In my recent forays into romance, I have witnessed new things and been inspired to grow as a person and as a significant other. It is interesting (and beneficial, I might add!) to evaluate my relationship in the broader context, and see if it follows certain trends (for the record, to interested parties, it hasn't following the common trend of lack of communication and commitment, and promises something much more fulfilling). One of the key bits of tacit knowledge is about relationship phases, where a couple advances in growth and goes through different stages, each of which exhibiting unique dynamics and behavior.
The traditional theory is that relationships begin with an initial attraction phase, a 'honeymoon' phase of no-holds-barred romance, a 'settle down' awakening phase in which both people begin to grow together and troubleshoot, and finally a deep commitment phase in which a relationship generally becomes long-lasting. I will detail these phases below into a distilled series of thoughts that go through people's minds during each phase.
Initial: I think you're amazing.
Honeymoon: I think you're more amazing than anyone else in the whole wide world and universe and of all time!
'Settle Down:' I don't like everything about you. Oh yeah, something about being amazing here.
Committed: I don't like everything about you, but I still love you.
Long lasting: I don't like everything about you, but I love everything about you.
However, I think it is too simplistic to say that the last three phases, past the honeymoon period, are so much 'phases' as they are reiterative processes that constantly run. You start in relationship bliss, encounter a problem, solve the problem, and return to bliss again stronger and better prepared for the future. For many couples, the hold up (often facilitated by poor communication, distrust, and other such things) is on 'encounter a problem' (in which a couple can't admit there is a problem in the first place) or 'solve the problem' (in which a couple can't compromise and reach mutually agreeable solution). After the honeymoon is over, this circular process repeats forever.
As a couple is composed of two different people, conflict will always be present simply because both parties are different. This can be seen as the 'problems,' whether they are as simple as one being a sore loser during Scrabble, or one being emotionally distant. What matters in this process, however, is summed up by the 'Oh yea, something about being amazing here' line in the above distilled version; the constant knowledge of why the relationship was there in the first place. It pains me as a person often to hear couples state that they don't remember the reasons why they were formed, and in my romantic life, I remain aware of what had initially attracted me to someone in the first place. Maybe it is that competitive fire that pissed me off now, but kept me motivated and going in times of true crises. Maybe it is that self-critical nature which pisses her off now but drives both people to improve and become a stronger couple and keeps things growing.
The point is, relationships aren't composed on distinct '5' or '4' or even '100' stages. Relationships are a process that change us, allow us to grow, and expose us to new things. Finding the one to spend that process with means finding the match that will be with us for the long term, and the one that we trust to know ourselves better than we do. In this sense, perhaps it is inaccurate to state whether a relationship is in phase 1 or 5, but more accurate to state a relationship exists. There are X stages, and our focus shouldn't be on what X is, or what we want X to be, but on maintaining love and commitment throughout X.
If you haven't figured this out by now, I've fallen in love. I'm not sure which iteration of X I'm in right now, but the commitment I've made and the subsequent fulfillment I feel allows me to go through even X to the over 9000th power and still be happier than I've ever been.
Today is sunny, but too warm, hence I am lazy.
Cheers.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Erectile Dysfunction
No, your favorite blog writer does not suffer from ED, and this post is not going to expound upon the wonders of Viagra. However, I do wish to explore to topic of ineffective leadership, particularly in terms of 'erectile dysfunction;' that is, the problem oftentimes rests not within the situation but within oneself. It is my firm, fundamental belief that amazing changes occur not only because of serendipity, but also because someone was there to recognize the opportunity. Success, therefore, might be composed of 95 or even 99% luck, but without that 1% of preparatory work, there still cannot be a success.
As a member of student government at my institution, I have had the pleasure of recognizing this fact in our head honcho. In my observations of his behavior, his opinions, and his interactions with others (including myself), there seems to be a constant lack of personal accountability. As opposed to attempting towards working to improve himself in the station of his office, I have noticed instead a perchance to pick at the surrounding situation. Such a focus is reactive intrinsically; instead of preparing for perhaps a chance, it is a 'if I see a chance, therefore, I shall take it.' This outward focus in terms of situation analysis belays an inward focus towards personal growth and achievement and, in my opinion, is very much like ED.
Ineffective leaders are everywhere, oftentimes selected for non-objective qualities and irrational properties. While people oftentimes believe (including myself!) that the choices we make are based on objective logic and are quite defensible, it has been my experience (even with me!) that this is clearly not the case. Because of the social politics involved in leadership selection, it is oftentimes rarely the case that elected leaders are in fact, the ones most qualified for their jobs. When you throw in power dynamics into this situation, in which an easily manipulated candidate can be elected because of ineffectiveness, and then a dash of 'voiced concerns' as the primary focus of most people as opposed to problem solving, opening up any sort of decision-making process with a selection method based on popular opinion seems to grow very, very depressing.
To b sure, I do not mean to state (definitively or otherwise) that open processes everywhere are analogous to this situation. It is simply my opinion that the key points in traditionally 'great' leaders, such as charisma, willingness to listen, social popularity, etc etc etc are in many ways, the qualities that hinder progress the most. Such things must be balanced by a tenacity for problem solving, an inward drive to accomplish goals, and most importantly, the fearlessness to address issues and to admit when one is at fault. I unfortunately do not see these things often, especially not in head honcho.
Instead, when a leader's base of power is solely built upon not personal capabilities, but how those capabilities can serve a populace, such situations constrict progress and can have a poor effect on overall efficacy. So long as leader is focused more upon serving the general populace, the chance that a leader is willing to hardline an unpopular, but potentially rewarding situation decreases. Please remember that democratic processes always assume that everyone has the same level of information, and the same skillset competency (not necessarily type of skillset); however, this is never the case. We distinctly specify a leader because he is to be differentiated from others, and why should we be surprised that with the role comes information asymmetry that we are not aware of? However, the realization of such things in favor of transparency does not happen often, especially among students.
I am sad to say, and I'm sure everyone here is quite aware of this, that I have little respect for our head honcho in a professional setting for these reasons. I do not doubt that he is a nice person, and has all the wonderful personal qualities that one could desire, but in terms of professionalism and efficacy, I see no reason to give my respect, backing, or support to someone who does not look inward. Mistakes I personally make has always led me on bouts of introspection, to change and improve myself so I might be able to perform my future roles more adequately. I do not believe this same drive is present in all people, but I sorely wish it was.
Today, boring classes, hence I am lazy.
Cheers.
As a member of student government at my institution, I have had the pleasure of recognizing this fact in our head honcho. In my observations of his behavior, his opinions, and his interactions with others (including myself), there seems to be a constant lack of personal accountability. As opposed to attempting towards working to improve himself in the station of his office, I have noticed instead a perchance to pick at the surrounding situation. Such a focus is reactive intrinsically; instead of preparing for perhaps a chance, it is a 'if I see a chance, therefore, I shall take it.' This outward focus in terms of situation analysis belays an inward focus towards personal growth and achievement and, in my opinion, is very much like ED.
Ineffective leaders are everywhere, oftentimes selected for non-objective qualities and irrational properties. While people oftentimes believe (including myself!) that the choices we make are based on objective logic and are quite defensible, it has been my experience (even with me!) that this is clearly not the case. Because of the social politics involved in leadership selection, it is oftentimes rarely the case that elected leaders are in fact, the ones most qualified for their jobs. When you throw in power dynamics into this situation, in which an easily manipulated candidate can be elected because of ineffectiveness, and then a dash of 'voiced concerns' as the primary focus of most people as opposed to problem solving, opening up any sort of decision-making process with a selection method based on popular opinion seems to grow very, very depressing.
To b sure, I do not mean to state (definitively or otherwise) that open processes everywhere are analogous to this situation. It is simply my opinion that the key points in traditionally 'great' leaders, such as charisma, willingness to listen, social popularity, etc etc etc are in many ways, the qualities that hinder progress the most. Such things must be balanced by a tenacity for problem solving, an inward drive to accomplish goals, and most importantly, the fearlessness to address issues and to admit when one is at fault. I unfortunately do not see these things often, especially not in head honcho.
Instead, when a leader's base of power is solely built upon not personal capabilities, but how those capabilities can serve a populace, such situations constrict progress and can have a poor effect on overall efficacy. So long as leader is focused more upon serving the general populace, the chance that a leader is willing to hardline an unpopular, but potentially rewarding situation decreases. Please remember that democratic processes always assume that everyone has the same level of information, and the same skillset competency (not necessarily type of skillset); however, this is never the case. We distinctly specify a leader because he is to be differentiated from others, and why should we be surprised that with the role comes information asymmetry that we are not aware of? However, the realization of such things in favor of transparency does not happen often, especially among students.
I am sad to say, and I'm sure everyone here is quite aware of this, that I have little respect for our head honcho in a professional setting for these reasons. I do not doubt that he is a nice person, and has all the wonderful personal qualities that one could desire, but in terms of professionalism and efficacy, I see no reason to give my respect, backing, or support to someone who does not look inward. Mistakes I personally make has always led me on bouts of introspection, to change and improve myself so I might be able to perform my future roles more adequately. I do not believe this same drive is present in all people, but I sorely wish it was.
Today, boring classes, hence I am lazy.
Cheers.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Curse of Js
Throughout my life, I have had many forms of stress. Sometimes, personal problems have dealt repeated, oftentimes harsh, blows to my psyche; other times, it is the outside world that decides to wail on me with seemingly never-ending blows. Everyone has stress, but what makes in part all of us unique is the way we deal with stress. Some of us seem to be unaffected and it washes off our backs like a tortoise in a rain storm, while others are simply washed away by the smallest drop of rain. In my own growth and development, I have noticed an increasingly worrisome trend when it comes to me and stress.
Compartmentalization of my life is a major part of how I organize my own thoughts, and the people around me. I tend to make sure that things, concepts, and ideas remain in a specified sphere of influence and do not encroach upon, or 'bleed into' other functional areas. Certain aspects of my life, such as relationships, have influence over more than once space. Generally, this mental structure works pretty well for me, and allows me to remain professional without letting my personal feelings get in the way too much.
Stress, however, often causes 'bleeds,' usually when one area begins bleeding into another. When this happens, the stress begins to translate, which generates more stress but now from two areas at once. This generally continues, unless a mitigating factor keeps the feeling in check. At this point, the 'curse of Js' takes over and the stress has to be worked off and away in it's own 'natural' way with limited conscious interference.
The curse of the Js refers to my MBTI typing, which demonstrates a strong J-over-P preference. Js have a tendency to require closure; during periods of stress, my need for closure begins to override the logical processes I have in place to determine in each area. It's also like a systemic autoimmune disease, where my feelings and disorganized thoughts begin to identify anything and everything that's around as a potential stresser, causing disintegration and usually some form of self-destructive behavior. This 'curse' is one that I struggle through periods of intense stress coupled with a feeling of helplessness or uselessness. Instead of sitting back and sorting through my feelings, organizing them, and seeking a resolution, I begin bottling up the emotions and try to 'remove' them, seeking any 'solution' that I feel might be able to do so.
In the past, I have been much worse at being able to channel this nervous energy into a helpful consequence. However, this stress management remains a problem to this day; although I grow more, and more able to handle it and shape it to my own ends (and consequently, it occurs less frequently), I ultimately must take the first step in acknowledging my immaturity in this area. In many ways, I am still a child and still have much to learn, and much distance to grow.
Today is a contemplative morning, and I face the dawn. However, I still wish to return to bed. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Free Donuts!
I usually zone out during class, but one comment today caught my attention. A professor remarked that doing something 'good' for people as a gesture of goodwill would immediately have a consequence if they were evaluating you in some sort of capacity. It is interesting to apply this concept, this 'giving someone what they want' to earn a favorable benefit, to the idea of information openness.
As much as I am a proponent of information freedom (e.g. that information should be made available to those who seek it), I as I have detailed before, believe in the power of information asymmetry (e.g. those who have information have more power than others). As I also believe in a meritocracy, this creates a new set of dilemmas; power, and therefore information, should be granted to those who have demonstrated competency. However, information freedom goes against this ideal of 'earning' the right to certain kinds of information. Where should the line be drawn? Am I simply being a hypocrite, or is there some way to reconcile these apparently contrasting ideas?
In all honesty, information is as much a way for people to become more empowered, as it is a moniker for the amount of power a person has. I believe that everyone in the world who seeks to become more empowered, pushing their own limits, should be allowed that opportunity; and in doing so, there is no reason to restrict information to those who seek it. However, such 'information' would be different from the kinds that give power implicitly, as opposed to those that provide a means of empowerment. The striking example here is the difference between knowing that an issue exists (which provides a focus and means to develop and grow), and the specific stance one person takes on an issue (which automatically grants power to the one who knows). The former should not be restricted, as it provides only a way to stifle new innovation and remove chances for people to develop and further improve. However, because the latter implicitly gives power to someone without the need for actual investment of that person, it should be restricted only to those who have demonstrated competency.
I understand that my opinion on such things are at times, unnecessarily harsh and demonstrate a willingness (perhaps even an inclination?) to exclude certain sects of people from others. However, ultimately, such divisions in skillsets, temperament, mindset, and many other factors are intrinsically present; to claim that the human race is a homogenized set of individuals where the 'sum' of all traits per person is the same is a fallacy. I am loathe to state that people who deem themselves proponents of open information earnestly understand exactly what they are arguing for; essentially, they deem that information should be provided openly and freely because of a misguided belief that humans are all 'equal,' particularly in terms of academic performance. However, exclusion runs rampant among society and is a fact of life. Your existence excludes the existence of perhaps an infinite amount of beings. Your choices exclude an infinite amount of other choices from having been chosen. While such extreme examples are silly, they highlight a key point; exclusion is everywhere. Rather than fighting against an 'injust' exclusion, we should determine whether there truly is merit in the exclusion beforehand, and then seek ways to improve an existing situation ( skin color, for example, has no real factor on intelligence so exclusion based on color for intelligence is a fallacy, while academic performance in the past has a correlation with intelligence and therefore, exclusion based on performance for intelligence is more logical).
The situation notably is more complex with the addition of subjective judgments, particularly in social situations. It might be true that traits such as maturity, independence, foresight, and the like have no real quantitative measure, but the resulting outputs (productivity, good logic, analytical skills, etc) are still contingent on those preexisting parts. Therefore, to exclude based on those criteria perhaps might not have been facilitated properly, but could logically stand it's own ground.
Haha, perhaps I should exclude myself from most people, given that my resulting output (productivity) is dependent in part on my hard-line and abrasive nature. In many ways, this tension between conformity and openness (which seems to be the structure on which many of today's young people feel is proper, sometimes to the extreme) and information protection and secrecy is one that affects my day to day life. I have yet to find a professional situation where I am comfortable juggling both contradictory roles at once, but I certain will give it my best shot.
Today, I had a long, long day involving giving out lots of donuts so that I don't get crucified for my actions. I'm not sure if I can afford to give out anymore donuts for quite some time, but we shall see. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
As much as I am a proponent of information freedom (e.g. that information should be made available to those who seek it), I as I have detailed before, believe in the power of information asymmetry (e.g. those who have information have more power than others). As I also believe in a meritocracy, this creates a new set of dilemmas; power, and therefore information, should be granted to those who have demonstrated competency. However, information freedom goes against this ideal of 'earning' the right to certain kinds of information. Where should the line be drawn? Am I simply being a hypocrite, or is there some way to reconcile these apparently contrasting ideas?
In all honesty, information is as much a way for people to become more empowered, as it is a moniker for the amount of power a person has. I believe that everyone in the world who seeks to become more empowered, pushing their own limits, should be allowed that opportunity; and in doing so, there is no reason to restrict information to those who seek it. However, such 'information' would be different from the kinds that give power implicitly, as opposed to those that provide a means of empowerment. The striking example here is the difference between knowing that an issue exists (which provides a focus and means to develop and grow), and the specific stance one person takes on an issue (which automatically grants power to the one who knows). The former should not be restricted, as it provides only a way to stifle new innovation and remove chances for people to develop and further improve. However, because the latter implicitly gives power to someone without the need for actual investment of that person, it should be restricted only to those who have demonstrated competency.
I understand that my opinion on such things are at times, unnecessarily harsh and demonstrate a willingness (perhaps even an inclination?) to exclude certain sects of people from others. However, ultimately, such divisions in skillsets, temperament, mindset, and many other factors are intrinsically present; to claim that the human race is a homogenized set of individuals where the 'sum' of all traits per person is the same is a fallacy. I am loathe to state that people who deem themselves proponents of open information earnestly understand exactly what they are arguing for; essentially, they deem that information should be provided openly and freely because of a misguided belief that humans are all 'equal,' particularly in terms of academic performance. However, exclusion runs rampant among society and is a fact of life. Your existence excludes the existence of perhaps an infinite amount of beings. Your choices exclude an infinite amount of other choices from having been chosen. While such extreme examples are silly, they highlight a key point; exclusion is everywhere. Rather than fighting against an 'injust' exclusion, we should determine whether there truly is merit in the exclusion beforehand, and then seek ways to improve an existing situation ( skin color, for example, has no real factor on intelligence so exclusion based on color for intelligence is a fallacy, while academic performance in the past has a correlation with intelligence and therefore, exclusion based on performance for intelligence is more logical).
The situation notably is more complex with the addition of subjective judgments, particularly in social situations. It might be true that traits such as maturity, independence, foresight, and the like have no real quantitative measure, but the resulting outputs (productivity, good logic, analytical skills, etc) are still contingent on those preexisting parts. Therefore, to exclude based on those criteria perhaps might not have been facilitated properly, but could logically stand it's own ground.
Haha, perhaps I should exclude myself from most people, given that my resulting output (productivity) is dependent in part on my hard-line and abrasive nature. In many ways, this tension between conformity and openness (which seems to be the structure on which many of today's young people feel is proper, sometimes to the extreme) and information protection and secrecy is one that affects my day to day life. I have yet to find a professional situation where I am comfortable juggling both contradictory roles at once, but I certain will give it my best shot.
Today, I had a long, long day involving giving out lots of donuts so that I don't get crucified for my actions. I'm not sure if I can afford to give out anymore donuts for quite some time, but we shall see. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Dangerous Knowledge
In my dealings with people, with administrations, and with professionals, I have come to realize a striking dichotomy that exist within today's society, and especially among today's young people. Information and knowledge are, as I have stated repeatedly in earlier writings, to be vital to our growing individual development, and our development as a whole. However, one issue I have not explored is the idea of 'dangerous knowledge,' proprietary information that has potential to detriment others if used incorrectly. In the past, I have made one crucial, although unsaid assumption; that people are capable of handling the information they are given. In many ways, this is a fallacy.
People are not perfect rational agents. Feed a computer with information and a program, and the computer will generally give you the same result each time; however, people are far more complex (or perhaps, more random) and will generally not react in the same way. I have always assumed that with more knowledge, the average 'level' of performance among the populace at large will increase. I still do not disagree, but unfortunately, I recognize that the magnitude I attribute to lack of information is perhaps smaller than it should be.
Information and knowledge are dangerous objects to those who are unable to understand, process, or utilize them. For example, the knowledge that one can kill someone else is a danger to those who cannot responsibly use the information. This extends far beyond such an extreme case into such mundane things as personal secrets; how many lives have been ruined because such information was used without respect toward whoever it affected? To those who would wish for more information- in fact, for all information to be released and made public, I would ask you all to reconsider. As much as I am a proponent of information freedom, I cannot condone a course of action if people simply are not ready for it, and if the ultimate end is not the hoped-for mass enlightenment, but mass chaos.
Information is dangerous, and those of us who are educated can handle such things moreso on general, though only to a degree. Instead of arguing for the removal of information asymmetry, I would state that the most noble goal in this sense is to increase the level of learning and mental acuity among people. If we can demonstrate that we can utilize such information to ours and others benefit, and that we won't fall into mass chaos, descend into a mob, and will instead transcend to become more 'rational' decision makers, such a thing is more likely to remove information asymmetry than lobbying, speaking, or becoming condemnatory.
Today, I'm in class, and I'm still disquieted about my school. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
People are not perfect rational agents. Feed a computer with information and a program, and the computer will generally give you the same result each time; however, people are far more complex (or perhaps, more random) and will generally not react in the same way. I have always assumed that with more knowledge, the average 'level' of performance among the populace at large will increase. I still do not disagree, but unfortunately, I recognize that the magnitude I attribute to lack of information is perhaps smaller than it should be.
Information and knowledge are dangerous objects to those who are unable to understand, process, or utilize them. For example, the knowledge that one can kill someone else is a danger to those who cannot responsibly use the information. This extends far beyond such an extreme case into such mundane things as personal secrets; how many lives have been ruined because such information was used without respect toward whoever it affected? To those who would wish for more information- in fact, for all information to be released and made public, I would ask you all to reconsider. As much as I am a proponent of information freedom, I cannot condone a course of action if people simply are not ready for it, and if the ultimate end is not the hoped-for mass enlightenment, but mass chaos.
Information is dangerous, and those of us who are educated can handle such things moreso on general, though only to a degree. Instead of arguing for the removal of information asymmetry, I would state that the most noble goal in this sense is to increase the level of learning and mental acuity among people. If we can demonstrate that we can utilize such information to ours and others benefit, and that we won't fall into mass chaos, descend into a mob, and will instead transcend to become more 'rational' decision makers, such a thing is more likely to remove information asymmetry than lobbying, speaking, or becoming condemnatory.
Today, I'm in class, and I'm still disquieted about my school. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Lost and Confused
As I lay on my couch, somewhat tired from swimming and choir practice, I have the blissful few moments of reflecting on my day, and my life, and the past few months. Things have not been going swimmingly (haha, pun) for your blog writer; well, to be honest, in one aspect of my life. Personal things are quiet, but professionally, I have never been more frustrated.
The current program I am in is a rather new, two-year 'professional masters' program (whatever that means). I had decided to come here because the premise of the program was honestly quite interesting; a hybrid program that combines elements of business and science in order to generate value. Truly, science and research management is a much different beast from traditional companies. The risks are high, the rewards higher, and slews of politics, regulations, and games to play. Certainly, it is a different kind of animal, similar to how paleontologists are almost a different breed of biologist that require a further investment in seemingly more esoteric and general skills.
However, I was being an idiot. As usual. Much of it stemmed from the sudden rush of euphoric 'ooh, novel' (similar to 'ooh shiny' magpie behavior), and some of it stemmed from me just wanting to pursue something else and a new professional direction. What I had neglected to do in my haste was to look in a little bit more deeply; I had always gone to academic institutions that solidly recognized, nurtured, and developed the value they could add. My high school and university both had an extremely clear mission statement, and no matter my concerns or problems, I could rely on both to provide me with resources and support. At the very least, both (although my high school less so) are nationally recognized and the branding has added to my value as a potential employee. Honestly, who hasn't heard of New York University?
I had been raised to trust in my academic institution. But what happens when that trust is broken?
Without naming the school, I can easily, and quite confidently, state that my current program is a sham of an academic institution. It might talk the talk (and there's a great deal of talk, to be sure), but the direction the school is heading is really quite the opposite of what would be considered an improvement. I cannot at this moment confidently even state that the name of the school matters much, beyond a sort of curiosity. There is no branding here. There is no defined value.
The school has no solid, defined, and specific value proposition despite being opened more than a decade ago. Any company without something so fundamental would have fallen by the wayside, and unfortunately, I believe that is where this place, and a year of my life (possibly two!) is going. It's disgusting, saddening, and very detrimental not only to my view of higher-education professionals, but to my view of people in general.
I have no doubts that those in charge are fairly competent, or that they are 'smart.' However, the culture seems to be based more on mutual ego-stroking than that of actual efficacy. It's as though the entire administration is afraid that any aired dirty laundry will damage the reputation of both the institution and the administrative staff; and rightfully so! However, the lack of outside accountability is damaging the ability of the organization to make fundamental decisions. Companies are directly invested; in their early stages, the employees are driven and hold themselves personally accountable. Later stages, there are stock holders, government agencies, consumers, partners. What does this institute have that is nearly the same?
Alumni, advisory council, and students. I am hesitant to believe that the administration listens to any of them beyond a repainted hash that twists criticism into kind hearted words of improvement. At this point, what is needed isn't the protection of people's feelings, or a 'feel good we can do it' atmosphere, but accountability, and the drive to see the problems as they are and recognize the issues.
It is clear to me that the ones on top are running around lost and confused, much like a chicken without a head. I'd like to broaden this comparison a bit more; it simply is what happens when you put a bunch of people, who potentially are quite brilliant separately, in a room and tell them to do something. Egos get in the way, everything suffers, and in the end, the 'best' solution sometimes is the one that makes everyone feel good. However, when situations like this begin to break down, and there is no clear route to be seen, pressures of decision make force action to occur without foresight, planning, or consideration.
It's like an ADHD kid running around a candy store, leaving half-eaten packages because he can't commit or decide. And invariably, the sugar will run out at some point, and the kid will drop.
Today is a sunny day, but my frustrations have gotten the better of me. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
The current program I am in is a rather new, two-year 'professional masters' program (whatever that means). I had decided to come here because the premise of the program was honestly quite interesting; a hybrid program that combines elements of business and science in order to generate value. Truly, science and research management is a much different beast from traditional companies. The risks are high, the rewards higher, and slews of politics, regulations, and games to play. Certainly, it is a different kind of animal, similar to how paleontologists are almost a different breed of biologist that require a further investment in seemingly more esoteric and general skills.
However, I was being an idiot. As usual. Much of it stemmed from the sudden rush of euphoric 'ooh, novel' (similar to 'ooh shiny' magpie behavior), and some of it stemmed from me just wanting to pursue something else and a new professional direction. What I had neglected to do in my haste was to look in a little bit more deeply; I had always gone to academic institutions that solidly recognized, nurtured, and developed the value they could add. My high school and university both had an extremely clear mission statement, and no matter my concerns or problems, I could rely on both to provide me with resources and support. At the very least, both (although my high school less so) are nationally recognized and the branding has added to my value as a potential employee. Honestly, who hasn't heard of New York University?
I had been raised to trust in my academic institution. But what happens when that trust is broken?
Without naming the school, I can easily, and quite confidently, state that my current program is a sham of an academic institution. It might talk the talk (and there's a great deal of talk, to be sure), but the direction the school is heading is really quite the opposite of what would be considered an improvement. I cannot at this moment confidently even state that the name of the school matters much, beyond a sort of curiosity. There is no branding here. There is no defined value.
The school has no solid, defined, and specific value proposition despite being opened more than a decade ago. Any company without something so fundamental would have fallen by the wayside, and unfortunately, I believe that is where this place, and a year of my life (possibly two!) is going. It's disgusting, saddening, and very detrimental not only to my view of higher-education professionals, but to my view of people in general.
I have no doubts that those in charge are fairly competent, or that they are 'smart.' However, the culture seems to be based more on mutual ego-stroking than that of actual efficacy. It's as though the entire administration is afraid that any aired dirty laundry will damage the reputation of both the institution and the administrative staff; and rightfully so! However, the lack of outside accountability is damaging the ability of the organization to make fundamental decisions. Companies are directly invested; in their early stages, the employees are driven and hold themselves personally accountable. Later stages, there are stock holders, government agencies, consumers, partners. What does this institute have that is nearly the same?
Alumni, advisory council, and students. I am hesitant to believe that the administration listens to any of them beyond a repainted hash that twists criticism into kind hearted words of improvement. At this point, what is needed isn't the protection of people's feelings, or a 'feel good we can do it' atmosphere, but accountability, and the drive to see the problems as they are and recognize the issues.
It is clear to me that the ones on top are running around lost and confused, much like a chicken without a head. I'd like to broaden this comparison a bit more; it simply is what happens when you put a bunch of people, who potentially are quite brilliant separately, in a room and tell them to do something. Egos get in the way, everything suffers, and in the end, the 'best' solution sometimes is the one that makes everyone feel good. However, when situations like this begin to break down, and there is no clear route to be seen, pressures of decision make force action to occur without foresight, planning, or consideration.
It's like an ADHD kid running around a candy store, leaving half-eaten packages because he can't commit or decide. And invariably, the sugar will run out at some point, and the kid will drop.
Today is a sunny day, but my frustrations have gotten the better of me. Hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Uselessness of Ethics
I am currently spending part of my Thursday nights sitting in ethics class, listening to our professor and the peanut gallery of people who care within the class comment upon the human condition. Common topics include; why should we do certain things, or why shouldn't we do certain things? What is the true nature of the universe? Are our lives truly predetermined by a bunch of genetic material stuck in protein envelops that move around and do stuff we don't really understand? The conversations, while charged and in many ways, interesting, often lead me to merely stare at my computer in a drunk stupor because, well, I'm dying, working on something more meaningful with my time, or trying to kill a computer generated enemy using my assault rifle.
There is a great trend among people my age to become more concerned with ethical issues. We as a people become concerned with whether we are good or bad, whether our actions are universally beneficial or detrimental, and any combination of metaphysical concepts involving our place, purpose, and ultimate end. However, fundamentally, our ethical dilemmas are the result of our own confirmation processes. In many ways ethics, like so many other social movements, have become powerful based on our own insecurity as separate social groups, except that ethics is much more personal. It is a shame, in some ways, that ethics has been reduced down to the justification for our 'feel-good' feelings as opposed to a process that critically challenges and enables us to grow as a collective.
For one thing, one thing that goes unnoticed in general is that ethics is a privilege. We as a species would not have been able to ponder what makes us feel fulfilled (and what sneaky 'rational' justifications we can use) had we not advanced past fighting for our day to day survival. To be ethical is, therefore, as much a result of our socioeconomic status as it is our need to be justified towards others in our actions. I am intensely uncomfortable with ethicists who argue that human rights for starving people in third-world countries, should be at the forefront of discussion. Such people, perhaps, could care less whether they can read or write, or whether they can meaningless debate conjecture about an elected leader but would care much more for a cup of clean water, or a good, hot meal. This disconnect in priorities illustrates the act that ethics are a personal justification for one's own actions, rather than the glorious 'code of enlightenment' many people see ethics to be.
I do not personal believe that ethics can lift itself out of the mire until people, as a whole, grow more aware of themselves. Many who hold strong, ethical considerations are in fact, rigid dogmatists unable to open themselves to more possibilities, and certainly unable to possess the courage to live in the face of potentially being wrong. In short, ethics is in many ways, just an excuse not to grow and further develop as people when it precisely is perhaps the opposite. Shared discourse, paradigm shifts, and all such things are within the domain of ethics, but they are discarded in favor of the cheap thrill of 'wow, I am right and you can't prove me wrong!'
Join in next time while I wail on relativists despite being a relativist as a demonstration of ethical and philosophical hypocrisy among the general human population!
Today is boring, hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
There is a great trend among people my age to become more concerned with ethical issues. We as a people become concerned with whether we are good or bad, whether our actions are universally beneficial or detrimental, and any combination of metaphysical concepts involving our place, purpose, and ultimate end. However, fundamentally, our ethical dilemmas are the result of our own confirmation processes. In many ways ethics, like so many other social movements, have become powerful based on our own insecurity as separate social groups, except that ethics is much more personal. It is a shame, in some ways, that ethics has been reduced down to the justification for our 'feel-good' feelings as opposed to a process that critically challenges and enables us to grow as a collective.
For one thing, one thing that goes unnoticed in general is that ethics is a privilege. We as a species would not have been able to ponder what makes us feel fulfilled (and what sneaky 'rational' justifications we can use) had we not advanced past fighting for our day to day survival. To be ethical is, therefore, as much a result of our socioeconomic status as it is our need to be justified towards others in our actions. I am intensely uncomfortable with ethicists who argue that human rights for starving people in third-world countries, should be at the forefront of discussion. Such people, perhaps, could care less whether they can read or write, or whether they can meaningless debate conjecture about an elected leader but would care much more for a cup of clean water, or a good, hot meal. This disconnect in priorities illustrates the act that ethics are a personal justification for one's own actions, rather than the glorious 'code of enlightenment' many people see ethics to be.
I do not personal believe that ethics can lift itself out of the mire until people, as a whole, grow more aware of themselves. Many who hold strong, ethical considerations are in fact, rigid dogmatists unable to open themselves to more possibilities, and certainly unable to possess the courage to live in the face of potentially being wrong. In short, ethics is in many ways, just an excuse not to grow and further develop as people when it precisely is perhaps the opposite. Shared discourse, paradigm shifts, and all such things are within the domain of ethics, but they are discarded in favor of the cheap thrill of 'wow, I am right and you can't prove me wrong!'
Join in next time while I wail on relativists despite being a relativist as a demonstration of ethical and philosophical hypocrisy among the general human population!
Today is boring, hence, I am lazy.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
