Good Evening, folks-Ladies and Gentlemen. This is 30 days, starring the latest episode with Michael Kim-a teenager from South Korea-who bravely decided to participate in possibly the most difficult, merciless mission ever designed by our crew. It’s to spend 30 days without talking-Michael has to pretend he is mute for the next full month; he can’t talk to his friends, teachers, and even his parents! Will he be able to overcome this notorious challenge? We’re starting from Day 1 in his school, KMLA!
Day 1
It’s day one in KMLA, and Michael wakes up from his bed in the dormitory. His friends call him out that it’s time for morning exercise, and with an annoyed groan, he gets dressed along with his friends. As he is hiking up the mountains with one of his roommates, he realizes that he cannot have trivial but light conversations that used to soothe the boredom of the endless hiking. His roommate is aware that Mike cannot speak to him, but nevertheless he too seems bored by the lack of communication. The awkward atmosphere continues along with the dreadful silence-it doesn’t seem easy for a garrulous and impulsive person like Michael to keep his mouth shut for hours. After a full day without verbal communication, Michael seems pretty depressed and enervated. He does interact with people through body language and signs when it is necessary-but only when it is extremely necessary.
Day 2
The second silence-day arises, and Michael gets out of bed, still in a disheartened mood that dominated him on the previous day. His class in the first period today was Physics, and guess what- it was his BIG-PRESENTATION day! He displays the material he had prepared so hard for this presentation on screen, and his show-time begins. However, the presentation doesn’t go as well as he expected. He started off fine with all of the specific descriptions written in the power-point and just indicating to such printed explanations with his finger. Unfortunately, as the presentation continued, the students started to lose their attention; they were talking, goofing around, and even sleeping-right in front of Michael’s eyes! Realizing he has no tool to silence the uncooperative pupils or to regain the control of the classroom, which previously had been his charismatic tone and voice, he finishes his lecture early-off, disappointed and discouraged.
Day 3
Today, Michael has to participate in one of the practice debates that is scheduled during the self-study period by the school English debate club. As a member, he is obligated to attend the practice although he can’t directly take part due to his inability to speak and watch his teammates do their jobs. Since debating-in any language-used to be Michael’s both favorite hobby and a meaningful activity, he seems even more down-casted by the fact that he has to be left out from all the fun; even from the judging because he cannot provide feedbacks. After the heated, passionate debate on the motion “THW double the price of Soju”, everybody in the club celebrates the end of the discussion, laughing and “talking” about what happened in the debate; everybody except Michael. Michael looks as if he is excluded from the rest of his friends and seniors, and the fact that he has lost his role in the club that he has paid the most devotion to seems to disturb him greatly. In frustration and anger, Michael stomps into his bed.
Day 6
Michael seems terribly unhappy these days: he walks alone, he eats by himself, he mostly studies in the 11th floor for any bit of free time he has, and he no longer even tries to “communicate” Well, he does, sort of: he seems to be comfortable of using sign language and sometimes even cards that have simple phrases written down on such as “Thank You” or “May I go to the Restroom?”. However, he tries to avoid communication as much as possible if it’s not inevitable; moreover, he tries to reduce his “human interaction”. The active, gullible Michael we all used to know before this project began was nowhere to be found-he was now more of like a social outcast who remains alone and away from the crowd, reading books and studying textbooks all the time. His friends no longer care about him much as the influence of his presence diminishes more and more. He is quiet in class, out of class, and in bed; basically, 24 hours seemed to be full of emptiness to Michael.
Day 7
On the middle of the day, suddenly, during his lunchtime up in the cafeteria, he forfeits the challenge. He shouts out curses like “FXXX XXX” or “SXXXXXX IM NOT DOING THIS ANYMORE” and approaches his friends. He admits that he cannot continue the challenge, and he announces that he will give up his task. Although the time limit did not even reach 1/4 of what we originally had planned for, we unanimously agreed that the persistence of the project could cause some severe psychological harm such as personality disorders that would be detrimental for Mike’s independent life and his social relationships.
Interview with Michael: I’m really sorry that I had to call this whole thing to a stop. Again, I didn’t want me to ruin up the whole thing or evacuating the plan. However, I realized that it would be virtually impossible for me to even live another day like this-not any longer! At first, I thought I could manage; even though I weren’t allowed to speak a word, I could still communicate using my body parts, and basically since mute people also lived their lives. However, the-…….gap- I felt throughout the week with other people, not being able to talk, express, and debate, made me depressed so much. I felt “excluded” from the rest of the school where everybody could talk and talk and talk and where I couldn’t be a part of it. So, I guess I was just kind of frustrated and… exhausted with all the solitude and…SILENCE. I guess I lost my temper for a split of a second, and I apologize. Even though it really sounds classical to say this, I must: I realized, for the first time in my life, how blessed I was to have my voice-the ability to talk, communicate, and interact. I really understand how hard it must be for mute people to live on without the single greatest capability bestowed onto mankind: SPEAKING OUT LOUD.
So now, we say good-bye, once again expressing our gratitude to our courageous young participant, Michael. 30 days will meet you again soon! Thank you!
2011년 3월 28일 월요일
2011년 3월 13일 일요일
The Limitations of Ideals
Similar to the response to the last week, to Moore's sensational call-to-action project to stir up students, my basic response is the same: love the ideals, admire the intention, but please-give me a break-let's not get too radical!
I mean, frankly, I'm tired of listening to all the idealistic, revolutionary speakers all around the world criticizing many of the problems, which is perfectly fine and desirable, but do not have their own resolutions! It's easy to say something sucks, something's bad and something's wrong-I mean, there are thousands and millions of people around the world who are more than capable of doing fantastic jobs at criticizing. However, it's really frustrating to see all of them-no offense-to talk about of the problems, but not present ANY ALTERNATIVES! Why? Because often, it's impossible, and likely, detrimental! The reason we cannot eradicate the status quo of human civilization and start everything from zero? Because this is the system that has been created, established, modified, innovated, and adjusted throughout the thousands of years of antropological history by numerous thinkers, many of them passionate and brilliant, with all their effort! You can't deny that the current system, which has been formed by the historical geniuses of the past eras, have clear benefits and objectives, many of them essential for the welfare of our societies. The system of education-I'm sorry Sir Ken Robinson-is certainly one of them.
I'm extremely sorry that if I look like as if I'm lingering in the gray area on the debates or controversies presented every week:), but I would rather be a prudent thinker than a rash revolutionist. As I emphasize in every writing I post these days, when we want to talk about change we have to be extra-careful. Sure, I recognize the uncountable flaws and defects that exist in the education system that prevails nowadays, and I agree to some modifications that need to be made-such as in the meaninglessness of standardized tests or the prioritization of mathematics and languages over other subjects as Sir Robinson had pointed out-, but I also understand why the system has to be that way-the inevitability, the certain benefits and the neccesity of it, and the opposite view against many of the producers of extreme skepticism and prejudiced anger. (Which includes Sir Robinson, by the way, not as much as Moore, but still.) I believe there are essentially two things that just has to be pointed out for the sake of fair presentation of the controversy and a healthy debate.
So what's the biggie? I see clearly two big, fat, and significant problems that this thougtless criticism contains. The first one is impracticality. The most critical flaw of Sir Robinson's proposal, or at least some kind of vague agenda for improvement, was "an education system that promotes diversity, creativity, and individuality" And he went on with all the classical criticisms that are usually raised against education, such as how we "manufacture" and "junction" them to be uniform and "drug" them to be academic. I do understand the point he's trying to make here-the academic education got overheated, it went too far-we all admit. However, does he really think, from the heart of his mind, that truly, "individual, creativity-based education is possible"? The beauty of creativity is that it is diverse and it is based on the unique individuality of everyone. And also the most critical problem is also its diversity. We cannot systematically educate "creativity" to children, our beloved pupils, because we simply do not know how, and it is impossible to respect every single one's "diversity". It's a great thing if a kid has a unique idea or thought, and has a special way of thinking, such as if why can't we turn the school into a swimming pool or let everybody take turns becoming the president, sure, it's good and they would all have their reasons for it, but it is simply impossible to respect each and every one of them and let it be that way. That would be an attitude of an irresponsible educator, letting the kids flow away without common sense. We know that we can't turn schools into swimming pools. We understand we can't all be presidents. Why? Because we were taught reality and rationality. It's great that children can think of such interesting ideas, and it would be great if we had all the time, money, and resources to special-treat each and one of the children, to hire and train all the educators, to let one child who likes to play the piano play it all day long without basic education, to allow the other who's interested in video games be addicted to it without boundaries, but that is impossible and undesirable. In the video, Sir Robinson introduced the natural-born dancer who couldn't pay attention to class lectures, and used this case to support his argument on how standardized education destroys creativity. Do you know why we can't teach dancing in the ordinary curriculum? Do you know why we can't teach specialized internet programming to children? I bet some would definitely be interested, some might excel in such classes like Gillian did in dance school? Why not special squadron-agent-training? Don't you think some children are meant to be police officers or agents in the FBI? Curious, why not hand-drumming, ball juggling, or ways to have sex? Certainly you're not disregarding the hand drummers who perform in various stages, or clowns who take the main role in the circus, or-possibly, all the people who have sex? Somebody might even grow up to be an AV star, a sex theraphist, or action-artists, who knows? Well, I think we obviously know the answer-hello! We can't teach EVERY SINGLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT that might be suitable for EVERY SINGLE STUDENTS- that's why we sort out the most fundamental, basic, and necessary subjects that are often required in many aspects of life, such as math, literature, social studies, and so on- because that is the most common knowledge! There needs to be general standards, common curriculums, and evaluations for the betterment of the people-the greater good of the greater people. BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO COMMONLY, THE MOST PEOPLE! People say "Do you think you are going to use algebra much in your life?"; huh, do you think you'll utilize the information you learned from the "Tap Dance Manual-How to be a Brilliant Dancer" will help you any better? And even if it were to, just how are you going to teach it? Are there enough dancers, especially who can teach and are willing to sacrifice their careers to enroll in an occupation that has to deal with a bunch of kids? Where is the enough money to compensate the reluctant employees? Dream-talks are easy, give me an actual plan, and a specific one, on how we can make it happen.
However, the even more dire problem is this: the HARMS. Remember me mentioning "children flow with their thoughts without common sense"? That's another serious problem we'll have to consider-the benefits of the standardized education system and the detrimental harms that will be inflicted on students when we exterminate it. The reason we have rules and regulations in school is because we have them everywhere- in every parts of our society. There are certain manners and courtesies that people need to acquire if they are to function as a social being in their lives. That's why we apply the same system in school-to teach the students how to comply and respect the legislations of the society. What happens if the teenagers-if we don't adapt them? We get disciplined and punished just like we do in the real society. If we don't obey the rules in the workplace, you get fired. If you commit blasphemy in a sacred temple in Palestein, you're likely to get shot. Same thing-you can't simply disregard the laws of the society and say F--- rules like many rebellious lyrics of popular songs do. That's a common value we learn as a member of this society called "endurance" and "temperance". I know I sound all grumpy, conservative, and lame, but it's the truth. Without rules, the civilization will turn into chaos and there would be no room for an intelligent, civil human being anymore. WORLD=CHAOS. That's why we teach certain rules in school: because the objective of an educational institution is not only to fuel in all the academic stuff but also the social requirements. Similarly, in Gillian's case, if a student doesn't pay attention in class, the teacher is obligated to assist and guide them to do so. As I said, the important, valuable quality that we MUST LEARN is "endurance"-that means enduring and withstanding the difficulties, the dislikes, and the boring, to earn and achieve something you desire. Even if you want to drop out of school, even if you have the bloodlust to slaugther your cursed, loathsome enemy, you shouldn't and you can't-because you know the consequences are severe. It's not because your parents tell you so, it's because you can't earn anything without bearing the hardships. Sadly and unfortunately, that's the way the world works. Do you think the "Dancing schools", which was brought up on the video clip, are any different! Blah! They're just the same competetive, difficult, and "boring" steps you'll experience- often much more severe in degrees-compared to ordinary schools. Little sleep, unimaginable amount of practice, lots of physical pain, whole lots of depression and frustration, and tiny success-that's the realistic conditions that dancers have to face- a lot different from the rosy, delicate images of successful dancers you knew, huh? I say, the students who can't even bear the hardships of school can never withstand the realistic difficulties of life, and such people can never achieve anything. BE ASHAMED! Moreover,-the last thing-practical situations are also things you have to consider. I once did a debate on the motion "THW not teach professional sports to young children" And the one of the argument I brought up is that the future opportunities for them are so narrow and limited. Dozens and packages of children are fascinated by the unbelievable success of the "Figure Skate Queen" 김연아 and "The Swimming Prince" 박태환 and urge their parents to let them be allowed the chance. But there is a reason why the parents don't let you jump in. Because what a lot of the people don't realize, is that, the tens of thousands of skaters and swimmers who worked as just as hard, who were just as talented like the two national stars, but were just a little out of luck. Despite their huge amount of practice and devotion, nobody recognizes their effort which is hidden behind the shadows of 김연아 and 박태환. What do they do then? They barely make any money if they aren't successful in competitions, their athletic life ends in the 30s, and they hadn't received basic education in school due to the early enrollment in professional sports, and therefore, are hopeless. I won't say that their life is a failure, but it'll sure be tough, without proper recognition and a guaranteed quality of life including food, water, clothing, and housing, life's going to be pretty hard; dramatic. And many of the children who make the same decision have a much more high chance of following the path than following 연아's or 태환's. Same goes for Gillian's case. I understand that she is a successful case, but I don't understand why Sir Robinson forgot to mention that she was an especially exceptional, rare and unlikely case for most of the dancers. There must have been thousands of cases just like Gillian, who couldn't pay attention in class, were brought to dance school, discovered their talent in talking in their body language, blady blady blah. I'm sure, I can say with confidence, that there were all the "friends" at the dance school who could have worked harder or had greater potentials compared to Gillian-what happened to them, Sir Robinson? Why, would you out of the thousands of cases of these magnificent dancers, most of them who would have a story, some of them much more impressive and extraordinary then Gillian, just handpick one of them? I think I do no the answer-Sir doesn't know what happened to them too. He knows Gillian because she was SUCCESSFUL. He interviewed her for his book because...? SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL. What about the others? HE DOESN'T KNOW. WE DON"T KNOW. What would have happened if they have received the basic, required amount of education in schools and have performed sufficiently that normally, jobs in the society favor and use it as standards to evaluate capabilities? We don't know for sure, but at least the chances of living a life with a better quality might have been much higher. There's an another reason why you can't afford to get kicked out of school-I know it's not like the idealistic stories and heart-moving lines that might appear in teenage comics-because it's much more safe and stable. Our parents aren't actually that boring. They're just smart and wise.
So, I think I made this a bit long, so let me wrap up. Improvement in education? Needed! Revolution? Nuh-uh. It's impractical to get rid of standards, and it's also a very risky gamble. It's also a skill you have to learn in order to survive-to work and try hard to adjust yourself to the form what your goals want you to be-it's not uniformization, it's called putting-efforts-to-show-them-you-are-able-to-do-for-your-goals. Enduring boring lessons of Mr. Kim is just an easy case of the millions of hardships you will experience in life. If you want to give up, give a go at becoming a pro-gamer and try your best playing Starcraft, I won't stop you. I'll just sit back and watch if you're lucky enough to winthe lottery.
I mean, frankly, I'm tired of listening to all the idealistic, revolutionary speakers all around the world criticizing many of the problems, which is perfectly fine and desirable, but do not have their own resolutions! It's easy to say something sucks, something's bad and something's wrong-I mean, there are thousands and millions of people around the world who are more than capable of doing fantastic jobs at criticizing. However, it's really frustrating to see all of them-no offense-to talk about of the problems, but not present ANY ALTERNATIVES! Why? Because often, it's impossible, and likely, detrimental! The reason we cannot eradicate the status quo of human civilization and start everything from zero? Because this is the system that has been created, established, modified, innovated, and adjusted throughout the thousands of years of antropological history by numerous thinkers, many of them passionate and brilliant, with all their effort! You can't deny that the current system, which has been formed by the historical geniuses of the past eras, have clear benefits and objectives, many of them essential for the welfare of our societies. The system of education-I'm sorry Sir Ken Robinson-is certainly one of them.
I'm extremely sorry that if I look like as if I'm lingering in the gray area on the debates or controversies presented every week:), but I would rather be a prudent thinker than a rash revolutionist. As I emphasize in every writing I post these days, when we want to talk about change we have to be extra-careful. Sure, I recognize the uncountable flaws and defects that exist in the education system that prevails nowadays, and I agree to some modifications that need to be made-such as in the meaninglessness of standardized tests or the prioritization of mathematics and languages over other subjects as Sir Robinson had pointed out-, but I also understand why the system has to be that way-the inevitability, the certain benefits and the neccesity of it, and the opposite view against many of the producers of extreme skepticism and prejudiced anger. (Which includes Sir Robinson, by the way, not as much as Moore, but still.) I believe there are essentially two things that just has to be pointed out for the sake of fair presentation of the controversy and a healthy debate.
So what's the biggie? I see clearly two big, fat, and significant problems that this thougtless criticism contains. The first one is impracticality. The most critical flaw of Sir Robinson's proposal, or at least some kind of vague agenda for improvement, was "an education system that promotes diversity, creativity, and individuality" And he went on with all the classical criticisms that are usually raised against education, such as how we "manufacture" and "junction" them to be uniform and "drug" them to be academic. I do understand the point he's trying to make here-the academic education got overheated, it went too far-we all admit. However, does he really think, from the heart of his mind, that truly, "individual, creativity-based education is possible"? The beauty of creativity is that it is diverse and it is based on the unique individuality of everyone. And also the most critical problem is also its diversity. We cannot systematically educate "creativity" to children, our beloved pupils, because we simply do not know how, and it is impossible to respect every single one's "diversity". It's a great thing if a kid has a unique idea or thought, and has a special way of thinking, such as if why can't we turn the school into a swimming pool or let everybody take turns becoming the president, sure, it's good and they would all have their reasons for it, but it is simply impossible to respect each and every one of them and let it be that way. That would be an attitude of an irresponsible educator, letting the kids flow away without common sense. We know that we can't turn schools into swimming pools. We understand we can't all be presidents. Why? Because we were taught reality and rationality. It's great that children can think of such interesting ideas, and it would be great if we had all the time, money, and resources to special-treat each and one of the children, to hire and train all the educators, to let one child who likes to play the piano play it all day long without basic education, to allow the other who's interested in video games be addicted to it without boundaries, but that is impossible and undesirable. In the video, Sir Robinson introduced the natural-born dancer who couldn't pay attention to class lectures, and used this case to support his argument on how standardized education destroys creativity. Do you know why we can't teach dancing in the ordinary curriculum? Do you know why we can't teach specialized internet programming to children? I bet some would definitely be interested, some might excel in such classes like Gillian did in dance school? Why not special squadron-agent-training? Don't you think some children are meant to be police officers or agents in the FBI? Curious, why not hand-drumming, ball juggling, or ways to have sex? Certainly you're not disregarding the hand drummers who perform in various stages, or clowns who take the main role in the circus, or-possibly, all the people who have sex? Somebody might even grow up to be an AV star, a sex theraphist, or action-artists, who knows? Well, I think we obviously know the answer-hello! We can't teach EVERY SINGLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT that might be suitable for EVERY SINGLE STUDENTS- that's why we sort out the most fundamental, basic, and necessary subjects that are often required in many aspects of life, such as math, literature, social studies, and so on- because that is the most common knowledge! There needs to be general standards, common curriculums, and evaluations for the betterment of the people-the greater good of the greater people. BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO COMMONLY, THE MOST PEOPLE! People say "Do you think you are going to use algebra much in your life?"; huh, do you think you'll utilize the information you learned from the "Tap Dance Manual-How to be a Brilliant Dancer" will help you any better? And even if it were to, just how are you going to teach it? Are there enough dancers, especially who can teach and are willing to sacrifice their careers to enroll in an occupation that has to deal with a bunch of kids? Where is the enough money to compensate the reluctant employees? Dream-talks are easy, give me an actual plan, and a specific one, on how we can make it happen.
However, the even more dire problem is this: the HARMS. Remember me mentioning "children flow with their thoughts without common sense"? That's another serious problem we'll have to consider-the benefits of the standardized education system and the detrimental harms that will be inflicted on students when we exterminate it. The reason we have rules and regulations in school is because we have them everywhere- in every parts of our society. There are certain manners and courtesies that people need to acquire if they are to function as a social being in their lives. That's why we apply the same system in school-to teach the students how to comply and respect the legislations of the society. What happens if the teenagers-if we don't adapt them? We get disciplined and punished just like we do in the real society. If we don't obey the rules in the workplace, you get fired. If you commit blasphemy in a sacred temple in Palestein, you're likely to get shot. Same thing-you can't simply disregard the laws of the society and say F--- rules like many rebellious lyrics of popular songs do. That's a common value we learn as a member of this society called "endurance" and "temperance". I know I sound all grumpy, conservative, and lame, but it's the truth. Without rules, the civilization will turn into chaos and there would be no room for an intelligent, civil human being anymore. WORLD=CHAOS. That's why we teach certain rules in school: because the objective of an educational institution is not only to fuel in all the academic stuff but also the social requirements. Similarly, in Gillian's case, if a student doesn't pay attention in class, the teacher is obligated to assist and guide them to do so. As I said, the important, valuable quality that we MUST LEARN is "endurance"-that means enduring and withstanding the difficulties, the dislikes, and the boring, to earn and achieve something you desire. Even if you want to drop out of school, even if you have the bloodlust to slaugther your cursed, loathsome enemy, you shouldn't and you can't-because you know the consequences are severe. It's not because your parents tell you so, it's because you can't earn anything without bearing the hardships. Sadly and unfortunately, that's the way the world works. Do you think the "Dancing schools", which was brought up on the video clip, are any different! Blah! They're just the same competetive, difficult, and "boring" steps you'll experience- often much more severe in degrees-compared to ordinary schools. Little sleep, unimaginable amount of practice, lots of physical pain, whole lots of depression and frustration, and tiny success-that's the realistic conditions that dancers have to face- a lot different from the rosy, delicate images of successful dancers you knew, huh? I say, the students who can't even bear the hardships of school can never withstand the realistic difficulties of life, and such people can never achieve anything. BE ASHAMED! Moreover,-the last thing-practical situations are also things you have to consider. I once did a debate on the motion "THW not teach professional sports to young children" And the one of the argument I brought up is that the future opportunities for them are so narrow and limited. Dozens and packages of children are fascinated by the unbelievable success of the "Figure Skate Queen" 김연아 and "The Swimming Prince" 박태환 and urge their parents to let them be allowed the chance. But there is a reason why the parents don't let you jump in. Because what a lot of the people don't realize, is that, the tens of thousands of skaters and swimmers who worked as just as hard, who were just as talented like the two national stars, but were just a little out of luck. Despite their huge amount of practice and devotion, nobody recognizes their effort which is hidden behind the shadows of 김연아 and 박태환. What do they do then? They barely make any money if they aren't successful in competitions, their athletic life ends in the 30s, and they hadn't received basic education in school due to the early enrollment in professional sports, and therefore, are hopeless. I won't say that their life is a failure, but it'll sure be tough, without proper recognition and a guaranteed quality of life including food, water, clothing, and housing, life's going to be pretty hard; dramatic. And many of the children who make the same decision have a much more high chance of following the path than following 연아's or 태환's. Same goes for Gillian's case. I understand that she is a successful case, but I don't understand why Sir Robinson forgot to mention that she was an especially exceptional, rare and unlikely case for most of the dancers. There must have been thousands of cases just like Gillian, who couldn't pay attention in class, were brought to dance school, discovered their talent in talking in their body language, blady blady blah. I'm sure, I can say with confidence, that there were all the "friends" at the dance school who could have worked harder or had greater potentials compared to Gillian-what happened to them, Sir Robinson? Why, would you out of the thousands of cases of these magnificent dancers, most of them who would have a story, some of them much more impressive and extraordinary then Gillian, just handpick one of them? I think I do no the answer-Sir doesn't know what happened to them too. He knows Gillian because she was SUCCESSFUL. He interviewed her for his book because...? SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL. What about the others? HE DOESN'T KNOW. WE DON"T KNOW. What would have happened if they have received the basic, required amount of education in schools and have performed sufficiently that normally, jobs in the society favor and use it as standards to evaluate capabilities? We don't know for sure, but at least the chances of living a life with a better quality might have been much higher. There's an another reason why you can't afford to get kicked out of school-I know it's not like the idealistic stories and heart-moving lines that might appear in teenage comics-because it's much more safe and stable. Our parents aren't actually that boring. They're just smart and wise.
So, I think I made this a bit long, so let me wrap up. Improvement in education? Needed! Revolution? Nuh-uh. It's impractical to get rid of standards, and it's also a very risky gamble. It's also a skill you have to learn in order to survive-to work and try hard to adjust yourself to the form what your goals want you to be-it's not uniformization, it's called putting-efforts-to-show-them-you-are-able-to-do-for-your-goals. Enduring boring lessons of Mr. Kim is just an easy case of the millions of hardships you will experience in life. If you want to give up, give a go at becoming a pro-gamer and try your best playing Starcraft, I won't stop you. I'll just sit back and watch if you're lucky enough to winthe lottery.
2011년 3월 7일 월요일
Why are teenagers "teen-agers"?
Have you ever thought why there are age limits on voting, acquiring a driver's license, drinking or smoking, marriage, and accessibility to pornography? Sure you have-it's a question that every person asks at least once in their lifetime when they are in their teenage-years. And you already must have figured out the answer. You, me, and everybody else-knows why. Because teenagers are "teen-agers"; they are comparively immature and inexperienced to adults, and sometimes there needs to be limitations set to make sure the teenage behaviors do not go out of boundaries.
Of course, I know many juveniles who are reading my post right now would be infuriated, offended by my criticisms and angrily refute that they have the rationale and reasoning to think better than many seemingly-stupid adults, and they're grown enough to opinionate on certain issues and make decisions for themselves. Sure, I understand; as a teenager myself, I often think too that I am eligible and independent enough to interfere in the "adult's business" and live the way I desire. To a certain degree, this point is valid; being a teenager doesn't mean being obedient, and it should be quite the opposite. As a proud youth of this country, you should always question, ponder, agonize, discuss, and debate about issues and events and wonders of the world-it's your duty as much as it is your right and opportunity to participate in life, expanding perspectives and improving wisdom and rationale.
However, that does not mean we can be the King of this World; not yet. We have to admit: no matter how smart or intelligent you consider yourself to be, no matter how logical and persuasive you evaluate yourself to be, we are, in a comparative sense, impressionable, easily influenced, susceptible, inexperienced, imprudent, emotional, at times radical, and ultimately, foolish to adults. We cannot talk or comment about how it is like to live as a company worker because we've never lived like one: we don't know what it's like to wake up every morning at 6, catch a cab or take the subway to arrive at your workplace, repeat the arduous work for 10 full hours without break and with the burden of survival, and continue this routine for several years. In the same sense, we don't know what exactly it is like to be a librarian, an assistant, a writer, a clerk, or a president-because we have never lived as one. Similarly, we cannot really accurately understand what really is the Egyptian turmoil is about, what impact does the Exon Mobile Oil Spill has on the society, how does sexual freshmen welcoming parties at universities actually occur, because we do not have the "EXPERIENCE" related to such issues! Does a person always need to be 100% aware of an issue or possess some kind of master-expertise on a subject to discuss it? Is anybody like that? No!-of course not.
However, when a certain group of people who are inadequate of making professional or exacting comments about the issue is stirred up by emotion and instigated with impetuous passion and hasty thoughts which would likely lead to a sensational, influenced, but irrational debates, then that becomes a problem. What Michael Moore is doing is neither innovation nor education; it's more close to a demagogury. I admire him as a person, I admire his intentions and ideals, but what he's doing right now on his blog is simply too-inflammatory. It's a great idea to awaken the youth and remind them of their capabilities and obligations to this world, and it's also a fabulous idea to point out some of the fallacies and defects the adults have left with their world as their legacy: criticism is healthy and helpful.
However, the way Moore is describing it is simply too unfair and inaccurate. He tries to portray the adults as some sort of group of grandiloquent hypocrats who tries to silence their children and intentionally ruin the world; he blames all the failures and problems of this society on the grown-ups (not to mention that Moore is over 40). His claims about the adults' mischiefs are not only prejudiced but also exaggerated and untrue. This sort of incendiary does not build up any constructive criticisms or healthy controversies; it only gives ways to meaningless temper and irrationality.
We are teen-agers, passionate but rash, intelligent but immature, active but inexperienced, and most of all, easily influenced. So if we really want them to develop their mentality or thinking skills, if we want their voice-the wise, rational voice-reflected in our livelihoods, we have to tell them the truth. There are many problems in the world. The adults have tried hard to fix it, but to be frank, they have sucked, badly, concerning some matters.
And now, what do you think about it?
Of course, I know many juveniles who are reading my post right now would be infuriated, offended by my criticisms and angrily refute that they have the rationale and reasoning to think better than many seemingly-stupid adults, and they're grown enough to opinionate on certain issues and make decisions for themselves. Sure, I understand; as a teenager myself, I often think too that I am eligible and independent enough to interfere in the "adult's business" and live the way I desire. To a certain degree, this point is valid; being a teenager doesn't mean being obedient, and it should be quite the opposite. As a proud youth of this country, you should always question, ponder, agonize, discuss, and debate about issues and events and wonders of the world-it's your duty as much as it is your right and opportunity to participate in life, expanding perspectives and improving wisdom and rationale.
However, that does not mean we can be the King of this World; not yet. We have to admit: no matter how smart or intelligent you consider yourself to be, no matter how logical and persuasive you evaluate yourself to be, we are, in a comparative sense, impressionable, easily influenced, susceptible, inexperienced, imprudent, emotional, at times radical, and ultimately, foolish to adults. We cannot talk or comment about how it is like to live as a company worker because we've never lived like one: we don't know what it's like to wake up every morning at 6, catch a cab or take the subway to arrive at your workplace, repeat the arduous work for 10 full hours without break and with the burden of survival, and continue this routine for several years. In the same sense, we don't know what exactly it is like to be a librarian, an assistant, a writer, a clerk, or a president-because we have never lived as one. Similarly, we cannot really accurately understand what really is the Egyptian turmoil is about, what impact does the Exon Mobile Oil Spill has on the society, how does sexual freshmen welcoming parties at universities actually occur, because we do not have the "EXPERIENCE" related to such issues! Does a person always need to be 100% aware of an issue or possess some kind of master-expertise on a subject to discuss it? Is anybody like that? No!-of course not.
However, when a certain group of people who are inadequate of making professional or exacting comments about the issue is stirred up by emotion and instigated with impetuous passion and hasty thoughts which would likely lead to a sensational, influenced, but irrational debates, then that becomes a problem. What Michael Moore is doing is neither innovation nor education; it's more close to a demagogury. I admire him as a person, I admire his intentions and ideals, but what he's doing right now on his blog is simply too-inflammatory. It's a great idea to awaken the youth and remind them of their capabilities and obligations to this world, and it's also a fabulous idea to point out some of the fallacies and defects the adults have left with their world as their legacy: criticism is healthy and helpful.
However, the way Moore is describing it is simply too unfair and inaccurate. He tries to portray the adults as some sort of group of grandiloquent hypocrats who tries to silence their children and intentionally ruin the world; he blames all the failures and problems of this society on the grown-ups (not to mention that Moore is over 40). His claims about the adults' mischiefs are not only prejudiced but also exaggerated and untrue. This sort of incendiary does not build up any constructive criticisms or healthy controversies; it only gives ways to meaningless temper and irrationality.
We are teen-agers, passionate but rash, intelligent but immature, active but inexperienced, and most of all, easily influenced. So if we really want them to develop their mentality or thinking skills, if we want their voice-the wise, rational voice-reflected in our livelihoods, we have to tell them the truth. There are many problems in the world. The adults have tried hard to fix it, but to be frank, they have sucked, badly, concerning some matters.
And now, what do you think about it?
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)