language is about reaching into another mind. It’s about connecting.
Contents contributed and discussions participated by Javier E
5More
Opinion | Harris Gonna Code Switch - The New York Times - 0 views
-
Code-switching is one of the ways that humans use language to connect. Using the colloquial dialect of a language serves the same function as drinking or getting a mani-pedi together. It says, “We’re all the same.” It is especially natural, and common, when seeking connection about folksier things or summoning a note of cutting through the nonsense and getting to the heart of things in a “Let’s face it” way.
-
This is why many of us readily say “Ain’t gonna happen” even if we aren’t given to saying “ain’t” regularly.
- ...2 more annotations...
-
Closer to home, Maya Angelou deftly explained how Black Americans code-switch when she wrote: “We learned to slide out of one language and into another without being conscious of the effort. At school, in a given situation, we might respond with, ‘That’s not unusual.’ But in the street, meeting the same situation, we easily said, ‘It be’s like that sometimes.’”
-
It is in this light that we must evaluate an X post like “It’s pretty weird to change your accent on the fly depending on which audience you’re speaking to.” Wrong. This is like saying it’s pretty weird to dress according to what your plans for the day are.
15More
Unresponsive Brain-Damaged Patients May Have Some Awareness - The New York Times - 0 views
-
a mysterious state: eyes open, yet without clear signs of consciousness. Hundreds of thousands of such patients in the United States alone are diagnosed in a vegetative state or as minimally conscious. They may survive for decades without regaining a connection to the outside world.
-
Six groups of experts, including Dr. Owen’s and Dr. Schiff’s teams, began collaborating on a survey in 2008. To accelerate it, they figured out how to record brain activity in patients with an electrode-covered cap. It’s much easier to use electrodes to test patients at their bedside than to wheel them into a brain scanner.
- ...12 more annotations...
-
Teams of neurologists at six research centers asked 241 unresponsive patients to spend several minutes at a time doing complex cognitive tasks, such as imagining themselves playing tennis. Twenty-five percent of them responded with the same patterns of brain activity seen in healthy people, suggesting that they were able to think and were at least somewhat aware.
-
the study shows that up to 100,000 patients in the United States alone might have some level of consciousness despite their devastating injuries.
-
The results should lead to more sophisticated exams of people with so-called disorders of consciousness, and to more research into how these patients might communicate with the outside world, he said: “It’s not OK to know this and to do nothing.”
-
A patient who doesn’t respond at all might be diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. A patient who produces only fleeting responses might be diagnosed as minimally conscious.
-
These patients pose an agonizing mystery both for their families and for the medical professionals who care for them. Even if they can’t communicate, might they still be aware?
-
The researchers tested 241 patients who did not respond to commands during a traditional exam. They also had healthy volunteers perform the same tasks. The researchers then handed the data over to a team of statisticians at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The team performed the analysis without knowing which results came from which research group.
-
Their analysis revealed that 60 patients showed signs of awareness on the functional M.R.I. scans, electrode recordings, or both. The results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
-
Dr. Schiff said that the results may be biased by the fact that he and his colleagues examined the patients eight months on average after their injuries. The people who managed to survive that long might be more resilient than the ones who died sooner. And that resilience might have made them more likely to remain aware.
-
On the other hand, Dr. Schiff argued, the tests were so demanding that some patients with some awareness probably did not score positive results. “We’re likely to be missing people,”
-
“This is, without a doubt, the largest study that’s ever been done” of these patients, he said. “It’s done by the best people at the best places, so we’re not going to be seeing a better one coming down the pike in a long, long time.”
-
On Wednesday, another team of researchers reported that a patient paralyzed by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, was able to communicate through a brain implant after just 30 minutes of training
What Don't We Know? | The New Yorker - 0 views
Tipping Carbon Going, Going, Gone? - 0 views
37More
shared by Javier E on 14 Aug 24
- No Cached
Opinion | Nate Silver on Kamala Harris's Chances and the Mistakes of the 'Indigo Blob' ... - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...klein-podcast-nate-silver.html
silver risk chance mistakes election river village instinct pressure upside bet portfolio judgment probabilistic thinking time horizon tolerance psychology bias
![](/images/link.gif)
-
You’ve also called it the indigo blob in different ways. You began to see it as a set of aligned cognitive tendencies that you disagreed with. What were they?
-
one of them is the failure to do what I call decoupling. It’s not my term. Decoupling is the act of separating an issue from the context. The example I gave in the book is that if you’re able to say, “I abhor the Chick-fil-A’s C.E.O.’s position on gay marriage” — I don’t know if it’s changed or not, but he was anti-gay marriage at least for some period of time — “but they make a really delicious chicken sandwich.” That’s decoupling
-
Or, you can say, you know, Michael Jackson, Woody Allen, separate the art from the artist kind of thing. That tendency goes against the tendency on the progressive left to care a lot about the identity of the speaker, in terms of racial or gender identity and in terms of their credentials.
- ...34 more annotations...
-
In this other world that I call “the river,” the kind of gambling, risk-taking world, all that matters is that you’re right. It doesn’t matter who you are; it matters that you’re right and you’re able to prove it or bet on it in some way.
-
And that’s very against the kind of credentialism that you have within the progressive Democratic left, which I also call the “indigo blob” because it’s a fusion of purple and blue. There’s not a clear separation between the nonpartisan centrist media and the left-leaning progressive media rooting for Democrats. Different parts of The New York Times have both those functions.
-
You have the C.E.O. of OpenAI saying, yeah, this might destroy the universe, but it’s a good gamble to take.
-
On the one hand, there are lots of signs that risk tolerance is going down, among young people in particular.
-
They’re smoking less, drinking less, doing fewer drugs, having less sex — a different type of risk tolerance.
-
They are less willing to defend free speech norms if it potentially would cause injury to someone. Free speech is kind of a pro-risk take in some ways because speech can cause effects, of course.
-
On the other hand, you have various booms and busts in crypto. You have Las Vegas bringing in record revenue. You have record revenue in sports betting
-
What you seem to be doing in the book is making an interesting cut in society between people with different forms of risk tolerance and thinking about risk.
-
some people respond to that by saying, OK, I make my own rules now, and this is great and I have lots of agency.
-
some respond by withdrawing into an online world or clinging on to beliefs and experts that have lost their credibility or just by becoming more risk averse.
-
you spend time with people whose approach to risk you find sophisticated and interesting. One of them is Peter Thiel. What did you learn spending time with him?
-
There’s a good book by Max Chafkin about Peter Thiel called “The Contrarian,” which is convincing that Thiel is actually quite conservative more than libertarian and probably quite religious.
-
I mean, the amounts of wealth and success and power that Silicon Valley has — I do think some people pinch themselves and wonder if they have been one of the chosen ones in some ways, or been blessed in some ways, or maybe the nerdy version of it, think they’re living in a simulation of some kind.
-
Peter Thiel is a sort of template of the V.C. mind, which is oriented toward being right in important and counterintuitive ways three out of 20 times and doesn’t care about being wrong 17 out of 20 times. You want big payouts, not a high betting average.
-
The two things that you hear from every V.C. — one is the importance of the longer time horizons. You’re making investments that might not pay off for 10 or 15 years.
-
No. 2, even more important, is the asymmetric ability to bet on the upside. They are all terrified because they all had an experience early in their career where Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page or Sergey Brin walked through their door, and they didn’t give them funding and then they wound up missing on an investment that paid out at 100x or 1,000x or 10,000x. And so if you can only lose 1x your money, but you can make 1,000x if you have a successful company, then that changes your mind-set about everything. You want to avoid false negatives. You want to avoid missed opportunities.
-
There’s a bias in the world you’re describing — an aesthetic around talking in probabilities. I see this a lot in Silicon Valley. I would call it faux Bayesian reasoning, where they’re given some probability, but they have no reason to base the probability. And it makes you sound much more precise. It makes you sound like you know what you’re talking abou
-
SBF was known for always talking in terms of expected value, which is very appealing to the kinds of people you’re describing. But it can become a costume of sloppy thinking. I’m curious how you think about it.
-
There’s two things here. One is there is a jargon, where there’re just a lot of shared cultural norms and unspoken discursive tendencies. It’s just the way we communicate, I think, in the river. But also, it’s really easy to build bad models.
-
Look, in some ways, these V.C.s are obviously incredibly deeply flawed people. So why do they succeed despite that?
-
I think because the idea of having a longer time horizon, No. 1, and being willing to make these positive expected value, high-risk, but very high upside bets and gathering a portfolio of them repeatedly and making enough of these bets that you effectively do hedge your risk, right? Those two ideas are so good that it makes up for the fact that these guys often have terrible judgment and are kind of vainglorious assholes, half of them, right?
-
I want to end on a part of your book I found really interesting, which is about the physical experience of risk in gambling but in other things, too. You talk about pain tolerance, you talk about how the body feels when you’re behind on a hand and you’re losing your chips
-
You’ve talked about being on tilt. But I see it in politics, too. There is a physical question that comes into the decisions you make. Tell me a bit about how you think about this relationship between the body and the ability to act under pressure to make intuitive decisions in moments of very high stress.
-
Human beings have tens of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure, which is inclined to respond in a heightened way to moments that are high stakes, that are high stress moments. Your body will know when you’re playing a $100, $200 game where it really matters. You will just know
-
You’ll experience that stress. Even if you suppress it consciously, it will still affect the way that you’re literally ingesting your five senses. So if your heart rate goes up, that has discernible effects.
-
But actually your body’s providing you with more information. You’re taking in more in these short bursts of time. People who can master that zone — and I use the term zone intentionally because it’s very related to being in the zone, like Michael Jordan used to talk about — learning to master that and relish that is a very powerful skill because you are experiencing physical stress whether you want to or not
-
How much is that learnable, and how much of it is a kind of natural physical intelligence that some people have and some people don’t?
-
you can tone it up or tone it down. I mean, it’s terrifying the first time it happens, but when you start to recognize it and you make a conscious effort to slow down a little bit and take your time and try to execute the basics
-
It’s not as much about trying to be a hero. It’s about trying to execute the basics. Because if everyone is losing their [expletive], if you can do your basic ABC blocking and tackling, then you’re ahead of 95 percent of the people.
-
is gut instinct overrated or underrated? It depends on how much experience you have. The best poker players can have uncannily good instincts based on reading physical tells, just the kind of vibe someone gives off.
-
I played a lot of poker in writing this book, and you develop a sixth sense for whether someone has a strong hand. And you can test it because you can say, I know that I’m supposed to fold this hand here, it’s a little bit too weak to call against a bluff, but I just have a sense that he’s bluffing. And lo and behold, you’re right, more often than you think.
The Hidden Cost of Being a Jerk | Psychology Today - 0 views
2More
shared by Javier E on 09 Aug 24
- No Cached
Walzing into a Saner Foreign Policy? - by Robert Wright - 0 views
nonzero.substack.com/...ng-into-a-saner-foreign-policy
foreign policy cognitive empathy culture politics psychology
![](/images/link.gif)
-
cognitive empathy isn’t about feeling your adversary’s pain or otherwise identifying with the feelings of other actors. (That’s emotional empathy.) It’s about working to understand the perspective of other actors and trying to grasp the interests and motivations that shape their behavior. This understanding can help policymakers avoid unnecessary antagonism and, when possible, reach win-win outcomes to non-zero-sum games.
Kurzweil's Superintelligent AI Timeline - 0 views
4More
shared by Javier E on 29 Jul 24
- No Cached
Wise Animals by Tom Chatfield 2024. A Review and a Perplexity.AI Experiment. | by Rob T... - 0 views
medium.com/...ity-ai-experiment-242faaf44825
AI recommendations article review book tech history technology psychology
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Chatfield's background in philosophy and his keen interest in the digital world have positioned him as a thought leader in the field. He has published several books exploring various aspects of digital culture,
-
In his latest book, "Wise Animals," Chatfield delves into the complex relationship between humans and technology, tracing our co-evolution from early tool usage and fire to the present day.
-
aims to provide a fresh perspective on how innovation has shaped our world and how technology continues to influence us
- ...1 more annotation...
-
One of the key themes in "Wise Animals" is the idea that technology is far from neutral. Chatfield argues that the way innovation has progressed was not the only possible path and that we must keep an open mind about the possibilities
12More
Can Narcissism Go Away? - The New York Times - 0 views
-
To some extent, narcissistic traits exist in all of us, and a little narcissism isn’t a bad thing. In fact, research has shown that viewing ourselves through rose-colored glasses, a concept known as self-enhancement, can help us cope with adversity.
-
Narcissism is most problematic when people become dependent on the feeling of superiority and seek it at all costs, displaying what Dr. Malkin calls the “triple E”: entitlement, exploitation and a lack of empathy.
- ...9 more annotations...
-
A clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder can occur when those symptoms become fixed and persistent — they do not come and go. In addition, the disorder causes distress or interferes with relationships, work or other domains.
-
the higher the levels of narcissism, the more people became “desperate, deluded, paranoid, angry, abusive and isolated.”
-
This makes it harder for the narcissist to “charm and impress others,” she said, which then makes it difficult for that person to elicit admiration.
-
Agentic narcissism is what most people think of when they imagine a narcissist. Those who score highly in this dimension are focused on status, power and success.“They see themselves as superior to others, crave admiration and have an inflated sense of self-importance,” Dr. Orth said. “They are typically very confident, assertive and want to be in leadership positions.”
-
Neurotic narcissism is characterized by hypersensitivity. Those who score highly in this dimension “constantly need validation and are very sensitive to criticism and rejection,” Dr. Orth said. “They often experience significant shame, anxiety, emotional instability, insecurity and self-doubt.”
-
Those with antagonistic narcissism often view others as rivals. They tend to be competitive, hostile toward others and willing to put them down to feel superior, Dr. Orth said. They also lack empathy and are exploitative.
-
It’s unclear why narcissism would reduce over time, but Sara Konrath, the director of the Interdisciplinary Program for Empathy and Altruism Research at Indiana University, has found in her own research that empathy increases as we grow older.
-
“Unfortunately, managing a difficult relationship is the best someone intimately involved with most narcissists can hope for,” said Elinor Greenberg, the author of “Borderline, Narcissistic and Schizoid Adaptations: The Pursuit of Love, Admiration and Safety.”
20More
shared by Javier E on 25 Jul 24
- No Cached
AlphaProof, a New A.I. from Google DeepMind, Scores Big at the International Math Olymp... - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...-math-alphaproof-deepmind.html
math AI methods strategy research knowledge language
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Last week the DeepMind researchers got out the gong again to celebrate what Alex Davies, a lead of Google DeepMind’s mathematics initiative, described as a “massive breakthrough” in mathematical reasoning by an A.I. system.
-
A pair of Google DeepMind models tried their luck with the problem set in the 2024 International Mathematical Olympiad, or I.M.O., held from July 11 to July 22 about 100 miles west of London at the University of Bath.
-
The event is said to be the premier math competition for the world’s “brightest mathletes,” according to a promotional post on social media.
- ...17 more annotations...
-
The human problem-solvers — 609 high school students from 108 countries — won 58 gold medals, 123 silver and 145 bronze. The A.I. performed at the level of a silver medalist, solving four out of six problems for a total of 28 points. It was the first time that A.I. has achieved a medal-worthy performance on an Olympiad’s problems.
-
Nonetheless, Dr. Kohli described the result as a “phase transition” — a transformative change — “in the use of A.I. in mathematics and the ability of A.I. systems to do mathematics.”
-
Dr. Gowers added in an email: “I was definitely impressed.” The lab had discussed its Olympiad ambitions with him a couple of weeks beforehand, so “my expectations were quite high,” he said. “But the program met them, and in one or two instances significantly surpassed them.” The program found the “magic keys” that unlocked the problems, he said.
-
Haojia Shi, a student from China, ranked No. 1 and was the only competitor to earn a perfect score — 42 points for six problems; each problem is worth seven points for a full solution. The U.S. team won first place with 192 points; China placed second with 190.
-
The Google system earned its 28 points for fully solving four problems — two in algebra, one in geometry and one in number theory. (It flopped at two combinatorics problems.) The system was allowed unlimited time; for some problems it took up to three days. The students were allotted only 4.5 hours per exam.
-
“The fact that we’ve reached this threshold, where it’s even possible to tackle these problems at all, is what represents a step-change in the history of mathematics,” he added. “And hopefully it’s not just a step-change in the I.M.O., but also represents the point at which we went from computers only being able to prove very, very simple things toward computers being able to prove things that humans can’t.”
-
“Mathematics requires this interesting combination of abstract, precise and creative reasoning,” Dr. Davies said. In part, he noted, this repertoire of abilities is what makes math a good litmus test for the ultimate goal: reaching so-called artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., a system with capabilities ranging from emerging to competent to virtuoso to superhuman
-
In January, a Google DeepMind system named AlphaGeometry solved a sampling of Olympiad geometry problems at nearly the level of a human gold medalist. “AlphaGeometry 2 has now surpassed the gold medalists in solving I.M.O. problems,” Thang Luong, the principal investigator, said in an email.
-
Dr. Hubert’s team developed a new model that is comparable but more generalized. Named AlphaProof, it is designed to engage with a broad range of mathematical subjects. All told, AlphaGeometry and AlphaProof made use of a number of different A.I. technologies.
-
One approach was an informal reasoning system, expressed in natural language. This system leveraged Gemini, Google’s large language model. It used the English corpus of published problems and proofs and the like as training data.
-
The informal system excels at identifying patterns and suggesting what comes next; it is creative and talks about ideas in an understandable way. Of course, large language models are inclined to make things up — which may (or may not) fly for poetry and definitely not for math. But in this context, the L.L.M. seems to have displayed restraint; it wasn’t immune to hallucination, but the frequency was reduced.
-
Another approach was a formal reasoning system, based on logic and expressed in code. It used theorem prover and proof-assistant software called Lean, which guarantees that if the system says a proof is correct, then it is indeed correct. “We can exactly check that the proof is correct or not,” Dr. Hubert said. “Every step is guaranteed to be logically sound.”
-
Another crucial component was a reinforcement learning algorithm in the AlphaGo and AlphaZero lineage. This type of A.I. learns by itself and can scale indefinitely, said Dr. Silver, who is Google DeepMind’s vice-president of reinforcement learning. Since the algorithm doesn’t require a human teacher, it can “learn and keep learning and keep learning until ultimately it can solve the hardest problems that humans can solve,” he said. “And then maybe even one day go beyond those.”
-
Dr. Hubert added, “The system can rediscover knowledge for itself.” That’s what happened with AlphaZero: It started with zero knowledge, Dr. Hubert said, “and by just playing games, and seeing who wins and who loses, it could rediscover all the knowledge of chess. It took us less than a day to rediscover all the knowledge of chess, and about a week to rediscover all the knowledge of Go. So we thought, Let’s apply this to mathematics.”
-
Dr. Gowers doesn’t worry — too much — about the long-term consequences. “It is possible to imagine a state of affairs where mathematicians are basically left with nothing to do,” he said. “That would be the case if computers became better, and far faster, at everything that mathematicians currently do.”
-
“There still seems to be quite a long way to go before computers will be able to do research-level mathematics,” he added. “It’s a fairly safe bet that if Google DeepMind can solve at least some hard I.M.O. problems, then a useful research tool can’t be all that far away.”
-
A really adept tool might make mathematics accessible to more people, speed up the research process, nudge mathematicians outside the box. Eventually it might even pose novel ideas that resonate.
Can I Opt Out of Meta's A.I. Scraping on Instagram and Facebook? Sort Of. - The New Yor... - 0 views
22More
shared by Javier E on 21 Jul 24
- No Cached
Why It's So Hard To Pay Attention, Explained By Science - Fast Company - 0 views
www.fastcompany.com/...attention-explained-by-science
attention distraction information glut overload processing psychology
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Today, each of us individually generates more information than ever before in human history. Our world is now awash in an unprecedented volume of data. The trouble is, our brains haven’t evolved to be able to process it all.
-
information “tumbles faster and faster through bigger and bigger computers down to everybody’s fingertips, which are holding devices with more processing power than the Apollo mission control.”
-
Information scientists have quantified all this: In 2011, Americans took in five times as much information every day as they did in 1986—the equivalent of 174 newspapers.
- ...18 more annotations...
-
During our leisure time, not counting work, each of us processes 34 gigabytes, or 100,000 words, every day
-
The world’s 21,274 television stations produce 85,000 hours of original programming every day as we watch an average of five hours of television daily, the equivalent of 20 gigabytes of audio-video images
-
We’ve created a world with 300 exabytes (300,000,000,000,000,000,000 pieces) of human-made information. If each of those pieces of information were written on a 3-by-5-inch index card and then spread out side by side, just one person’s share—your share of this information—would cover every square inch of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined.
-
Neurons are living cells with a metabolism; they need oxygen and glucose to survive, and when they’ve been working hard, we experience fatigue. Every status update you read on Facebook, every tweet or text message you get from a friend, is competing for resources in your brain with important things like whether to put your savings in stocks or bonds,
-
The processing capacity of the conscious mind has been estimated (by the researcher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and, independently, by Bell Labs engineer Robert Lucky) at 120 bits per second. That bandwidth, or window, is the speed limit for the traffic of information we can pay conscious attention to at any one time.
-
While a great deal occurs below the threshold of our awareness, and this has an impact on how we feel and what our life is going to be like, in order for something to become encoded as part of your experience, you need to have paid conscious attention to it.
-
What does this bandwidth restriction—this information speed limit—mean in terms of our interactions with others? In order to understand one person speaking to us, we need to process 60 bits of information per second. With a processing limit of 120 bits per second, this means you can barely understand two people talking to you at the same time
-
We’re surrounded on this planet by billions of other humans, but we can understand only two at a time at the most! It’s no wonder that the world is filled with so much misunderstanding.
-
With such attentional restrictions, it’s clear why many of us feel overwhelmed by managing some of the most basic aspects of life. Part of the reason is that our brains evolved to help us deal with life during the hunter-gatherer phase of human history
-
Attention is the most essential mental resource for any organism. It determines which aspects of the environment we deal with, and most of the time, various automatic, subconscious processes make the correct choice about what gets passed through to our conscious awareness. For this to happen, millions of neurons are constantly monitoring the environment to select the most important things for us to focus on.
-
These neurons are collectively the “attentional filter.” They work largely in the background, outside of our conscious awareness. This is why most of the perceptual detritus of our daily lives doesn’t registe
-
The attentional filter is one of evolution’s greatest achievements. In nonhumans, it ensures that they don’t get distracted by irrelevant things
-
When our protohuman ancestors left the cover of the trees to seek new sources of food, they simultaneously opened up a vast range of new possibilities for nourishment and exposed themselves to a wide range of new predators. Being alert and vigilant to threatening sounds and visual cues is what allowed them to survive; this meant allowing an increasing amount of information through the attentional filter.
-
Ten thousand years ago, humans plus their pets and livestock accounted for about 0.1% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass inhabiting the earth; we now account for 98%
-
Humans are, by most biological measures, the most successful species our planet has seen. We have managed to survive in nearly every climate our planet has offered (so far), and the rate of our population expansion exceeds that of any other known organism
-
Our success owes in large part to our cognitive capacity, the ability of our brains to flexibly handle information. But our brains evolved in a much simpler world with far less information coming at us. Today, our attentional filters easily become overwhelmed.
-
Successful people—or those who can afford it—employ layers of other people whose job it is to narrow their own attentional filters.
27More
shared by Javier E on 21 Jul 24
- No Cached
(1) Deep Reading Will Save Your Soul - by William Deresiewicz - 0 views
www.persuasion.community/...ep-reading-will-save-your-soul
reading college education learning university trends culture humanities
![](/images/link.gif)
-
In today’s installment, William Deresiewicz—inspired by a student’s legacy—analyzes an important new trend: students and teachers abandoning traditional universities altogether and seeking a liberal arts education in self-fashioned programs.
-
Higher ed is at an impasse. So much about it sucks, and nothing about it is likely to change. Colleges and universities do not seem inclined to reform themselves, and if they were, they wouldn’t know how, and if they did, they couldn’t. Between bureaucratic inertia, faculty resistance, and the conflicting agendas of a heterogenous array of stakeholders, concerted change appears to be impossible.
-
Which is not to say that interesting things aren’t happening in post-secondary (and post-tertiary) education.
- ...24 more annotations...
-
These come, as far as I can tell, in two broad types, corresponding to the two fundamental complaints that people voice about their undergraduate experience
-
The first complaint is that college did not prepare them for the real world: that the whole exercise—papers, busywork, pointless requirements; siloed disciplines and abstract theory—seemed remote from anything that they actually might want to do with their lives.
-
Above all, they are student-centered. Participants are enabled (and expected) to direct their education by constructing bespoke curricula out of the resources the program gives them access to. In a word, these endeavors emphasize “engagement.”
-
A student will identify a problem (a human need, an injustice, an instance of underrepresentation), then devise and implement a response (a physical system, a community-facing program, an art project).
-
Professors were often preoccupied, with little patience for mentorship, the open-ended office-hours exploration. Classes, even in fields like philosophy, felt lifeless, impersonal, like engineering but with words instead of numbers. Worst of all were their fellow undergraduates, those climbers and careerists. “It’s hard to build your soul,” as one of my students once put it to me, “when everyone around you is trying to sell theirs.”
-
Not everything in the world is a problem, and to see the world as a series of problems is to limit the potential of both world and self. What problem does a song address? What problem will reading Voltaire help you solve, in any predictable way? The “problem” approach—the “engagement” approach, the save-the-world approach—leaves out, finally, what I’d call learning.
-
that is the second complaint that graduates tend to express: that they finished college without the feeling that they had learned anything, in this essential sense.
-
That there is a treasure out there—call it the Great Books or just great books, the wisdom of the ages or the best that has been thought and said—that its purpose is to activate the treasure inside them, that they had come to one of these splendid institutions (whose architecture speaks of culture, whose age gives earnest of depth) to be initiated into it, but that they had been denied, deprived. For unclear reasons, cheated.
-
I had students like this at Columbia and Yale. There were never a lot of them, and to judge from what’s been happening to humanities enrollments, there are fewer and fewer. (From 2013 to 2022, the number of people graduating with bachelors degrees in English fell by 36%. As a share of all degrees, it fell by 42%, to less than 1 in 60.)
-
They would tell me—these pilgrims, these intellectuals in embryo, these kindled souls—how hard they were finding it to get the kind of education they had come to college for.
-
what bothers me about this educational approach—the “problem” approach, the “STEAM” (STEM + arts) approach—is what it leaves out. It leaves out the humanities. It leaves out books. It leaves out literature and philosophy, history and art history and the history of religion. It leaves out any mode of inquiry—reflection, speculation, conversation with the past—that cannot be turned to immediate practical ends
-
The Catherine Project sees itself as being in the business of creating “communities of learning”; its principles include “conversation and hospitality, “simplicity [and] transparency.” Classes (called tutorials, in keeping with the practice at St. John’s) are free (BISR’s cost $335), are capped at four to six students (at BISR, the limit is 23), run for two hours a week for twelve weeks, and skew towards the canon: the Greeks and Romans, Pascal and Kierkegaard, Dante and Cervantes (the project also hosts a large number of reading groups, which address a wider range of texts). If BISR aspires to create a fairer market for academic labor—instructors keep the lion’s share of fees—the Catherine Project functions as a gift economy (though plans are to begin to offer tutors modest honoraria).
-
As Russell Jacoby has noted, the migration of intellectuals into universities in the decades after World War II, which he documented in The Last Intellectuals, has more recently reversed itself. The rise, or re-rise, of little magazines (Dissent, Commentary, Partisan Review then; n+1, The New Inquiry, The Point, The Drift, et al. now) is part of the same story.
-
a fourth factor. If there are students who despair at the condition of the humanities on campus, there are professors who do so as well. Many of her teachers, Hitz told me, have regular ladder appointments: “We draw academics—who attend our groups as well as leading them—because the life of the mind is dying or dead in conventional institutions.” Undergraduate teaching, she added, “is a particularly hard pull,” and the Catherine Project offers faculty the chance to teach people “who actually want to learn.
-
I’d add, who can. Nine years ago, Stephen Greenblatt wrote: “Even the highly gifted students in my Shakespeare classes at Harvard are less likely to be touched by the subtle magic of his words than I was so many years ago or than my students were in the 1980s in Berkeley. … The problem is that their engagement with language … often seems surprisingly shallow or tepid.” By now, of course, the picture is far worse.
-
The response to the announcement of our pilot programs confirmed for me the existence of a large, unmet desire for text-based exploration, touching on the deepest questions, outside the confines of higher education
-
Applicants ranged from graduating college seniors to people in their 70s. They included teachers, artists, scientists, and doctoral students from across the disciplines; a submarine officer, a rabbinical student, an accountant, and a venture capitalist; retirees, parents of small children, and twentysomethings at the crossroads. Forms came in from India, Jordan, Brazil, and nine other foreign countries. The applicants were, as a group, tremendously impressive. If it had been possible, we would have taken many more than fifteen.
-
When asked why they wanted to participate, a number of them spoke about the pathologies of formal education. “We have a really damaged relationship to learning,” said one. “It should be fun, not scary”—as in, you feel that you’re supposed to know the answer, which as a student, as she noted, makes no sense
-
“We need opportunities for reading and exploration that lie outside the credentialing system of the modern university,” he went on, because there’s so much in the latter that cuts against “the slow way that kind of learning unfolds.”
-
“How one might choose to live.” For many of our applicants—and this, of course, is what the program is about, what the humanities are about—learning has, or ought to have, an existential weight.
-
I detected a desire to be free of forces and agendas: the university’s agenda of “relevance,” the professoriate’s agenda of political mobilization, the market’s agenda of productivity, the internet’s agenda of surveillance and addiction. In short, the whole capitalistic algorithmic ideological hairball of coerced homogeneity
-
The desire is to not be recruited, to not be instrumentalized, to remain (or become) an individual, to resist regression toward the mean, or meme.
-
That is why it’s crucial that the Matthew Strother Center has no goal—and this is true of the Catherine Project and other off-campus humanities programs, as well—beyond the pursuit of learning for its own sake.
-
This is freedom. When education isn’t pointed in particular directions, its possibilities are endless
1More
Book Review: 'The Bright Sword,' by Lev Grossman - The New York Times - 0 views
3More
Paul Krugman on Fighting Zombies, How He Works and Writes, and Where the United States ... - 0 views
-
I’m more or less constantly looking for interesting news items and data that might make for a good column, and archiving it. On the day one is due, I look at the news to see what might make an impact that day, sketch out a rough outline of how the argument should go, and just start writing.
-
think about what your readers know — and what they don’t. There are a lot of simple points that can be revelatory to even well-informed readers, but you have to convey them without either jargon or condescension.
-
you need some entertainment value — a hook to reel them in at the beginning, a stinger at the end so they know what they’ve learned.
2More
But, And, Why - The New York Times - 0 views
-
One thing that helps, I’ve found, is to give the writing a bit of a forward rush, with a kind of sprung or syncopated rhythm, which often involves sentences that are deliberately off center.
-
the inherent stuffiness of the subject demands, almost as compensation, as conversational a tone as I can manage.
Students Target Teachers in Group TikTok Attack, Shaking Their School - The New York Times - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...ake-teachers-pennsylvania.html
school social media abuse teacher target harassment
![](/images/link.gif)