Being an excellent robot (Erica Goldson Graduation speech)
zenpencils.com
zenpencils.com
Particularly "While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment", "while others sat in class and doodled..." and "while others were creating music..."
This seems remarkably naive. The doodlers did not all become artists, many were just bored or uninterested. The ones missing assignments were probably not reading books that fascinated them, they were probably playing video games or smoking/drinking somewhere out of sight. The musicians probably did have more fun than you.
But none of these people had life any more figured out than you. And if you're the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to, just because they want to, then the world is yours to do with as you please.
That doesn't make you a robot, it makes you a god.
--edit-- actually I'm not 100% sure everyone can excel at anything even with that level of dedication, and I am 100% sure that not everyone has it in them to give that level of dedication to anything.
She makes the case that people are naturally passionate about (different) things, and should be free to follow that passion.
She makes the case that many jobs could be automated out of existence, if the objective was to free people from the need to work, rather than to perpetuate a status quo that keeps them tired and passive.
These are fairly common thoughts, on the new left. I know that in the 1970s in the UK, it was expected labor intensive manufacturing jobs would be replaced by automation, and the government had conferences to decide what to do, to give people purpose without work. As it turned out, the jobs were destroyed, by outsourcing in the 1980s, and a great bulk of service jobs that were unnecessary just a few years before were created to take up the slack.
Western economies are hugely over-weighted towards the service sector, but think - in a country where 40% of jobs are industrial, how do they get by with such a low proportion of servants? Does it not follow that those jobs are unnecessary?
Isn't it immoral to force people do do them? Shouldn't we recalibrate society so they don't have to? So they can spend more time creating, launching startups, live longer due to earlier retirement?
Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. I get a lot of purpose and enjoyment from my job, and not having one takes a huge toll on the unemployed. I find it hard to understand why unemployed friends don't just create jobs for themselves, to provide the self respect they so desperately want. Maybe people need a system that creates jobs for them so they can have a purposeful life.
But anyway, the ability conjure up dedication towards a chosen goal? Certainly that would make you a productive god, a robot even, but not (according to the author) a fully realized human. That would require passion.
We have been moving, for the past 50 years, into an era where there is still a staggering amount of work that needs to be done but there is no singular defined "job" to employ a person from their early 20s until their mid-60s retirement.
You can guess which philosophies applied in pre-industrial vs modern K-12 .edu and which applied in pre-tuition bubble and post-tuition bubble university .edu in the USA.
There is quite an impedance bump going from HS senior to Univ Freshman because of this conversion from pure training automaton setting to at least still partially an educational setting.
Clearly, doing anything significant requires dedication - you aren't going to enjoy every moment. And people become passionate about whatever they do. Or they have passion for the goal they are dedicated to. The contradiction is artificial.
But I can see that, if the speaker felt like her life was full of dedication, without passion, she'd feel very unfulfilled.
That doesn't make you a robot, it makes you a god.
There is no such "sort of person". Which is fine, because that person is a strawman of yours: that graduation speech is about people who can excel at anything others put their mind to. Being the best at following orders is like the top price from the consolation price shelf of skills. As Plutarch said, the mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled, and if you can't distinguish the interesting from the idiotic assignments, and fulfill them all with equal dog-like obedience, that's not very smart, and to think otherwise would be just as naive. If you don't, then that's not your graduation speech.
There is nothing wrong with learning for tests instead of coming up with your own challenges, or with learning instead of being lazy, or a mixture of both. There isn't even anything wrong with fulfilling the expectations of others even, as long as you know why you're doing it. If you don't, if you fulfill them just because they're there, not even to relieve your boredom but to because others expect you to, then you ARE on a conveyor belt without even knowing why and how you got there, rationalizations nonwithstanding.
Do you think people who blindly follow orders grow on trees, or are aware of the fact that's essentially all they're doing? Because I'd say no to both.
Well that's a depressing thought. That the world is nobody's oyster, and it's only because nobody cares enough about what they choose.
(Unless you're arguing that devoted work doesn't lead to excelling, in which case I think you're crazy or using completely different definitions than me.)
"Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer." --- Bertrand Russell, "Autobiography"
Unless you're arguing that devoted work doesn't lead to excelling
I'm not arguing it doesn't, why wouldn't it. I just don't see how that makes anyone a god, whatever that's even supposed to mean other than "epic" or "awesome" or other nonsense. No, that's simply being a human. Heck, it even applies to plants.
As I just said, it's not about YOU putting your mind about something, it's about someone ELSE putting your mind to something. That this crucial distinction keeps getting missed is kinda creepy :/
And you kind of ignored my entire point. It's not that you can 'do literally anything', obviously you can't become the incredible hulk through force of will. It's about being able to excel at any chosen field by being highly devoted to it. And on top of that, the 'godliness', is being able to chose a topic to be exceptionally devoted to. It's the choice of what to be passionate about that I would be depressed that nobody can do.
But apparently you were just interpreting 'excel at anything' as 'do literally anything' and never meant any of what I was responding to.
Of course there is. Some people excel effortlessly, some are able to (and want to) dedicate themselves to a task and excel. Some can't excel despite effort and some cannot focus themselves to make the effort at all. We are all different. Or do you live in the kind of imaginary utopia where anyone can be the best at anything if they just apply themselves?
>> that graduation speech is about people who can excel at anything others put their mind to.
If you can excel at anything others put your mind to, simply because you want to excel (which was directly what was in the cartoon), then you can do it for anything you can put your mind to as well. This sets you up to win at life in almost any way you want to and is not something to lament.
The cartoon (to me) is about someone waking up to the fact they have choices and that they get to figure out what they want. Awesome. Good for them.
It also betrays a very naive (as you would expect from someone of that age) view of the working world and the rest of humanity and makes the assumption that all of the other people that do go to college and on to work have never had these thoughts.
>> if you can't distinguish the interesting from the idiotic assignments, and fulfill them all with equal dog-like obedience, that's not very smart
If she can excel at any task set, she's very smart and she's proved to herself she can do anything if she tries. She has a lot of life left to figure out where she wants to go.
>> Do you think people who blindly follow orders grow on trees, or are aware of the fact that's essentially all they're doing? Because I'd say no to both.
No, I think that the image of school as a robot factory and point of government control is overblown, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory.
Someone who can do anything just because they put their mind to it? Then why did nobody ever put their mind to curing cancer in 5 minutes then? Too busy with more interesting stuff?
If you can excel at anything others put your mind to, simply because you want to excel (which was directly what was in the cartoon), then you can do it for anything you can put your mind to as well.
Not unless you know and respect yourself. Not if you're too glued to authority to do it.
If she can excel at any task set, she's very smart and she's proved to herself she can do anything if she tries.
You responded to ZERO of the point you were just quoting. You just ramble on and on. I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of this and you're just talking to yourself.
No, I think that the image of school as a robot factory and point of government control is overblown, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory.
"conspiracy theory"? Really? That's your best shot? Bye!
You deliberately twist my words just to try to make your point. I said "the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to". Brilliant cancer researchers can excel at their chosen field without having to have the whole field sewn up by the end of the week, no?
>> Not unless you know and respect yourself. Not if you're too glued to authority to do it.
I've said in several places this seems to be a girl realising she has choices. I just don't think it's unusual, damning of the school system or a reason for anyone to lament her life up until now, I think it's a normal part of adolescent development expressed naively (which is to be expected of adolescents!).
>> You responded to ZERO of the point you were just quoting. You just ramble on and on. I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of this and you're just talking to yourself.
Back at you, see top of this post and twisting words.
>> "conspiracy theory"? Really? That's your best shot? Bye!
Bye then.
Brilliant cancer researchers can excel at their chosen field
Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically are great at basketball or rocket science. I mean yeah, if I put my mind to the things I know I can excel at, then I can excel at anything I put my mind to. Big whoop.
I've said in several places this seems to be a girl realising she has choices.
I'd say it's reflecting on robot like tendencies. Why would one even have to realize that unless they had some kind of issue before that? Ever saw kids play, heck, toddlers cry? Knowing you have choices is the default, and it gets broken and beaten out of some. How can you deny this? Because there are also people who excel and do so out of their free will? That's just throwing a wrench into a perfectly good discussion just because it goes over your head.
I mean, just to switch gears for a sec, ever noticed the plague of "achievement hunting"? People ticking off boxes just because those boxes exist and they have nothing better to do with themselves? Same thing. This can also be found in school among some, and in businesses as well. How could you possibly miss it?
Back at you, see top of this post and twisting words.
That somehow means you are not just quoting parts of my post, then talking stuff that addresses none of or isn't even about anything related to the quote?
>> Twisting words? You said "sort of person". There is no such "sort". That you then say "oh that means people can't excel at stuff blah blah blah" is of your own making.
Yes, twisting my words to make your ridiculous point. This comment specifically is nonsense - "Then why did nobody ever put their mind to curing cancer in 5 minutes then? Too busy with more interesting stuff?" And yes, by excelling at everything in school she has shown she's the sort of person that can excel at many things, by studying and applying herself. Not everyone has it in them to excel in one space, let alone lots. I'm not really sure what your problem is here.
>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically are great at basketball or rocket science.
No, why on earth would it? But it might mean that they are at a crossroads now and can excel at whatever direction they decide to take their life, be that cancer research, rocket science, whatever. She's smart and shown a capacity for dedication, so can probably be nearly anything she wants. Seriously, what is your problem with this?
(--edit-- hell, maybe she wants to buy some land and run a drum workshop, it's her choice too, I'm not trying to constrain the discussion to academic disciplines)
>> I mean yeah, if I put my mind to the things I know I can excel at, then I can excel at anything I put my mind to. Big whoop.
Now you're just spouting nonsense again.
>> I'd say it's reflecting on robot like tendencies. Why would one even have to realize that unless they had some kind of issue before that?
Because they're an adolescent just waking up to the extent of the world around them. It happens. Her parents and teachers probably have influenced her thinking about how her life is due to unfold. She probably had an internal roadmap that was partly put there by society, partly by the adults in her life, and partly by her own assumptions. She's realising it's not set in stone. Good for her.
>> Ever saw kids play, heck, toddlers cry? Knowing you have choices is the default, and it gets broken and beaten out of some. How can you deny this? Because there are also people who excel and do so out of their free will? That's just throwing a wrench into a perfectly good discussion just because it goes over your head.
I'm not sure I have any idea what you're talking about any more.
>>I mean, just to switch gears for a sec, ever noticed the plague of "achievement hunting"? People ticking off boxes just because those boxes exist and they have nothing better to do with themselves? Same thing. This can also be found in school among some, and in businesses as well. How could you possibly miss it?
No, really no clue.
>> That somehow means you are not just quoting parts of my post, then talking stuff that addresses none of or isn't even about anything related to the quote?
At least I'm quoting what you actually said instead of making shit up.
In fact, the doodlers were likely attending to the lecture, e.g. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882127,00.ht...
And I tend not to think that many people at all have life figured out very well at that age. Revelations are to be expected :)
Let's face it, from kindergarden to the end of college, what we have is a set of "levels", a fixed path with very very few points where you can actually decide something. The natural step is to reach the next level and keep doing roughly the same. More tests, more lessons... etc
BUT, when that system ends, there is a void. The adult world is not "a fixed system" or "the next level in the game", but a whole chaos, full of options, opportunities, uncertainties. And that freedom can intimidate, specially if someone has been focusing in excelling in the educational system and has the perception (not necessarily that's a real thing) that none of that is useful, that other people already have links (which a lot of people will form) with this new and weird "life outside academia"
I mean, it's a great thing, but I can totally understand that it's scary at first.
Or for the lucky who were REALLY into programming, we knew early on that grades didn't matter as much so long as we learned enough to be valuable, since it's a field that's a relative meritocracy.
My experience, though, was the folks not handing in homework assignments were doing it out of laziness, not alternative studies.
I couldn't know this, I could just sincerely hope it's true, for all the years I played with programming, neglecting my duties as part of an educational system. I believed that I can become good at this thing called programming and I believed that it will be enough.
Almost twenty years later I'm still astonished that my childish, naive belief was indeed true. That in this field it is much more important what we can do than who we are.
Or maybe it was just luck and I'm deluding myself...
In Marketing, there's always a way to spin a result. In HR, the results can be too long in the future to hold someone accountable.
Sales is perhaps the only other that comes close in being a meritocracy. There too the pedigree doesn't matter as much.
I "went" to high school. I graduated with a 95% average. In high school, there was a tie between me and some blonde girl to get valedictorian. I told my physics teacher that I didn't even care and to give it to her because for her, it was a huge point of self-validation. I got 100% in physics and calculus because I loved the subjects. I spent my summers studying calculus. Excelling was a by-product.
Through high school, I played sports, wrote music and had sex with girls. I did well academically too, even though (or because?) I stopped attending classes during high school and never went to class in university.
I graduated university from a top 10 university on the dean's list and I ended up making hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by taking my own route.
I love what I do and I loved every minute of university.
The problem I think is as she says herself: she focused on excelling, not on doing what she enjoyed. Maybe her parents are to blame. I don't know. But this is not at all a strike against the school system.
The school system is broken. But IMO, this is not why. It works very well for the 5% who enjoy academic pursuit.
You got away with that? Count yourself extremely lucky.
Truancy is taken seriously in the US.
Is the new absolute standpoint a little naive too? Sure. And a little bit of a big jump from where she was? Sure. Binary Search algorithm on figuring out her 'self', and she's got a real early start on it.
School is just a really long training level. It's not as fun as the game, but make the most of it and the game will be much easier to play.
I'm not so sure they're unaware of what they're doing. Don't most people go to university to "get a job"? Which typically means a 9-5 corporate cog paid to do the corporations bidding for most of your waking hours. That's actually what people want out of their four year piece of paper. Most people have already accepted and acknowledge that university isn't required to perform these jobs, but it's required to acquire these jobs, so they go through it.
There will be few who are there for the education itself, and perhaps go on to research positions for much lesser pay than the successful corporate cogs. But it's no mystery that the vast majority are there to willingly become part of the complacent labour force.