25 July 2008
RIP Randy Pausch (1960-2008)
"Randy Pausch, a Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist whose 'last lecture' about facing terminal cancer became an Internet sensation and a best-selling book, died Friday. He was 47." He'd been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer almost two years ago. More at NYT and at Carnegie Mellon. This is his update page, which I've been following for about a year (servers at Carnegie Mellon must be overloaded; it's taking many tries to download today).
His Last Lecture is moving and inspiring, imo. Watch it.
12:06 Posted in death , education , other people said it , theology, spirituality, philosophy | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
09 July 2008
Causes: Meritocracy (Notes from Status Anxiety)
Notes from Alain de Botton's Status Anxiety (2004). This is the fourth post on this topic; the first is here.
CHAPTER 3 - MERITOCRACY
Explanations for why one might be poor and what one's value to society is have grown "notably more punitive and emotionally awkward in the modern era."
From AD 30 to the latter part of the 20th century, there have been three stories for the "lowest in Western societies" that were consoling:
(1) The poor are not responsible for their condition and are the most useful members of society. This is the medieval and pre-modern story. God and/or the natural order are responsible for societal position. In this story, there's a sense of mutual dependence among the classes, and the lowest classes are acknowledged for making life easier for the upper classes.
(2) Low status has no moral connotation. Per Scripture. Neither wealth nor poverty are an accurate index of moral worth. Jesus was poor and good. If anything, poverty was good because it led to the recognition of one's dependence on God.
(3) The rich are sinful and corrupt and owe their wealth to the robbery of the poor. 1754-1989. Rousseau, Marx (1887), Engels (1845)
These weren't the only stories, but they were widely credited.
Beginning around the middle of the 18th century, 3 more troubling stories (if you were poor) began to form:
(1) The rich are the useful ones. Bernard Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees (1723) is the written origin of this story, which says that the rich contribute more to society because their spending provides employment for everyone under them. The impact of the rich on others is the most beneficial even if their intentions and motivations are not beneficent. (To those of us in the 21st century, this 'fable' seems to have been always with us, but it's a relatively new take on things!) Hume repeats this idea in 1752, and Adam Smith seals the deal in 1759: "The whole of civilisation, and the welfare of all societies" depended on people's desire and ability to accumulate unneeded capital and show off their wealth. The greedier they are, the better for all.
(2) Status does have moral connotations. Seen in Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man), Napoleon, Carlyle -- all against hereditary aristocracy and for meritocracy, i.e., an aristocracy of talent. Inequality is OK so long as there is equality of opportunity (e.g., in education). This led to public schools, SAT tests (scientifically proven meritocratic standard - could rank people by their "real worth"), and the 1946 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which required compulsory education in the countries that signed on. Also led to equal opportunity in the workplace (1961, Kennedy) and competitive entrance exams (1870, Britain).
Now worldly position was obviously related to inner qualities: "Faith in an increasingly reliable connection between merit and worldly success in turn endowed money with a new moral quality." The rich were not only wealthier; they were plain better.
Christianity in the U.S. revised its thinking: now to possess riches in this world was evidence that one was deserving. The Rev. Thomas P. Hunt's The Book of Wealth: In Which it is Proved from the Bible that it is the Duty of Every Man to Become Rich (1836), was a bestseller. More on this connection between moral goodness and prosperity here at Talking Pentecostalism.
(3) The poor are sinful and corrupt and owe their poverty to their own stupidity. The poor were no longer seen as unfortunate. Now they were seen as undeserving failures. Poverty became a matter of shame.
Social Darwinism -- the weak are nature's mistakes and should be allowed to perish. Herbert Spencer in Social Statics: or, The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed (1851) argued that biology is opposed to charity. Andrew Carnegie, in his autobiography, said that "Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do."
--- * --- * --- *
Current Events Tie-In: Extremely wealthy Americans evoke sense of awe in their wealthy psychiatrists: "Dr. [Byram] Karasu acknowledged that he was not immune from taking satisfaction in the success and fame of his patients. 'Wealthy people bring about a degree of awe, even in their therapists sometimes,' he said. 'This is the biggest problem I see in the doctors I supervise. And these are fully practicing doctors, doctors making $400, $500 an hour.'"
05:45 Posted in books and reading , community , consumption , education , finance and business , girardian anthropology , other people said it , politics, government and law , pop culture | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
08 July 2008
Shopping Camp at the Mall - Patriotic!
In news related to status anxiety, ruling class ideology, materialism, and creating desires: Marketplace reporter Benjamin Barber lauds shopping camp -- held at a mall, at which girls ages 6-12 visit stores to learn how to accessorize outfits -- as patriotic. I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic .... More here. And Jezebel readers have something to say about it, too.
08:40 Posted in education , finance and business , pop culture | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
09 March 2008
Collective Wisdom (Initiative) - Responses
A friend asked me to check out this Collective Wisdom Initiative website, so for the past couple of days I have been reading it, in bits and pieces. As she so understatedly said, "There is a lot of material here." I have a lot more to explore, if I choose to, and some time I probably will.
I want to respond to (my interpretation of) what I've read here, instead of sending long emails to a few people, which might be seen as personally meant when they're not; these comments are about me -- they're my response, my experience, my beliefs, etc., all subject to change any minute now.
-----
GENERAL RESPONSE
There is so much material here, too much for me to synthesise now, so I will comment on the bits and pieces I've explored that speak to me.
I think I have a vague sense of the overarching theme, something like "collective wisdom comes from truth and leads us to truth." Perhaps? I like some of the basic elements of: Seeking the Edge, Invoking the Daimon, Blessing and Invocation, Beauty, and Wholeness. They all speak to me deeply, as I interpret them.
The fundamental (I think?) belief that "Together we know more" (from 'What is Collective Wisdom?') doesn't resonate for me or excite me. My experience is that "the wisdom of crowds" is powerful, and often in destructive ways. Maybe, though, the principles discussed at this website can keep the group more wise than complicit.
This quote that I came across this week (by someone I heard speak about ethics at a conference years ago) expresses my wariness: "Neither the intensity of your feelings nor the certainty of your convictions is any assurance that you are right." --Michael Josephson
I think this is as true in groups as in individuals. Groups may help individuals to discern, and they may also rafity, enforce, and increase individuals' certainty and intensity.
BITS & PIECES #1: A Circle of People to Talk with and Listen to
I like the initial quote on the home page:
"Few needs are as pressing and as often go unmet in our world as the need for a place to converse. We all require somewhere, some circle of companions, where and with whom we can enter into the demanding task of trying to say what we experience and to understand what others say in response." -- Michael J Himes, Doing the Truth in Love: Conversations about God, Relationships, and Service
I have almost never found this circle or place in the physical world. (Have others?)
I've been part of many small groups and what feel like meaningful conversations -- lots of nominal "places to converse" and "circles of companions" -- but I rarely feel I can meaningfully talk with others about my deepest experience. That depth -- the stuff that really matters most to me (which is what this website seems concerned with, yay) -- just feels nebulous, inchoate, a swirl, something shimmering.
I'm watching Ingmar Bergman talking about making (writing, directing, editing, etc.) the film Winter Light -- it's a 145-minute documentary, Ingmar Bergman Makes A Movie, included in the trilogy boxed set, in which none of the films is more than 91 minutes long! -- and talking about his ideas of God and so on; and he is talking to the interviewer about what matters to him, at some length, in such a thoughtful, serious, integrated, eloquent, whole and often light-hearted (perhaps mildly self-mocking) way. It feels so clean and clear, not too tidy. He speaks slowly and seems to build his ideas as he speaks. He seems to have a through-line that connects it all for him, or if he doesn't, he doesn't mention what doesn't connect and he doesn't get derailed by it.
I don't seem to have that clarity, that through-line. I can speak clearly and with passion like he does about many things, particularly about "how I do" things, some of which have great bearing on things that matter to me: research, which I've successfully spoken about at length to small and large groups; cooking and baking, dog-training, travelling, travelogues, gardening, meditation, the order or non- of my day, poetry, even some philosophical or psychological concepts. But remaining at the "how-to" level doesn't fully accommodate the other levels, or swirls, or paths that aren't "hows."
Watching Bergman, listening to him, I feel that he has the great luxury of a certain kind of focus, the power to slow and channel the stream of ideas, feelings, etc., that I don't have. I can sometimes get into that state, when writing a poem e.g., or when taking a photo, but I doubt I ever have been so focused when participating in a group conversation and rarely when talking with just one other person. Other people -- their presence, spirit, eyes, bodies, projections -- are very distracting for me, for better and worse.
Maybe if someone were interviewing me, I could speak clearly and cleanly, because I would be answering one question at a time (would have an externally imposed focus), and I wouldn't be getting signals and vibrations from other people in a group (except the interviewer), I wouldn't be listening to anyone else, I wouldn't be absorbing a constant stream of feeling, ideas, thoughts, assumptions, contradictory messages, etc. Maybe then I could concentrate, words would surface.
But that seems quite different from the idea of group resonance that the CWI talks about, when group members' feelings, thoughts, ideas, spirits, etc., would sort of harmoniously vibrate together.
I got a further sense of the possibilities of "collective wisdom" today when someone spoke at worship about her passion for evoking the artist in kids who need a way to express themselves safely.She seemed to believe in and be working to cultivate the magic of the group process, the wisdom that the groups knows. She was very passionate, felt to me authentically charged by her calling and her work. For her, the process is where it all happens, but the product -- the artistry of the artwork? -- is also important. That sounds like what the CWI is all about, using group work (in this case, both art and conversation, and relationships that evolve over time) for conflict-resolution, for generating possibilities and finding good solutions, for healing.
Back to Bergman: I do wonder whether Bergman is sometimes saying more than he knows, i.e, lying, making stuff up. I don't mean 'saying more than he knows' in that way that intuition and the body can overtake us and give us the true response when our mind is busy spinning stories; I mean 'saying more than he knows' in the way that the mind makes up stuff because it sounds so damned plausible. I sense that he is doing this at times, and I think it's a temptation for me, too, when talking about these 'deep thoughts' and emotions to rationalise, to seek reasons that aren't there (yet), to string something together that sounds quite true and likely but that is really just making up explanations for what can't be explained (to oneself) yet. I verbally flail about for cliches and truisms sometimes, because they half-capture the response -- and sometimes I let them substitute for my true response -- because it's easier than slogging around. I wonder how a group seeking collective wisdom would work with this.
Writing is different from speaking. When writing, I don't have to focus my thought or energy like I do in spoken conversation. I can go in different directions and occupy different layers, more than one part of the circle, almost simultaneously, in a way that I can't in speaking. Still --
Silence and settling into 'being present' with each other is usually more meaningful or satisfying to me than anything I say.
Maybe, in a way, that's the more pressing need (or fantasy) for me: a group (or person) to be with, to be silent with, that (who) can endure many moments of silence until something can be said, and then has patience to listen and wait, and maybe ask a few wise and open-ended questions, make a few connections, while we follow where the threads lead. Who doesn't hold me or themselves to one response, or twenty, and who can let me refine and rework, erase, cut and paste, attach, hit delete and start all over. (As I say it, it sounds idealistic, because it's hard for us to hear something, process it, and then forget it when the speaker tells us it's not relevant anymore. But that's what I'm asking. That it be forgotten as significant and remembered as once-significant at the same time.)
Except mostly I don't feel such a group as a need. I just like it when it happens, which is very rarely. I feel that most interactions with people happen too quickly and I have the sense that most people want to 'achieve' something through group interactions and conversations. That gets in the way of everything for me (and for most people, I would guess?).
This essay, "There are exactly two ways: one, and many" (not on the CWI website) by Bill at Notional Slurry, interests me, though I don't know who I am in it. He seems to say that longitudinal being is related to "the Life of the Mind," which is "the cultivated ability to span boundaries, cross borders of disciplines, bring what you’ve learned over there to bear over here. ... [It] is merely acting on the belief that what we see around us fits together." He also says that the things that we see, that we notice, are of use, which in the ordinary sense of the word 'use" I don't see as true. What attracts me, what I notice, is what seems to be not of use, except that it's what it is.
He goes on to say that when people ask him "Just what is it that you do?," he responds: "This." Then he explains to us: "It's true whenever I say it. No matter where I go… this is what I’m probably doing." What he's talking about, I think, is noticing, exploring, experiencing, thinking about, and perhaps finding connections among the things that distract him: "There is something interesting in everything; if not in the act or the thing itself, then in what it implies."
These distractions the things that really matter to me and what I am 'doing' most of the time is being distracted. And when I speak, it shows!
BITS & PIECES #2: A Call to Convene, and Flow
Vicki Robin's paper (Call to Convene) spoke to me because I do think I have often felt and followed a call to convene groups.
For me, there isn't a purpose in convening and conversing other than being together and conversing. Collective wisdom, group enlightenment, conflict resolution, solutions to anything, pooling of resources -- these don't seem to intrinsically matter to me in the context of this call. When I am responding to a feeling of being called, I'm not looking for "collective resonance" or group magic. I seek to be in the midst of people struggling aloud and silently with what matters to them (us), even when it's awkwardly unmagical. Sometimes in a group (or one-on-one) conversation I hear or see something that gives me a glimpse into something amazing and jarring and life-altering. Maybe it happens for others, too. But if that never happened, I think I would be happy to be in conversation about things that matter to people.
I have been in long-term groups that really gel, where there is some kind of magic, maybe trust, maybe a recognition of our shared urge to dive to and explore a similar depth of ... meaning? life? experience? love? pain? I don't know. Those groups have felt very comforting, very safe, true, boundary-blending, loving. Still, even in that context, I have so much trouble wording what matters to me. The magic in those groups (one I'm thinking of in particular) derived partly from our struggles to try to speak these vibrating, disappearing, enduring things with each other, and partly from the deep secrets about our lives that we shared, and partly from intention, and maybe most from touch (massage, dance, holding hands), singing together, doing art together, sitting and looking at/into each other's faces, eating and drinking together, and other non-conversation. It was a space to be, also rare in my experience. It wasn't exactly spontaneous and it wasn't exactly planned. Most weeks, it somehow flowed.
BITS & PIECES #3: How Do We Know It's A Commons?
Michael Jones, in his paper on Artful Leadership says this:
"So in the commons the alchemy of the third is found in wholeness. This suggests that when the question arises in those beginning the practice of the commons, "Is this a commons?" it may be answered by sensing how much wholeness is present and actualized. And because wholeness is invisible, we know it primarily through its effects. For example, we may know we are in the presence of wholeness when we feel ourselves to be deeply heard, perhaps because there is sufficient stillness amongst us to allow what we say to be fully received. Or suddenly we sense that our voice carries new clarity and strength, and those with us can hold strong voices without fear. Perhaps we know it because we feel whole and complete, and there is a warmth in us that lets us engage the deeper subtleties of meaning and connection. Often there is an accompanying, heightened trust in ourselves and others, so that we can move with grace and ease from a reliance on memory and past knowledge to the forming of new insights. Or we know that wholeness is present because we feel involved and engaged, that is we feel that we have a home here; the essence of our gifts has been taken in and embodied by the whole.
"Most important, it is the sense that the part of us that has felt orphaned in the world has now been taken in by the commons. This makes room for us to find our own thinking, and follow our own feeling in a way that is free from any need for defensiveness or self-deception. This in turn makes the fuller experience of wholeness possible. Furthermore, to be in the presence of wholeness is to acknowledge that it cannot ever be replicated; it comes to us as a gift and in a moment that is unique and unrepeatable."
I like these words, and 'wholeness' and its effects as a 'measure' of whether the commons is a commons, a place of collective wisdom and magic.
Even though, as I said, I usually feel unable to verbally express what matters most to me -- even to myself at any given time, because it all feels like an amorphous tag cloud, except all the words and phrases are visuals, memories, what I overheard, how it works together, that moment, colours, patterns, under water, something half-remembered, who you were, poem fragments, a death, more fragments, music, her letter, a mark on a calendar, some bits of dreams, a breath, a frisson, your smile, sand, what didn't happen, that moment, etc -- I do sometimes feel that I am heard when I speak, as much as is possible. Mostly I feel that people are trying hard to hear and are misunderstanding, assuming, personalising, biased, listening to something else, and all the things we are and do, the ways we miss each other and then solidify the illusion of the other. It happens.
I'm not sure we can be "fully received" or that we can do the same for others, no matter how strong the intent and the stillness. But something of significance, something that evokes compassion, the reminds us that "the other is me", that lives and breathes life, can be received, and that's good.
I don't think I know what it means to feel like an orphan in the world. I feel whole and at home no where (maybe on a moving train) but anywhere, that I belong where I am, even when I feel unheard, misjudged (imo), different, ignored, excluded, lost and sad. I don't think I look to the commons or conversation to make me whole or to find home. Even when I feel fragmented and scattered, at times, I can still locate myself (though, again, no where), in the pieces, like a shimmering hologram.
Jones also says:
"The commons is a listening field within which we may reawaken to the longing, wonder and belonging from which all new life begins. It offers a remedy for the isolation, loneliness and absence of meaning that have become the sickness of our time."
I can't recall not feeling longing, wonder and belonging. Not necessarily belonging to people but to where I am, if that makes any sense. And I also feel lonely, desolate, disconsolate, broken -- and it feels good to feel all of that. When I can't stop crying, I know I'm alive. (Reminds me of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah": It's not somebody who's seen the light / it's a cold and it is a broken Hallelujah ... " For me, all the things Jones says CW can awaken, and all the things he says CW is a remedy for, are summed up in the beautiful longing of the phrase "broken Hallelujah."
I know that people feel isolated and lonely and desolate and it doesn't feel good at all. There's pain, and then there's denial, unendurable restlessness, stomach-churning fear, passive numbness ... and I think that a place to converse or just be together is helpful, healing, even saving. It's the idea of establishing or convening such a thing in order to help or save that feels unwieldy, imposed and sideways.
I don't feel that way about the local coffee shop, though, which was established partly as a place for people to get together, as a commons of a sort. Maybe that feels different because the owner wanted it for herself as much as for anyone else. Or because she doesn't force it but lets it happen as it does (or so it seems to me). She set aside the space, she created and re-creates the spirit of the place, and her presence (and the presence of her staff) in the space is what saves, if anything does.
What I like about what Jones says is the emphasis on staying with "not knowing," the pleasure of kicking ideas around without having to come to conclusion, resolution, an outcome. The emphasis on exploring and discovering. That we can "listen for the space between" (lovely phrase) and that "confusion and uncertainty" may be "our new reality."
I get the instability of the last concept. Confusion and uncertainty seem like quite different entities to me, though, not synonymous. Buddhism speaks of confusion somewhat ambiguously, as "the path" ("whatever occurs in the confused mind is the path" -- that is, it's all workable) and as a kind of energy that we can (perhaps will find it to our advantage to?) transmute "into clear wisdom" through the practices; it speaks of uncertainty as an accurate reflection of what is, something to sit with, make friends with, and not flee, because life is uncertain and trying to make it certain causes suffering. These Buddhist views feel true to my experience.
BITS & PIECES #4: Vulnerability and Silence
I agree with the part of the Collective Resonance Shifters map that shows that vulnerability and silence are considered the strongest identifiers or predictors of interpersonal resonance.
14:05 Posted in art and photography , books and reading , community , education , language , neuroscience, psychology, the mind , other people said it , pop culture , theology, spirituality, philosophy | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this
01 March 2008
Predicting Behaviour
Gavin de Becker's Book, The Gift of Fear, and Other Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence (1997), is a book I recommend to everyone. To women as a handbook, to men primarily as insight into most women's experience, though I think we can all benefit from learning to recognise signals of violence, and from distinguishing between risks that our intuition warns us of, and unlikely risks, about which we worry fruitlessly.
A few bits that have spoken to me so far (1/3 through this time, my second reading of the book):
FIRST, that criminals are basically like us, not inhuman monsters, not other and therefore unknowable; and SECOND, that we successfully predict human behavior every day:
"People do things, we say, 'out of the blue,' 'all of a sudden,' 'out of nowhere.' These phrases support the popular myth that predicting human behavior isn't possible." Yet, de Becker says, we predict complex human behaviour every time we drive: "We expect all drivers to act just as we would, but we still alertly detect those few who might not." We also successfully predict "how a child will react to a warning," "how a consumer will react to a slogan," "how a spouse will react to a comment," and so on.
"Predicting violent behavior is easier than any of these, but since we fantasize that human violence is an aberration done by others unlike us, we say we can't predict it. ... The human violence we abhor and fear the most, that which we call ' random' and 'senseless,' is neither. It always has purpose and meaning, to the perpetrator, at least. We may not choose to explore or understand that purpose, but it is there, and as long as we label is 'senseless,' we'll not make sense of it.
"Sometimes a violent act is so frightening that we call the perpetrator a monster, but as you'll see, it is by finding his humanness -- his similarity to you and me -- that such an act can be predicted. ... [W]e want to believe that people are infinitely complex, with millions of motivations and varieties of behavior. It is not so. ... We want to believe that human violence is somehow beyond ourunderstanding, because as long as it remains a mystery, we have no duty to avoid it, explore it, or anticipate it. We need feel no responsibility for failing to read signals if there are none to read. We can tell ourselves that violence just happens without warning, and usually to others, but in service of these comfortable myths, victims suffer and criminals prosper."
He says that the behaviours of "violent people" will resonate with our own experience if we let ourselves make the connection. One example he later gives is of a person who seems to enjoy the fear he causes in other people: "Getting pleasure from the fear of others is something most of us cannot relate to -- until we recall the glee of every teenager who startles a friend or sibling by jumping out of the dark."
de Becker insists that someone who commits even the most heinous and gruesome crime is as human as the rest of us. He quotes Maya Angelou at the start of a chapter, who says "I am capable of what every other human is capable of. This is one of the great lessons of war and life." But then, in other spots, he makes a repeated distinction between "decent men" and "violent men," as if they are two different species, as if the "violent man" were not capable of being decent or the "decent man" of being violent.
THIRD, de Becker describes some signals of violence from strangers that can help us anticipate it. Strangers account, he says, for only 20% of homicides, while 80% of committed by someone known to the victim, and most of the book is about the 80%. Nevertheless, imo, these signals are useful to know about not only in the context of someone seeking to do you physical violence but also in the context of people seeking to pick you up, sell you something, get you to serve on a committee, do something for them, or otherwise control your actions. The signals are:
Forced teaming: The would-be attacker implies that he shares something with the victim, that they're in the same boat, so that boundaries between them blur and trust and rapport can be established. This is done by projecting a "shared purpose or experience where none exists: 'Both of us;' 'We're some team;' 'How are we going to handle this?;''Now we've done it.'" The defense is "a clear refusal to accept the concept of partnership."
Charm and Niceness: A charming man is a man seeking to charm you. It's an ability, not a character trait. "Charm is almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive." Similarly, niceness. "We must learn and then teach our children that niceness does not equal goodness. Niceness is a decision, a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait." Remember that both are strategies and look for the motive.
Too Many Details: People who are lying give too many details, because even if you believe them, they don't sound credible to themselves, so they keep talking. de Becker says that when confronted with the disorienting blur of too many details, designed to make the would-be attacker (or clunky Casanova, or pyramid-scheme salesman) appear to be familiar to you, a friend, someone you can trust, it's most important to remember the context, that this is a stranger who has approached you.
Typecasting: Typecasting is when the potential perp labels the potential victim in "some slightly critical way, hoping she'll feel compelled to prove that his opinion is not accurate." Examples will be familiar to every woman and some men: "You're probably too snobbish to talk to the likes of me." "There's such a thing as being too proud, you know." "I bet you think I'm just no-good, like everyone else." The defense is silence, acting as if the words aren't spoken. Don't engage, and don't try to refute the words with actions (talking to him because you don't want to seem snobbish, allowing him to help with the groceries because you don't want to seem too proud), because that's what he wants you to do, to increase the illusion of a bond between you. (Here, that Buddhist slogan of "nothing to protect, nothing to defend" comes in handy for me. So, I'm too proud. So, I'm snobbish. Let it be.)
Loan Sharking: This is when someone helps you in order to put you in debt to them, "and the fact that you owe a person something makes it hard to ask him to leave you alone. ... The predatory criminal generously offers assistance but is always calculating the debt." The defense is to remember that he approached you and that you didn't ask for help; "then, though a person may turn out to be just a kindly stranger, watch for other signals."
de Becker notes that many of these strategies are employed by "men who want little more than an opportunity to engage a woman in conversation. I don't mean to cramp the style of some crude Casanova [he says], but times have changed, and we men can surely develop some approaches that are not steeped in deceit and manipulation."
The Unsolicited Promise: Similar to Too Many Details, the unsolicited promise is given because the would-be attacker sees that you don't trust him, that you aren't convinced, so he hopes his "promise" will overcome your doubt. The defense is simply to recognise that the unsolicited promise comes because you are hesitant to trust this person, because there is reason to doubt and you know it.
Discounting the Word 'No': "Declining to hear 'no' is a signal that someone is either seeking control or refusing to relinquish it. With strangers, even those with the best intentions, never, ever relent on the issue of 'no,' because it sets the stage for more efforts to control." Don't negotiate from 'no,' because "negotiations are about possibilities, and providing access to someone who makes you apprehensive is not a possibility you want to keep on the agenda."
FOURTH, de Becker talks about pre-incident indicators (PINs). These are the clues that occur before every violent act:
"Behavior is like a chain. Too often, we look at just the individual links. When we ask why a man committed suicide, someone might say, 'He was despondent over major financial losses,' as if this could possibly explain it. Many people are despondent over financial losses and don't kill themselves. Though we want to believe that violence is a matter of cause and effect, it is actually a process, a chain in which the violent outcome is only one link. If you were predicting what a friend of yours might do if he lost his job, you wouldn't say, 'Oh, he'll commit suicide' unless there were many other PINs of suicide present. You'd see the loss of his job as a single link, not the whole chain. The process of suicide starts way before the act of suicide.
"The same is true for homicide. Though we might try to explain a murder using simple cause-and-effect logic (e.g., 'He learned his wife was having an affair so he killed her'), it doesn't aid prediction to think this way. Like the earthquake [whose initiation might start thousands of years before we are aware of it], violence is one outcome of a process that started way before this man got married."
I think what resonates for me about his book is that though it is focused on predicting and intuiting the most violent human acts, which is in itself worthwhile, it is at the same time about predicting, intuiting and to some extent explaining (or at least seeing patterns in) the most minor, subtle and common acts of human violence, too -- manipulation, control, power-mongering, some advertising and sales strategies, influence-peddling, coercion, etc. All the ways we try to change people so that they do what we want them to do, so that we get what we (think we) want.
11:55 Posted in books and reading , community , crime , education , girardian anthropology , other people said it | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
24 February 2008
Obsolete Skills, Like Adjusting Rabbit Ears, Balancing the Tone Arm on a Turntable, and ... Getting to Know Your Neighbors?
Obsolete Skills, which is a wiki (edited by anyone who wants to, whether they are experts on the topic or complete dolts), not only lists them but describes some obsolete, almost-obsolete, and perhaps debatably obsolete skills in lucid detail. Not all of them, though. And some (q.v. previous link) aren't all that obsolete, which is sometimes acknowledged. Many are computer-related, but not all.
06:10 Posted in community , education , lists , pop culture , science and tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
30 January 2008
Head Injury and Addiction, Learning Problems, Homelessness
A lot more research is needed, but this report in the WSJ of studies led by Wayne A. Gordon, Ph.D., director of the Brain Injury Research Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and Mary Hibbard, Ph.D., which have found a mild to strong relationship between previously unidentified traumatic childhood brain injuries and 'ills' such as learning disabilities, addiction, and homelessness, could change the type and efficacy of treatments for many people.
Descriptions of some of their studies, including classroom studies and studies among addicted and homeless populations, are in the article. One epidemiological study, in which 5,000 people were interviewed door-to-door in 2000, found that the 7.2% who remembered a "a past blow to the head that was followed by unconsciousness or a period of confusion" also reported "more than twice the rate of depression and of alcohol and drug abuse as others" and "had sharply elevated rates of panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and suicide attempts" compared with those who didn't report a head injury.
Article accompanied by an embedded video.
08:15 Posted in education , health and medicine , neuroscience, psychology, the mind | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
16 January 2008
Access to Knowledge: The Place of Libraries and Books
(I published this at Worth Reading today and am repeating it here.)
Two articles on the related topic of libraries and access to knowledge:
From The Independent, Michael Savage asks "The Big Question: Does the decline in book lending spell the end for the public library?" He notes that figures just published show that the British "are taking out fewer books from libraries than we were 10 years ago. Library users in England borrowed just under 269 million books in the last financial year, according to official figures compiled by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. That is down 34 per cent on the amount borrowed back in 1997."
It may not be that Brits have lost any interest in reading; in fact, "2007 was a record-breaking year in terms of the amount the British spent on a good read," with book sales up 6.2 per cent over 2006.
Savage suggests that factors involved in libraries' reduced book borrowing include lower book prices (cheaper than ever for people to just buy the books), comfier digs at bookstores than libraries, changes in social structure, and perhaps most likely, library patrons using the library for reasons other than borrowing books, as the number of library visits has remained roughly the same at least over the past 3 years.
Savage ends the column with the question "Do libraries still have a role in 21st-century Britain?" and answers it with some pros and cons.
===
A second column at Times Online, "Reference books? Give me Wikipedia" by Magnus Linklater, argues against Tara Brabazon, professor of Media Studies at the University of Brighton, who "has banned her own students from using Wikipedia or Google as research sources, and insists they read printed texts only. In a lecture, she argues that only thus will we produce the critical thinkers that the nation needs."
Linklater embraces "the new socialism" (a bit tongue in cheek) of "offering equality of information to everyone." He views students' lack of critical thinking as a function of "the way they have been taught to think -- and the way their written work is marked." He says that if students "learn that they have a gateway to knowledge unprecedented in the history of man, and that this opens up access to sources of information that they might never have glimpsed as they struggled with poorly equipped libraries, unhelpful staff and unimaginative lecturers, then they will realise that, far from blunting curiosity, it sharpens it."
In his haste to praise quick, easy, and often very good information found online, Linklater, it seems to me, makes the common error of exaggerating or taking as universal the negative aspects of that which she seeks to argue against -- in this case, in part, libraries. I agree with his argument that Wikipedia and other online sources offer a great opportunity for finding information to anyone with internet access and the ability to read the screen, and I agree that critical thinking is not a function of the medium but rather of being taught how to use the medium and the content. I also value the library, and the librarian, many of whom are excellent discerners of knowledge and are willing to share their insight with library users.
At rhetorically speaking, Scottish blogger 'bookdrunk' thinks that Linklater misunderstands or misinterprets Brabazon's point and essentially argues against a straw man: "Tara Brabazon isn't opposed to wikipedia or google in principal, but [is] concerned that the ease with which information is made available has not been matched with a critical appreciation of different sources. The revelation that what you read online in or in a newspaper can't be taken at face-value (or that a columnist might completely misrepresent someone's views) is probably not news ..." He (?) quotes Brabazon: "We need to teach our students the interpretative skills first before we teach them the technological skills."
Why not teach interpretive skills before, as, and after technological and reading skills are taught?
10:05 Posted in books and reading , community , education , media, film, tv, radio | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
Experience and Damage
"Someone walking down the street with absolutely no scars or calluses would look pretty odd. I suspect having a conversation with someone who'd never taken any emotional or mental damage would be even odder. The line between 'experience' and 'damage' is pretty thin." -- Aliza, from the Open-Source Wish Project, via OB
I'm not sure there is a line.
08:37 Posted in education , other people said it | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
24 November 2007
What I'm Reading: Policy and Mediocrity, Wine, Metro Readers
Mostly what I'm reading is Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook (1962), which is 600+-pages and fascinating. I'm at about page 430 and will finish by the time we discuss it in bookgroup next week.
Otherwise, online:
>> We've Got A Ticket To Read in The Observer, about the French Metro-riding public's reading tastes. Robert McCrum is scanning riders in search of evidence of "existentialists in the Sartrean sense;" doesn't find too much of that, but reports what Parisians are reading and how it differs from Londoners. Appeals to the voyeur in me.
>>Exclusive Interview with 'The Wire' creator David Simon, 2 Nov. 2007. I've never seen "The Wire" (it's on HBO) or heard of David Simon but the interview is nonetheless worth reading because it's about the tragedy of modern American cities and lack of political will to improve the lives of citizens. Simon, while with the Baltimore Sun, wrote "the Edgar Award winning account of the Baltimore City Homicide Division, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets (which later spawned the NBC series)." Now he writes for HBO's "The Wire," a sprawling, epic tale about the decay of the American city." Among themes the show explores are drugs and law enforcement, education, the media, politics, and reform.
Simon is direct in his critique of much of what passes for excellence these days:
Talking about journalism: "You see these sort of 'we gotcha' stories, bite sized morsels of outrage, half-assed scandals. No one is tackling big problems. That kind of ambition is gone. ... At some point, Wall Street found the industry. And instead of being sheltered in a series family owned companies, the newspaper chain entities, which are beholden to stock holders and share prices, began buying them up. At that moment when Wall Street raised its hand, that was pretty much the end."
He's asked: "The failure of law enforcement, the death of the working class, the impotence of reform, the inequity of the education system -- how much can you really blame on newspapers?"
Simon's response: "I'm not blaming the newspaper for the origins of the problem, the origins of the problem are a complete lack of social policy. Our social framework is 'Can I get it promoted now, can I make a buck off it?' The entire country right now is like a pyramid scheme with no other ethic or social framework behind it. So obviously there are a lot of forces at work. I'm just saying the media, which is supposed to be the assertive watchdog of the political and social culture, the last hope of reform -- they're not here anymore."
Asked "As far as how bad it got – that pyramid scheme -- do you think it was ineptitude, self preservation or was this a calculated maneuver by those that set our policy to stay atop the pyramid?", Simon answers, "I don't think that it's that anyone had a plan to do this. People were simply thinking short when they should have been thinking long."
>> Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Wine by Pablo Päster and Tyler Colman, who is DrVino.com. ... The 'good news' is that for those of us on the East coast, it's no worse ecologically to drink French (Italian, Spanish) wine than to drink California wine. The bad news is pretty much everything else. For one thing, growing grapes is very resource-intensive: "Compared to many other crops, grapes yield relatively little output per hectare. Grapes considered in this study yielded between 400 and 800 kilograms (kg) per hectare, whereas corn can yield between 30 and 80 metric tons per hectare. Grapes require between 50 and 100 kg of agrichemicals (biocides and fertilizers) per ton while corn requires around 40 kg per ton. Grapes can also require a large amount of water relative to their output; between 1.2 and 2.5 megaliters per hectare, or 550,000 liters per ton." Still, "The greatest climate impact from the wine supply chain comes from transportation," quite an obstacle for those of us who don't live in wine-growing areas. The full 20-page PDF is here.
12:10 Posted in books and reading , community , consumption , crime , education , media, film, tv, radio , finance and business , food and drink , politics, government and law , travel and place | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this
30 September 2007
Recent Reading
Recent online reading of interest: of Girard, desire, imitation and fashion; musing on death and life; findings of sloppy science; essays on climate change and human responsibility; the anniversary of Sputnik; and how hypocrisy traps make some of us squirm.
>> Death and the garden, Shelley, not looking out the window, obituary motifs, and thoughts on decay in The glad reaper: Our obituaries editor finds solace in a garden, a correspondent's diary (by Ann Wroe) in The Economist:
"More than I used to, I note the premature browning of leaves and grass, the erosion of statues and stones, the rotting of things. The odd pangs and pains in my own body I now surmise to be Death knocking, or leaving a calling card, with a promise to come back later.
"Is this morbid? Some friends and colleagues think so, joking nervously about 'the Grim Reaper' and 'Grave-Watch', muttering of coffin counts. But to me it is simply part of a continuum: death in life, life in death. Everything in nature springs up, flourishes, dies, springs up again: we do the same. Bodies form and decay all the time. What the spirit does, being outside nature, has the potential to be much more interesting. But since we have forgotten that life, if we ever knew it, we are left with physical dissolution, and we don't like it much."
>> Girard and the world of fashion: The Forces of Beauty and Desire in Fashion Imitation:
"It would hardly be controversial to mention beauty and desire in the same sentence. We desire to be beautiful, to own beautiful objects, to be with beautiful people. ... Our daily experiences assure us that desiring something is a conscious, spontaneous act. The things we desire are the things we have chosen. But what if this is not the case? What would this mean for a theory of beauty?
"Rene Girard ... views desire as something that is formed in the relationships people have with each other rather than as something found within individuals themselves. Perhaps more importantly, he stresses that imitation underlies the relationships in which desire is created. ... As an example, my best friend who is more beautiful than me wants to buy a dress. The theory of mimetic desire says that I also want the dress, not because I believe it to be a beautiful dress but rather because it is a dress that is desired by my beautiful friend.
"Two important points emerge from this scenario. The first is that my desire to have the dress is a direct response to the way in which I compare myself unfavourably with my friend. Moreover, by owning the dress she likes, I hope to take on the qualities I admire in her but perceive to be lacking in myself. In essence, I am trying to become my friend when I copy her desires. As Girard states, 'aware of a lack within ourselves, we look to others to teach us what to value and who to be.' Desire is therefore about self-identity. Advertising can be seen to exploit this insight."
>> I didn't read this but heard it yesterday on NPR's Weekend Edition: Khrushchev, Schorr Look Back on Sputnik. On the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, the world's first human-made satellite, Sergei Khrushchev, the son of then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and Dan Schorr, who was then Moscow Bureau chief for CBS News, talk with Scott Simon about its significance. I don't know why, but my attention was riveted as I listened to the interview.
>> Also worth listening to, Scott Simon's reflections on the Larry Craig case: What makes Scott squirm:
"It's the exultation among so many that another hypocritical politician has been exposed. ... There are those who believe Mr. Craig deserves his humiliation because he's a hypocrite ... I guess by now I have seen enough of life that I prefer to see someone as a real, complicated human being ... Human life, including sex, abounds with hypocrisy, faithlessness, carelessness, and people who say 'I love you' when they only mean, 'I want you.' People who say 'My spouse doesn't understand me,' when they really mean, 'My spouse knows me too well.' Most adults can supply their own examples. ... I wonder if people who applaud Larry Craig's arrest ... really want to arm the police with a moral license to set traps that catch people in hypocrisy. That's the kind of trap that most of us would step into someday."
>> Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic (1993-2003), writes about the morality of environmental and political choices in his op-ed piece, Our Moral Footprint, in the NYT.
Havel's essay seems a response to current Czech Republic president (since 2003) Vaclav Klaus's op-ed of June 2007, What is at risk is not the climate but freedom, in the Financial Times, in which Klaus says that "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now ... [is] ambitious environmentalism. ... This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Havel eventually asserts, as does Klaus, that the climate and the Earth are not at risk, but Havel's take on it is markedly different from Klaus's:
"The end of the world has been anticipated many times and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk. As a result of our endeavors and our irresponsibility our climate might leave no place for us."
Before he gets there, he more pointedly contends:
"It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don't know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren't we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays? ... We can't endlessly fool ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our wasteful lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. ...
"I’m skeptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and ethics -- a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility."
>> Sloppy Science Studies: Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis in the WSJ. I'm almost to the point of not believing any scientific study, even replicated ones, certainly not based on summaries reported in the mainstream media, and I probably don't know enough science or remember enough statistics to trust my own judgment reading the original studies. (Of course, why should I believe this guy's findings, either?):
"Dr. [John] Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye. ...
"These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. 'There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims,' Dr. Ioannidis said. 'A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true.' The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined."
Update, 4 Oct 2007: Related to this: "The facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need to 'frame' their messages to the public," an article by Matthew C. Nisbet and Dietram A. Scheufele, in The Scientist.com:
"The dominant assumption is that ignorance is at the root of conflict over science. According to this traditional 'popular science' model, the media should be used to educate the public about the technical details of the issue in dispute. Once citizens are brought up to speed on the science, they will be more likely to judge scientific issues as scientists do and controversy will go away. The facts are assumed to speak for themselves and to be interpreted by all citizens in similar ways. ...
"... Arguments in favor of the popular science model are not very scientific. In fact, they cut against more than 60 years of research in the social sciences, a body of work that suggests citizens prefer to rely on their social values to pick and choose information sources that confirm what they already believe, often making up their minds about a topic in the absence of knowledge. A second challenge to the popular science model is that in today's media world, by way of cable TV and the Internet, the public has greater access to quality information about science than at any time in history, yet public knowledge of science remains low. The reason is that a small audience remains attentive to science coverage, but the broader public literally tunes out, preferring other media content."
14:25 Posted in books and reading , death , earthcare and environment , education , finance and business , girardian anthropology , math and numbers , politics, government and law , science and tech , theology, spirituality, philosophy , other people said it | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
17 April 2007
Today in History Resources
There are numerous websites devoted to 'Today in History,' listing commemorations of historical events, birthdays, deaths, holidays, saints' feast days, and so.
Some of the best:
- The LoC American Memory's Today in History feature focuses on one person or event, with annotated links and a list of sources.
- The NYT Learning Network's On This Day offers an overview of a few highlights for each day (with links), followed by a timeline of events (briefly described) and lists of current and historic birthdays.
- History Net.Com also offers a timeline and a list of birthdays, with less annotation but perhaps more obscure historical dates listed than the NYT feature.
- USA Today's Today in History also has a highlighted event and a timeline, but the focus is on events of 10 years, 5 years, and 1 year ago.
- The BBC's On This Day links to several news stories each day from its files for events from WWII through 2005.
- Click on a date at Wikipedia's List of Historical Anniversaries and you'll find a boatload of information for each day: Long, linked lists of events, births, deaths, holidays and observances, and liturgical feasts.
Regardless of this plethora of good resources, I'm starting a daily Today in History feature that focuses on events and people that interest me, using as a primary source The Book of Days: What to Celebrate Today by Anthony Frewin -- published in 1979, so there won't be much in the way of current events. (I might come up with supplemental sources as I go along.) As I've been flipping through The Book of Days over the last 36 hours, I realise that many of the people and events don't ring even a faint bell in my head. As I learn more about history, you can, too :-)
16:44 Posted in books and reading , education , holidays and seasons , lists | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
13 April 2007
Wine TV
Wine Library TV. If you enjoy wine and want to learn more about it, check it out. Entertaining. (Sometimes you'll want to skip the few minutes of business chatter before he gets down to the wine-tasting.)
11:47 Posted in education , media, film, tv, radio , food and drink | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
28 March 2007
Embodiment 101
I stole that title from Rachel Barenblat, whose essay on practicing the presence of God through embodiment is what's caught my eye today. She writes:
"I have many metaphors for the months since my December stroke. At times I've felt like a sailor in a tiny craft, skating across the surface of the unfathomed deep. I'm content, even singing a sea chanty or two -- until I realize how vast the waters below me are, and how a storm would swamp me. ...
"Yesterday my spiritual director and I talked about the challenges of hishtavut/equanimity.... About the Baal Shem Tov's teachings on yirah/fear, and how fear can be a path to God as surely as ahavah/love can be. About oscillating between feeling good and feeling afraid, and how to find God in that oscillation. ...
"The rabbinic school plan for this spring had been to take four courses. Instead I have taken three, and joked that my fourth class was Embodiment 101. I've learned more about the inner workings of brain and heart and arteries than I ever expected to know. And, beyond the intellectual learning, I've been reminded of how having a body is itself a spiritual practice. There's always something complicated or delicious or uncomfortable about embodiment."
I feel like I've spent a lot of time lately hearing about the detailed, amazing, and vulnerable workings of the human body (and canine body) -- which is nothing like experiencing it first-hand as the feeling of not-rightness in my own body.
Still, as a somewhat reformed hypochondriac, I have spent a shocking chunk of time focused, with navel-gazing intensity (literally), on my body's function and dysfunction.
Aside from major life events like disease, injury, pregnancy and childbirth, and studying medicine, and compulsive predispositions like hypochondria and addiction, there are more mundane circumstances that rivet attention on the working of the body.
Many of my embodiment lessons have come through my regular work-out, when I watch my muscles respond to the pull of the weights or the extent of the stretch, feel the muscles fatigue, burn or rise to the challenge, and over time, see the look and strength of my body change; through meditation, when I focus on the breath and am aware, over and over, of the gap between breathing in and breathing out, when my breathing seems to halt, as it will when my body dies; through sex (with others or alone), when everything but the body's response is out-of-focus; through mindfulness of the usual waste-removal mechanics we all go through, plus those that are only for women or for men; and through the senses when I eat and drink with attention (as Rachel blogged about recently). connect with something sublime or transcendent through touch, am aware of a pleasant or noxious smell, and so on.
As I sit upright at the kitchen counter typing this, my dog is rolling around wildly on her back on the carpet, snorting with abandon, scratching all the itches she can reach. Good teacher!
16:45 Posted in education , health and medicine , theology, spirituality, philosophy , other people said it | Permalink | Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
08 March 2007
What Should Kids Be Taught?
From Scott Adams' blog:
"From a marketing perspective, there’s a brilliant new game show on TV called Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? The host, Jeff Foxworthy, asks adults questions from topics covered in grade school. The adult can rely on a 5th grader for help up to three times.
"For example, Foxworthy asked what constellation the Big Dipper is in (Ursa Major). Another question asked which bone in the human body is the largest (the femur). All of the 5th graders allegedly knew the answers.
"Clearly, our kids are being taught a lot of useless crap."
At least learning the constellations might get kids outdoors, looking at the vast dark sky above them. That seems good.
But to take Adams' point: What is the purpose of learning information that will become simply trivia when we are adults?
I can imagine several purposes for public education that might include learning these kinds of facts, some of which might be:
- simply learning how to learn, and nurturing an innate hunger for learning (sort of ala Rousseau), rather than emphasising recall of the actual details of astronomy, biology, history, trigonometry, etc.;
- helping kids figure out what really interests them, where their passions lie, by exposing them to a wide variety of disciplines, so they can focus on those disciplines as a vocation or avocation -- Still, there's a lot that's not taught in K-12 that would make a great career, like veterinary science, mortuary science, theology, most engineering, architecture, etc.; and even more hobbies that you don't learn about in school;
- learning facts about science, social sciences, math, language, etc., simply to become well-rounded in the liberal arts and thereby better members (citizens, guardians, rulers, governors) of the world, city-state, or polis, ala Plato and Aristotle;
- transmitting what are seen by one generation as useful facts and skills to the next generation (who may not see them as such)
Adams names the things he thinks kids would be better served by learning: public speaking, risk assessment, bullshit detecting, social skills, decision-making, managing your own body, and influencing people. These are mostly skills rather than facts. Of course, there are a gazillion comments on this at the blog.
It's true that those things come in handy in adult life, but they seem really boring topics on which to spend 12 years watching Power Point slides and role-playing. Give me the constellations and bones of the human body any day.
Update (Friday): Profile of eccentric 75-year-old physics teacher.
20:30 Posted in education , pop culture | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this