This article analyzed 15 studies about food consumption norms. Out of all fifteen studies, eight looked at how food consumption norms related to the amount of food consumed by study participants, while the other seven looked at whether or not food choice norms affected what people chose to eat. One of the most important findings was that, when people were informed as to whether others made high or low calorie food choices, that person’s choices were more likely to align with what they were told others had chosen. This, researchers hypothesized, shows a strong correlation between food and identity due to the need to fit in within a social group. Basically speaking, people can be pressured into eating healthy or unhealthy based on what their friends are eating. However the research also suggests that the social norms that affect what we choose to eat exist even when we are alone and whether or not we are aware of them. This article represents the term “norms”, because it deals with the ways in which others influence our own choices. In this article, the ways that someone’s friends eat directly influence the ways in which that person eats. For instance, if somebody’s friends are eating healthy foods,the norm for that person will be eating healthy foods, so that person will be more likely to eat healthy. In essence, people’s food choices are guided by the choices of others. In addition, the norms of what people are eating don’t just affect others when they are eating together. Studies show that food norms affect people even when they aren’t around others, meaning that the need to conform to the norms of what others are eating affects people even when they are not in direct contact with their peers. This article is about the Sentinelese tribe from the Andaman Islands in India, who have had little to no contact with the outside world for thousands of years and do not express any intent to do so in the near future. Following the 2004 tsunami, helicopters were sent to check on the Sentinelese, but a Sentinelese man rushed out onto the beach, aiming his arrow at the pilot in a gesture that clearly said, ‘We don’t want you here’. The language that the Sentinelese people use is very different from the languages of the islanders around them, they use metals from ships that sunk near the island to create tools and weapons,, and people often describe them, unfairly and without basis, as ‘savage’ or ‘backward’. However, a video of the Sentinelese on the island’s beach taken in the 1990s when the Indian government was trying to make contact with the Sentinelese shows that the islanders are certainly alive and thriving. Pressure has led the Indian government to change its policy towards the Sentinelese. Before, the Indian government had been trying to make contact, however they recognized that in the past, other countries had used similar policies, and they had not worked out. The Indian government now accepts that the Sentinelese have the right to decide for themselves how they wish to live. This article represents the term “society” because the Sentinelese have a clear, defined territory that they live on, and a clear, defined culture. They live on their own island within the Andaman islands, and they clearly have their own culture due to thousands of years of isolation from other people. They have their own language, they very specifically, and they have their own traditions and ways of living. They are quite literally an isolated society. India’s decision to leave the Sentinelese alone further solidifies their position as an independent society, because in being kept isolated, their definitive region will be kept the same, as will their unique cultures and values. This article is about Megan Phelps-Roper who grew up in, and eventually left, the Westboro Baptist Church. The granddaughter of the founder of the church, she started picketing at a young age. She was also taught at a young age that what she and her fellow church members were doing was good, and that people who weren’t a part of the church were inherently evil. Then, she downloaded Twitter and began to have civil conversations with others about their opposing views, and began to learn more about the world outside the church. Through these interactions, she began to slowly realize the many things wrong with the Westboro Baptist Church. She eventually left the church with her sister in 2012. This article is a perfect example of the term ‘”In Group” because the Westboro Baptist Church very much emphasizes the We vs. They mentality. They teach their members that they as a group are superior to others, and therefore their members want to stay with them. The members of the Westboro Baptist Church remain loyal to the church because they believe that they are in the In Group, and that they are better and more superior to others. They discriminate against others who they determine to be in the Out Group, in the Westboro Baptist Church’s case, Gay people, people of other races, and many more groups of people. However, Megan Phelps-Roper was able to realize the reality that the Westboro Baptist Church was not the In Group it claimed to be, and was able to escape the church. This article is about Donald Trump going on a tirade on the social media app Twitter and attempting to tweet at Theresa May, the prime minister of the UK, but instead tweeting at a different woman named Theresa May. The tweets intended for the prime minister Theresa May consisted of Trump lashing out at her for suggesting that him tweeting anti-muslim videos from a UK far right group was insensitive and inappropriate. He tweeted telling May to focus on the terrorism being committed in her country, saying that the United States was doing just fine with terrorism at the moment. Trump quickly realized that he had tweeted at the wrong account and corrected his mistake, but not before a few other twitter users noticed his error. This article represents the term “personality” because it shows many of Donald Trump’s consistent ways of thinking, acting, and feeling, the first of which being his affinity to lash out at others on Twitter. Trump is very active on twitter, tweeting an average of nine timer per day, and not only does he like to tweet, but he likes to go on rants and tirades on Twitter on a fairly regular basis. To date, Trump has launched tirades against Hillary Clinton and the FBI, to name a few. This article also showcases another aspect of Trump’s personality: his consistent pattern of thinking that the United States is far superior to everybody else. His tweet at Theresa May saying that the United States was doing fine, and that she was the one who needed to work on terrorism in her country mirrors a few of Trump’s other tweets and speeches, for example, calling African nations “shithole countries”. This article is about the long term negative impacts that gender stereotypes have on both boys and girls as published by a study the Journal of Adolescent Health. According to the study, the stereotypes associated with gender are for the most part similar worldwide, and then most of the stereotypes are ingrained in the children as early as 10 years old. In fact, not only do stereotypes influence how the children themselves act, but they also influence how the world views and treats children once they hit puberty. The overwhelmingly universal stereotypes are that girls need protection from the world, and that boys are strong and should act as protectors. These stereotypes not only have an impact on the childrens’ self esteem as juveniles, but they also have far reaching effects into adulthood. For instance, potential risks for girls as they enter adulthood are child marriage, depression, truancy or dropping out of school, and exposure to violence. Interestingly, the risks for boys are different, including becoming more prone to drug addiction, having a shorter average lifespan, becoming involved in violence, and dying from unintentional injuries. This article concluded with the idea that challenging gender stereotypes when children are young could prove to be very beneficial as children grow up and enter adulthood. This article represents the term “stereotype” because it deals with the specific stereotypes assigned to girls and boys as children, and how those stereotypes impact the children as they grow up into adulthood. Stereotypes are defined as simplified descriptions assigned to every person in some category, and this article deals with the simplified descriptions given to boys and girls as young as 10. For instance, the simplified descriptions given in the article for young girls were that girls are constantly vulnerable and in need of protection. The simplified descriptions given in the article for young boys were that they should be strong, powerful and independent. Since girls are told their entire lives that they are weak and vulnerable, many girls grow up with low self esteem and end up making harmful decisions like getting married at a young age or dropping out of school because of a stereotype about them that they took to heart. Similarly, boys feel the need to be emotionless and strong all the time and end up making violent and dangerous decisions out of frustration for not being able to express their emotions. This article is about black figure skater Surya Bonaly, who was one of only a few African American figure skaters from the early nineteenth century to about the late eighties. In fact, in the first half of the nineteenth century, figure skating was a host to blatant discrimination that barred black athletes from participating. Although there had been a few black figure skaters before her, Bonaly was certainly the one who broke the most boundaries and achieved the highest levels of success. Mabel Fairbanks, who is credited with breaking the sport’s color barrier and who became the first African American woman inducted into the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame in 1997, was never actually allowed to skate competitively. Fairbanks had to find ways around the segregation that hindered her entry to practice rinks and competitions, and eventually developed her own professional ice shows, performing in Manhattan for mostly black audiences. Some other notable black figure skaters who came before Bonaly were Tai Babilonia and Debi Thomas, both of whom achieved little success compared to their white counterparts. Even after black figure skaters were allowed to compete competitively, there seemed to be more obstacles, like the high cost of coaching. The most controversial moment of Bonaly’s career came at the 1992 World Championship competition, when Bonaly believed she had performed as well as her top competitor Yuka Sato, and still came in second. She expressed her displeasure by refusing to share the podium with Sato and taking off her silver medal, which cemented her reputation as a deviant and a rebel. This article represents the term “deviant”, because Surya Bonaly was, in every way, a deviant. As the article shows, she was basically the only black figure skater at the time, at least the only black figure skater competing professionally, which showed that Bonaly was not scared to deviate from the norms embedded in figure skating. Not only was she one of very few black competitive figure skaters at the time, but she also attempted tricks that no other figure skater at the time was attempting. As a former gymnast, Bonaly was known for pushing the boundaries of figure skating: she was the first to perform a now-illegal backflip at the Olympics. Bonaly didn’t want to look graceful or artistic like everyone else: she wanted to push the boundaries of the sport and make history. Bonaly also wasn’t slim and blonde like almost every other competitive figure skater at the time, she was muscular and strong. All of these factors: Bonaly’s race, appearance, and techniques/tricks all deviated from the figure skating norms at the time, making Bonaly a great example of a deviant. This article was about two experiments performed to prove that we as humans do tend to conform to the overwhelming majority. In the first experiment described in the article, a group of people were given the task to compare different shapes to see if they were the same or different. The test was fairly easy and the participants were made to write down their answers, but then they were required to say their answers out loud. One of the participants was in on the experiment, and every other participant was told to follow her lead, except one participant, who was not aware that the others were in on it. When the others all agreed on their answers, whether they were right or obviously wrong, the participant went along with them, earning a 90% on the written test, but a 10% on the spoken test. The second article described in the article involved two party planners who were in on the experiment, who threw a party for a group of strangers. They began by licking their fingers and picking their teeth at the table, both acts that would be considered no-no’s at a dinner party. Then, when dessert came, they insisted that their guests use only their mouths to pick up and eat the food. By the end of the dinner, complete strangers were passing their food along the table mouth-to-mouth. This article represents the term “conformity” because it showed in two cases how people can be manipulated by the opinions and attitudes of those around them. In the first case, the experiment subject was influenced by the others giving their answers and didn’t want to be the “odd one out”, so they conformed to the others and agreed with the answers even if they knew they were wrong. The subject would have felt out of place if they had deliberately given different answers than everyone else, and chose to conform instead. In the second case, the party guests were influenced by the dinner hosts, and didn’t want to disrespect the people throwing them the dinner, so they instead all conformed to what the hosts were telling them to do, and didn’t mind when the hosts did things that would normally be considered rude or inappropriate at a dinner party. The guests wanted the hosts to like and respect them, and conformed to whatever the hosts wanted them to do in order to gain the respect of the hosts. This article is about what Mark Liberman, a linguist, thinks makes Obama a good public speaker. What Liberman thinks makes Obama’s speeches great isn’t how he delivers what he is saying, but the lyricism in the writing of his speeches. In fact, many lines from his speeches have been placed over songs, and they seem to fit perfectly. In addition to the content of his speeches, Obama’s use of gestures complements the speeches and makes them extremely effective. Geoff Nunberg, another linguist, says Obama has mastered the perfect balance of movement when giving speeches. He moves his arms, but his mody never moves. He never moves his hands and keeps his arms close to his body. His pitch never rises or falls dramatically, unlike, for example, Hillary Clinton, whose pitch tends to rise when trying to engage her crowd. In the conclusion of the article, however, Liberman addresses that there is much more than just pitch and body movements in play when it comes to giving a good speech. He suggests that he himself could use the same techniques as Obama and not receive the same response. This article shows the term “charismatic authority” because Obama is the perfect example of a charismatic authority. His power was legitimized by his ability through his speeches to inspire devotion and loyalty. In fact, his speeches were what aided him to get in power in the first place. This article is also related to the term “charismatic authority”, because the article addresses that even if somebody else did the same things that Obama does when giving speeches, they would not be able to duplicate his effect on audiences since a charismatic authority is defined as someone who has extraordinary personal abilities. Obama has the extraordinary personal ability to command an audience and gain their loyalty, making him an excellent charismatic authority.This article is about the findings of Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. Milgram’s experiments were centered around obedience, specifically how far someone would go while obeying an authority figure. Milgram wanted to investigate whether “I was just taking orders”, a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II, was valid, or whether the Nazis were making conscious decisions. Milgram chose participants for his experiment by advertising the opportunity for males to be a part of an experiment at Yale University. The experiment was rigged so that each participant was paired with another participant who happened to be an actor, and the two would draw their roles in the experiment, either “learner” or “teacher”. The experiment was rigged so that the real participant always drew the “teacher” slip. Milgram the put the learner and teacher in separate but side-by-side rooms where the teacher had a switchboard of voltages and the learner was hooked up to receive those electric shocks. The scientist administering the experiment would stand in the room with the teacher while the teacher taught the learner word combinations. The learner would then have to recite the word pairings, and if they made a mistake the teacher would have to shock them, the voltage increasing with every incorrect answer. The teacher could hear the pain and screaming of the learner, and if the teacher wanted to stop shocking the learner, the experiment facilitator would tell them that they should continue on. At the end of the experiment, two thirds of participants had shocked the learner to the highest voltage, proving that normal people could be driven to kill others if promoted by an authority figure. This article shows the word “obedience” because the Milgram experiment tested how far people will obey an authority leader. By telling the participants that “it would be better if they finished the experiment” and “the experiment requires them to finish”, Milgram was able to make the participants obey him and theoretically kill another human being in the process. Obedience is defined as being the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance, and that is exactly what the participants in the milgram experiment did. They submissively complied with killing another human being because an authority figure told them to do so. The Milgram experiment is the perfect example of people displaying obedience in the presence of an authority figure. This article is about black figure skater Surya Bonaly, who was one of only a few African American figure skaters from the early nineteenth century to about the late eighties. In fact, in the first half of the nineteenth century, figure skating was a host to blatant discrimination that barred black athletes from participating. Although there had been a few black figure skaters before her, Bonaly was certainly the one who broke the most boundaries and achieved the highest levels of success. Mabel Fairbanks, who is credited with breaking the sport’s color barrier and who became the first African American woman inducted into the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame in 1997, was never actually allowed to skate competitively. Fairbanks had to find ways around the segregation that hindered her entry to practice rinks and competitions, and eventually developed her own professional ice shows, performing in Manhattan for mostly black audiences. Some other notable black figure skaters who came before Bonaly were Tai Babilonia and Debi Thomas, both of whom achieved little success compared to their white counterparts. Even after black figure skaters were allowed to compete competitively, there seemed to be more obstacles, like the high cost of coaching. The most controversial moment of Bonaly’s career came at the 1992 World Championship competition, when Bonaly believed she had performed as well as her top competitor Yuka Sato, and still came in second. She expressed her displeasure by refusing to share the podium with Sato and taking off her silver medal, which cemented her reputation as a deviant and a rebel. This article shows the term “discrimination” because Bonaly, who was equal to, if not better than her competitors, was consistently scored worse than they were. She even performed a perfect routine including a backflip on the ice, a move that is now banned because of its difficulty and danger, and FINISH THIS This article is about the signs of illegal steering when looking for an apartment. Illegal steering is a form of discrimination where a landlord will attempt to make a potential client look for an apartment somewhere else. One sign of illegal steering mentioned in the article is if a landlord places emphasis on the negatives of an apartment complex (poor location, for example), and does not emphasize or even touch on the positives (excellent gym facilities). Another giveaway that illegal steering is happening is if a landlord hints that the potential client would not get along well with other people living in the building. Another hint to illegal steering is if the landlord tells their potential clients that their options are restricted to a certain level or section of the building. Yet another clue is if the landlord flat out tells their clients that they would be better off looking at another building. This article represents the term “prejudice” because taking measures to make sure a certain group of people doesn’t reside in your apartment complex is absolutely an unfair generalization about an entire group of people. In many cases, as discussed in the article, even if the landlord lets the tenants stay at their apartment, they will put them in specific sections, basically segregating them from the other residents, which is still prejudice against that group of people. When it comes to apartments, the most common group discriminated against is black people, and the generalization made about them is that they will be disrespectful to the room and to the other residents, and cannot be trusted to make their payments on time, which is obviously false in most cases. These stereotypes and generalizations are by no means ground for illegal steering to take place, but illegal steering still does, unfortunately, happen occasionally, so it is good to keep an eye out for landlords who may be implementing the aforementioned “techniques”. This article is about the Neo-Nazio rallies that took place in Tennessee in late October of 2017. There were two rallies: one in Shelbyville and one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. At Shelbyville, there were about 200 Neo Nazis pushing for the deportation of illegal immigrants and closed borders to future immigrants. At Murfreesboro, there were about 15 Neo Nazis, while about 600 people showed up to protest against the white supremacists. The police at these two events were very vigilant because of the events that had happened in Charlottesville earlier in the year, and only one person was arrested at the Shelbyville protest. The article concluded by giving some facts about Tennessee’s relationship with immigrants as a state, stating that Tennessee had sued the government a few months before based on immigrants that had been relocated to Tennessee. The state said that they were unfairly being made to pay for the immigrants. This article represents the term “racism”, because the Neo Nazis that protested in the article did believe that they were superior to black people, Jews, and immigrants, and that those specific groups were inferior to them as white people. The steps that the Neo Nzis took by protesting against black people, Jews and immigrants were blatantly and deliberately racist. This article also represents the term “racism” because of the facts given at the end about Tennessee suing the government over the immigrants being relocated to Tennessee. This is an example of racism because the state of Tennessee believed that the immigrants were a burden to them and were therefore inferior to them to the point where the state felt it needed to take legal action.