Throughout my time in Davis I have encountered many things that grind my gears i.e. things that annoy me (for example: naggers). And hence, I decided to make a top ten list of things that grinded my gears throughout my stay here. I hope I don’t end up sounding like a grandpa complaining about his retirement center; I just want to share my gear-grinding list with people who may be able to relate.
10. Wellman Hall
People give the Social Science building (the death star) a bad rep for being hard to navigate, but little do they realize Wellman is no different. There is no logical connection between the room numbers and their relative location to other rooms. Ninety five percent of my classes were at Wellman and I still find my classes by method of “guess and check.”
9. Students who ask what will be on the test
Students rarely ask questions in class in fear of sounding stupid, but ironically, this question still gets asked. I am not referring to questions like, “Will chapter 9 be on the final?” Or, “Is the final comprehensive?” I am talking about these: “For the final, will you give us, like, a formula and then, like, tell us what to plug in it?” Or, “What part of the study guide should we study?” College isn’t supposed to be easy – deal with it.
8. Teachers who don’t go over the green sheet
Green sheet day exists to give students an easy transition from vacationing to learning. It pisses me off when teachers don’t waste the first day of classes going over the green sheet and letting the class out early.
7. Frat party bathrooms
During a frat party, guys and girls are forced to share a bathroom together. What bothers me most about this ordeal is that group of girls who think every guy in there is a sexual predator wanting to catch a glimpse of them pissing. They take turns body guarding the stall door as they gaze at me with their evil eye. I end up feeling like a guy walking around Chuck E. Cheese with a big sign that reads, “Hi, I am a pedophile.”
6. People who bring food to class
Soda and chips are fine; I am talking about the heavy stuff. For some reason the smell of food doesn’t sit well in a classroom. People bring in their shitty meat balls from home and hot box the class with a rancid meaty aroma. If you’re going to be eating in class, you better be eating Febreeze.
5. The obsessive compulsive note takers
If I shot them with a horse tranquilizer they might just function like a normal human being. Every utterance and every chalk scratch is meticulously documented by these busy beavers. I get stressed out just by watching them.
4. Co-ho burritos
These burritos are a product of immoral behavior; their creator has broken the golden rule of burrito making: thou shall make a burrito the way thyself would want a burrito. Clearly, no one would construct a burrito this sloppy for oneself. The burrito’s innards are always segmented into their own section, as opposed to being evenly distributed amongst the other ingredients. If I threw this burrito in the air like a baton, its mid-air spin would resemble that of a half-empty water bottle – that’s unacceptable. This one bugs me the most because I always go back naively thinking, “this time it’s going to be different,” but it never is.
3. Racism
Racism just grinds my gears like no other.
2. People who call themselves pre-med
UC Davis doesn’t have a pre-med major; therefore, calling yourself pre-med is pointless. To me, it means you’re thinking of applying to med school and that you’re a pretentious ass who probably wants to be a doctor for the social capital.
1. The Dining Commons (DC)
Eating at the DC is a lose-lose situation. Instead of going to an all-you-can eat sushi buffet, for the same price, you can go to the DC! The problem is: sushi tastes much better than DC food. In order for me to feel like I am getting my money’s worth at the DC, I need to eat way more than a sane doctor would recommend. In the end, I am left with a kicking food baby and a skinnier wallet. No wonder they force freshmens to pay for this.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Rationality and Drug Taking
As most of you are college students, by now, you’ve probably all had the “drug conversation” with your friends. This stimulating discussion usually starts off when one of your friends just tried shrooms and won’t shut up about it. After he pontificates about how his whimsical journey with the drug made him a better person, the discussion digresses towards drugs-taking in general. Some conclude that they must try a hard drug at one point in their lives – others vow never to do so. Eventually, an interesting point is brought up: is it bad to receive happiness solely from a drug?
In my opinion, this question isn’t only fun to ponder – it might determine the future of humanity! I realize I am taking a several inferential steps in making this point so hear me out. First off, consider the following hypothetical: some hippie scientist invents a drug that would, indefinitely, put you into a vegetative state, but the tradeoff is an infinite supply of happiness and pleasure. If people decide they would be better off on this drug, chaos will ensue.
I might be getting carried away; surely there will be people who would refuse the drug. People aren’t selfish; they wouldn’t want to hurt their loved ones by turning into a smiling vegetable. Let’s make things more interesting then. Imagine the drug only changed your preferences around making you receive great amounts of happiness for easily attainable goals. For example, baking a cake now gives you an orgasmic feeling and taking a shower feels like winning the lottery. This drug would be changing your utility function.
For those of you who haven’t heard of this gem of a concept, it means this: a function that inputs world events and outputs “utils” or i.e. a unit of satisfaction/happiness. There are certain world events that correspond to a quantity of personal happiness; a utility function models this relationship. For example, eating an apple corresponds to some measure of utility (read: happiness). This drug would mess with your utility function in a way that would make it a lot easier for you to optimize your utility. No longer will you care about getting married and having a family, that’s too hard. Instead you’ll be baking cakes and taking showers for the rest of your life (voluntarily of course). Would you take the drug? Would a utilitarian be morally obligated to force everyone to take the drug?
We are utility maximizers; we want to attain as much happiness as we can. One subtle detail about our utility function is that we receive negative utility for knowingly deciding to change our utility function to a new one that conflicts with the old one. Our utility function can and does change overtime; however, we won’t want to choose to change it. Imagine I gave you a pill that would make you want to hate your family. An additional stipulation: hating your family will give you a lot more utility than the utility you currently get from loving your family. The intuitive utility maximizing decision would be to take the pill. On the other hand, since taking the pill would leave you with a utility function that’s incongruent with your current one, you will not take the pill. Same reason you won’t take a drug that will make you bake cakes and take showers all the time. It might distract you from your current goals and aspirations (you’d make baking cakes a higher priority than having friends). In other words, even if the new preferences will give you overall more happiness, you'll still prefer your old preferences.
You might be thinking, “Who cares? This drug doesn’t exist yet.” Well, it does; this dilemma exists for people who haven’t tried shrooms yet. According to discovery.com, “61 percent reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways.” Assuming you won’t get a bad trip, is it rational to take the drug? Depends on whether the drug changes your utility function and whether it conflicts with the older version. I doubt a psychedelic experience can help me optimize my current utility function better than my sober self. Therefore, I conclude that it must, in fact, change my preference ordering. I would rather keep my preferences the way they are now, of course.
In my opinion, this question isn’t only fun to ponder – it might determine the future of humanity! I realize I am taking a several inferential steps in making this point so hear me out. First off, consider the following hypothetical: some hippie scientist invents a drug that would, indefinitely, put you into a vegetative state, but the tradeoff is an infinite supply of happiness and pleasure. If people decide they would be better off on this drug, chaos will ensue.
I might be getting carried away; surely there will be people who would refuse the drug. People aren’t selfish; they wouldn’t want to hurt their loved ones by turning into a smiling vegetable. Let’s make things more interesting then. Imagine the drug only changed your preferences around making you receive great amounts of happiness for easily attainable goals. For example, baking a cake now gives you an orgasmic feeling and taking a shower feels like winning the lottery. This drug would be changing your utility function.
For those of you who haven’t heard of this gem of a concept, it means this: a function that inputs world events and outputs “utils” or i.e. a unit of satisfaction/happiness. There are certain world events that correspond to a quantity of personal happiness; a utility function models this relationship. For example, eating an apple corresponds to some measure of utility (read: happiness). This drug would mess with your utility function in a way that would make it a lot easier for you to optimize your utility. No longer will you care about getting married and having a family, that’s too hard. Instead you’ll be baking cakes and taking showers for the rest of your life (voluntarily of course). Would you take the drug? Would a utilitarian be morally obligated to force everyone to take the drug?
We are utility maximizers; we want to attain as much happiness as we can. One subtle detail about our utility function is that we receive negative utility for knowingly deciding to change our utility function to a new one that conflicts with the old one. Our utility function can and does change overtime; however, we won’t want to choose to change it. Imagine I gave you a pill that would make you want to hate your family. An additional stipulation: hating your family will give you a lot more utility than the utility you currently get from loving your family. The intuitive utility maximizing decision would be to take the pill. On the other hand, since taking the pill would leave you with a utility function that’s incongruent with your current one, you will not take the pill. Same reason you won’t take a drug that will make you bake cakes and take showers all the time. It might distract you from your current goals and aspirations (you’d make baking cakes a higher priority than having friends). In other words, even if the new preferences will give you overall more happiness, you'll still prefer your old preferences.
You might be thinking, “Who cares? This drug doesn’t exist yet.” Well, it does; this dilemma exists for people who haven’t tried shrooms yet. According to discovery.com, “61 percent reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways.” Assuming you won’t get a bad trip, is it rational to take the drug? Depends on whether the drug changes your utility function and whether it conflicts with the older version. I doubt a psychedelic experience can help me optimize my current utility function better than my sober self. Therefore, I conclude that it must, in fact, change my preference ordering. I would rather keep my preferences the way they are now, of course.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Lack of Empathy
Soldiers of war are not psychopath killers – they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. With certain external forces, we have the ability to lose this basic emotion. Analyzing the Israel and Gaza conflict, I have discovered that the loss of empathy is the underlying cause of the controversy. My objective in this column is not to prove which side is the victim or aggressor, but to share some of my thoughts on why I think there is a controversy in the first place.
I believe the Israel and Gaza debate is being approached incorrectly. Supporters on each side of the argument try throwing at each other facts, as if facts alone will make apparent which side is right. The controversy, however, is fundamentally a case of moral ambiguity. This is why I think a more philosophical approach is appropriate.
But first, I must delineate several assumptions that, in my opinion, aren’t far-fetched to make: 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization in that they intentionally target civilians. 2) Israel has a right to defend its citizens. 3) There are innocent civilians in Gaza.
Now that the assumptions are out of the way, let’s scrutinize the situation further. Hamas would not stop firing rockets towards Israel even after Israel’s threat of an attack. Since Israel has the right to defend itself, Israel is allowed to take some measure to deter the rockets. Israel chose to target Hamas and its resources with an airstrike. These targets were close to innocent civilians, partly because Hamas made that so and partly because Gaza is a densely populated area. The outcome of Israel’s airstrikes has led to upwards of 850 Palestinians dead with around 25 percent civilians. The airstrike has not deterred Palestinian fighters from shooting more rockets toward Israel, so far killing 13 soldiers and 3 civilians (these numbers may be higher after I write this).
The majority of Israeli citizens support the attacks made on Gaza. On the other hand, most of the rest of the world believes the attacks were disproportionate. Specifically, the Arab population has been most outspoken about their disagreement. This made me think about how so many different populations can be exposed to the same information yet arrive at the opposite conclusions. The reason this happens is because a mixture of nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda disconnects each side from empathizing with one another.
The clearest example of lack of empathy is Hamas and their terrorist tactics. They put innocent Israeli lives on the line and treat their civilians like hostages in order to accomplish their objective. If they cared about people more than they do their unattainable goal, we would be one step closer to ending the conflict. Israel also commits a lack of empathy, but in my opinion, in a more subtle manner.
Unlike Hamas, Israel does not specifically target civilians with the intention of killing civilians. However, they do accept that civilian casualties are collateral damage, another cost of war, a suitable means towards defending their citizens. Collateral damage is an ambiguous moral concept, but throughout the past and present it seems like some dose of collateral damage is accepted. For example, imagine a group of a thousand gunmans shooting aimlessly inside a populated city. Say you have a button that you can press that will instantly kill all of them, but one innocent person will die. If this was the only option, I think it is safe to say that most people would press the button; that one person is a suitable cost of war.
Most Israelis believe that the airstrikes had the appropriate amount of damage or i.e. the appropriate amount of collateral damage. There does become a point, however, when the collateral damage is too high and is not justified by the outcome. Most of the rest of the world, specifically the Arab population, believes the attacks were disproportionate. To me, this means that Israelis care less about Palestinian civilians than the rest of the world does. I could say the reverse too – the rest of the world doesn’t care enough about Israelis! I believe that both cases are true. Nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda keep removing empathy from the human relationship. We need to overcome our biases and truly understand one another, only then will the controversy fall apart.
I believe the Israel and Gaza debate is being approached incorrectly. Supporters on each side of the argument try throwing at each other facts, as if facts alone will make apparent which side is right. The controversy, however, is fundamentally a case of moral ambiguity. This is why I think a more philosophical approach is appropriate.
But first, I must delineate several assumptions that, in my opinion, aren’t far-fetched to make: 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization in that they intentionally target civilians. 2) Israel has a right to defend its citizens. 3) There are innocent civilians in Gaza.
Now that the assumptions are out of the way, let’s scrutinize the situation further. Hamas would not stop firing rockets towards Israel even after Israel’s threat of an attack. Since Israel has the right to defend itself, Israel is allowed to take some measure to deter the rockets. Israel chose to target Hamas and its resources with an airstrike. These targets were close to innocent civilians, partly because Hamas made that so and partly because Gaza is a densely populated area. The outcome of Israel’s airstrikes has led to upwards of 850 Palestinians dead with around 25 percent civilians. The airstrike has not deterred Palestinian fighters from shooting more rockets toward Israel, so far killing 13 soldiers and 3 civilians (these numbers may be higher after I write this).
The majority of Israeli citizens support the attacks made on Gaza. On the other hand, most of the rest of the world believes the attacks were disproportionate. Specifically, the Arab population has been most outspoken about their disagreement. This made me think about how so many different populations can be exposed to the same information yet arrive at the opposite conclusions. The reason this happens is because a mixture of nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda disconnects each side from empathizing with one another.
The clearest example of lack of empathy is Hamas and their terrorist tactics. They put innocent Israeli lives on the line and treat their civilians like hostages in order to accomplish their objective. If they cared about people more than they do their unattainable goal, we would be one step closer to ending the conflict. Israel also commits a lack of empathy, but in my opinion, in a more subtle manner.
Unlike Hamas, Israel does not specifically target civilians with the intention of killing civilians. However, they do accept that civilian casualties are collateral damage, another cost of war, a suitable means towards defending their citizens. Collateral damage is an ambiguous moral concept, but throughout the past and present it seems like some dose of collateral damage is accepted. For example, imagine a group of a thousand gunmans shooting aimlessly inside a populated city. Say you have a button that you can press that will instantly kill all of them, but one innocent person will die. If this was the only option, I think it is safe to say that most people would press the button; that one person is a suitable cost of war.
Most Israelis believe that the airstrikes had the appropriate amount of damage or i.e. the appropriate amount of collateral damage. There does become a point, however, when the collateral damage is too high and is not justified by the outcome. Most of the rest of the world, specifically the Arab population, believes the attacks were disproportionate. To me, this means that Israelis care less about Palestinian civilians than the rest of the world does. I could say the reverse too – the rest of the world doesn’t care enough about Israelis! I believe that both cases are true. Nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda keep removing empathy from the human relationship. We need to overcome our biases and truly understand one another, only then will the controversy fall apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
