While reading "Taking Play Seriously" by Robin Marantz Henig, I started to become very frustrated. The psychologists in this article were taking all the fun out of playing.

I plan on majoring in Psychology, so at first I was very intrigued about the motivations behind playing. But as I realized that the psychologists were zooming-in so close and nit-pickingat every small detail, so much so that playing no longer resembled playing, I stopped wanting to read the article. I know that when it comes to psychology, if there's a behavior there's always going to be someone investigating the why. But trying to place a definition on an act that is so innnate and child-centered seeems to detract from the very nature of the word. Playing is playing. It's having fun and exploring what's around you. It's done for the exact reasons it appears to be done- to socialize, stretch the imagination, and, most importantly, because it makes people happy.

Sometimes I wish psychologists could just let some things be. I'd rather not know the chemicals involved in love or the steps involved in grieving. Some actions and emotions are just natural and they make us who we are. So please, don't take play too seriously. 

Like Henig, I am uncertain of the benefits of play. However, when I worked at a summer camp this year, I was assured that there are benefits. Having a variety of campers with mental and emotional disorders, the campers in my group were very sensitive to each other's energies. If even one person got rambunctious, the whole group would start screaming and tossing pieces of clay in the air. To avoid this, we began to have dance parties in classrooms, incorporate songs into work time, and take breaks to play "Big Booty." This playtime greatly improved my campers' attitudes. They would have more fun and be more productive because they weren't affected by or creating a group-wide temper tantrum. My happiest memory from this past summer is when my campers were building robots and laughing in between every song lyric that was blasted out of the radio.

The essay of Henig totally recalled my memory of family times, when my father always complains how technologies have been ruining my childhood: I have never climbed trees or catched an insect in my childhood----but these were never anything I would love to do. I spent time with my childhood friends playing card games or acting plays, we enjoyed pretending to be someone in the TV series. But there was little time for playing since I was attending preschool classes and take piano, drawing, handwriting, taekwondo at the same time. They don’t want me to be left behind by other kids, and arranged a busy schedule for me.

And the serendipity essay by Sunstein, I have to say the only reason I buy magazines and newspaper is that those wide range of random messages cannot be replaced by online surfing. I want to read something I have no previous experience or knowledge of, and want a little surprise for life. I always read through the whole paper---even the name of the editors on the back, which is like an exploring experience.

It was interesting to hear what struck other people about my writing; I heard several comments on the vividness of my imagery, and the transition from general to personal. I was very pleased and amused to hear that “extravaganza” was among the most noticeable words in the paper; it seems fitting that “extravaganza” was the center of attention. The feedback I got made me feel pleased with my work; nothing quite so active as happy, but well contented, which was a marvelous change from immediately after I originally submitted my paper, by which point I was tired, stressed, and worried about other things. I hope to take from this exercise a renewed appreciation of the vividness of words, and the confidence to use them artfully.

When you taste something for the first time, your tongue seems a lot more sensitive as it tries to taste every ingredient in whatever you're indulging in. The tongue wants to know exactly what it's tasting in order to decide if it likes it or not. It can't judge the food based on one ingredient, your taste is based on the overall food experience. Same goes with the overall experience of a city, you can't judge it based on one distinct area of it. I believe you have to really dedicate some time to get to know the city well all around, the good, the bad, and the ugly. In order to understand how well a certain city functions, how it's structured, and what it holds for its people, one has to involve itself with the city and explore past the known and recomended areas of the city. 

In the midst of all our conversation about the constructed, limiting nature of gender
assignment-> role-> identity -> expression -> attribution --and all our play with each of those categories--
I also want to keep in play the very real consequences of being seen as "woman" in the world.

This just out: a fascinating case study of (the lack of) gender equity @ Harvard Business School--
and the school's "unapologetic" attempt to change this.