Showing posts with label MomLife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MomLife. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

Everyday Philosophy: “Should I Hide My Wild Past From My Parents?”

A statue of an authentic marble figure holding a red plastic cup against a black background.

Credit: Adobe Stock / Big Think

I was really taken with this question because I’ve experienced the same thing, but in reverse. I asked my dad three years ago to write an autobiography  an in-house thing for Thomsons to read down the generations. He took to the idea and took to writing. A week later, he called me up and said, “Jonny, I’ve had to stop. I’m worried about what you and others might think of what I’ve done.”Now, my dad is a gentle, kind, and squeaky-clean kind of retiree. He’s an ex-headmaster and psychologist who likes science fiction and golf…….Story continues…

By:Jonny Thomson

.

Critics:

Social identity is the portion of an individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group. As originally formulated by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and the 1980s, social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour.

“Social identity theory explores the phenomenon of the ‘ingroup’ and ‘outgroup’, and is based on the view that identities are constituted through a process of difference defined in a relative or flexible way depends on the activities in which one engages.”This theory is described as a theory that predicts certain intergroup behaviours on the basis of perceived group status differences, the perceived legitimacy and stability of those status differences, and the perceived ability to move from one group to another.

 This contrasts with occasions where the term “social identity theory” is used to refer to general theorizing about human social selves. Moreover, and although some researchers have treated it as such, social identity theory was never intended to be a general theory of social categorization. It was awareness of the limited scope of social identity theory that led John Turner and colleagues to develop a cousin theory in the form of self-categorization theory, which built on the insights of social identity theory to produce a more general account of self and group processes.

The term social identity approach, or social identity perspective, is suggested for describing the joint contributions of both social identity theory and self-categorization theory.Social identity theory suggests that an organization can change individual behaviours if it can modify their self-identity or part of their self-concept that derives from the knowledge of, and emotional attachment to the group.

The term ‘social identity theory’ achieved academic currency only in the late 1970s, but the basic underlying concepts associated with it had emerged by the early twentieth century. William G. Sumner, writing in 1906, captures the primary dynamics in this excerpt from his influential work Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals: “Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without,—all grow together, common products of the same situation. …

Men of an others-group are outsiders with whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. … Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn.”

By the late 1920s the collectivist perspective had all but disappeared from mainstream social psychology. Over fifty years later, around the time of the first formal use of the term ‘social identity theory’, Tajfel wrote this on the state of social psychology: “Thus, social categorization is still conceived as a haphazardly floating ‘independent variable’ which strikes at random as the spirit moves it. No links are made or attempted, between the conditions determining its presence and mode of operation, and its outcomes in widely diffused commonalities of social behaviour.

Why, when and how is social categorisation salient or not salient? What kind of shared constructions of social reality, mediated through social categorization, lead to a social climate in which large masses of people feel they are in long-term conflict with other masses? What, for example, are the psychological transitions from a stable to an unstable social system?”  Thus, social identity theory in part reflects a desire to reestablish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups.

Social identity theory states that social behaviour will want a person to change their behaviour while in a group. It varies along a continuum between interpersonal behaviour and intergroup behaviour. Completely interpersonal behaviour would be behaviour determined solely by the individual characteristics and interpersonal relationships that exists between only two people. Completely intergroup behaviour would be behaviour determined solely by the social category memberships that apply to more than two people.

The authors of social identity theory state that purely interpersonal or purely intergroup behaviour is unlikely to be found in realistic social situations. Rather, behaviour is expected to be driven by a compromise between the two extremes. The cognitive nature of personal vs. social identities, and the relationship between them, is more fully developed in self-categorization theory. Social identity theory instead focuses on the social structural factors that will predict which end of the spectrum will most influence an individual’s behaviour, along with the forms that the behaviour may take.

A key assumption in social identity theory is that individuals are intrinsically motivated to achieve positive distinctiveness. That is, individuals “strive for a positive self-concept”. As individuals to varying degrees may be defined and informed by their respective social identities (as per the interpersonal-intergroup continuum) it is further derived in social identity theory that “individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive social identity”.

The precise nature of this striving for positive self-concept is a matter of debate (see the self-esteem hypothesis). Both the interpersonal-intergroup continuum and the assumption of positive distinctiveness motivation arose as outcomes of the findings of minimal group studies. In particular, it was found that under certain conditions individuals would endorse resource distributions that would maximize the positive distinctiveness of an in-group in contrast to an out-group at the expense of personal self-interest.

Social identity matters because it shapes people’s self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships. Favorable self-perception increases the likelihood that an individual would relate well to other members of the group and experience favorable feelings about themselves. People’s perceptions of themselves are shaped by the group they identify with more strongly. Getting status within the group can make people feel more confident, content, and respected since belonging to that group becomes significant for how they view themselves and their talents.

Building on the above components, social identity theory details a variety of strategies that may be invoked in order to achieve positive distinctiveness. The individual’s choice of behaviour is posited to be dictated largely by the perceived intergroup relationship. In particular the choice of strategy is an outcome of the perceived permeability of group boundaries (e.g., whether a group member may pass from a low status group into a high status group), as well as the perceived stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy.

The self-enhancing strategies detailed in social identity theory are detailed below. Importantly, although these are viewed from the perspective of a low status group member, comparable behaviours may also be adopted by high status group members. It is predicted that under conditions where the group boundaries are considered permeable individuals are more likely to engage in individual mobility strategies. That is, individuals “disassociate from the group and pursue individual goals designed to improve their personal lot rather than that of their ingroup”.

Where group boundaries are considered impermeable, and where status relations are considered reasonably stable, individuals are predicted to engage in social creativity behaviours. Here, low-status ingroup members are still able to increase their positive distinctiveness without necessarily changing the objective resources of the ingroup or the outgroup. This may be achieved by comparing the ingroup to the outgroup on some new dimension, changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group, and choosing an alternative outgroup by which to compare the ingroup.

Here an ingroup seeks positive distinctiveness and requires positive differentiation via direct competition with the outgroup in the form of ingroup favoritism. It is considered competitive in that in this case favoritism for the ingroup occurs on a value dimension that is shared by all relevant social groups (in contrast to social creativity scenarios). Social competition is predicted to occur when group boundaries are considered impermeable, and when status relations are considered to be reasonably unstable.

Although not privileged in the theory, it is this positive distinctiveness strategy that has received the greatest amount of attention. In political science, social identity theory has been incorporated as the subconsitituency politics theory of representation. This theory holds that political elites are individually rational, and they use identity instrumentally to cultivate minimum winning constituencies (e.g., via the “microtargeting” of ads). 

‘My wife not my first relationship,’ Oyedepo’s son speaks on peer pressure The Punch 15:45 

In the last hour

Sunday, August 23, 2026

The Most Popular Snacks To Put in Your Kids’ Lunchbox

Grocery shopping for school-age kids is not a relaxing, easy-to-manage weekly chore. It’s a constant battle to make sure the refrigerator is stocked with enough fruit to feed an army, cold cuts for sandwiches, and chicken nuggets and frozen pizza to feed hungry kids after sports practice. During the school year, when schedules are even more packed and kids are exhausted after a day of school and extracurriculars, it’s even more important that parents stock their cabinets with the snacks their kids will actually eat…….Continue reading….

By Elisabeth Sherman

Source: Parents

.

Critics:

Free school meals can be universal school meals for all students or limited by income-based criteria, which can vary by country. A 2018 study of a free school meal program in the United States found that providing free meals to elementary and middle school children in areas characterized by high food insecurity led to better school discipline among the students. As of 2022 in England, 20.8% of the 8.9 million pupils attending schools in 2020–21 are known to be eligible for free school meals.

Free school meals available for all students are also called Universal school meals. Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Brazil and India are among the few countries which provide universal school meals to all pupils in compulsory education, regardless of their ability to pay. In India, where all Government School students are provided with free lunches through the Midday Meal Scheme, staple foods are provided along with free education. Several states in the US offer universal school meals.

School meals can also be targeted, often toward students who are poor or otherwise vulnerable. Such targeting can be geographic (providing school meals in all schools with a region that is deemed food insecure or lower income), school-based (targeting schools with a population of generally poor students), or based on individual characteristics (targeting students based on their household income, ethnic status, or other individual traits).

Across different settings and school meal programs, many different approaches are used when targeting school meals. Reduced price meals are also available in some countries to those who need a degree of assistance with costs. Lower-cost meals are available to students in such countries as France, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, Portugal, and the United States. In some programs, meals are made available for purchase in school cafeterias/canteens at full price.

For example, in the United States, students who do not qualify for reduced price lunches can still purchase food at the full price. In the United Arab Emirates, all food in school cafeterias is available for purchase, though prices reflect only the cost of the food itself. School meals can be cooked in a kitchen (whether in each school or in a centralized kitchen, with the cooked food then delivered to individual schools).

School meals can also be uncooked, serving cold sandwiches or packaged biscuits. For example, the National School Nutrition Program in Egypt serves only Ma’amoul, a baked food item made with dates.The objectives and benefits of school meals vary. In developing countries, school meals provide food security at times of crisis and help children to become healthy and productive adults, thus helping to break the cycle of poverty and hunger.

They can address micronutrient deficiencies by serving diverse foods or including fortified foods. They also serve as an incentive to send children to school and continue their education, and they can be leveraged specifically to reduce barriers to schooling for girls. When school meals are targeted toward low-income or vulnerable children, they serve as a social safety net.Especially in developed countries, school meals are structured to encourage healthy eating habits.

School meal programs can also be aimed at supporting the domestic or local agricultural sector. Today, the National School Lunch Program is a federal nutrition assistance program operating in over 101,000 public schools, non-profit private schools, and residential care institutions. It is regulated and administered at the federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The program provides “nutritionally balanced meals” at low or no cost to more than 31 million children each school day. Since its inception, the Program has expanded substantially. It now includes the School Breakfast Program, the Snack Program, a Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program. At the State level, the National School Lunch Program is usually administered by state education agencies, which operate the program through agreements with school food authorities.

School meal programs in the United States provide meals free of charge, or at a reduced (government-subsidized) price, to the children of low-income families. Those who do not qualify for free or reduced price are charged a nominal fee.

Monday

Parents unaware of major free school meal rule change coming next month

.
SchoolMeal ,LunchIdeas ,HealthyKids ,KidsFood ,FoodForKids ,SchoolLunch ,MealPrepIdeas ,MomLife ,ParentingHacks ,EasyRecipes ,BackToSchool ,FamilyMeals ,HomeCooking,Foodie,HealthyEating ,NutritionForKids ,LunchBoxIdeas ,WhatMyKidAte ,PickyEaters ,MealInspiration ,StudentLife ,HomemadeLunch ,QuickMeals ,SchoolFood ,LunchGoals ,FoodPhotography ,KidsNutrition ,WeekdayMeals ,MySchoolMeal ,EatWellLiveWell

Leave a Reply

Crypto ETF Rules In The US: How a Fund Gets Listed Now

Getty Images The September 2025 approval changed the arithmetic for every crypto fund sponsor in the country. Before that date, each new cry...