FYOS Comments Page

All members of FYOS 2016, please post your reactions here.

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “FYOS Comments Page

  1. Both of the two pieces we had to read (TED talk and neuropolitics) were really interesting. Even though they were a bit lengthy, these revelations were really fascinating to me. In the TED talk David Rothkopf makes a statement that United States foreign policy is driven by fear, and by the end of the video it’s hard to disagree with him. The attack on 9/11 could’ve been handled in a way that wouldn’t have redone the security in a way that sparked fear into the hearts of every American and caused our foreign policy to become borderline insane. We intruded into other’s countries affairs, regardless if they were our allies. What we struck me the most was the fact that there were only 100 members in Al Qaeda during 9/11. Only 100 members. And now it’s grown to be however large because of our irrational fear.
    Honestly, I’m not sure what we could do at this point with the American public to prove that we don’t need to be scared. However, if that was possible, that would be the best bet. If we were able to convince Americans that there is no need to be scared, after all we are the most powerful country in the world, and we could possible change our foreign policy, then we would be able to confront new technologies and be able to possibly stop hacks that we currently ignore. If we were able to instill courage in the people and be able to start a new vision that entails more defense than offense, then maybe we would be able to handle all the new capabilities that the new world has.

  2. I agree with Emily on the point that both pieces were interesting. However, in TED talk the most concerning statement he made for me was when he mentioned the dis conjunction between politics and science in the world today. It’s not something individuals think about everyday, but due to how little dialogue and cohesion there is in Washington or just in the political arena in general, I could see how it causes the innovative thinkers to want to be left alone and not become involved with the government because of the fear or judgement or rejection that can so easily be broadcast throughout the nation or world. In addition, in the TED talk video it is also hard to comprehend how America could be searching for the answer to a question that hasn’t been properly formulated and presented, which could directly correlate to some of our irrational behaviors and motivations involving decision-making in national and international affairs. In the “Neuropolitics” article I also found it very interesting as to how the certain parts of the brain influence different ideas especially in the political arena and when do these differences occur during development.

  3. Overall, both pieces were very interesting, and I saw that both touched on the subject that our brains influence the decisions we make whether that means our emotions or reactions. In the TED talk, David Rothkopf speaks on how fear can control our foreign policy to an extent. Fear was what lead the US to react the way it did after 9/11. The US definitely overreacted, and the actions taken were “disproportionate.” The US completely changed it’s security, started two wars, and spent trillions. Fear clearly was the driving aspect in our country’s decision making. In the Neuropolitics article, I was surprised at how the political views of people were predicted based on different tests or scans. This just shows how our minds affect us and the decisions we support. Both of the points made in these sources reveal that our actions and responses are heavily driven by our emotions and beliefs. In the end fear should not be a deciding factor, and our country as a whole should take a new look at this new form of technological conflict or we’ll have more problems on our hands. Foreign policy can be greatly impacted if the government would take a look into neuropolitics as well as cybercrime.

  4. Both the article and video were interesting. Rothkopf talks about how fear can produce good and bad things. His first example was talking about 9/11 created a society who thought everyone was a threat. He says since there are more terrorists today than there were 10 years ago, we have only made it worse. I agree that terrorists threats have become worse, but I do not know of another way to handle our terrorists threats then view everyone has a threat. He also brought up the problem that in many capitals there is are creativity crisis because everyone is fighting each other. He thinks we are too focused on the symptom then the actual problem. I think that our country is in a place were we will never progress because we are always worried about problems and can never agree long enough to get anything done. He also thinks since the cost of war is low because of technology it will never stop. I agree that since there is no longer a threat of Mutually Assured Destruction countries will continue to attack each other because there is no deterrence.

    The article’s main focus was talking about conservative and liberals brains and if they looked different. In conclusion, their brains were not technically different, but if someone was a conservative they most likely reacted a certain way. Liberals reacted to different pictures and situations similarly as did conservatives. Certain reactions were linked to more likely to be a conservative while different reactions were more likely to be linked to a liberal.

    I think both the article and the video can be pulled together in that countries and people react certain ways to situations and people based on their personality and the fear they feel. Our feelings and emotions play a major role in how we act and our opinions.

  5. Reaction to video:
    I found this article very interesting initially because of his in his claim that fear can produce both a “constructive” and “unconstructive response”. He talks about how the governments response after 9/11 was unconstructive do to the spending of trillions of dollars on war, surveillance programs, torture, etc. The constructive side of fear was creating the Internet, highway system, space program, etc. I found this claim very interesting but also flawed. He talks about 9/11 as if it was not as big a deal as it was (this is easy to do in hindsight). In my opinion, the government’s reaction after 9/11 made sense. I am not justifying their actions; to me it just makes sense for a government to make this huge response after such a huge attack. I also like when he talks about the difficulty of deterring a cyber attack with reference to the Chinese cyber attack on the US. He explains how the US indicted these people but it’s essentially useless since these people will never be in the USA. He says this is simply a gesture and not a deterrence tactic, but how do you deter a threat like this? Lastly, I didn’t like how he ridiculed politicians for not knowing the “lingo” and “vocabulary” of Neurology and “cyber”. Most politicians don’t have a background in cognitive brain science; it’s just not in their realm. Should they know more? Maybe, but politicians cant be experts on absolutely everything.

    Reaction to Article:
    I found this article very hard to read. The information and findings were interesting, however, it was such a left leaning article that it was hard to take any of the information seriously. For example the “political stereotype” from the 2008 TED Talk was a very unprofessional edition to this article. Too many people generalize both sides of the political spectrum (right and left) into one fixed stereotype. Also, the study showing one side of the political spectrum having more of a response to disgust seems a bit stretched to the point of absurdity. There findings based on subtle movements of the eye were interesting but I am skeptical. Even if the study is true or not I find its relevance to be slim. In my opinion, emotional people tend to be more emotional. Rational people tend to be more rational. I feel that political ideology plays a small role in this. I know plenty of people with opposite ideology then mine who are both more and less rational than me, and plenty of people who are both more and less emotional than me. With that being said I did find this article very interesting. Their claims and findings are very interesting whether they are right or wrong.

  6. I found the TED talk video and the article on “Nueropolitics” to be very interesting. I found the TED talk to be very interesting particularly when speaker David Rothkopf discussed the American reaction and steps taking after the 9/11 attacks. I disagree in the fact that we initially overreacted, for I think that it would have looked bad upon our country not to tighten airport security or at least fight back to an extent, but I also agree with the idea that Rothkopf brought up of “constant warfare”. I personally think that this is what we are stuck in right now on both the national and international level, and I think that like the idea of deterrence we discussed in class, we need to discuss if these threats in which we are fighting for are actually a live threat at this moment. I think that this is a hard thing for us to discuss because there are so many different opinions as mentioned in the article. I found the quote “conservatives and liberals differ in their physiological and psychological responses to threat” to stand out and I think that this shows how we need to find a way in order to discuss on a more civil level where we can try to view a more altruistic view of the future of our nation on the global scale.
    The topic I found most interesting and compelling was the discussion point in the TED talk about the evolution of technology in regards to threats. Rothkopf made the point that it is difficult for leaders to respond to this technology, and not to stereotype older generations, but sometimes they don’t have a very firm handle on how to deal with cyber-attacks because of their lack of knowledge dealing with the newest technology. I agree with his point that we need to evolve our dialogue along with the evolving technology and the terms it entails, and I think that we need to change the way that leaders interact with technology. We need to educate older generations and experts on how to talk about technology in terms that those using it are using, and people such as politicians need to see the importance of collaborating with scientists and engineers to again, take this matter from a more altruistic view.
    I firmly believe that the increase of technology present in our lives has contributed to the threats that we perceive and their severity. I conducted research and did a thesis on this very idea my junior and senior year of high school where I evaluated the presence of ISIS in social media platforms such as the al Jazeera, CNN, and Twitter. Time and time again, I saw that ISIS was constantly targeting the media in order to make them seem like they were everywhere we looked, and the people whom are working on the technology side of ISIS are by no means beginners. This increased use of technology makes it so that their threat seems pressing, and it’s how we respond that is important to making the threat seem smaller. I think that in addition to increasing our technology diction, we need to evaluate how we respond to media. In means of how we address things like ISIS on CNN, I agree that we have to broadcast world events, but I think that sometimes we overdramatize the enemy. We need to learn how to combat technology attacks in more efficient ways, like how Anonymous has been infiltrating ISIS Twitter accounts that look to recruit followers. As mentioned earlier though, being able to effectively combat them on media platforms requires that they are fluid in the language of technology.

  7. I found the TED talk video and the article on “Nueropolitics” to be very interesting. I found TED talk to be very interesting particularly when speaker David Rothkopf discussed the American reaction and steps taking after the 9/11 attacks. I disagree in the fact that we initially overreacted, for I think that it would have looked bad upon our country not to tighten airport security or at least fight back to an extent, but I also agree with the idea that Rothkopf brought up of “constant warfare”. I personally think that this is what we are stuck in right now on both the national and international level, and I think that like the idea of deterrence we discussed in class, we need to discuss if these threats in which we are fighting for are actually a live threat at this moment. I think that this is a hard thing for us to discuss because there are so many different opinions as mentioned in the article. I found the quote “conservatives and liberals differ in their physiological and psychological responses to threat” and I think that this shows how we need to find a way in order to discuss on a more civil level where we can try to view a more altruistic view of the future of our nation on the global scale.
    The topic I found most interesting and compelling was the discussion point in the TED talk about the evolution of technology in regards to threats. Rothkopf made the point that it is difficult for leaders to respond to this technology, and not to stereotype older generations, but sometimes they don’t have a very firm handle on how to deal with cyber-attacks. I agree with his point that we need to evolve our dialogue along with the evolving technology and the terms it entails, and I think that we need to change the way that leaders interact with technology. We need to educate older generations and experts on how to talk about technology in terms that those using it are using, and people such as politicians need to see the importance of collaborating with scientists and engineers to again, take this matter from a more altruistic view.
    I firmly believe that the increase of technology present in our lives has contributed to the threats that we perceive and their severity. I conducted research and did a thesis on this very idea my junior and senior year of high school where I evaluated the presence of ISIS in social media platforms such as the al Jazeera, CNN, and Twitter. Time and time again, I saw that ISIS was constantly targeting the media in order to make them seem like they were everywhere we looked, and the people whom are working on the technology side of ISIS are by no means beginners. This increased use of technology makes it so that their threat seems pressing, and it’s how we respond that Is important to making the threat seem smaller. I think that in addition to increasing our technology diction, we need to evaluate how we respond to media. In means of how we address things like ISIS on CNN, I agree that we have to broadcast world events, but I think that sometimes we overdramatize the enemy. We need to learn how to combat technology attacks in more efficient ways, like how Anonymous has been infiltrating ISIS Twitter accounts that look to recruit followers. As mentioned earlier though, being able to effectively combat them on media platforms requires that they are fluid in the language of technology.

  8. Both pieces surprised and interested me. In reference to the Ted Talk, I have never thought of how “disproportionate” our reaction to 9/11 was, but it is clear that not all that we did was helpful or useful to our efforts. I was very young when 9/11 happened, so our social climate of distrust towards everyone (NSA, TSA, Patriot Act, etcetera) has always been business as usual for me and most of the people my age. David Rothkopf’s ideas of how fear has set us back during the duration of my lifetime opens my eyes to several things. Within the span of several years, we developed advanced space programs, the internet, cellphones, and varying other huge advancements in technology. Looking at my lifetime, the most note worthy things our country has created usually involves defense to terrorism or cyberterrorism. Rothkopf seems correct to me, that we need to set our fear aside and move towards new frontiers, not just the security (or what we think is the security) of the ones we have already. In reference to the “Neuropolitics” article, I think it is also very interesting and a little amazing to think that the physiological makeup of our brains can determine things as simple as our political ideologies. This would also help to explain how some people can be so hardwired into their beliefs and it can feel impossible that they’d change their mind. One thing we could draw from the video and the article, is that the fear that drives a lot of political polices and ideas, could also contribute to peoples political ideologies. In the article, they talk about how the things that disgust people correlate to their political leanings, which could also involve their fears. Take the Patriot Act for example. Many people who would consider themselves Liberal were in favor of this act because it was meant to prevent acts of terrorism and to protect American lives. The fear derived from the 9/11 attacks drove these people to support this act. However, people who would consider themselves Conservative were not in favor of this act, because they felt it was an invasion of privacy and would invoke a culture of distrust between the government and the American people. If our brain structure truly contributes to our political leanings then the fear from the attacks that affected Liberals and the fear of the invasion of privacy that affected Conservatives derived from their brain makeup, and therefore their feelings towards the Patriot act. Both of these open up new ideas towards things that contribute to what drives people to make the choices they do, and to possible ideas about how to change peoples minds on things that they’re letting their own fears dictate for them.

  9. Both the video and the article pointed out many interesting things. It was really interesting how neuroscience can depict how each political party view certain things. Such as conservatives as a whole would find a man putting worms in his mouth disgusting or nasty. Furthermore, all conservatives view most of the same things the same way. The way our brain works help determine what decisions we make. I also enjoyed the TED talks video. The way our country operates based on fear can be a scary thing for some and in some cases are good for others. Let’s say a liberal is in the presidency as one is today. If Obama reacts to a certain thing in fear, most liberals would also react in that same way and conservatives on the other hand might react differently. Lastly, I found it very interesting that certain groups of people turn their backs on other people in a crisis situation. Like it was said in the video, 911 changed the landscape of how we see and view people who are different, look different, or have different views than we do.

  10. I thought both the video and the article were very interesting, but the article was more interesting to me. I thought our reaction to 9/11 was disproportionate on top of going into a war that was unnecessary that ended up destabilizing the Middle East. I was very interested by the constructive parts of fear. I viewed some things like the Space Race as direct result, but never viewed the highway system and the internet as a result of the Cold War. Where is that constructive spirit today? I do agree that we need more technocrats in the Government today. Conservatives tend to prefer sticking to the Constitution, but they disregarded it when they decided to pass the Patriot Act. I believe in a way that we need competition to keep us from stagnating. I thought the way he characterized the “innovators in garages” as people who lean libertarian/anarchists, I believe most people from Silicon Valley lean towards “Clinton Neoliberalism” (if that’s a thing). The guy in the video did make an excellent point that 9/11 has paralyzed us, during the events and after. I believe it is our generation that has to solve these problems, because we’ll be the ones to pay the price. I hope we’ll be the last generation that has to face this constant warfare.

    I thought the article was interesting due to simple stuff that makes me question myself. I’d consider myself as a very liberal person, but just thinking about those images freaked me out. Though I think that the amount of eye contact on those things rang true with me. I’d prefer to see happy stuff and close my eyes if I saw something really disgusting. I thought interpreting ambiguous facial features was a small thing that I wouldn’t have expected to impact these big things.

  11. Reaction to Video:
    I found it very interesting to how this man speaks about how our nation reacted to the 9/11 bombing in an irresponsible way. When he mentions how there were only a couple of hundred of terrorists before the bombings, it really shows how neurological situations can effect the public, and even the highest authority of political behavior. How we base our fear is something that is a weakness, but is also common for every nation. It started a war and resulted in billions of dollars and many unnecessary deaths. It goes back to what we were talking about in class and how each country are on the edge of “pulling the trigger”, but also don’t want it to back fire and result in a dead nation.
    Reaction to Article:
    I was really intrigued by how people’s minds are altered and aroused by such random things I never would have thought about, like the different tests and scans that were done. It really shows us how our minds can alter our political nation and that our beliefs can alter and be altered by different stimuli. The different reactions from emotions like fear or being mad or upset can affect our behaviors, and can also lead us to making mistakes. Both articles are relevant to fear and include how our neurological minds can easily change.

  12. The TED talk was really interesting because it really looked into the 9/11 attacks which are such a soft spot for Americans but also a massive stem for conflict. I think that our reaction to these attacks could easily be viewed as an overreaction but I still have to believe that it wasn’t. The responsibility of our country after the attack was to make its population feel secure after their security was publicly destroyed on TV.
    I also really liked the discussion on the evolution of technology. For me, technology has been driving force as to the overreaction to threats. Technology heightens the severity, yes, but it also intensifies the public’s reaction to the threat, no matter the size. It’s literally just fear driving our reactions to everything.
    Meanwhile the article, “Does “Neuropolitics” Make Neuroscience Great Again?” really intrigued me because it is seriously so confusing as to why some people view things a certain way. For me, I literally cannot comprehend why some people would have certain political believes so what if that was just because they were physically different.
    The relationship between disgust and political affiliations is so interesting – the fact that a man stuffing his face with worms corresponds with either right or left wing beliefs is sort of hilarious. At the same time, it makes sense. Someone who is disturbed by that image and just not open to its comical side or weird side does seem like they would be more conservative. So it isn’t really a surprise to see that they also align with the opposing of gay marriage, pre-marital sex, and abortions. The only problem with it all is that it is hard to prove and difficult to go deeper in my understanding.

  13. This research is quite alarming in my opinion. The in-group out-group social structure could be applied to various things, from whole countries to various ethnic or religious groups. The rivalries and discrimination felt between two separate groups could also be explained here. The frightening thing, especially in regards to international politics, is that these processes happen in our evolutionarily old neural systems. The article says that these systems may have formed to reinforce “adaptive behaviors”, and that these systems have “evolved to encode group-level rewards and punishments.” This suggests that members of the “in-group” may purposely do things that only further their own groups chances of survival. This also suggests that some groups could possibly have in-born discrimination towards anyone who they consider someone out of their “group.” In regards to international politics, this could go from country to country, and cause members of one country to disregard the problems one country is having based off of them being in the “out-group.” This could cause war, genocide, or various other international atrocities. Allies and rivals in wars could also be explained by this scenario.

  14. I found the article very interesting not only from a neuroscience perspective but also as a huge Baseball fan. I think this explains a lot of conflict around the world ex. “India vs Pakistan”, “North Korea vs South Korea”, “Iran vs Iraq”, etc. I find it even more interesting to explain conflicts in countries like India and Pakistan since they used to be one singular country and almost instantly became enemies after partitioning, the same goes for North Korea and South Korea. It makes it clear you can even divide people who managed to get along for centuries with a relatively small division. Coming from an Indian background I’ve heard several things from other Indians who fit the article perfectly when talking about Pakistan’s misfortune and getting pleasure from it. One thing from the article that I found strange was that there was more anger in the favored team’s success than the favored team’s failure pleasure. I would assume those two emotions would correlate strongly. A lot of international rivalries are often a result of ethnic/religious differences, however, besides North Korea and South Korea I can’t think of any other two countries that are more similar demographically that hate each other.

  15. Neural Responses and International Politics

    I found this article to be very interesting about how neural responses contribute to how we then act out towards others. I find it very interesting that as given in the example in the article, “if one attaches positive value to out-group member’s suffering, then one may be motivated to inflict suffering on them”. I think that this is a sort of domino effect, for the more we see our enemy go down and suffer, the more we want them to continue in this trend, even if that means we must initiate it with aggression. It is also important to note about how there is this divide between different groups of the population that is contributing to a severing between groups and their opinions. The article discussed how the results were more effective with more extreme thoughts and people, and this immediately made me think of this specific political campaign. These two candidates are very extreme, and I would classify some of their most loyal supporters to be extreme as well. In accordance with this, we can see that there has been much aggression between the two candidates, and they continuously go after each other. This schism can be seen greatly in the followers as well, especially in social media. For example, when something negative is brought up about a candidate or a candidate suffers in the news or in a debate, the followers will be sure to comment and attack the opposite party. These have become increasingly violent over the past few months, for they have been responding to more and more failures of their aggressors.

    I think that this idea is also particularly important to international politics and relations among countries. This idea of the divide between “us” and “them” is a product of the status of relationships globally. For example, if the one country and another are on the brink of war, they will be following their actions every step of the way. If one continues to fall, the aggressor country may try to threaten them and impose difficulties on them until they break. Take for example, North Korea. They have more sanctions on their government than any other state, and their relationships with essentially the rest of the world are very poor. I think this case is interesting because there are two sides to it. First, many countries are against the political situation in North Korea, so they will continue to impose difficulties on North Korea until they fall, and their threats become more aggressive. On the other side, North Korea also continues to be more aggressive in their missile tests and their threats back to cause world destruction. I would think, however, that instead North Korea would be acting in the opposite manner to these threats, as they are the little man in the big picture.

    This situation intrigues me, as well as this whole idea of attaching a value and relaying that onto a desired outcome. In regards to the idea of ethnic conflict, this greatly helps me to understand the mentality behind this from different ethnic groups. People from different ethnic groups are likely to feel distant from the other ethnic group, and this already puts the two are rather extreme sides of the spectrum. Although it may not be a conscious effort, there is most likely a neural response to the opposite ethnic group that is negative, and this influences the want for negative actions to occur to pursue more aggressive means of competing with the other ethnic group. Lately, social identification is crucial in determining the thoughts and ideology of groups of people, so being from a certain ethnic group alone makes it so that the different groups have different ideologies.

  16. I think that this study sheds a lot of light on ethnic conflicts happening around the world right now. Logically, in-groups and out-groups make sense just because there are going to be people that you like and people that you don’t like. However, I find it very interesting that the neuroscience backed up the pleasure of failure for members of the out-group. I would like to believe that you have the choice in whether or not you feel relatively antagonistic towards other people, but this study says that people’s brains are literally wired to feel pleasure when the other groups suffers losses and to feel anger when they land successes. Although if I’m being honest, I can understand this type of feeling. Having three siblings, there’s always a friendly sibling rivalry in the family. I sometimes get frustrated when my sister can do things better than I can or happy when my brother gets in trouble for wronging me. I wouldn’t even consider them to be in an “out-group” in the slightest, so the feelings that one would get from people who ARE in an out-group would be that much stronger. And then applying this to entire people groups, it makes that much more sense why ethnic groups start conflict. I think that a common trend in life is people first try to be safe and then happy, and if an entire group can score both of those through the failures (whatever a “failure” may be in context) of a rival group, then why wouldn’t they? This study shows that these groups aren’t seeing their rivals as people, but rather washed with the singular trait that automatically places them in an “out-group.” Red Sox fans didn’t see Yankee fans as normal people but solely members of an “out-group” and therefore were more likely to think badly of them and associate pleasure with their misfortunes (and vice versa Yankee fans with Red Sox). According to this study, people on a global scale have sorted other people into a negative category based off of one characteristic, and their brain has automatically jumped to solidify it with neurological responses. With that kind of knowledge, there can be a deeper understanding of how ethnic group conflicts begin.

  17. I feel like this article is very relevant today. It is very clear when you look at the world around you that there is bias and prejudice and if our goal is to get rid of that then we need to know the source. This article is so interesting in relation to international politics because it gives us a new perspective as to why there is so much conflict between groups that is never solved. If we tend to feel pleasure when an out-grouper fails or loses and that has a correlation to our level of aggression toward that person, then that explains why some groups are constantly fighting or rooting for the other to feel pain. It is so interesting to read because the article talks about how when normally we would feel empathy seeing another person’s pain, instead we feel pleasure. In the case of India and Pakistan, they have been rivals for years but it probably won’t end because they view each other as outgroupers since they disagree on so much and so they would not feel empathy for them in political matters.

  18. I found this article to be very interesting. The whole idea that the success of your favored team brings pleasure and their failure brings pain and anger makes complete sense. However, the fact that failure of your opponent brings just as much pleasure was so common, was very surprising. This definitely could reflect ethnic conflict around the world. If one country enjoys seeing a rival fail as much as it enjoys seeing itself succeed, the country will be more likely to induce this failure or to create conflict to induce failure. Another point of the article that interested me was that there was less pain in the failure of the favored team than there was pain and anger in the success of the opposing team. Typically, I feel like people would be more hurt by their own losses than the success of their enemies. This reflects interestingly on global conflicts. Does this mean that the success of an rival nation could be more influential than the failure of your own nation? How much more influential is it? It intrigues me because does this mean that a nation would be more likely to instigate conflict or problems due to the success of their opponents?Overall, this article was very interesting and many connections could be made from this baseball experiment to ethnic conflicts.

  19. In this article, I found it very intriguing in how an individual’s social perspective can be directly correlated to the different brains regions that encode and recognize primary rewards and punishments. I also found it intriguing how aggressive motivations or aggressive between different countries within the world can be displayed through something so simple such as a game of baseball. It quite interesting in how people can find pleasure in others peoples pain if we can not find a direct connection or seem to be on opposing sides of a certain issue, then we immediately want the downfall of the other individual. And this issue or research is quite relevant today because individuals are becoming more and more aggressive in the way they carry themselves in order to make sure their side wins or has control or power and bring the downfall to individuals whom do not agree with them.

  20. The article and research was very interesting. It researches how people react and feel when their team is failing versus when their rival team is failing. The article states that when looking at fans of the Red Sox and Yankees there was different reactions within the brain depending on whether it was positive or negative. The article continues with looking into how people identify themselves. How and if people identify with the person or team will result in whether they feel pain, empathy or pleasure in their failure. The study started by getting Yankees and Red Sox fans to correctly identify pictures of the team and then they were shown clips from actually games. The results agreed that people feel pain and anger when their rival team succeeds and pleasure when the team they are cheering for does well. This article can help us understand international conflicts especially ethical ones. It further shows how humans view different groups of people differently especially if they are their rival. If a country is bombed that is our enemy it might give us pleasure because our brain reacts to our rival failing with pleasure. Even if it is inhumane and hurts people in the process. It shows that even if we say we are equal our brain has a tendency to have “us” and “them” sides and views groups around the world like that. That create conflict and rivalry between different groups of people. It creates ethnic conflicts because it creates bias towards people. This helps us understand why we treat groups of people differently.

  21. I think the study done on the levels of aggression between Yankee and Redsox is extremely important. The research shows that humans naturally develop “in groups” and “out groups”, and are much more likely to show aggression to those in the “out group”. What I find most interesting about this is that it can be applied to many other controversial phenomena in the news today such as the Black Lives Matter movement and race/religion wars occurring in countries abroad. This study can even be applied to Nazi Germany (the “in group” being blonde-haired blue-eyed germans, the “out group” pretty much being everyone else).

  22. I thought this article and research was very interesting. It researches the different reactions and emotions of Red Sox and Yankee fans and how they feel when their team is losing vs when their rival team is losing. Research showed that when a Red sox or Yankee fan’s team was losing, their brain had different reactions from if their team was winning. Of course if the fan’s team wins, they will feel pleasure and happiness, whereas if they fail, its the opposite feelings. The research showed that fans would get angry angry and could actually feel pain when their rival team is winning. This correlation can be identified with our countries and our “rival” countries. I guarantee a lot of people would feel pleasure if their “rival country” was harmed or was “losing” in a battle. People can get ahead of themselves and have a tendency to be too hostile, but our brains sometimes create bias towards others. (I had this typed up and i checked if it posted this morning but it didn’t so im posting it again now)

  23. The fact that not only different parts of the brain are activated depending on the group but that a person’s aggressive tendencies are also affected is baffling. I thought it was very interesting that not only do we experience a lot of anger and pain when an out-group achieves something but we’re also subject to more aggressive tactics toward them. I think it’s definitely understandable that we experience pleasure when our in-group does something good or our out-group does something bad because we want to protect our team and make sure that they / we do our best. This ties in to ethnic politics around the globe because even if we have peace treaties with our rivals, it’s very difficult to stop viewing them as an out-group and as such we still experience pleasure when something doesn’t go their way. Countries constantly talk about empathy and the fact that we need to be able to understand each other but because we have in-groups and out-groups a country may feel pleasure in another country’s demise if that other country is an out-group, which can cause more violence (more aggression) and thus less peace as a whole.

  24. Personally, I found this article to be very interesting because yes, everyone deals with stereotypes in some shape or form. Stereotypes can definitely lead to behavior that almost fulfills the stereotype. What does this mean for foreign policy though? Could it mean that countries, who are labeled as underdeveloped and in poverty, will only continue to make economic decisions that will “dig the hole deeper”? I feel that if more powerful and economically stable countries place this stereotypes on these “3rd world” countries, it only inhibits them from future development.This stereotype threat could be reduced if you look at the poor development of the country as being caused by civil war or political unrest verses the country was like this since it was founded and has never changed similarly to how women were either told genetics or experimental causes were the reason for the performance difference. Overall, stereotypes are bound to happen, but if we can perceive negative situations as causes of experimental causes and not innate or genetic ones, then there’s a better chance to not fall into this “stereotype-consistent behavior”.

  25. I thought this article was really fascinating because I’ve never actually considered the way a stereotype perpetuates itself. For instance, if you are a woman, one stereotype that one would come across is that women are weaker than men. Having known that, most women would then believe that they are genetically different than men and as such wouldn’t believe they would preform as well as them. This study proves that with the stereotype of men having superior intelligence. I thought it was interesting that the variable most effective to change the women’s math score was mentioning genetics. Believing that you are born “not as smart” as the other gender could most certainly damage someone’s ability to produce their best work. This makes stereotypes dangerous because as much as we try to stop them, if they’re circulated widely enough, the stereotypes will prove true. This can be tied to foreign politics. If countries are thought to act a certain way, they might actually act that way without even realizing it. This could potentially be helpful if a country spread a stereotype about their enemy in order to ensure what their next move would be. For instance, if the US was in a war with Russia and we somehow spread the stereotype that they would ultimately implode on themselves, they might be more inclined to do so because they would believe that they simply aren’t as good. That was a reach, but something like that could definitely potentially happen (maybe not as exaggerated as a war) in the foreign arena.

  26. I am really interested in stereotypes because I feel like they honestly rule our society in a sense. I think that they often come from somewhere of fact but they aren’t accurate across a whole group of people. I also think it’s interesting how fast stereotypes can evolve. In Jane Elliot’s famous teaching experiment where she told students that people with blue eyes were better than those with brown eyes and visa versa, her students portrayed just how quickly stereotypes can happen. Any small correlation between a group of people and a characteristic can be used turned into a stereotype. That is why this article is interesting to me because the research shows that if you emphasize the experiential accounts of the origin of stereotypes, you can essentially eliminate the stereotype threat (in women’s math performance). So basically if you we can explain the origin of stereotypes that label races or genders as inferior or x-characteristic, than we can reduce and possibly eliminate all together the threat and effectiveness of those stereotypes. Instead of self-fulfilling prophecies where we think we will fail because that’s what the world tells us, we get to destroy the things stereotypes and limitations that are holding up back.

  27. I found these articles very different in the fact that they showed how stereotypes made themselves clear and how just the ideas of them can present an issue. For example, in the article about the study on sexes and gender it showed how just when the idea of stereotypes are present how it can be problematic to shaping people’s thoughts preconceptions to the way that one thinks about themselves or a group of people. In the second article by Belle Derks I think that phrase “in the air” perfectly captures this idea, for often our negative thoughts may be creating issues that don’t in fact exist. When relating this to foreign policy I think that this is extremely important in how we outwardly treat other key actors and countries. Instead of looking at how other countries personally view themselves, this also made me think of how we view other countries. For example, we have many animosities towards other countries, but what if we started looking at them another ways. Not to say that we should appease other countries, but what do you think would happen if we tried to look at the good of a country that we hate? Maybe all of these things we have been saying that we hate about them aren’t relevant anymore, and we should perhaps try to see those in a new light. Mentally we may hate a key actor or region of the world, but have the actually given them more thought than they have building up in our minds full of hatred? I think that we are all guilty of falling into stereotypes, but that if we come aware of these that we are able to fight the temptation to fall into them and “dig the hole deeper”.

  28. These articles not only interested me, but scared me. To think that just being told you are less likely to succeed at something would propel you to do worse, is baffling. My first question would be how we would interpret it as fact rather than wanting to prove whatever stereotype it is wrong. The first thing I would want to do if a test told me I wouldn’t do well, is to do well. Thinking that a simple placement or proposal of words could change how well I do on something is terrifying. My second question is how could we apply this to foreign relations. I think one way we could apply this research, is in the realm of how countries operate within imperialism. If one country invaded another country, and told the leaders they weren’t fit, and the people that they were a failing, dying country, but that they could be saved by the invading country, could this “stereotype threat” affect the leaders and citizens feelings towards being invaded? Moreover, we could apply this to psychological warfare. If one country was presented with evidence that showed they were not capable of defending themselves and that their soldiers were weak, could this cause them to be weaker or not be able to defend themselves? This “stereotype threat” could be applied to nationalities or religions also. I think these findings are dangerous in the way that if someone had the sole purpose of disenfranchising a race or gender, they could use tactics to perpetuate the “stereotype threat,” and this research proves they could be successful. My hope is that in our current atmosphere of equality and feminism, stereotypes such as these could not be perpetuated. I would hope that the language that gave women the impression that the stereotype was “malleable” would be the language that would be used when this issue is brought up. At the end of the first article, the two authors make the point that maybe Summers meant to propose a question to be answered when he made his sexist comment, but that he inadvertently perpetuated the stereotype by the way he worded the question. I think if any research is done to determine whether women and men perform differently in math and science due to their gender, questions should be worded to perpetuate the thought that the stereotypes are not genetic or non-existant, so as not to add to the “stereotype threat.” Overall, this is as always some very interesting and thought provoking research, that should definitely be applied to other areas such as nationality, race, or religion.

  29. For me, the most intriguing part of the article was exactly how malleable our perception of stereotypes are and how they subconsciously affect the way that we act depending on whether or not we think that we’re chained to them. Personally, I think a lot of it just stems from having hope in ourselves to be something more than a stereotype. If we resign ourselves to being genetically tied to a certain feature with no other option then we don’t even give the possibility of being different a chance, much like we assume that we are going to only have two arms throughout our entire lives. I’m not saying that by simply believing that having three arms is a possibility will make it so, but I think that this study does reflect on how powerful human belief is, especially in one’s self. The study gives evidence to the idea that being who you are is a choice made by you, at least as it pertains to rising above stereotypes. Adding foreign policy to the mix puts these findings in a different light. There are stereotypes about literally everything: economic status, ethnicity, job, clothing, even hair color. Throwing that many biases into the mix of organizing the interactions of entire countries can cause people to make unfair decisions simply due to the multitude stereotypes that they may see in another unfamiliar country. For example, Country X is poor and war torn so the people living there must be like This and therefore must need That so we shall execute Plan A, which may not be what Country X needed at all. Basically, if countries make political decisions about foreign interactions based on stereotypes of an unfamiliar country, then they are only perpetrating those stereotypes, and burying the results of study under piles of biased decisions. The people of that country assume that their situation can’t be helped and that This Stereotype must be genetically attached to them because if another country treats them like they are The Stereotype then certainly it must be true, right? If countries and people running them can’t recognize their implicit bias and subconscious adherence to stereotypes, then they are only making matters worse and not giving people the chance to see that they can be something more. Everyone struggles with seeing past stereotypes and ignoring implicit bias, but it is definitely something that needs to be worked on in order to truly see other people and other countries for what they are, and to help them truly see themselves.

  30. The stereotype threat did change the women’s performance, and gave insight into the stereotype threat in general. The stereotype placed on women that we are not as smart is seen to have more effects than we realize. With all the progress our society has made with gender equality these stereotype threats seem to put us back. It is playing into the negative views society has on women and we have on ourselves. These views then have correlation to the women’s performance. We could continue to do this study on different races and social classes and see how much stereotypes effects their actions and performances. Our country is facing a lot of trying to break this stereotype threat. Essentially if you can explain the stereotype people will not believe it as much. With all of the talk about “breaking the glass ceiling” for women in this upcoming election I found this article to have another interesting layer. As I was reading it I was wondering that if we have a women president would the results of this study change. Would our stereotypes start to fade away and then effect the results of the study. It would maybe change women’s mindsets in general and maybe we would not let it effect us as much. It would be interesting to see what the results are after the election.

  31. The article about the threat of stereotype balance for women is very interesting. We see that the stereotype that we put on women and other things do have more effects than we think they do. It shines a very negative light on women and the progress they have made over the years. This article shows us the effects of stereotyping. In this case for the studies on women, we see that by our stereotyping, it makes it seem like it’s turning into reality.

  32. I think that it’s absolutely astonishing that no matter how qualified you are in an area (here it’s math), someone simply pointing out that you are more likely to fail will negatively affect your results. This concept can be applied to so many more issues outside of academia. Crime rates of African-Americans are most likely affected by this. When a black child grows up in an environment that constantly reinforces the stereotypes of aggressiveness and delinquency associated to their skin color, this child is going to begin to believe these things, and may eventually become them. This also concept also relates to women in the workforce. When girls are growing up, very rarely are the career options of “scientist”, “engineer”, or “doctor” reinforced in their minds. Rather, young girls are raised on story books, television shows, and societal implications that their jobs are to be homemakers, wives, and mothers.

  33. Donald Trump is a naturally aggressive person, so it doesn’t surprise me that many of the things he plans to do are also very aggressive. For instance, he plans to redirect all climate programming funds to infrastructure projects at home. He plans to back out of the Paris Agreement or at the very least renegotiate it, which could have drastic effects on the climate if we refuse to pay attention to it. He also hired Myron Ebell, a well-known climate skeptic, to be the head of the EPA, which by itself is very troubling. At the end of October released a plan for the first 100 days in office. In addition to above, he plans to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and begin searching for a new judge to replace Scalia. For the immigration issues, he plans to deport more than 2 million “criminal illegal immigrants” and suspend all immigration from terror regions unless extreme vetting has occurred. He also wants to pull out of the Iranian nuclear agreement, or at least renegotiate it. He’s getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it with Health Savings Accounts, which gives people the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and speed the approval of 4,000 life-saving medications. He also wants to fund the construction of a wall with the “full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States.” He will try to establish a 2-year mandatory federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the US after deportation (5 years with a felony conviction, misdemeanors, or 2+ deportations) and to “ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.” He also made campaign promises to defund Planned Parenthood and limit abortion rights, which will carry severe consequences with them. This will be a drastically different 4 years than the past 8 have been, but I believe that Trump will try to do what is best for the country and its people. I’m still in disbelief that he is actually our president-elect, but I don’t believe he’ll have much support to do the things that people are really scared for.

    source: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

  34. Although there would have issues with Hillary as well, I have recently been very interested about what our foreign policy will look like with Trump as president. In a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, Trump wants to go against this notion, and I believe that our country is headed into a very nationalistic and isolationist era. First off, due to the manner of the things he said towards Muslims and Hispanics/people from Mexico, I think he already has a lot to do to rekindle the scared feelings of these people and make them not feel even more marginalized then they tend to be. Also, there will be great controversy in global human rights, for Trump doesn’t believe in these international alliances, so I don’t think that we will see an increase in fighting for human lives and rights around the globe. In dealing with other international alliances, Trump has often made his opinion vocal about wanting to leave NATO, and I think that this will cause NATO to implode on itself in the absence of both the presence of America and our funding as well as our leaving NAFTA could be catastrophic. However, “he remained silent on a host of important foreign policy issues, such as Afghanistan where the United States is stuck in the midst of a tough fight against a powerful Taliban and whether a continuing U.S. presence makes crucial difference for the survival of the Afghan government and the prevention of a full-blown civil war” (Felbab-Brown). In these cases, I think there is hope that the layers upon layers of foreign policy and intelligence experts will lead Trump in the correct direction as to how to deal with these issues.

    One issue on foreign policy that is very relevant in the world and very important to me is the fight against ISIS. There is a chance that Trump will side with Russia and Assad in this fight, and in my personal opinion, this is a very bad idea, for Assad breaks war crime laws and has been responsible for mass killings of his own peoples. I think that this will automatically link the United States to a pro-Russian society, and this could create increased tensions between us and many other countries around the world. When trying to see this from another side, it may end up being a good thing that with Trump and Putin being very friendly, for we may be free from any Russian aggression in the future. And although hard to predict what will happen, I think that “hard to predict” sums it up. Trump is an unpredictable and somewhat erratic man, and I believe that if he lashes out on a global scale, then diplomacy may be lost, and that his remarks may spark stronger and more aggressive reactions from countries like Latin America, China, and North Korea.

    In conclusion, with Trump as president we are going to be see very radical changes in our foreign policy. Now, more than ever, I think we need to reach out to other countries to continuously kindle relationships and show support, but I think that we may experience a hostile and isolationist approach in our future. I may sound like I am bashing on Trump, but I think that it is important to note that with both candidates we would be having very radical changes in our foreign policy, but this is just a take on Trump, being that he is president-elect.

    Source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/11/09/what-will-foreign-policy-look-like-under-president-trump/?utm_campaign=test-emails&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37413002

  35. Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, the president-elect made several statements leading Americans to believe that his foreign policy tactics will be severely aggressive. In an effort to “defeat ISIS” Trump has put his stamp of approval on torturing and killing the families suspected terrorists. Mr. Trump has threatened to pull America out of the World Trade Organization, has called NATO the “single worst worst trade deal ever signed in this country”, and wants to destroy international climate change agreements such as the Paris Agreement. He believes that more countries should acquire nuclear weapons (in order to protect themselves without American aid).

    Personally, I am not a fan of Mr. Trump or his policies, and here’s why.

    Torturing and killing the families of suspected terrorists is not only immoral, but it is considered to be a war crime. Violent and aggressive acts such as these will only damage the reputation of the United States on an international scale. Also, Trump is okay with torturing the families of SUSPECTED terrorists…the SUSPECTED terrorist may in fact be innocent. And even if he or she was not innocent, punishing people strictly based on their DNA relation to an individual is inhumane and uncalled for.

    Although Trump denies it, climate change is very real and it is happening. The Paris Agreement is a strategic plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and it has been signed by 193 countries worldwide, and Donald Trump wants to pull the United States out of it. First off, Trump will not be able to get America out of this agreement within his first term (the agreement doesn’t allow countries to withdraw for at least four years after signing the document). Secondly, pulling out of this agreement will give the United States a new infamous reputation of internationally uncooperative along with uncaring for the environment. Countries will no longer want to make deals with us if they believe we will go back on our word and dismantle our agreements.

    Lastly, nuclear weapons are not a toy. Donald Trump’s philosophy of “everyone should have nuclear weapons so we don’t have to defend them” is irrational and dangerous. Nuclear weapons are a huge responsibility and can not be trusted in the hands of whoever wants them. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to end up in a full fledge nuclear war.

    Sources:
    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/13/donald-trumps-global-vision-sounds-familiar-but-heres-whats-missing/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/what-is-donald-trumps-foreign-policy.html?_r=0
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/trump-looking-at-quickest-way-to-quit-paris-climate-agreement-says-report

  36. Leading up to the election, President Elect Donald Trump was stern and clear in his policies that he would implement if he was elected president. He was certainly strong on his views with ILLEGAL immigration, protecting the second amendment, and that he wanted to make America the strongest country again. Though many people are freaking out about immigration and thinking they will be deported and what not through the crap that the media feeds us. I don’t think much will change. I think the biggest impact will be on the supreme court judges that Trump chooses to appoint. I think Trump will do a lot better as president than expected.

    https://www.politiplatform.com/trump

  37. This election was pivotal in many ways. America was either going to shift towards globalism and yet again become the “worlds police” or we were going to shift to nationalism and leaving our allies out to fend for themselves. I’m not sure if either of these would work any better than the other for the stability of not only our country but also the world. I chose an article written by Peter Baker published to the New York Times. The basic idea behind the article was how for the first time in several decades, America cast their vote for nationalism versus internationalism. This echoes the “Brexit” vote earlier this year, and lends itself to the theme that the world seems to be favoring away from globalism and internationalism. This article speaks on global markets falling after the President-elect’s victory, and how this speaks to the trust countries all over the world held in Trump. On the reverse however, the Dow posted it’s best week since 2011 at the end of the day Thursday, just two days after Trump’s win; the S&P and Nasdaq came close to their record highs as well. This article goes on to list the ways a Trump presidency will affect our trade policies, foreign aid, and modern alliances. Mexico’s leaders in particular are expressing feelings of doubt and danger over this elections results. Trump’s words over “building a wall” and vetting Muslim’s have put his main ideals under the title of “America First.” In my opinion, our relations with other countries were not what made people vote for Trump. As stated at the bottom of this article, “After decades of worrying about what was good for other countries, they decided it was time to worry about what was good for America. And Mr. Trump promised to do just that, even if the rest of the world might not like it.” This will affect our international relations in several ways. Our trade deals will serve our interests, and not those of the countries they involve. Our foreign aid will serve us and possibly our allies, but more than likely not the country that we are giving the aid to. This article also brought up the fact that if we allow our smaller allies, such as Japan, to “fend for themselves” they will almost certainly be forced to develop their own nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves. Any more nuclear weapons in the world can only lead to disaster. This unrest also comes at a time when America has to make some serious decisions about whether or not to take a major role in shaping the developments of the Middle East and conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians, and the conflicts in Syria. Prime Minister Netanyahu and several other major leaders in the Middle East have spoken words of support for the President-Elect, but also words of worry over a disengagement by the U.S. from the Middle East, leaving it in shambles. In terms of international politics, it’s obvious that a Trump presidency will shake things up in terms of our trade and interaction with countries all over the world. We will have to wait four years, and possibly many more, to fully understand the impact it will have, but all we can do is hope that what is done in our name will not ruin our standing in the world.

  38. This article touched on various aspects of Trump’s predicted foreign policy. It talks about the changes in interactions between America and China, Russia, and Syria once Trump is inaugurated into office.

    For China, the article points out although currently economic relations are doing well, Trump has verbally bashed China and is also planning to impose tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese imports. While this could help America’s manufacturers, this definitely will hurt China. I think that while Trump may have good intentions on how to deal with China, this current plan is not a good one. While politics is not my area of expertise in the slightest, I think that with this current plan of action, America will stomp on any relatively good feelings China may harbor towards America. In my opinion, a degree of caution is good to have when dealing with a foreign country, and Trump’s ideas throw caution to the wind.

    Russia and US relations are incredibly strained at the moment. The article mentions that Trump is considering raising sanctions against Russia in order to hopefully set an example for other European countries and slow Russia’s rising influence in the Middle East and the world. The article also mentions the danger of Trump following through on his comments to pull back from NATO. NATO depends on American leadership. However, if Trump pulls America out of this organization, Putin could take this opportunity to further his influence to the disorganized members. Personally, I think that raising sanctions is actually not a bad idea. From what I know of Russian movement in the world, they are currently mostly unchecked and gaining a sort of sense of invincibility, and any moves that can be made to at least slow their progress would not be a bad idea. However, I think that pulling back from NATO would not be very smart. From what I know of NATO, not only does it help American trade, but it also helps the trade of every other country involved in NATO. If America backs out, they’re only losing multiple trading partners and hurting other countries’ economies.

    As pertains to wartorn Syria, the article points out that Trump favors both Assad’s determination to knock out ISIS and Vladimir Putin. With this kind of alliance, the article fears that what little help America could give rebel forces will be abruptly cut off. Honestly, I think that the entire situation is really difficult and doesn’t have any sort of easy solution. I don’t really think creating an alliance with Putin is the way to go about it, as he doesn’t seem to have good intentions. Hopefully Trump can handle this precarious circumstance in a way that doesn’t completely throw Syria into more chaos.

    Overall, I think that with Trump as president, there is the chance that foreign policy will become more reckless. With country relations as precarious as they are now, I’m not sure that’s a good direction for foreign policy to be headed.

    Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/11/12/501145459/5-big-foreign-policy-challenges-for-president-elect-trumpv

  39. So I was reading over mine one last time and I just realized that it’s not all of what I had written (didn’t get the very end of it when copying and pasting). Also, included is another source that I used.

    With it being said that Trump is indeed our president-elect,I think that our country more than ever needs to be coming together. If Trump succeeds, then the country succeeds, and I only hope that our country can come together. Foreign people have many views on who Trump will be, and it is my hope and wish that their views will be changed for the good in the coming years. There are many foreign leaders who have shared their delights in Trump as the president, so I think we just have to wait and see what happens. There will be many changes in our foreign policy, but I think that that is to be expected with any transition of the power, especially when it is from one party to another. Just as Obama said in his speech about Trump, he and Bush had many disagreements, but it all worked out for them in the end, so if the transition of power goes smoothly, then it could be a great way for Trump to transition into presidency and be well informed on all foreign affairs. There is really no way to predict what will happen, but we must hope for the peace and diplomatic exchanges.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/11/09/experts-weigh-in-what-this-election-means-for-u-s-foreign-policy-and-next-steps/?utm_campaign=test-emails&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37413002

  40. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/what-will-foreign-policy-look-like-under-president-trump/

    Cliff Kupchan argues that Trump will ease tensions between Russia and the US because he has both praised Putin and received it back. That means that any retaliation for Russian cyber-strikes is probably unlikely. However, we will probably work together in airstrikes against ISIS and groups in Syria.
    According to Vanda Felbab-Brown we may see a withdraw of US troops from Afghanistan in keeping up with Trump’s isolationist policies. His declarations against NATO and the United Nations may lead to damage to those alliances and relationships.
    Shadi Hamid stated that the Middle East will face some of the worst repercussions of his “America first” policies because citizens will find themselves less protections and less international support against autocrats.
    Danielle Pletka explained that just like President Obama, Trump will find himself facing more challenges than he expects especially regarding North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China who all want to see what he is willing to do.
    Finally, Nancy Lindborg says that Donald Trump will be faced with difficulties regarding fragile states like in the Middle East because dealing with them successfully requires a lot of shifts in the US’s defense and diplomatic framework in those countries. She argues that his volatile personality proabably won’t be beneficial to the cause.
    Ultimately, I feel like a lot of what President elect Trump said was publicity to fuel his campaign. It was sort of what Miley Cyrus did to make herself more famous. I truly believe that Trump is a volatile man, who is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. but I think that he only really publicized those things because he knew it would get him somewhere. Therefore, I’m not sure if we can believe all the promises he made to us on his tour but I feel like only half of it will be fulfilled. As for what I read in the article, I feel like tensions will ease with Russia and Trump will work to make the US a more isolated country – I’m just not sure if that is literally with walls like continues to say or if it’s with only policy changes.

  41. My article, touched on many foreign policy issues including the US’s relationship with Russia, the future of the US’s involvement in NATO, and also other topics. Donald Trump undoubtedly has a lot of baggage waiting for him in the Oval Office. This article begins by talking about the relationship between the US and Russia, and they predict there will definitely be an easing of tensions due to the “friendship” between Trump and Putin. Also, Trump is very unlikely to retaliate for the cyber-intrusions from Russia. The article also addresses Trump’s questioning of the usefulness of NATO, but they don’t expect him to withdraw the US due to the risk of damaging alliances. Due to Trump’s personality and also various stances on foreign policy issues, it is hard to predict what he plans to do as Commander in Chief. My article also addressed the idea that many nations including China, North Korea, and Iran may possibly begin “pushing the envelope” to see how Trump will respond and handle certain situations. There’s no way to predict what will happen, but as a nation we can hope that Trump has a large staff of advisers for foreign policy which can make decisions that can lead us to as many peaceful relations as possible.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/what-will-foreign-policy-look-like-under-president-trump/

  42. I used the article from PBS about Trumps foreign policy. It talks about how most people think that US and Russia will have more peaceful relations because Trump has come out on multiple occasions about his respect for Putin. The article states “Trump is likely to try to work with Moscow on Syria and seek joint airstrikes against Al-Nusra and ISIS.” The article address the idea that Trump will be very aggressive towards ISIS. The article also states he is not supportive of NATO and even though they do not think he will withdraw he will not be overly supportive towards it.
    Another issue that is addressed is how will other foreign countries react to Trump. Many people did not take him seriously so I think a lot of foreign policy will be shaped with how other countries respect and acts towards him.
    A lot is up in the air right now because we do not know exactly how Trump will respond or how serious his promises are. Do I really think he will deport all illegal immigrants and ban Muslims? No, but I do believe he will having tougher immigration laws. His promises and words may make it seem like his foreign policy will be extreme, but in reality I think he pushes the boundaries with his words and his policies will not be as extreme as he makes them seem.
    .http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/what-will-foreign-policy-look-like-under-president-trump/

  43. This article was originally written in Decemver 2015 but Has then since been updated and is still worth a read to show Trump’s plans. He thinks that the economy is a really big pain to fix but some how he’s talking about these “really big plans”, That was a huge red flag for me personally. This article also addressed Muslim immigration and since I am a Muslim, this directly afferts the people i know and love. Something I thought was funny was that Trump got away from paying his taxes but also wants to stop gedge funds from getting away with murder on taxes. A huge part of his adminisration seemed to be based on immigration and other foregin policy. The economy I feel like will be on the back burner. I also think to a certain extent, some of what Trump was saying was to pull votes together. I have no idea why people voted for him if the only thing of real substance that he said about immigration was to enact a program that costs so much and takes 20 years to completely. This will hurt the economy very much rather than help it but I dont think thats what his goal is wiht this program. I’m glad that he doesnt have pull in Congrees (yet) so he can’t actually do anything (evem though majority is republicans).
    https://www.thestreet.com/story/13335121/1/if-donald-trump-was-president-here-s-what-would-happen-to-the-u-s-economy.html

  44. This article was originally written in Decemver 2015 but Has then since been updated and is still worth a read to show Trump’s plans. He thinks that the economy is a really big pain to fix but some how he’s talking about these “really big plans”, That was a huge red flag for me personally. This article also addressed Muslim immigration and since I am a Muslim, this directly afferts the people i know and love. Something I thought was funny was that Trump got away from paying his taxes but also wants to stop hedge funds from getting away with murder on taxes. A huge part of his adminisration seemed to be based on immigration and other foregin policy. The economy I feel like will be on the back burner. I also think to a certain extent, some of what Trump was saying was to pull votes together. I have no idea why people voted for him if the only thing of real substance that he said about immigration was to enact a program that costs so much and takes 20 years to completely. This will hurt the economy very much rather than help it but I dont think thats what his goal is wiht this program. I’m glad that he doesnt have pull in Congrees (yet) so he can’t actually do anything (evem though majority is republicans).
    https://www.thestreet.com/story/13335121/1/if-donald-trump-was-president-here-s-what-would-happen-to-the-u-s-economy.html

  45. I read an article on PBS news article with Trump and what his foreign policy actions look like. What I noticed after reading the article was that it was implying that Trump will resolve “hot-button issues”, which is good because it seems like he has somewhat of a plan. The first thing it talks about is Trump and his relationship with Putin, and how their relationship will become stronger. It proceeds to talk about his actions in Syria, and how he wants to work with Moscow to enter Syria and attack ISIS. I think Trump will try his best to make America great but I think he needs to be more lenient towards other ideas because I don’t think the majority of this country agrees with his highly intense ideas.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/what-will-foreign-policy-look-like-under-president-trump/

  46. I believe Trump will not act on most what he’s said, but perhaps I’m wrong like I’ve been wrong several times during this election. I don’t believe the U.S will actually leave NATO because it’s not a unilateral decision by the President. I’ve read somewhere that Russia is going to improve relations with President-Elect Trump. I also read somewhere a Russian Foreign Minister says that Trump’s foreign policy is “phenomenally similar to Putin’s”. I remember also reading while Trump doesn’t like the Iran deal, but he knows it’s in place and is willing to do some minor reworks. The article talks about Trump’s top five big foreign policy challenges starting with China. He wants to re-evaluate a lot of our Eastern Asian relationships and that is causing a lot of uneasiness with our economic allies. The Russian relations may improve with the U.S at least temporarily, though I don’t know if that’s a good thing. Trump has strong rhetoric towards ending terrorism, but not certain what specific actions he will do.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/11/12/501145459/5-big-foreign-policy-challenges-for-president-elect-trump

  47. Although we do not know much because of his lack of experience, I believe that President elect Trump will engage in a foreign policy that puts America first on the world stage. Although Trump has hinted about the idea of leaving NATO, i do not believe that he will actually do it. However, we may see Trump attempting to make those countries more responsible for their own defense. We may also see America working closely with Russia specifically in Syria to eradicate ISIS. Trump has been explicitly clear about his intentions of working with Putin as well as improving the two countries relations in general. In my personal opinion, I believe Trump will appoint John Bolton or Senator Jeff Sessions to be Secretary of State. Many news outlets are saying Newt Gingrich but I think Trump is much smarter than that. Gingrich is the right wing of the right wing; he is hated by the left. With that being said, Trump has already done stranger things… It will be interesting to see what happens.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/what-president-trumps-foreign-policy-will-look-like/2016/11/09/3ab88670-a632-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s