I have always wondered why there are so many Asians in my AP classes. It couldn't be coincidence. Plus I learned in Psychology that there is 0 correlation between race and a higher intelligence level. What could it be?!
Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gave me the obvious answer. psst... CONDITIONS.
When I first started reading I was weirdly shocked. Then everything he said began to seem obvious; how could I not have realized all of this before? psst.... CONDITIONS AGAIN.
This is the argument of Outliers: conditions shape our lives. We are not formed by our natural intelligence or the color of our skin, but by the context we were born into.
Gladwell's tone is usually relatively strait-forward; it has a gentle air of "duh" about it. This clarity reflects the obviousness of the topic, and makes the reader feel slightly stupid that she has not completely noticed it before. Gladwell gets really pumped about his subject, which comes along with a very excited, occasionally dramatic tone. The drama aspect, the attempts to send shivers down the readers spine, can be an effective method for average rube. It keeps the reader engrossed and absorbed. But it also detracts from the solid logic. I loved the book so much that I gave it to my Grandpa for Christmas; a curious, religious, tanned and wrinkly Armenian. He was interested, but was annoyed by the drama, which is understandable. Drama today is associated with the Kardashians and other like-shit. So when it is intertwined with a factual book, the reader could become irritated or on-guard, like Bompa Apkarian.
Gladwell supports his argument with a variety of detailed examples and statistical data. Like the Korean pilots, and Chinese rice paddy mathematicians. This effectively personalized the text and persuaded the reader that conditions shape our lives. That is the overarching argument, it encompasses all types of conditions like our cultures and our birth year and our socioeconomic classes and our parents' parenting style. Gladwell addresses so many different subsets of the argument and in such detail (both personal and factual) that the reader cannot help but wholeheartedly buy into the obviousness of conditions.
Some people think Gladwell's book is too obvious. Roger Gatham said "it's high time for Gladwell to produce something more challenging than his beautifully executed tomb robberies of old sociology papers." Boyd Tonkin asked why he "does not yet hold a tenured professorship at the University of the Bleedin' Obvious." (Wikipedia). So yes, his argument is obvious. But how often do we really SEE it? How often are we aware of it? Especially in America, a country that still believes in such idealistic utopian musings as "The American Dream?" Outliers is not supposed to be some grand illumination of a complicated theorem. It is supposed to show us fish that "This is Water." Once we see it, we see it. We are given awareness that the roots of our cultures definition of success, the ideology that we have been molded into adhering to, are fundamentally flawed. Bill Gates did not magically become the richest man; it was a combination of 10,000 hours, class, birth year, and luck.
Outliers made some people in my BLA group uncomfortable. "B b but, if conditions shape our lives, then I'm not in control! That's sad. I don't believe it."
A. Clearly it is proven fact that conditions shape our lives. You are in denial if you can read the book and not believe any aspect of that argument.
B. That does not mean we need to lie down in the middle of the street, and let the universe zap us to death as we sing Wild World by Cat Stevens.
It is total liberation to accept that my life is not just the result of my own doing.
I like to procrastinate, eat sugar, watch Sherlock and idiotic romantic comedies. I am super judgmental and come across "intimidating" (wtf... why do all my friends say that?) I am awkward and introverted.
I have been successful in school, I am accepted to college, I have won more than a few art awards.
None of this is fully my fault. It the manifestation of thousands of years of cultural traditions, my parents parenting, and crapton of coincidences and lucky chances that I cannot control. I cannot take anything that happens to me personally. Again, I am not going to shed my clothes, and go all Rousseau in the woods.
There is a balance between having awareness about the fact that we are swirling through the universe, as it flings us around like a pinball, and the knowledge that we have the power to "disturb the universe," grab that fucking flipper, and work to achieve whatever it is we want to achieve.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Yay! AP test questions are fun.
sorry I don't know how to make the letters different. I have been trying for 5 minutes but I can't do it so I give up.
4. In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. Singer argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. "The formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." Write an essay in which you evaluate the pros and cons of Singer's argument. Use appropriate evidence as you examine each side, and indicate which position you find more persuasive.
This is a great idea, but it will not work.
Humans are greedy beasts, inherently selfish. We are the center of our little universes. No wealthy person would want to give up their delightful pools, tanning beds, tennis courts, 80 room mansions. Most hardworking people believe that everyone has the potential to be just as hardworking and successful as he/she is. They will not want to even try this idea. And if they did, would human work ethic and strive for progress be diminished? If you work your ass of to get strait As, but you know you will get strait Cs in the end, because you have to share with the slackers, would you work half as hard?
What this mindset do not take into account is laid out in Malcom Gladwell's Outliers. It is about 1% work ethic and 99% luck. Singer's argument seems fair; it would compensate for the fact that our lives are partially determined by whose vagina we pop out of, what year, and where. But humanity will never be capable of maintaining any sort of established real equality.
Take Communism-- a delightful theory of total equality. It did not work out, clearly, and Stalin was a phsychopathic killer. Whenever there is good, someone will be there to feed off it. Greediness is inherent and could never be overcome on such a large scale. We don't even have wholesome healthcare; there would be no way to hold anyone accountable to Singer's idea.
And if somehow this idea were put into effect and everyone had only their basic needs met, would we be less likely to climb higher up Maslow's hierarchy? And if nobody could get further up there, would the Martin Luther Kings, the Gandhis, the David Foster Wallaces cease to exist?
The general population wants to comfortably eat Cheetos and watch Miley Cyrus swing around naked on wrecking balls. Most of us are generally ignorant about world issues beyond the neighbor's dog who got run over by a tractor. People are sheltered, and if someone came knocking on the door, forcing him/her to get up from his/her couch and twerking video, and actually walk to the door, he/she would probably not care very much about anyones problems besides her/his own.
So thesis. This idealistic plan would is not feasible because people are inherently selfish and uncaring, equality on a large scale has historically been proved impossible, and economic turmoil would be inevitable.
4. In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. Singer argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. "The formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." Write an essay in which you evaluate the pros and cons of Singer's argument. Use appropriate evidence as you examine each side, and indicate which position you find more persuasive.
This is a great idea, but it will not work.
Humans are greedy beasts, inherently selfish. We are the center of our little universes. No wealthy person would want to give up their delightful pools, tanning beds, tennis courts, 80 room mansions. Most hardworking people believe that everyone has the potential to be just as hardworking and successful as he/she is. They will not want to even try this idea. And if they did, would human work ethic and strive for progress be diminished? If you work your ass of to get strait As, but you know you will get strait Cs in the end, because you have to share with the slackers, would you work half as hard?
What this mindset do not take into account is laid out in Malcom Gladwell's Outliers. It is about 1% work ethic and 99% luck. Singer's argument seems fair; it would compensate for the fact that our lives are partially determined by whose vagina we pop out of, what year, and where. But humanity will never be capable of maintaining any sort of established real equality.
Take Communism-- a delightful theory of total equality. It did not work out, clearly, and Stalin was a phsychopathic killer. Whenever there is good, someone will be there to feed off it. Greediness is inherent and could never be overcome on such a large scale. We don't even have wholesome healthcare; there would be no way to hold anyone accountable to Singer's idea.
And if somehow this idea were put into effect and everyone had only their basic needs met, would we be less likely to climb higher up Maslow's hierarchy? And if nobody could get further up there, would the Martin Luther Kings, the Gandhis, the David Foster Wallaces cease to exist?
The general population wants to comfortably eat Cheetos and watch Miley Cyrus swing around naked on wrecking balls. Most of us are generally ignorant about world issues beyond the neighbor's dog who got run over by a tractor. People are sheltered, and if someone came knocking on the door, forcing him/her to get up from his/her couch and twerking video, and actually walk to the door, he/she would probably not care very much about anyones problems besides her/his own.
So thesis. This idealistic plan would is not feasible because people are inherently selfish and uncaring, equality on a large scale has historically been proved impossible, and economic turmoil would be inevitable.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
thoughts on thoughts on randomness.
Palm trees shift in the morning sun. The ocean sparkles and heaves. My baby cousins laugh and splash around in the pool. My grandma and sister play cards. My aunt browses Facebook, my uncle plays candycrush. My mom does yoga.
I am on my Grandparents bed in the only secluded room in the small house. I am typing away, college essay, after college essay. Trying to extract a slice of my soul, and crochet it on to the words of the computer screen. My stress is high. I want to cry. (I do cry). NYU, Tufts, gahhhh.
It is finally January 1st. The day I have been dreading and looking forward to since I opened the Common App website over the summer. I am some how alive 11 college apps later. But I do feel like exploding a bit.
People wonder why I do so many apps. It is because I am indecisive. I suppose realistically it is just four years of my life, but right now that seems like forever. And, the schools that I am genuinely excited about I might/ probably will not get accepted to. But I still have a shred of hope.
So New Years Eve. Last night I was alone in my room, again, pressing submit on the final college apps.
My friend jokingly texted me, "Who are you going to kiss?"
Me: "Shut up. LONER FOR LYFE."
Why do people need to have someone to kiss? People should figure out how to be satisfied with themselves, since we are all inherently alone in the end anyway.
I think New Years Eve is a nice check-up. A sort of deadline to see if I have gotten my shit together enough the past year. I always make a long list of resolutions; New years is the catalyst/ inspiration I need to make changes.
Make my bed. Be more outgoing. Go to museums more. Don't be a social recluse/ people aren't that bad.
5 minutes before midnight I lit some candles, blasted some music, and sort of meditated. It was chill, I probably had more fun than I would have if I had gone to an obnoxious party.
New Years may be an illusion. People may fall back into old happens, resolutions forgotten after two days. Life will, of course, continue as usual. Jesus doesn't appear, judgement day doesn't happen. The day is productive. I have new goals. I am aware of where I have fallen short. That awareness, I hope, will bring change.
I am on my Grandparents bed in the only secluded room in the small house. I am typing away, college essay, after college essay. Trying to extract a slice of my soul, and crochet it on to the words of the computer screen. My stress is high. I want to cry. (I do cry). NYU, Tufts, gahhhh.
It is finally January 1st. The day I have been dreading and looking forward to since I opened the Common App website over the summer. I am some how alive 11 college apps later. But I do feel like exploding a bit.
People wonder why I do so many apps. It is because I am indecisive. I suppose realistically it is just four years of my life, but right now that seems like forever. And, the schools that I am genuinely excited about I might/ probably will not get accepted to. But I still have a shred of hope.
So New Years Eve. Last night I was alone in my room, again, pressing submit on the final college apps.
My friend jokingly texted me, "Who are you going to kiss?"
Me: "Shut up. LONER FOR LYFE."
Why do people need to have someone to kiss? People should figure out how to be satisfied with themselves, since we are all inherently alone in the end anyway.
I think New Years Eve is a nice check-up. A sort of deadline to see if I have gotten my shit together enough the past year. I always make a long list of resolutions; New years is the catalyst/ inspiration I need to make changes.
Make my bed. Be more outgoing. Go to museums more. Don't be a social recluse/ people aren't that bad.
5 minutes before midnight I lit some candles, blasted some music, and sort of meditated. It was chill, I probably had more fun than I would have if I had gone to an obnoxious party.
New Years may be an illusion. People may fall back into old happens, resolutions forgotten after two days. Life will, of course, continue as usual. Jesus doesn't appear, judgement day doesn't happen. The day is productive. I have new goals. I am aware of where I have fallen short. That awareness, I hope, will bring change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)