These opinions have been updated as of August 2004.
Here's where I've sort of conglomerated my various opinions on all sorts of things. I, personally, think they're mostly weird but they make sense to me. As explained in my making judgements section, I'd like to think I take constructive criticism well and that all my opinions, no matter how set-in-stone they may seem, are always open to debate (even if you just want to say that I'm writing like philosopher X, who is stupid, or contradicting myself). All short, textual responses are on this page. More involved thoughts or thoughts requiring many images (such as on Meat!) are on their own page(s).
Oh, in case you're wondering about the point of the page, it's to:
- Help me think through some things (aka vent, though not in anger usually)
- Help me express some thoughts I can't articulate verbally (see Learning Disabilities)
- Start you thinking, possibly in a different way
- For those interested in learning what, and how, I'm thinking.
- Be argumentative and annoying
Atheism (rehabilitated Summer '04)
CRU and Carleton College's religious environment
Judgements, making
International Students in the U.S.
Computer Science
Of the many opinions I have, my opinion about CS has changed the most over the last few years. I used to think it was all about programming and that can be hideously boring in and of itself (I tried it for a few summers and got really bored). Personally, I think the "applied" part of computer science should just be declared a part of computer engineering and thereby treated as the technical and mind-numbing stuff it is. Not sure right now what would qualify as "applied", though....
What appeals to me about computer science is the fundamental exercise of the mind - the part of CS that belongs in a liberal arts college like the one I went to (Carleton). It's the right mixture of logical deduction and proof with the requirement of creativity to meld old work into the new. It's sort of like the philosophy of the concrete - to some extent it doesn't matter what the matter at hand is as long as our minds are kept limber.
For example, for a while I was concerned that all of computational theory would have to be revamped if a new model of computation were implemented. After all, all of the topics covered in theory courses center around standard Turing machines (TMs) and, at the time, I thought quantum machines broke the rules of TMs. So I was quite surprised that a professor who's main area of research was in theory (specifically, NP completeness) was unconcerned about the ramifications of quantum machines. However, after some thought, I concluded that probably he understood that, if the fundamental model of computation shifts, it may be even more exciting, not disappointing, to restart from scratch.
Not to say that it isn't a good thing to make something that helps people. For me, it's just that it's a nice side issue - when doing any activity, we have to weigh the ends somehow and my end might be anything that eggs me on (maybe ending world hunger, maybe a sandwich, whatever). I realize this doesn't lead to a strong set of ethics but, after all, my main work is making computers better able to adapt to the world so I should be OK with them using that capability to take it over. :->
Those more interested in my more concrete work can take a look at the CS page.
ConvictionsI guess I think of myself as someone with very few stone-hard convictions and, unlike in my judgement section, I don't think I've ever been one to stand up well for a cause. But I again think this is for the best.
Why do people have convictions? Perhaps I'm a bit fuzzy on this but it seems that conviction stems from belief about how the world should be. The assumption seems to be that a person can know how the world should be and, more importantly, be static in that opinion. Sure, people can change their convictions but it seems to me that there's a lot more turmoil and unreasonable resistance to the change (as compared to just changing an opinion).
You might say I'm being fluffy and avoiding the logical conclusion of being judgemental but I'd rather think of it as being open-minded and without an unalterable view of the future or the present (whereas I think having a view of the future and present is unavoidable).
Correcting/CommentingNow that I've been a teaching assistant (TA) for a couple years here at Iowa State, I've noticed an annoying trend among other TAs and professors to marginalize the work of grading. I know a lot of people don't like grading papers and can see that some might find it tedious but, then, how can one be excited about teaching in a classroom but bored when you have to do the written version of the same?
I guess the most obvious problem is that you're delivering bad news - unless you're grading creative papers, you're usually grading down from perfect (i.e. taking away points for wrong answers, not giving them for good ideas). I guess I've always looked at grading homeworks as giving a bit of bad news now to avoid future really bad news. In most cases, this means correcting issues in a homework before an exam but it applies equally well to grading exams to draw attention to weaknesses that could get them in trouble down the line.
In terms of the final course grade, I feel a strong ethical obligation to (equally) make sure those that understand what's being covered pass as those who don't fail. I realize that a student who passes a course I assist probably won't fail in life if they didn't understand the material and that I'll never be blamed if they run into trouble. However, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of OKing someone to do a job when I know they'll have trouble or lack the ability to do it - they or the person that I'm supplying my guarantee to can come to no good through it.
I also expect this criteria to be applied to myself and am disappointed or annoyed when it is not. When I came to Carleton College and started getting Bs (as opposed to the easy As from high school), my parents thought I would be depressed but (with the rudiments of the above philosophy in my head) I really wasn't - in fact, in some cases, I was happier to get a B as that was the work I had felt I did for that course.
CRU and Carleton's religious environment of exclusion by inclusion (Circa August 2001)CRU (or the Council for Religious Understanding) is a group that meets every other week to discuss religious issues at Carleton College. It is composed of a couple people or so of the various religious denominations at Carleton. For me, this group really became the focus of my annoyance at the religious structure at Carleton.
While I applaud religious groups at Carleton and many of the efforts of the Chaplain, I think that the Chaplain's Office (and those related) are walking a thin line between exclusion and over-inclusiveness. The former became more obvious to me first as a student who believed that their is no god (that is, an atheist as opposed to not knowing, which is agnosticism) and being very interested in religious/spiritual stuff. I was a member of the religious diversity house at Carleton in 1998-9 and tried my very best to encourage atheist and agnostic discussion of faith and religion. However, one man is not an army and the resistance of the Chaplain's office to the idea that atheism or agnosticism is a valid choice didn't help. I've now dropped that issue, though, as I was tired of being an atheist missionary but I still think it's interesting that, for all the presentation of various "religious traditions" around the Chapel, there is very little done to address the questions of the silent majority there - the agnostics (and possible atheists).
As for over-inclusion, I think this is probably less of a danger to the relevence of the chaplains office but more of a danger to the office's effectiveness. I realize that active proselyzation is not, and should not, be an aim of the Chaplain's office but I would like to get a feeling of ... something from the chaplain's office. Right now, the office focuses on increasing awareness of various traditions and the manifestations of their faiths. I'm all for this. I also realize that the Chaplain does sponsor some exclusively Christian activities and I think that there should possibly be more of that but that's tangential to what I'm thinking of.
What I am concerned about is more that the current chaplain, in an attempt to accomodate everyone, doesn't seem to have a "connection" with anything. The whole bend of discussion just seems to come from the basic philosophy of accomodating everyone. While perhaps this works for some people, perhaps most other people are being alienated by the lack of conviction of faith. It's hard to approach a chaplain who seems obstinant and vocal about his/her own beliefs but, once it gets down to it, one can't have a lot of confidence that someone who seems to be very relativistic with have any more than equivocal answers to anything.
Learning DisabilitiesI have a hard time understanding things that I have not read and spoken communication can be pretty arcane to me. I found it impossible to follow the precise meaning of what people were saying as my mind would translate things weirdly and generally not be able to process fast enough to keep up with the speaker.
The written word is another story. As most of my work in philosophy, foreign languages, and other subjects has been reading (and sometimes writing), I guess that's why I thought I would be OK in college at verbal-oriented subjects but such is not the case. Psychologically, it's an interesting thing to feel like the written work enters my brain directly while the spoken word goes through some strange, circuitous route.
I guess my only point is that it seems to me a lot of folks are suffering from some sort of learning disability but I think it's just a relative thing and is mostly rate related. For example, I was great at German and debating philosophy with high school students but not so much at Carleton. I'm sure I could comprehend everything at Carleton but it would take me too long and/or too much effort to continue to function at Carleton. Perhaps, in some view, everyone is "disabled" in some way but those overachieving in their current environment don't realize where there "disability" is (this might be just a "weakness" but "disability" sounds so much worse, doesn't it?).
The question, then, is this: If people, like me, can exist and contribute in a place like Carleton or Iowa State in some (or many) ways, should that person be aided if they are unable to perform in other areas the college (and/or the person) considers important?
GuiltBack in high school, I used to be one the most guilt ridden people I knew. People were constantly telling me to stop saying I was sorry and I would feel bad about everything that I did wrong. At some point, perhaps junior year or so, I ran into a group of people who were even more guilty feeling than me and, at the same time, started hanging with a group that deemphasized guilt. Since then, I've been working on some sort of personal philosophy that is sort of a compromise of the two, leaning towards non-guilt.
I guess what bugs me is that guilt can be the driving force in one's life, even one's only perceived reason to be alive. Guilt to get people to do things that they don't want to and that bugs me - there's other ways to get people to do things but none is so insidious. Sure, sometimes it is used to get people to do things they don't want to and something good comes of it but I'd rather be making my own choices.
International StudentsI now attend Iowa State in a department where at least a 2/3 majority of the graduate students are from another country. Coming from Carleton College, where most students are from the U.S. (though not Minnesota), it has been interesting to meet people of such diverse origins and opinions.
I really respect the intelligence of anyone who comes to America from a non-English speaking country, especially those from China and other speakers of non-Latin-based languages. Given my verbal learning disability, it's amazing to me that someone can learn another language after early childhood, go to another country to take courses in that language, and do well in those courses. While I realize that most of the literature in Computer Science is in English to start with, it still strikes me as requiring a lot of dedication and effort.
In any case, I tried a lot more than most Americans I've met to meet as many international students as I can. In fact, I sometimes feel closer to my friends who are from other countries than other Americans - after all, I am a non-Iowan who is sometimes overly dedicated to his work at Iowa State. Still, to some extent, I usually get frustrated that I'll always be the "American friend" rather than just "friend" - I can see that there's a lot of cultural differences to track and my poor ability to learn other languages doesn't help but it's still frustrating even if it can't be helped.
As I've often said to friends, I'd love to live in Europe but really think I could only be at home in London or Ireland somewhere (maybe India, now that I think about it). While I would technically be a foreign professor/researcher there, it's really not the same. I just hope I can get by the conferences that are in other, non-English-speaking countries passably.
Making JudgementsTo start with, I think I'm a fairly judgemental person and am always interested in gossiping about almost everything, even if I'm being hypocritical. What some folks may not know is that, for most of my life, I've focused on not passing judgement on others. Thus, being judgemental is a circa end of high school, conscious choice (perhaps, in retrospect, a weird outgrowth of studying Objectivism in late high school). It sort of annoys me when non-judgemental people are snide about being non-judgemental but, otherwise, I can see why they might believe in reserving judgement and can respect that.
The linch-pin of my argument for being judgemental is this premise: Everyone makes judgements in all parts of their life. You can't avoid doing this. Certainly, some sorts of judgements (such as choices made without sufficient information) should be avoided and that idea, extrapolated to a large degree, forms the basis of those who strive not to make judgements. The problem is that we are always going to be making judgements, consciously or unconsciously. Even those who choose not to judge in most cases have to judge when they have sufficient information to make a choice. By making fewer choices, one can reduce the quantity of incorrect choices and judgements at the risk of decreasing the chance of making a "correct" decision.
Taking my premise, I would rather be aware of my choices as much as possible rather than making them unconsciously. Even I'm not foolish enough to believe that I can make all of my decisions conscious but the more, the better. This is because I think that practice makes perfect: It's very difficult to not be judgemental about things that are obviously judgeable (such as personality, operating systems, etc) and still be able to recognize unconscious biases and judgements as well as someone who recognizes, and makes, the easier decisions.
In other words, avoiding judgements in the easy cases makes it harder to make essential choices later and also makes a regrettable choice more likely. This may be a bit hard to swallow (with its implications) but ponder it for a while. I know I've recognized a lot more of my dark side while being judgemental (such as stereotypes and prejudices I have) and value that ability to see some of my weak points.
Also important to note, though, is that I don't consider any judgement final. There's a difference to me between being judgemental and being convinced that you're right. The act of making a conscious, intelligent judgement always implies a recognition that all the facts will never be on the table and some of those facts may be worth changing the judgement. This doesn't alter that one should certainly believe in your judgements; after all, you may never any more information than you have now and later decisions may hinge on the current one. So, before you judge this theory in respect to myself, please consider my view on convictions.
ObjectivismAlthough my opinion on Objectivism has changed a little since high school, I still believe that the best reason that it is important to be exposed to Objectivism is because it is a radical philosophy that makes the reader rethink a lot of concepts he or she had always assumed. It's a radical philsophy in a very individualistic sense. Here are the basic tenants (in a nutshell):
- Reality exists as an absolute; facts are facts, regardless of a person's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears. This seems obvious but can be missed.
- Reason is a person's only means of perceiving reality, only source of knowledge, only guide to action, and basic means of survival.
- The pursuit of happiness and rational self-interest is the purpose of life.
Rand said (in her interview at the University of Michigan) that her two premises (from which these tenants come from, I imagine) are what the New Intellectual must realize to construct their own rational view of morality. They are (paraphrased, as each person comes on their own path to the realization):
- Emotion is seperate from reason and the latter is the most rational way to examine reality.
- The immorality of force (coercion, as opposed to logical persuasion).
I think the reason I like Rand is two-fold: first, the philosophy of her characters result in a lot of the same ideas I believe in (such as being annoyed at altruism except under certain conditions and supporting rational atheism) and, second, I haven't seen a good refutation of Rand yet. The most I've gotten is "you don't actually believe that, do you?", which doesn't exactly cut it as a logical argument (though, emotionally, it is persuasive). On the other hand, the first reason may explain why I haven't looked hard for the second.
Of course, there are questions and observations I occasionally have about the philosophy:
- For the most part, I agree with her argument on self-sacrifice and altruism. The part that I think is rarely understand is that I think I have a personal gain in my altruistic act, such as helping someone with their math homework, giving a hand in preparing for a party I won't be able to attend, or just being there for someone in trouble. The personal gain is that I learn something, review what I already know, or simply know that I'm making a choice. I do the acts without expectation of any reward or future favor (it bothers me when people do) and without being forced into it by guilt. I noticed that lots of folks in Atlas Shrugged seem to do this also and it seems to me they enjoy helping others for their own satisfaction. Thus, altruism (by which I mean "helping others") is also present in objectivism (albeit in a constricted form).
- People who are put out of business in the Randian Atlantis (outlined in Atlas Shrugged) are recruited by their former competitor for their individualistic spirit. What about people who are disabled such that they cannot perform even basic household tasks? Is it right for other, more successful people to help that person (if even for the giver's happiness)? Are the crippled bums tossed out of Atlantis?
I wrote an oratory on Objectivism for high school speech and it's now in PDF format (7k) for the interested.
PhilosophyAs you might guess from some of my other topics, I'm fairly interested in philsophical works. In high school, I read some philosophy in my course work, some Ayn Rand, and a bit of more "old-fashioned" philosophy (John Locke, parts of the Leviathan, etc.) for Lincoln-Douglas debate. At Carleton, I took the intro Philosophy course "Roots of Obligation" and then I stopped. I think it has a lot to do with my langauge disability (in retrospect) and my annoyance at philosophy seeming like mostly linguistic games. It usually falls into one of 3 catagories (with apologies to Mr. Simon Parker-Shames for the corrupting of his idea):
- Correct but obvious
- Wrong
- Useless and uninteresting (if it is only one of these two, it tends to be in one of the previous catagories)
I still like to read, write, and hear about philosphy. The main philosophy I find fascinating, applicable, and sort of important is that of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Plato is also nifty.
PsychologyI like psychology because it is the examination of humanity in all its mixed rationalities. My favorite sub-field is Social Psychology as the understanding the beast that is the human being from a top-down examination of the way people do act (as opposed to building up from particles). It works on building theories that, although they will probably always be inadequate to fully model reality, describe many people with sometimes startling accuracy. It's not always 100% logical as experienced, as sometimes using our limited logic hides the irrationality of humans, and psychology's findings usually seem obvious in retrospect. The use of social psychology, in particular, seems to be a general understanding of people now and the possibility of a greater understanding later.
One of my most interesting realizations was the power of the unconscious to influence conscious action. Nonverbal behavior, posture, and what is only implied/misinterpreted seems to account for an easy majority of what we process.
