1. http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/activities.htm#group
The Similarities Project
By Peter Kaufman
We all need food. We all need water. We all need air. We all have parents. We
all have organs. We all have blood. We all need love. We all get sad. We all get
annoyed. We all have friends. We all have hearts. We all need to learn. We all
like to laugh. We all feel pain.
These are just some of the responses that were generated last month
when I took a group of college students to participate in The
Similarities Project with a class of third graders.
The purpose of the visit was to explore (and eventually draw) some of
the similarities between these two groups of students. At first glance
this might seem like a difficult task. Just thinking about their sizes,
ages, and hobbies, it would appear as if third graders and college
students have very little in common. But in less than an hour the
students were able to identify over forty similarities.
The challenge of finding things we have in common is not only
difficult when we bring together two disparate groups; it is
sometimes difficult when we are among our peers. I do a version of
The Similarities Project in some classes. After the initial pairing,
students then join together progressively into groups of 4, 8, 16 and
32. At each step, they need to find new things that everyone in the
group has in common. Not surprisingly, as the size of the group
increases it becomes more difficult to find things they all share.
The Similarities Project demonstrates the extent to which we are
socialized to focus much more on our differences than our
commonalties. This is not necessarily a bad thing; after all, opposites
do attract and diversity does enhance our experiences.
But too often, our emphasis on differences impoverishes instead of
enriches our lives. It separates us instead of brings us together. We
end up using these differences to assign value, worth, or legitimacy.
And from this, artificial and arbitrary borders, structures of inequality,
and institutions of oppression quickly develop.
If you think about it, it is not an exaggeration to say that all of the
harm we (humans) have done to each other and even to our planet
comes from emphasizing our differences instead of our similarities.
Consider the following:

2. · War: All wars have been fought over differences in religion, economic status, tribal
affiliation, race/ethnicity, or territorial borders (which demarcate one
of the above or some other difference).
· Systems of Oppression (such as sexism, racism, heterosexism,
ableism, classism): All forms of discrimination and oppression stem
from identifying another group as “other”—as less equal, less worthy, less human.
· Environmental Degradation: As we (humans) deplete natural
resources such as air, water, soil, and as we destroy ecosystems
rendering certain species of plants and animals extinct, we are doing so
with the implicit assumption that we are separate from and different
than other living organism—including being different from other
humans whose lives also depend on these scarce natural resources.
The fact that we overwhelmingly emphasize our differences at the
expense of our similarities should raise some red flags for us because
as sociologists we know that all of these differences are socially
constructed. In other words, there is nothing inherent, natural, or
essential about these differences. We humans have defined them,
created them, emphasized them, and eventually, have fought or
oppressed each other over them.
The Similarities Project is a modest attempt to socially construct a
different reality. Instead of identifying the ways in which we seem
unalike, this exercise promotes the many things we have in
common. You would think that for a species that is said to be 99.9%
similar we would not have much problem identifying our
commonalities. But because we are socialized to identify and
emphasize our differences the things that connect us are often
obscured, neglected, or ignored.
Will the Similarities Project put an end to the harm and suffering
humans cause as a result of our over-emphasis on socially
constructed differences? On the macro-level, probably not. But in
our everyday social interactions, focusing on our similarities has
great potential to reduce teasing, bullying, stigmatization, prejudice,
discrimination, and voluntary segregation.
Moreover, there are numerous examples of groups and organizations
engaging in similar efforts to socially construct a new reality by
focusing on the things that bring us together instead of the things that
tear us apart:
In October 2011, there were nearly 2,500 schools around the
country that participated in the Mix It Up program organized by
Teaching Tolerance. This program encourages school kids to identify, question and
negate social differences by sitting with someone new during lunch.

3. PeacePlayers International uses basketball to educate and
unitechildren who live in communities divided by racial-ethnic,
religious, and cultural differences. Working since 2001, PeacePlayers
International now has an operating budget of over $2.2 million dollars
and currently works in Northern Ireland, South Africa, the Middle
East, and Cyprus.
The Center for Ecoliteracy uses education as a way to promote sustainable living.
Through programs, teaching strategies, and instructional tools, the Center for
Ecoliteracy emphasizes our connections with the planet so that we humans live in
unison with all living creatures (including each other) as opposed to seeing ourselves
as superior to, different from and dominant over other living organisms.
The next time you are among a group of diverse individuals or meet
someone new, see if you can make a list of all of the things you have in
common. The longer you think about it the more you will realize that
you have many more similarities than differences. After all, we all
need shelter, we all live on planet earth, we all have stereotypes, we all
have names, we all suffer from war, we all have dreams, we all communicate, we all fail, we
all need sleep, we all have ancestors, we all were born and we all eventually die.
Icebreakers - Sarah Estow from Guilford College shared some excellent "icebreakers"
for illustrating social psychology principles at the SPSP Teaching Pre-conference. For
example, she has begun the semester with
"Lying to your peers" - Students were to go around the room and tell two true and one
untrue thing about themselves. Students tried to guess which were true and which were
untrue. She was able to connect this exercise to self-concept, stereotyping and
impression formation among other concepts.
"Professor profile" - At the beginning of the course, students completed questionnaires
about their instructor (Sarah), identifying what they thought would be her hometown,
favorite music, favorite movies, etc. They also rated how confident they were in these
judgments. She then had them discuss how easily they formed these impressions, what
data they used, confidence vs. accuracy, and more.

4. Activity: Tom Randall's Halloween Party
The Test of Critical Thinking Abilities
We live in a complex world filled with challenging and often perplexing issues that we are
expected to make sense of. Many social issues are analyzed and evaluated through our
judicial system. This test is designed to give you the opportunity to think seriously and
express your ideas about a complex social issue. Imagine that you have been selected to
serve on a jury that is asked to render a verdict on the following situation.
The defendant, Tom Randall, is a twenty-one-year-old college senior in a state where the
legal drinking age is twenty-one. On October 21, he hosted a Halloween party in his
apartment. Twenty-eight men and women attended the party. Alcohol was served, in the
form of beer, wine, and liquor. One of the partygoers was Kelly Greene, an eighteen-year-
old freshman at the same college. During the course of the evening, Ms. Greene allegedly
consumed an undetermined amount of alcohol. While she was driving back to her dorm
after the party, at approximately 12:15 a.m., Ms. Greene struck two students who were
crossing the street at an intersection. One student, Melissa Anderson, was killed instantly. A
second student, Edward Montgomery, was hospitalized with multiple fractures. The police
officer at the scene gave the following report regarding the driver of the car, Kelly Greene:
"I noticed that her speech was slurred, that she was not entirely coherent, and that her breath
smelled of alcohol. I asked her to take a Breathalyzer test to determine the amount of
alcohol in her bloodstream. She refused. I placed her under arrest." Ms. Greene has been
charged with Driving While Intoxicated and Vehicular Manslaughter. Her case is currently
pending. Mr. Randall, the defendant in this case, is being charged with Involuntary
Manslaughter. If convicted, he faces up to seven years in jail.
Now follow the links below to reach your verdict about Tom Randall's Halloween party.
Step 1. Gathering and Weighing the Evidence
Step 2. Asking Important Questions
Step 3. Constructing Knowledge
Step 4. Evaluating Expert Testimony
Step 5. Evaluating Summation Arguments
Step 6. Deliberating the Issues
Step 7. Reaching a Verdict
Step 8. Solving Problems