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.