READY TO BE GRADED

History and Evidence of a coordinate

When you come sixteenth in a race for fifteen seats, it’s cold consolation to be told, “Don’t worry, it’s just a popularity contest”—as though life were a Family Circus strip. But I don't regard losing popularity contests as a personal defeat. I hear my social web whispering, "take the loss personally, but also constructively" -- and they're right, pragmatically: man, a social construct, must obey his social web.

But I'll learn that lesson ass-backwards, if you don't mind. That is to say: considering that my perspective is the opposite of yours, don't be shocked to see me believing the contrapositive of what's expected of me -- to see me taking it "with certitude, but also socially."

• First, I'm proud of my loss, which is resounding evidence that my genius is still misunderstood -- tangible proof of just how far ahead of my peers I am ...
• and then I’ll take it socially:
  • first remembering what William James wanted us to know: that the measure of a Truth is the number of persons who act as though it’s meaningful to themselves (such that my election loss was an experiment, challenging a hypothesis about how I’m perceived);
  • and second, acting as though one deserves moral condemnation for not acting on William James's critique of useless knowledge -- i.e. I recognize that "Wisdom is a curse, when wisdom does nothing for the man who has it (once I knew this well but I forgot)" -- as Teiresias failed to get Oedipus to understand.

This second draft of my Second paper interprets today's referendum as analogous to this community's negative responses to my first draft of this paper. It writes a revisionist history of my first draft, as well as of my Senate campaign: "It failed because it failed to find a thesis in my personal narrative." And because my social web has whispered that it wants to hear that thesis, I'll tell it too.

The narrative starts with me going to Eben’s office late last semester, to ask him to let me transfer into his class. He asked me why I wanted to be a lawyer, and I told him; and he responded, “Clearly your father’s a surgeon: you were taught to view warm human bodies as cold inhuman flesh. You do not belong in my class; you and I will not get along; I do not want you in my class"; and I said something, and here I am.

Before I trust you to understand the things I said immediately before and after his comment about my father (who, as is now legendary, is in fact a surgeon), you need to know what came before that meeting, by which I mean, my life up to that point. I have always thought myself both blessed and cursed to be among those who are well-educated and highly perceptive. We are both blessed and cursed, you and I, in that we cannot disprove what Voltaire meant only ironically -- that “to understand all is to forgive all;" for the more we learn about the things that harm us, the more we lose our grounds for moral indignation. A great lifestyle if you’re trying to be a good Christian ... But I’m Jewish. I'm painting stereotypes with broad brushtrokes but this is what I mean: I’m commanded to act as one who believes, that beneath the descriptive meanings I’m so adept at finding, lie latent normative meanings, for the very purpose of finding which my father and mother gave me these cursed smarts. I'm commanded to believe that my social position, and the information impacting me about others’ social positions, can never be “arbitrary,” -- no matter what I learn about physics, biology, evolution, psychology, sociology, and path-dependant accounts of history—that all of these bottom-up accounts are ruled, from the top down, by morality.

For all my blessed perceptiveness, I'd never seen a single one of these meanings. What a curse! to be apathetic towards things that should make a mensch indignant. To hesitate to make Holocaust jokes, not because they make me uncomfortable, but because when they make others uncomfortable, those people criticize me. When I deferred my admission to Columbia Law School for a year—and worked for the American Jewish Committee, explaining that I was looking to learn what issues I should be concerned about as a lawyer—I emerged a year later with a list, but I still couldn’t care less whether I ever checked anything off that list.

So you can understand why, between Eben’s asking why I wanted to be a lawyer, and his telling me that I ought rather to be a surgeon, I said this: “Because I hate myself, and I want power.” I presented the phenotype of the son of Jewish parents, who wanted me to do good and to do well, but who also wanted proof that I would do good and do well.

• Given the dilemmas that parents face, the rational response is to train a son to seem rather than to be.
• Given that their control over our choices must eventually end,
  • parents first train us to seek things verifiably (call that "language acquisition");
  • and since their surveillance of us must eventually end too, they conform our visible choices, while still surveillable, towards the trappings of doing well and good.

But the tool of seeming is much better calibrated to identify doing well than doing good --

• just as it's easier for a surgeon to do good for organs but bad for the patient (cf effect of cheap MRIs ( 1 and 2 / my dad's mafioso stroke patient, "I knew something was wrong when I couldn't pull the trigger);
• or the ease with which a lawyer can do well for the client but bad for society.

And so I, like everyone, was taught to favor living well over living good—indoctrinated to use education to inject myself into power, and to postpone figuring out why I deserved that power until I'd consolidated it.

Eben understood, and so he forgave -- If by "forgiveness" you understand Jewish forgiveness, the forgiveness of Maimonides, "charity by stealth" -- he indicted my story to my face. This is what his words meant to me: Of course, it’s easier for your Jewish-boy head to find descriptive truths rather than normative truths; your father taught you to be this way, in order to make you a good boy, as it made him a good surgeon. But fathers, though perhaps moral authorities, _cannot be their sons' moral authorities. Moral authority comes from Rabbis / those who study Torah. Which in a secular era, means, those who purpose by studying truth, to reveal NEW ETHICS, not ossify the old._

Christian or Jew: if we are secular, we must look to Socrates. We must look to him, and forgive his mild pedophilia, because he was the first, the Big Bang, of secular ethicists. But we have too little time, and too few words remaining, in this century, and in this month of the semester, and in this paper, for me to tell you what sort of Republic I plan to derive for my life— too little time for me to tell you what I said to Eben, that got me into this class. I'm happy to share in person, what I mean by personally deriving a personal "Republic," i.e. a vocation.

If you want an advance idea of what I'm doing, ask yourself this:
Which figure is Plato, and why?
I'm not trying to be cryptic or trivial. My father surprised me by sending me this print for my birthday, and I've lost sleep looking at it. What the hell is David getting at?

---

My guess: He's the depressed dude sitting at the foot of the bed. He is depressed because he knows Socrates points to the ceiling, and not a higher realm of existence. Perhaps he thinks Socrates is foolish not to flee.

Anyways, I really enjoyed this paper. It is very honest. I recommend getting a new checklist from an experience that allows you to connect and relate to people from different walks of life. I'll comment more later... I want to think about this some more.

-- JosephMacias - 11 Apr 2008

This paper is fascinating. But to the significant degree to which it refers to the recent senate election, it is monumentally self-serving. Andrew, it is not a matter of misunderstood genius to fail to win an election that you fail to take seriously. I cast six votes out of my allotted 15 in this election: one for each candidate who took it at least somewhat seriously. I am not the only one who disregarded candidates who did not articulate why they sought office. My votes included some incumbents, some non-incumbents (admittedly including myself), but not you, because your candidacy statement consisted almost entirely of one-liners. Funny, yes; enough to knock an incumbent out of office, never. It was not misunderstood genius that lost you the election, it was arrogance. The more I think about this essay, well-written as it may be, the more I am struck by your choice to list the phonetic pronunciation of your proper name on Lawnet as "your majesty."

--

Hi Ryan,
I respect your honest comments, which I know you intended to be both accurate and useful. Last night I woke up to loud voices from your side of the hall at about 7:50 Greenwich Mean Time; had I known that you were commenting on my paper at that moment, I would have walked next door and asked to hear you talk about my paper too.

You're right to notice that my paper is self-serving, but I'm surprised that you limit your observation to the "extent" to which I comment my senate loss. A paper "about the Senate election" has to be a paper about how people view me, because any election has to be:

• a referendum on the candidate's entire public persona, not just his Statement
• a referendum on how much individuals liked, and/or trusted for a job, the entire persona attempted by the Candidate statement
  

You don't acknowledge this, but it does factor into your acknowledge this yourself -- perhaps without knowing it -- when you define the "arrogance"

I think this is what you were doing when you mentioned that I list the phonetic pronunciation of my name, on Lawnet,

I also appreciate your attempting to translate the binary "yes/no" of the referendum -- or social experiment, as William James would call it. By itself it was so ambiguous

don't know if you read the previous draft, the sort of paper a person writes when a quarter o

There are a lot of people who know me better than you do (I'm assuming you didn't read previous drafts of my second paper, and I know you haven't spoken with me since Orienation I'm glad you noticed that this paper was about the senate elections. These are not the sort of comments I was looking for, but I won't turn down an opportunity to hear what people don't like about me. Thi

I'd like you to be more specific about a few things, since it's possible you

I'm glad that you find my paper "monumentally ... self-serving," and I'm not at all even if I find it a bit strange that you regard [my decision to / the manner in which I] write a self-serving paper But I do appreciate that I've finally written a I'll respect that we're probably facing asymmetric information about which parts of my paper, since according to Greenwich Mean Time you posted this comment at 3:30am the morning after Dean's Cup.

This experiment could be interesting. But what's your hypothesis, and what's your method? One shouldn't start gathering data until he has convinced his AUDIENCE that he's properly associated [a hypothesis and a method], i.e. [properly associated "X" and "ZERO"], given that

* HYPOTHESIS means "My data will NOT say ZERO, i.e. NOT say that Q is not true" and * METHOD means "I define ZERO as X, i.e. certain data from the following poll ..."

It doesn't matter that you've defined them in your mind, or that you plan to share them with us after collecting your data. Given that OUR mandate as fellow-scientists is to disprove your conclusions with zeal , we are obliged to zealously exploit any lack of [proof that you wrote hypothesis and method before gathering data]. If you share your hypothesis and method after gathering the data, you oblige us to accuse you of writing the method to fit the data to the hypothesis.

Eben's grading style is just an exemplary demonstration of how scientists should undertake that mandate. I also witnessed this, growing up in a family of engineers, at the dinner table. Thankfully I was not the target. -- AndrewGradman? - 30 Mar 2008

(Edit - Preview)

While I have no idea what you're referring to about loud voices in the night, since I was home alone last night and reading your paper because I couldn't sleep, I do agree that 3:30 am after the Dean's Cup is not the best time to offer comments. It is exactly because I, and I assume others, don't know you that well that it matters what your candidate statement says. I don't have an opinion on your "public persona," and you are certainly among the majority in approaching the election facetiously. I only wanted to point out that it's most likely that and that alone which cost you. I find this paper very interesting and exceptionally well written otherwise; I wanted to comment only with regard to the one aspect on which I have commented. It looks like you're moving toward asking for more specific comments; I will be happy to offer them.