For the past five years I've had an idea in my head for a scholarship that I'd start if I ever had the money, or perhaps that I'd will to my alma mater. It just occurred to me now that if I offered the idea up for free, someone richer than me might launch the same scholarship far sooner than I'll ever be able to. So here it is, feel free to take it. I intended it for Translation students, but feel free to use it in your own field if you prefer:
Offer a scholarship for one or more students doing an unpaid internship. The scholarship will be equal to the amount that they would be getting if they were doing a paid internship. (Or, if there's no such thing as a paid internship in your field, for a decent living wage.)
In my experience, an internship - a work placement - is the most valuable educational experience, far more valuable than classroom work. It sucks when people don't get to enjoy this opportunity because they need to spend the summer earning money instead. I hope if I ever become rich I can work to remedy this situation, and I hope that if any rich people stumble upon my blog they might be inspired to do the same.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The Right Clothes and The Wrong Clothes
A topic that seems to have come up in several completely unrelated conversations I've had lately is kids and The Right Clothes or The Wrong Clothes. As we all know, because we all have been (or, if there are any kids reading this, are) kids, during certain stages of life, wearing The Wrong Clothes is social suicide. We also know that some parents can't afford to buy their kids The Right Clothes. But we also know that there are other kids who aren't wearing The Right Clothes, either because they don't want to, or because they aren't aware of which clothes are Right, or because their parents won't buy it for them.
It's the latter situation that I wish to address here.
I've heard three arguments in support of parents who can afford The Right Clothes refusing to buy said clothes for their kids:
1. There are other, less expensive clothes available, and I want my kid to learn the value of frugality.
2. I want my kid to learn not to give in to peer pressure.
3. My kid could have chosen The Right Clothes when we did our back to school clothes shopping. They did not. They must now learn to live with the consequences of their decision. (This one obviously applies to cases where The Wrong Clothes turned out to be those of the kid's choosing.)
And all these three arguments also have the underlying fact that some kids can't afford The Right Clothes at all, and it isn't right for them to be socially ostracized simply because their parents happen to be poor.
I actually agree with all these statements. However, I think there's one thing parents need to think about (and, again, I'm still talking about parents who can afford The Right Clothes): Will refusing to buy The Right Clothes actually help my kid learn the intended lesson?
If you have your kid wearing cheaper clothes even though they're Wrong, will that teach them the lesson of frugality? Or will it just teach them that if their clothes are cheap they'll get tormented?
If you have your kid wearing The Wrong Clothes will that teach them not to give in to peer pressure? Or will it just teach them that if they'd only give in to peer pressure, they wouldn't be tormented?
If your kid picked out The Wrong Clothes and is now being tormented for it, will that teach them to make better decisions? Or did they pick out The Wrong Clothes because they didn't no any better, so it teaches them that their parents are just as cruel and punitive as their classmates?
And, in all cases, will not buying your kids The Right Clothes improve the lot of their poorer classmates?
If you buy your kids The Right Clothes, I can see two possible outcomes: a) it makes their social lives better, or b) it doesn't. If it's b), I think that would teach any of the above lessons better than refusing them the clothes, leaving them to think about what might have been. If it's a), then you get to see whether or not your kid continues to have empathy for their classmates who are now below them on the social scale. If they cease to have empathy for their classmates with The Wrong Clothes, then you have a perfectly good reason to not buy them The Right Clothes in the future. If they do have empathy for their classmates with The Wrong Clothes, then they can leverage their new social position to improve their classmates' lot, and the entire social circle benefits.
It's the latter situation that I wish to address here.
I've heard three arguments in support of parents who can afford The Right Clothes refusing to buy said clothes for their kids:
1. There are other, less expensive clothes available, and I want my kid to learn the value of frugality.
2. I want my kid to learn not to give in to peer pressure.
3. My kid could have chosen The Right Clothes when we did our back to school clothes shopping. They did not. They must now learn to live with the consequences of their decision. (This one obviously applies to cases where The Wrong Clothes turned out to be those of the kid's choosing.)
And all these three arguments also have the underlying fact that some kids can't afford The Right Clothes at all, and it isn't right for them to be socially ostracized simply because their parents happen to be poor.
I actually agree with all these statements. However, I think there's one thing parents need to think about (and, again, I'm still talking about parents who can afford The Right Clothes): Will refusing to buy The Right Clothes actually help my kid learn the intended lesson?
If you have your kid wearing cheaper clothes even though they're Wrong, will that teach them the lesson of frugality? Or will it just teach them that if their clothes are cheap they'll get tormented?
If you have your kid wearing The Wrong Clothes will that teach them not to give in to peer pressure? Or will it just teach them that if they'd only give in to peer pressure, they wouldn't be tormented?
If your kid picked out The Wrong Clothes and is now being tormented for it, will that teach them to make better decisions? Or did they pick out The Wrong Clothes because they didn't no any better, so it teaches them that their parents are just as cruel and punitive as their classmates?
And, in all cases, will not buying your kids The Right Clothes improve the lot of their poorer classmates?
If you buy your kids The Right Clothes, I can see two possible outcomes: a) it makes their social lives better, or b) it doesn't. If it's b), I think that would teach any of the above lessons better than refusing them the clothes, leaving them to think about what might have been. If it's a), then you get to see whether or not your kid continues to have empathy for their classmates who are now below them on the social scale. If they cease to have empathy for their classmates with The Wrong Clothes, then you have a perfectly good reason to not buy them The Right Clothes in the future. If they do have empathy for their classmates with The Wrong Clothes, then they can leverage their new social position to improve their classmates' lot, and the entire social circle benefits.
Things They Should Invent roundup
I've come up with quite a few inventions in the past few days:
1. Pagers for the doctor's office. You know how sometimes at mall restaurants they'll give you a pager and buzz you when a table is free? I'd like doctor's offices to do that when they're running late. The other day I spent a whole hour sitting in my doctor's waiting room, only a block away from my apartment. I would have been far less cranky if I could have spent that hour at home. I know they don't like to have the doctor waiting around in between patients, so they could page you when the person before you goes in, which should give you plenty of time to get back to the office.
2. The option to listen to someone's voicemail's outgoing message without ringing their phone. Sometimes I just want to know a business's hours, but I don't need or want to speak to anyone. So usually I wait until I can reasonably assume that they're closed, and then call them to listen to their outgoing voicemail. But that still leave my number on their call display, plus I might end up in the awkward situation of having someone answer - or, worse, having someone answer even if they're closed. Some voicemail systems allow you to leave a message without ringing the phone, so why not allow you to listen to the outgoing message without ringing the phone?
3. Automatic TV rerun scheduler. Suppose you've seen some, but not all, episodes of The Simpsons, or Seinfeld, or some other TV series with frequent reruns on many channels. Wouldn't it be cool if you could go to some central website, check off a checklist of episodes you have (or haven't) seen, and it would tell you when the episodes you haven't seen are going to air?
4. Tell me if household products are bad for bugs. I was considering switching floor cleaning products, so I asked a friend if she had ever used the product I was thinking of using. She said she had, but she switched away from it because she had read that it might be bad for her pets. Now I don't have any pets at the moment, so that isn't a problem for me. But if it's bad for household pets, is it also bad for bugs? I would love to use a floor cleaner that's poisonous to bugs! If I could make my home less inviting to bugs simply by switching cleaning products, bring it on! They have the science to determine whether products are bad for pets, so why not extend that to tell us if it's bad for bugs? They could even use that as a bonus in advertising, as long as they don't show pictures of bugs.
1. Pagers for the doctor's office. You know how sometimes at mall restaurants they'll give you a pager and buzz you when a table is free? I'd like doctor's offices to do that when they're running late. The other day I spent a whole hour sitting in my doctor's waiting room, only a block away from my apartment. I would have been far less cranky if I could have spent that hour at home. I know they don't like to have the doctor waiting around in between patients, so they could page you when the person before you goes in, which should give you plenty of time to get back to the office.
2. The option to listen to someone's voicemail's outgoing message without ringing their phone. Sometimes I just want to know a business's hours, but I don't need or want to speak to anyone. So usually I wait until I can reasonably assume that they're closed, and then call them to listen to their outgoing voicemail. But that still leave my number on their call display, plus I might end up in the awkward situation of having someone answer - or, worse, having someone answer even if they're closed. Some voicemail systems allow you to leave a message without ringing the phone, so why not allow you to listen to the outgoing message without ringing the phone?
3. Automatic TV rerun scheduler. Suppose you've seen some, but not all, episodes of The Simpsons, or Seinfeld, or some other TV series with frequent reruns on many channels. Wouldn't it be cool if you could go to some central website, check off a checklist of episodes you have (or haven't) seen, and it would tell you when the episodes you haven't seen are going to air?
4. Tell me if household products are bad for bugs. I was considering switching floor cleaning products, so I asked a friend if she had ever used the product I was thinking of using. She said she had, but she switched away from it because she had read that it might be bad for her pets. Now I don't have any pets at the moment, so that isn't a problem for me. But if it's bad for household pets, is it also bad for bugs? I would love to use a floor cleaner that's poisonous to bugs! If I could make my home less inviting to bugs simply by switching cleaning products, bring it on! They have the science to determine whether products are bad for pets, so why not extend that to tell us if it's bad for bugs? They could even use that as a bonus in advertising, as long as they don't show pictures of bugs.
Friday, April 06, 2007
The problem with continuous learning
Conventional wisdom is that you have to be learning continuously, constantly acquiring new skills.
The problem with that is no one tells you what you need to be learning.
I'm improving my translation skills constantly by translating, but I've just never stumbled upon anything where I thought "You know, it would be helpful if I could take a course on that." I do employer-mandated training like WHMIS, but I just never come upon anything that I'd like to improve that can be taught in the classroom.
I'm the kind of person who can pick up new software very easily - I don't actually require classroom training to use new software - but that's very difficult to do when you can't actually think of anything to use the software for. For example, I have Photoshop. But I can't use it because I've never had to use it for anything except converting images. Some people improve their photoshop skills recreationally à la Worth 1000, but my creativity simply does not inspire me in that direction. It has never in my life occurred to me "Hey, someone should photoshop [idea]!" So I doubt I'm going to pick up any new software skills until I find the need or want to use any new software.
I would happily take any course my boss told me to, except that she doesn't, she usually just tells me to pick some courses that I'm interested in (and I'm not). I'd be happy to take a course if something occurred to me "Hey, I'd like to learn that," but nothing has so far. I'll happily learn any new software, but there isn't any I need or am actively interested in doing that requires new software.
I wonder if this means I'm getting old and set in my ways?
The problem with that is no one tells you what you need to be learning.
I'm improving my translation skills constantly by translating, but I've just never stumbled upon anything where I thought "You know, it would be helpful if I could take a course on that." I do employer-mandated training like WHMIS, but I just never come upon anything that I'd like to improve that can be taught in the classroom.
I'm the kind of person who can pick up new software very easily - I don't actually require classroom training to use new software - but that's very difficult to do when you can't actually think of anything to use the software for. For example, I have Photoshop. But I can't use it because I've never had to use it for anything except converting images. Some people improve their photoshop skills recreationally à la Worth 1000, but my creativity simply does not inspire me in that direction. It has never in my life occurred to me "Hey, someone should photoshop [idea]!" So I doubt I'm going to pick up any new software skills until I find the need or want to use any new software.
I would happily take any course my boss told me to, except that she doesn't, she usually just tells me to pick some courses that I'm interested in (and I'm not). I'd be happy to take a course if something occurred to me "Hey, I'd like to learn that," but nothing has so far. I'll happily learn any new software, but there isn't any I need or am actively interested in doing that requires new software.
I wonder if this means I'm getting old and set in my ways?
Thought experiment
What is your favourite ________?
Fill in the blank with anything you want, anything you can think of. Food, drink, band, TV show, cheese, yoga position, shampoo, whatever. Just answer the question as you would normally:
What is your favourite ________?
Got the answer? Good.
Now another question:
If you could only use one ________ for the rest of your life, which one would it be?
(Replace the verb "use" with a more appropriate verb if necessary, e.g. eat, drink, watch, listen to - whatever goes best with the noun in the blank)
Are the answers the same?
Try with something else in the blank. Are the answers still the same?
For me, sometimes they are the same, sometimes they aren't. That's really weird.
Fill in the blank with anything you want, anything you can think of. Food, drink, band, TV show, cheese, yoga position, shampoo, whatever. Just answer the question as you would normally:
What is your favourite ________?
Got the answer? Good.
Now another question:
If you could only use one ________ for the rest of your life, which one would it be?
(Replace the verb "use" with a more appropriate verb if necessary, e.g. eat, drink, watch, listen to - whatever goes best with the noun in the blank)
Are the answers the same?
Try with something else in the blank. Are the answers still the same?
For me, sometimes they are the same, sometimes they aren't. That's really weird.
Garbage
The City of Toronto recently had an idea of issuing each household a small garbage bin, and charging them more money if they want a larger one. There are several problems with this plan, but the one I haven't seen mentioned yet is: what happens under exceptional circumstances that generate far more garbage than usual?
I generate very little garbage. Probably one big green bag a month, including organics. However, as I prepare to move, I find myself having to throw out quite a few largish things that can't be recycled or donated to charity. My old olive green pots and pans (originally my father's from his first apartment in the early 70s), whose non-stick is coming off. The original keyboard from my first computer, whose M key doesn't work. Hopelessly stained clothing that charities won't accept. Basically four years worth of stuff that I held on to because they aren't 100% useless (I am, after all, the child of an immigrant) but that I'm ultimately not going to use ever again. This is a one-time increase in my household garbage and probably won't happen again for another several years. It doesn't mean I need a larger bin 100% of the time, but I would need more for one garbage collection. Does this plan take these kinds of things into account?
I've been spending some time lurking around web communities devoted to frugality and waste reduction, in the hopes of finding leads on places where I can donate or recycle these kinds of bulky useless items. One surprising idea that kept coming up was to make craft projects out of stuff. I'm sorry, but I don't think this counts. I have all these old clothes that are too stained to donate. If I make, say, rag dolls out of them, then I'd have a bunch of rag dolls. But I don't need rag dolls. I couldn't donate or regift the rag dolls because they're made out of old stained clothes - you don't give a child a doll with your stains on it! I have no use for rag dolls in my home. It doesn't contribute to the decor - it's not like I look around and say "You know what this place really needs? Some rag dolls!" So while, technically, I have reused my useless old clothes, reusing being a frugal and environmentally friendly act, I don't actually get any points for it. I've just turned one useless thing into another useless thing that looks slightly less like garbage. I think craft projects should only count if the end product fills a need that you would have had to fill even if you didn't have the items you were making the craft out of. In other words, my hypothetical rag doll project would count only if, had I not had all these old stained clothes on hand, I would have had to go buy rag dolls or rags to make dolls out of.
I think the problem with society in general is that not generating waste is a virtue, frugally saving things until you can reuse them is a virtue, but being clutter-free is also a virtue.
I generate very little garbage. Probably one big green bag a month, including organics. However, as I prepare to move, I find myself having to throw out quite a few largish things that can't be recycled or donated to charity. My old olive green pots and pans (originally my father's from his first apartment in the early 70s), whose non-stick is coming off. The original keyboard from my first computer, whose M key doesn't work. Hopelessly stained clothing that charities won't accept. Basically four years worth of stuff that I held on to because they aren't 100% useless (I am, after all, the child of an immigrant) but that I'm ultimately not going to use ever again. This is a one-time increase in my household garbage and probably won't happen again for another several years. It doesn't mean I need a larger bin 100% of the time, but I would need more for one garbage collection. Does this plan take these kinds of things into account?
I've been spending some time lurking around web communities devoted to frugality and waste reduction, in the hopes of finding leads on places where I can donate or recycle these kinds of bulky useless items. One surprising idea that kept coming up was to make craft projects out of stuff. I'm sorry, but I don't think this counts. I have all these old clothes that are too stained to donate. If I make, say, rag dolls out of them, then I'd have a bunch of rag dolls. But I don't need rag dolls. I couldn't donate or regift the rag dolls because they're made out of old stained clothes - you don't give a child a doll with your stains on it! I have no use for rag dolls in my home. It doesn't contribute to the decor - it's not like I look around and say "You know what this place really needs? Some rag dolls!" So while, technically, I have reused my useless old clothes, reusing being a frugal and environmentally friendly act, I don't actually get any points for it. I've just turned one useless thing into another useless thing that looks slightly less like garbage. I think craft projects should only count if the end product fills a need that you would have had to fill even if you didn't have the items you were making the craft out of. In other words, my hypothetical rag doll project would count only if, had I not had all these old stained clothes on hand, I would have had to go buy rag dolls or rags to make dolls out of.
I think the problem with society in general is that not generating waste is a virtue, frugally saving things until you can reuse them is a virtue, but being clutter-free is also a virtue.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Open Letter to Salon
Dear Salon:
With your new letters policy, you've lost me as a commenter. It seems you valued me as a commenter, given that about half my letters got red stars (which seems significant in light of the fact that your policy is to favour signed letters). That's probably because I comment only when I seem to be the only one who has thought to say what I have to say.
Given the combination of the size of your readership, and the hatefulness of certain parts of your readership, and the fact that every comment I have to make that's worth making is either highly personal or highly political, and the fact that I must retain a certain anonymity WRT my real-life identity for the sake of my loved ones, and the fact that I must maintain the impression of a certain political neutrality WRT my real-life identity for professional purposes, and the fact that if you collected together all my comments it really would show a lot of myself, I'm just not comfortable with that.
I censor myself a lot when I'm posting under a consistent identity - yes, even here, yes, even in other online communities. I wasn't censoring myself that much in the Salon comments in order to produce unique and insightful comments. If I do censor myself as much as necessary, what I can permit myself to say there wouldn't be worth saying.
Yes, I have this blog, but I only get 10-20 hits a day (mostly from people googling for pictures I once linked to), plus I don't seem to get that many nasty trolls. There are more nasty trolls in a single Salon letters page than I've gotten in the entire history of this blog. I'm just not up for exposing myself to them under any consistent identity.
PS: On top of all this, I have also noticed that the most annoying posters do use consistent handles.
With your new letters policy, you've lost me as a commenter. It seems you valued me as a commenter, given that about half my letters got red stars (which seems significant in light of the fact that your policy is to favour signed letters). That's probably because I comment only when I seem to be the only one who has thought to say what I have to say.
Given the combination of the size of your readership, and the hatefulness of certain parts of your readership, and the fact that every comment I have to make that's worth making is either highly personal or highly political, and the fact that I must retain a certain anonymity WRT my real-life identity for the sake of my loved ones, and the fact that I must maintain the impression of a certain political neutrality WRT my real-life identity for professional purposes, and the fact that if you collected together all my comments it really would show a lot of myself, I'm just not comfortable with that.
I censor myself a lot when I'm posting under a consistent identity - yes, even here, yes, even in other online communities. I wasn't censoring myself that much in the Salon comments in order to produce unique and insightful comments. If I do censor myself as much as necessary, what I can permit myself to say there wouldn't be worth saying.
Yes, I have this blog, but I only get 10-20 hits a day (mostly from people googling for pictures I once linked to), plus I don't seem to get that many nasty trolls. There are more nasty trolls in a single Salon letters page than I've gotten in the entire history of this blog. I'm just not up for exposing myself to them under any consistent identity.
PS: On top of all this, I have also noticed that the most annoying posters do use consistent handles.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Judasnape
Salon writes about the recently-found Gospel of Judas.
My first thought: that is almost exactly the character arc of Snape!
But if Snape's Judas, that makes Dumbledore the messiah. So what does that make Harry?
My first thought: that is almost exactly the character arc of Snape!
But if Snape's Judas, that makes Dumbledore the messiah. So what does that make Harry?
April Fool's joke, free for the taking
Scott Adams asked his readers to submit April Fool's jokes.
Inspired by some of the readers' suggestions about how to fuck with other people's computers, I have a harmless but effective joke. It will be immediately noticeable to the victim, but it won't hurt anything or cause significant delay, and the victim will be able to remedy the situation themselves.
On the victim's keyboard, move the little cover things on the F and J keys one line up. Make sure to keep them in the same row and with two spaces in between them.
As you know, the F and J keys have those little sticky-up things on them to show touch typists where to put their fingers. So if your victim is a touch typist, they'll start typing with their fingers on the wrong keys qhe 3f3465y8ht 28oo d9j3 975 o8i3 5y8wl.
Inspired by some of the readers' suggestions about how to fuck with other people's computers, I have a harmless but effective joke. It will be immediately noticeable to the victim, but it won't hurt anything or cause significant delay, and the victim will be able to remedy the situation themselves.
On the victim's keyboard, move the little cover things on the F and J keys one line up. Make sure to keep them in the same row and with two spaces in between them.
As you know, the F and J keys have those little sticky-up things on them to show touch typists where to put their fingers. So if your victim is a touch typist, they'll start typing with their fingers on the wrong keys qhe 3f3465y8ht 28oo d9j3 975 o8i3 5y8wl.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Not dead yet
I've just come off the week from hell at work and then I took possession of the apartment today. So I haven't had time to blog any of the zillions of things floating around in my head, or look at my comments, or look at other people's blogs, or generally participate in online or IRL social life. There will be more apartment fuss this weekend, but I do expect to come back to the land of the living shortly.
Compared with this process I'm going through, I'm astounded at how uncivilized our move-in process for res was in university. We were treated like cattle on an assembly line. When we had to move from winter res to summer res, we were given one day's notice without consideration for the fact that we may have other obligations that day. I compare this with my current process where I call or pop in, and they just know who I am and why I'm there and act like they're happy to see me. I wonder if they treat the uni students worse because we'd most likely never lived away from our parents before so we had no idea how well people might be treated for housing out in the grownup world?
PS: To everyone I told that my phone number is changing: my phone number is NOT changing. Apparently Rogers can just take over my Bell number, so I get to keep my 416 cred instead of looking like some 647 newbie. Even though I really am I newbie. Well, I have been here for nearly 7 years...hey, that's over 25% of my life! Maybe I'm not a newbie!
Compared with this process I'm going through, I'm astounded at how uncivilized our move-in process for res was in university. We were treated like cattle on an assembly line. When we had to move from winter res to summer res, we were given one day's notice without consideration for the fact that we may have other obligations that day. I compare this with my current process where I call or pop in, and they just know who I am and why I'm there and act like they're happy to see me. I wonder if they treat the uni students worse because we'd most likely never lived away from our parents before so we had no idea how well people might be treated for housing out in the grownup world?
PS: To everyone I told that my phone number is changing: my phone number is NOT changing. Apparently Rogers can just take over my Bell number, so I get to keep my 416 cred instead of looking like some 647 newbie. Even though I really am I newbie. Well, I have been here for nearly 7 years...hey, that's over 25% of my life! Maybe I'm not a newbie!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Sweetness in the Belly by Camilla Gibb
Read this book! Read it for the cultural anthropology. It's an absolutely fascinating explanation of another culture without getting all condescending or preachy.
The protagonist is a British girl who was orphaned in Africa when her hippie parents were killed in a drug deal, then brought up in a Muslim community and then taken to Ethiopia for some reason. The book explores her life as an adolescent living with a widow and her daughters in Harar, Ethopia in the 1970s. This story alternates with the story of the protagonist in the 1980s, now back "home" in London, where she works as a nurse and helps refugees.
My description doesn't do it justice. It is fascinating and compelling, but what I like best is that it describes life in Harar (and life in London, for that matter) in a very matter-of-fact way. Usually when books talk about Other Cultures, there's either a condescending colonial tone or a preachy "noble savages" tone. This one doesn't. It just describes what's happening, quietly making sure to do so in a way I'll understand while sitting in the subway in Toronto, but never passing judgement on the culture being described or on me from being unfamiliar with it. And I left wanting to find out what else happened to the characters in the book, which is always a good sign.
The protagonist is a British girl who was orphaned in Africa when her hippie parents were killed in a drug deal, then brought up in a Muslim community and then taken to Ethiopia for some reason. The book explores her life as an adolescent living with a widow and her daughters in Harar, Ethopia in the 1970s. This story alternates with the story of the protagonist in the 1980s, now back "home" in London, where she works as a nurse and helps refugees.
My description doesn't do it justice. It is fascinating and compelling, but what I like best is that it describes life in Harar (and life in London, for that matter) in a very matter-of-fact way. Usually when books talk about Other Cultures, there's either a condescending colonial tone or a preachy "noble savages" tone. This one doesn't. It just describes what's happening, quietly making sure to do so in a way I'll understand while sitting in the subway in Toronto, but never passing judgement on the culture being described or on me from being unfamiliar with it. And I left wanting to find out what else happened to the characters in the book, which is always a good sign.
Bad analogy
The Globe and Mail has an article about a Muslim student who refused to do life drawing for religious reasons. Near the end of the article, they draw a parallel with xian students who don't want to read more graphic literature.
I wonder why they used the homosexuality analogy, because that's a massive red herring. If a book has graphic sex scenes, that has to do with how explicit it is. It is possible for reading too-graphic written sex scenes to be contrary to a person's sexual morality, which would make it an appropriate analogy with not doing life drawing. (Aside: I haven't read Henry Miller, but I do wonder if you can still study the book effectively if you skip the sex scenes?) However, if a book portrays homosexuality favourably, that's a completely different thing. That's the theme and message expressed by the book. You are welcome to disagree with the theme and message of the book - that makes for good essay fodder! - but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you should be excused from reading it.
This would have been a perfectly reasonable analogy if they'd stopped at the Henry Miller. Muslim students don't want to draw nudes, xian students don't want to read sex scenes. But then they went on to the false analogy of books that portray homosexuality favourably, which made a huge dent in their credibility. You'd think academics would be better at analogizing.
Aside: I wonder why life drawing has to be of nude models? I wonder why they can't have the models wear underwear or a bathing suit or a leotard? Surely the human body presents enough challenges even if you don't expose the genitals.
Ms. Okruhlik said she and her academic colleagues have dealt with Christian students who don't want to read Henry Miller (who wrote detailed accounts of sexual experiences) or literature that portrays homosexuality favourably.
"And we say to those students, 'No, we value diversity and plurality, but we also value academic freedom. So if you want to take this course, you have to read the assigned reading,' she said.
"It's hard for us to see how equal treatment means we can say to some students, 'No, I'm sorry you have to read that novel that portrays homosexuality in a favourable light -- but, no, you don't have to do that drawing.' "
I wonder why they used the homosexuality analogy, because that's a massive red herring. If a book has graphic sex scenes, that has to do with how explicit it is. It is possible for reading too-graphic written sex scenes to be contrary to a person's sexual morality, which would make it an appropriate analogy with not doing life drawing. (Aside: I haven't read Henry Miller, but I do wonder if you can still study the book effectively if you skip the sex scenes?) However, if a book portrays homosexuality favourably, that's a completely different thing. That's the theme and message expressed by the book. You are welcome to disagree with the theme and message of the book - that makes for good essay fodder! - but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you should be excused from reading it.
This would have been a perfectly reasonable analogy if they'd stopped at the Henry Miller. Muslim students don't want to draw nudes, xian students don't want to read sex scenes. But then they went on to the false analogy of books that portray homosexuality favourably, which made a huge dent in their credibility. You'd think academics would be better at analogizing.
Aside: I wonder why life drawing has to be of nude models? I wonder why they can't have the models wear underwear or a bathing suit or a leotard? Surely the human body presents enough challenges even if you don't expose the genitals.
My greatest weakness
I've always had trouble with the "What's your greatest weakness?" question in job interviews. My real greatest weaknesses have always been too great a weakness to emphasize like that, and none of the standard workarounds applied to me in any convincing manner.
But today in the shower, it came to me:
My greatest weakness is that I overthink things.
This is a good answer because it's true - or at least it's the general consensus of people around me that a) I overthink things and b) this is a problem. It can also be easily spun into a positive.
In translation, I'm always reading my work from the point of view of an unsympathetic reader who is determined to take offence at the content of the work or the quality of the translation, or who is going to be poring over the text looking specifically for weaknesses or loopholes. Isn't that a quality you'd want in someone who's responsible for your communications?
In real life, I'm always thinking of a myriad of consequences to whatever action is proposed. Someone says "Hey, I have an idea!" and I'm all "But what about the logistics? And the environmental impact? And the political implications? Do we really want to be manipulating market forces that way? And what if someone involved has a cochlear implant?" This tends to infuriate people IRL, but isn't it a quality you'd want in an employee?
But today in the shower, it came to me:
My greatest weakness is that I overthink things.
This is a good answer because it's true - or at least it's the general consensus of people around me that a) I overthink things and b) this is a problem. It can also be easily spun into a positive.
In translation, I'm always reading my work from the point of view of an unsympathetic reader who is determined to take offence at the content of the work or the quality of the translation, or who is going to be poring over the text looking specifically for weaknesses or loopholes. Isn't that a quality you'd want in someone who's responsible for your communications?
In real life, I'm always thinking of a myriad of consequences to whatever action is proposed. Someone says "Hey, I have an idea!" and I'm all "But what about the logistics? And the environmental impact? And the political implications? Do we really want to be manipulating market forces that way? And what if someone involved has a cochlear implant?" This tends to infuriate people IRL, but isn't it a quality you'd want in an employee?
How to shock people
I have a lot of opinions about a lot of things. Most of my opinions are controversial to some people, and some of my opinions are controversial to most people. I tend to question societal norms, and follow them only if they meet my own needs.
But there's one statement which above and beyond shocks the most people. Of all the things I've said in my life, it has made the most people gasp, clutch their metaphorical pearls, say "You don't mean that!", try to convince me otherwise, and think there's something serious wrong with me for feeling this way.
Here is the statement:
"I don't care at all, in any way whatsoever, what colour my walls are painted."
But there's one statement which above and beyond shocks the most people. Of all the things I've said in my life, it has made the most people gasp, clutch their metaphorical pearls, say "You don't mean that!", try to convince me otherwise, and think there's something serious wrong with me for feeling this way.
Here is the statement:
"I don't care at all, in any way whatsoever, what colour my walls are painted."
Monday, March 19, 2007
Open Letter to the TTC
Dear TTC:
Please stop putting that "TTC Maps and Info Available Here" insert in with my Metropass. That same information is already printed on the paper that the Metropass is attached to! You're just wasting paper and precious $$$ that could better be used for other things.
Please stop putting that "TTC Maps and Info Available Here" insert in with my Metropass. That same information is already printed on the paper that the Metropass is attached to! You're just wasting paper and precious $$$ that could better be used for other things.
Open Letter to Postsecret
Dear Postsecret:
I'd really appreciate it if you'd keep your page worksafe. Or, if that's not possible, post a NSFW warning above any NSFW pictures.
I know I really shouldn't be looking at it at work, but I can't work 8 hours straight through without a mental break, and it's a good thing to look at when I need a mental break since it only takes a minute to read and I don't get sucked in.
But if you make it NSFW, that changes everything. It's suddenly not a random, innocent diversion, instead it's a violation of my network use TOS. So please, give me a warning?
I'd really appreciate it if you'd keep your page worksafe. Or, if that's not possible, post a NSFW warning above any NSFW pictures.
I know I really shouldn't be looking at it at work, but I can't work 8 hours straight through without a mental break, and it's a good thing to look at when I need a mental break since it only takes a minute to read and I don't get sucked in.
But if you make it NSFW, that changes everything. It's suddenly not a random, innocent diversion, instead it's a violation of my network use TOS. So please, give me a warning?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
More on Test the Nation
1. On a 20 inch, non-HD TV, the pictures for the puzzle questions aren't clear enough.
2. The little CBC logo in the corner gets in the way sometimes
3. One of the millionaires runs a dating service that pairs up rich men with hot women. Tastefulness aside, and aside from the fact that I wouldn't want to date someone who wanted me only for my money/body, I couldn't imagine dating someone who was willing to date someone who wanted them only for their money/body. "Hi, I have no higher expectations from my personal life than to be used in a prostitution-style transaction." Not attractive.
Edit:
4. They really should explain HOW you're supposed to arrive at the answer. Some of them really did require explanation for people who didn't get them. The one with the sequence of numbers where they asked which one didn't belong, and the one that didn't belong was 8, I really didn't get the logic behind that, even with the correct answer in hand. I hope they post explanations on their website.
5. In the IQ calculation chart gives older people a few more IQ points for the same number of questions than younger people (and I don't mean OLD old people - the oldest demographic category was 55+). I wonder why? You'd think a few more years of life experience would make it easier to answer some of these questions, so older people with lower IQs would be able to answer more questions rather than vice versa.
6. The highest possible scores seem low to me. The highest someone older than 55 could get is 156, and the highest someone under 24 could get is 141. All the official testing I've done has been in the context of a gifted education program, so I'm used to seeing people jockeying around among higher scores. But seriously, there must be some people out who are under 24 with an IQ well over 141. It's statistically rare, true, but it's common enough that they wouldn't write you up in the newspaper as a human interest story or anything.
2. The little CBC logo in the corner gets in the way sometimes
3. One of the millionaires runs a dating service that pairs up rich men with hot women. Tastefulness aside, and aside from the fact that I wouldn't want to date someone who wanted me only for my money/body, I couldn't imagine dating someone who was willing to date someone who wanted them only for their money/body. "Hi, I have no higher expectations from my personal life than to be used in a prostitution-style transaction." Not attractive.
Edit:
4. They really should explain HOW you're supposed to arrive at the answer. Some of them really did require explanation for people who didn't get them. The one with the sequence of numbers where they asked which one didn't belong, and the one that didn't belong was 8, I really didn't get the logic behind that, even with the correct answer in hand. I hope they post explanations on their website.
5. In the IQ calculation chart gives older people a few more IQ points for the same number of questions than younger people (and I don't mean OLD old people - the oldest demographic category was 55+). I wonder why? You'd think a few more years of life experience would make it easier to answer some of these questions, so older people with lower IQs would be able to answer more questions rather than vice versa.
6. The highest possible scores seem low to me. The highest someone older than 55 could get is 156, and the highest someone under 24 could get is 141. All the official testing I've done has been in the context of a gifted education program, so I'm used to seeing people jockeying around among higher scores. But seriously, there must be some people out who are under 24 with an IQ well over 141. It's statistically rare, true, but it's common enough that they wouldn't write you up in the newspaper as a human interest story or anything.
Test the Nation
First of all, I'd like to apologize to all 26-year-olds, women, Ontarians, brunettes, right-handed people, night people, vegetarians, wine-drinkers, first-born children, and whoever matched my demographics for the other demographic questions (I forget what they all were now). I misread two logic questions and one math question, and that brought my score (and consequently the score for my entire demographic) down to 132, even though I've always tested over 135 under official conditions. (My understanding is this is important because 135 is some kind of threshold.) The online test seems to give the user less time than official IQ tests do, because I've never felt pressed for time taking a real-life IQ test. Either that, or real-life IQ tests don't mix up, for example, synonym and antonym questions. I don't know if they do or not because it's been over a decade since I've been tested officially, but I've never had to be so aware of what the question is actually answering before.
I found that the memory questions, and to a lesser extent the pattern recognition questions, weren't so much about memory and pattern recognition as they were about being familiar with the kinds of questions they might ask in a memory or pattern recognition test. I wasn't actually memorizing in the memory section, I was looking for questions they might ask. I don't think that tests real-life memory, because in real-life you don't deliberately look for those kinds of details. They just test how well you test.
I found that the memory questions, and to a lesser extent the pattern recognition questions, weren't so much about memory and pattern recognition as they were about being familiar with the kinds of questions they might ask in a memory or pattern recognition test. I wasn't actually memorizing in the memory section, I was looking for questions they might ask. I don't think that tests real-life memory, because in real-life you don't deliberately look for those kinds of details. They just test how well you test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)