Team. In light of this author's last entry in this web history, a request for a harmonious and peaceful holiday season and upcoming year might seem somewhat strange. But life has taught that within the mire and abyss of abject hatred and disdain that this world is true beauty might be found. The author has found among men and woman who hail from various parts of this earth and practice a myriad of faiths. He has, at times, found a greater level of "humankindness" among those who do not practice his faith tradition than those who do.
As said in earlier entries among these notes, most seem very disinterested in those lessons of true value which the author might give. After reading his religious canon of his chosen faith-walk, he can give very pithy and insightful lessons. And, some of these contradict traditional teachings. Although, these personal counterviewpoints are supportable by scripture. "He is a Rewarder of those who seek Him..." as it is written. Yet, such insight draw very little attention or interest when spoken of openly. They are teachings for which ears do not itch.
What seemingly enthralls folks is those tidbits of knowledge that might impress a manager in a technical interview.
Such as, "Object-orientation is truly not a great departure from traditional structured programming techniques. In fact, it is a systematically-enforced method for imposing more structure through the bundling of related state and behavior and the utilization of principles such as encapsulation, information hiding, polymorphism, inheritence, and others. Those standard rules such as a "single point of modification", "modularity", "using well-known interfaces", and other still remain supreme. In fact, object-orientation is simply one form of concern partition and organization, a discipline that has also spawned aspect-orientation and might produce other novel "orientations" in future decades. And, concern partitioning and organization is simply part of a everyday task called problem-solving. Whose fancy name with Latin roots is 'parsology'....blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yack, yack, yack..."
Everyone seeks sounding "impressive". We must have the most "illustrious" credentials from the most "storied" academic programs which teach the "grand principles" enunciated by the "great names" in history.
Truth be told, as simple-minded as the average human is, one can simply claim that a certain type of person made some great claim or discovery and few will question it. And, such a phenomenon is often that basis of a dissertation for doctoral students in social psychology and the fuel for many marketing and political campaigns.
Take a gander at this following video clip. Notice that men who it claims are doctoral-level researchers in mathematics. What is their demographic. All are male. Most have European ancestry. And, most have hair that is dark brown or lighter.
Would anyone dare question their abilities or the authenticity of their claims concerning the difficulty of this problem?
Yet, most middle and high school students who are "math-types" who truly earnt their honor roll accolades could tell anyone why a professional mathematician should not spend his career chasing after that solution of this problem and an amateur should not spend a "good" five seconds on it.
However, that is for those who spend much of their time honing their mathematics skills. For others, it can be a nice recreational diversion. And, it is "encouraging" uncovering something that the seemingly "smarty pants" cannot figure out.
In fact, most K-12 mathematics teachers who work with students at those grade levels could certainly say, "It looks like this one ( the Collatz sequence ) was thought up by some egghead junior that spends most of his afternoons watching Nova on PBS."
Yet, the "true" dilemma in this video is this, "How can men who have doctoral degrees not grasps this 'obvious' solution?" And, more troubling, "Why will so few among us question a European American male who presents himself as an authority?" Yes, such is the topic of many social psychology dissertations, sicherlich!
A search on YouTube for one of the most telling video clips concerning this phenomenon in the last fifty years turned up "nada, nichts, nothing". And, that footage was of Oprah Winfrey interviewing William Shockley. Who is a Nobel Prize winning scientist credited with discovering the semiconductor, was a Stanford physics professor, and was the well-known the eugenicist that ranked "social strength" of the earth's population groups. He used something called a "genetic" measure. And, during that hour long broadcast in the mid-1980s he presented a model of "societal strength" which ranked the Asian community the highest followed by Europeans, Indo-Aryans, and then Africans. And, it was said that these ranking corresponded with "levels of intelligence" as measured averages on standardized examinations given globally. Now, who might argue with that. A Stanford professor in physics, Nobel Laureate, and European male who has proof concerning the superiority and inferiority of certain human groups.
The trouble is this, "In this grand scheme of societal rankings he left of a large portion of the human population, those who discovered the Americas. And, that is not the Spaniards. It is the many groups of indigenous Americans."
And, the question one must ask any eugenicist, "Are such men seen as human? If so, were they left off as a mere genocidal afterthought." The question mark is missing for a reason.
And, in the words quoted from this interview with Bertrand Russel in 1952. He was having trouble accepting the "self-assertion" of the Asiatic man. Apparently, he felt that they were getting out of their place. And, interestingly enough, Shockley placed this "conglomerate community" ahead of the European in terms of "human potential". Yet, that was based upon his "genetic" measure. And, that term is suggestive of describing inherited and innate biological factors; yet, it was defined in his work as a multivalued mathematical object.
So, Shockley's measure ranking his four "human" groupings based upon primarily on physical features was much like e-harmony's rating of personality traits and compatibility. In short, the results of the ranking could be altered drastically if it were based upon a different set of criteria. So, the questions are, "What criteria are important?", "Do any environmental or historical factors that have been left out of the measure play a role?", "Can statistics lie and liars use statistics?". In other words, "If proof establishes truth, what is proof?"
And, this, the fallacy in his research driven by personal motivations, Shockley implied without explicitly stating during his interview with Oprah. He quoted the percentage of individuals on the planet who meet the criteria sufficient for survival based upon the teachings of traditional eugenicists, such as the National Socialists in northern Europe. The number is about seventy million in a world of around seven billion. Many of whom have a dark hue. He also repeated that his genetic measure was defined as a mathematical measure and that he had stood beside the pyramids which were built over an eon ago. And, he emphatically said that he did not say that African were "stupid"! Recollections also suggests that he mentioned the low divorce rate among certain Indo-Aryan groups. However, he said that he had a sound reason for saying what he said based upon his research. And, that is certain groups simply have weaker societal structures.
And, in doing so he did what many "well-educated" men will do, he called the masses ignorant in a way that they did not detect. Because, the majority of them liked what they heard and it served their purposes and itched their ears. And, no one would question who he said he was nor his claimed ability. He need not prove his competence or level of training. He was a European American man presented as well-educated and accomplished, much like those in the video on the Collatz sequence. Yet, they might only be actors as far as anyone knows. They are presented as mathematicians and give a convincing presentation which most non-math types would not question. Truth be told, anyone of them might work as a waiter at Perkins and hold a "hard-fought" GED. That does not mean that they lack intelligence; it just means that they are not who they are presented as.
And, as said in numerous earlier web entries, the "bell curve" argument presented by William Shockley was funneled through the international network of researcher most likely via a familial connection who had ties with the Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University. It was wagered with this person that the average American, most of whom which consider themselves European, would love what Shockley said, would never question it, and might very well become aggressive if someone dared contradict these findings. In fact, it is all what the author's Grandfather who was a Mason and Baptist Minister would call "hogwash". For, one could choose any set of "valid" measures that might rank these four groups in any order. It is all mathematical "smoke and mirrors" and "prestidigitation". And, albeit socially inflammatory, this "arbitrary" social order and a mathematical means for "proving" its infallibility was conjured up by a middle school student with woolen locks and dark brown skin.
And, it seem like many "great thinkers", many of whom are mathematicians. simply will not speak openly concerning this modern fallacy in social reasoning. Which they should see so clearly. It can quite convincingly be argued that "intelligence" and "phenotypical" traits are not correlated. And, one might make the same argument concerning "genotype". Considering that, the percentage of the human population across this globe that attempted a "solo" cloning experiment within the last twelve months greatly exceeds the of the percentage of the population of mules who did the same thing. It is a matter of "horse sense" folks! So, intelligence and mental acuity are relative.
And, how intelligent is the world's population when it will blindly accept "facts of science" from another person when he is male, European, and likely has a Germanic surname. If CNN reported that Helmut von Dummputz, a doctoral-level researcher at the University of Frankfurt, just proved the Reimann Hypothesis, would you spent all weekend wrapping your head around that unwieldy this postulate.
Yet, the main premise of this note during this season of Channukka, Kiwanza, Advent, and other holiday lights is "seeking harmonious peace". And, we might all find such tranquility when we set our own egos aside and be not a respecter of personages, Why? The only Ego that merits any honor is the Force that created this existence and everything in it. We can spend between this moment and when this earth ceases its rotation about what we should call such a Force and who receives preferential treatment from Him based upon our "current" circumstances. Yet, one fact is true as seen in the balance that His Creation has, equitable measures are His delight. For every injustice, He eventually will bring about a meet justice. And, those very parts of His Creation which are seen as the least desirable often attain the greatest honor and are the most necessary for our longevity.
Also, stop and pause the next time someone is presented as an authority. They might only have a few more full days worth of training in a subject than you. Or, worse yet, like many a politician, they might have been briefed for thirty-minutes by a staffer before addressing the crowd in which you stand. Quietly questioning authority is wise. Openly arguing with it is foolhardy!
Fou Noir ou Feu Noir
No comments:
Post a Comment