise to keep visiting every three weeks just to shoot the breeze.

Rumspringa

I recently watched a national geographics special called "The Devil's Playground". It is about Rumspringa, an Amish tradition that allows children ages 16 and up to have general freedom while still living in their family's home. They dress "English", own cars, have parties, etc. Some of these children (the ones featured in the documentary) go completely off the deep end and get into trouble with drugs, drinking, etc. But in the end, 80-90 % of these children end up ending their Rumspringa by being baptized into the Amish church.
While I don't always agree with the Amish (they're very anti-evangelism and their refusal to integrate electricity into their lives is admirable, though their reasoning -- not allowing physical connections to the outside world -- seems strange to me, why not be upset about roads if that is the case?), I have to say I really like this idea of Rumspringa. These children have been brought up with the ideals of the Amish church. They KNOW their stuff. Then, in order to give them an informed consent on what they would be missing if they stayed with their community, they are allowed to "run around" (the literal translation of Rumspringa). They get to decide for themselves, and the rate of people who stay with the church is a testament to the fact that Rumspringa works.
So why are we so afraid to do this in other protestant faiths? Many people leave the church in late adolescence only to return later. Some leave saying that their religion was forced upon them, that their faith never truly was theirs. Someone once told me that if I was brought up in a Muslim community I would still be a Muslim, not a Christian. But here's the thing about my family. We were never forced to be Christians. Yes, I went to a Christian school, but I chose whether I went to church. My parents allowed me to believe whatever doctrine I wanted (and still do, we have very different doctrinal views in some areas). I was free to explore different doctrines, and while my new discoveries were sometimes the object of arguments (I tended to be a bid firey about these things and confrontational about it), my family NEVER forced any ideals on me. So I think that I have had a very fair chance at deciding that what I believed was MY choice.
Rumspringa seems to be the Amish equivalent of letting children choose what they believe. I wish there was a way to do this in the "real world" but I don't see how. I think that people who are allowed to choose their faith are more likely to stay with it than those raised in a certain religion. Proverbs says we should train our children in the way they should go, but it does not say we should force them into that way.