<p>Yes, it is only two days before the SAT, but I just got finished taking the practice test on collegeboard.com, and I was wondering if anyone could give me feedback on this essay...</p>
<p>Question: "Should people make more of an effort to keep things private?"</p>
<p>Essay: It is absolutely necessary to keep certain things private from other people. After all, the very way in which most societies are organized oftem seems to demand this behavior. If a man is not secure in his own brain, he cannot be said to be secure anywhere else. Finally, a lack of privacy is not only damaging to the person who commits over-full disclosure, but also to the people around him.</p>
<p>Since the advent of articulate human language, the presence of varying degrees of association among groups of people has been normative. Linguistics researchers have occasionally commented that what is not articulated cannot be forbidden. The example these researchers use most often is the incest taboo; in the interest of propriety, that will not be touched upon in this essay. However, the fact remains that degrees of separation between people are evident in every known culture. The closest association comes among family members; few things are always--or indeed, should always be--private within a family. The circle of friends is the next closest degree of intimacy; some things are kept hidden among friends, but not nearly as many as are kept from a next-door neighbor, for instance. The pattern holds true through all degrees of social proximity, until everything is expected to be private from complete strangers. To do otherwise would be disruptive to all society. </p>
<p>If a human being cannot be secure in his own mind, then he is being inflicted with severe harm, whether he knows it or not. Philip K. Dick, a renowned American science fiction author, wrote many books in which the contents of a man's mind are violated, or exposed for all to see. "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" contains excellent examples of the harm that can be inflicted because of the abscence of privacy. In the book, a malevolent demigod invades the hallucinations of people who have taken the drug "Chew-Z," victims who are never the same again. Admittedly, this is a somewhat extreme example of the loss of privacy, but how much difference can therebe between losing the most intimate contents of one's consciousness and losing one's soul?</p>
<p>Since man is a social animal, the disruption of privacy affects not only the person who is disclosing his thoughts, but also the people around him. An example is in the civil rights movement for homosexuals. Before the now widespread media coverage and a "we're queer, we're hear, deal with it" mentality, many people were willing to accept homosexual behavior and lifestyle as a private decision. In the words of my father, "why can't they just keep that to themselves?" He referred the the effect that the voluntary relinquishment of the openly homosexual peoples' privacy had had on him. There are many other similar instances where it is perhaps better for privacy to be maintained, not only in the interest of the individual, but also society as a whole.</p>
<p>In conclusion, privacy is a central issue that touches on all aspects of human society and endeavor. If a degree of privacy is not maintained, it harms not only the individual, but also the whole fabric of human society, one of distinct people. (END)</p>
<p>(Oops, I just realized that my 4th paragraph could be construed as condoning homosexual behavior and/or ballot initiatives. It sounded different in my head. I really meant that the conflict that came from the exposure of the issue has not been beneficial to society as a whole.)</p>
<p>Anyhow, what do you all think?</p>