Recently in Global Awareness Category
I'm cleaning my desk and ran into an alumni magazine with the provocative headline Did the Samurai Have a Sense of Humor? Gee - I wonder if the answer is "Yes!". Oh look the subtitle is The Phenomenon of 18th-Century Japanese Comic Books - and we all know how silly they are. Hey if you don't believe me, ask Harvard 18th century Japanese expert Adam Kern
The article goes on at great length to explain that not only was there 18th century satirical manga in Japan, but that it was a criticism of modern political and social events. But let's just cut to some compelling dialogue from 1785's Playboy, Roasted à la Edo
Plot: The semi-attractive mercantile son Enjiro asks friends and geisha for advice on obtaining the love of many women proclaiming: "For a lifetime of memories, I'd kill myself."
Best Advice: When placing tattoos representing fake women on your arm, don't forget to remove some later to show that you have "discarded" them.
Kinosuke: (experienced playboy) It'll look suspicious if some tattoos aren't erased, so we'll burn them off later with moxa
Enjiro: (aspiring playboy) Who'd've thought becoming a playboy would hurt so much?
Now that you're done giggling, I do have a point which is that it's still a shock when we discover that an ancient/foreign culture is capable of "sophisticated" humor or irony. Somehow we expect people far outside our culture to either be so serious or so "different" that they could not really understand Western humor or "abstract" concepts like social satire.
For instance, Vikings, Celts and Saxons are portrayed as fierce warriors whose idea of a good idea was binge drinking in the mead hall and that their comedic range was restricted to maybe bad Three Stooges pratfalls with helmets. Yet one of the best "parodies" of the fantasy quest is from the Middle Welsh Mabinogi. When the hero Pwyll, who spends a year chasing the beautiful Rhiannon on horseback, finally catches up with her, she asks him why he didn't just yell out to her to stop in the first place. And you thought Princess Leia's spunk was a modern invention.
So watch the Discovery Channel carefully the next time a Caucasian adventurer wants to experience a more primitive life and see if you don't spot an "indigenous" citizen barely containing snickers at the complete idiocy that only a city slicker can display.
One question that comes up a lot is why is it important for all students to learn algebra or trigonometry if only a small minority will ever use these tools in daily life. The standard answer is that algebra teaches you "mathematical thinking," but I'm pretty sure most students (especially those who hate math) miss the point. Actually, I would say that if you want to learn "deductive" skills, you're better off taking formal logic or rhetoric.
However, there is one aspect of algebra that is important in real, but rarely pointed out and that's its ability to provide multiple respresentations for "the same thing". For instance the concept of "1" can be represented as "1", 4/4 (four-fourths), x0, |i2| and my personal favorite - .999999... And believe me I haven't even touched the tip of the iceburg. Although these formulations all represent the same quantity, they do not quite the same meaning.
You normally use "1" in real life, but if you're working on a weird property issue where an piece of lanf is divided into quarters maybe the formulation "4/4" would have meaning. Or maybe you have a formula which you raise x to a certain power - whatever it is. It's just that when it's zero, the result is 1.
My point isn't just that the "same" item can have multiple representations but that the different representations can be selected to help you focus in a different aspect. To borrow a concept from Semantics class, the meaning of something is partly fixed by your context - but you have to know EXACTLY what your context is.
The use of multiple representations does extend beyond algebra (and I don't just mean linguistics either). For instance, there are lots of places around the world which have multiple place names, and sometimes you select one based on what era you are studying.
For instance modern historians may study be studying "Turkey", but historians from the 14th-early 20th century may be studying the heartland of the "Ottoman Empire" while those who specialize in the Bronze Age probably study "Anatolia" and Roman historians are probably studying "Asia Minor." It's roughly the same place, but the different names not only establish the time context, but can be used fudge minor details like changing political borders.
You don't want to start calling modern Turkey "Anatolia", but the use of the term "Anatolia" is useful for referencing the set of Bronze Age cultures in the region (none of which are now related to the modern Turkish culture in terms of language or religion)...so you don't usually call ancient Anatolia "Ancient Turkey" either (unless you're writing a tourist brochure). And no matter what - you never want to confuse Turkey with Turkestan (not cool).
This kind of mathematical thinking isn't about accepting one "right answer," but systematically determining what the possible answers are and when to deploy them while understanding that some answers are just plain wrong!
I've participated in and/or observed a lot of hot academic debates such as "language rules or language constraints?", "qualitative or quantitative research?", "English or Spanish?" "Mac or PC" and a new addition "Is history about trends or dates?" The premise behind many of these discussions is that you must choose between or option OR another. Rarely is it the case that a discussion centers around the idea that maybe BOTH categories could be appropriate.
As a linguist, I believe in categories, but have you noticed that items often fall into more than one category? Or that depending on what "filter" you have on at the time - items may appear different?
Take the social science debate of "quantitative" (data primarily from statistical analysis) "qualitative" (data from interviews). Quantitative specialists prefer this method because results are more precisely quantified and easier to generalize (assuming your survey pool is long enough). On the other hand qualitative specialists feel that interviews allow to learn unexpected details that a survey might miss and will allow you to follow an productive inquiry path with a subject as needed.
But guess what - I think both perspectives are both right...in their own way. I do like that qualitative studies can give you more details and unexpected twists, but it usually is hard to generalized (unless you bring in some statistical analysis). On the other hand, quantitative statistics is great for highlighting oddball trends a casual user might miss in an interview. The only problem is that if you don't ask for the right input, you might miss a discovery. Using both strategies might give you a fuller picture of a social trend.
Yet from what I have seen students in the social science pursuing a degree are typically forced to choose EITHER quantitative or qualitative. Only rarely are you allowed to combine BOTH quantitative and qualitative together. The idea that you might want to combine two techniques seems almost heretical.
FYI - Linguistics has the same "either/or" issues to suffer through. For instance it's rare to find a linguist comfortable with both formal grammatical theory and sociocultural issues.
And it's not just academia. I often hear discussions of whether immigrant children in the US should learn English or their parents' language. Why not both? Their little brains are set up for multiple languages.
Or maybe you wonder if a university should be all PC or all Mac. Maybe the answer depends on whether you are working on supply chain managment (PC probably) or video editing (Mac probably). This is one reason why a major university usually has to support both platforms...even if to adds to overhead.
I know there are sometimes we have to choose (left turn or right turn to the grocery store) but there are many times I wish society was more willing to explore some "both/and" options.
For instance, maybe it really is OK for people to say both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" - I never understood why either side asked us to choose just one holiday salutation.
I'm not sure of the particulars, but it looks like the Bowdoin Student Government passed two resolutions asking the administration to begin Arabic language instructions. Part of one bill says, "it is the opinion of BSG that the Academic Affairs division of the College should address these requests for the teaching of Arabic."
Obviously I'm impressed that the student body is pushing their administration in their desire to expand the range of languages taught. And no matter what your political views are, I would hope most people realize that knowledge of Arabic today is as important to U.S. policy as Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, French and other world languages.
And while we're at it, we shouldn't forget Persian (Iran), Kurdish (Northern Iraq) and Urdu (Pakistan) either - I think we really do want to try to understand what's going on in these regions as well.
You might think that the pan-global economy and culture would be dangerous for minority languages, but here's an interesting article that claims that some speakers are looking back to their roots as a way to resist globalization.
That is, the more the culture becomes "Standardized", the more people are looking for ways to create regional quirks, including resurrecting of regional languages like Welsh, Catalan and even Occitan, Walloon and Breton.
Even in the U.S. we see the development of new regional varieties such as a more pronounced versions of Great Lakes English, Canadian English, Hispanicized English and Californian/West Coast English. Given that the U.S. has been watching the same TV networks for 50 years now, this is unexpected.
I think there's something to this theory, because we are also seeing trends like regional foods cuisines (e.g. using regional ingredients) and an interest in indigenous crafts like knitting, woodworking and quilting.
I guess there are many ways to defy Gapification with both food and grammar.
Persian vs. Arabic
Since the helpful Ingolo.com incorrectly labeled the language for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "Arabic" instead of "Persian" (or Farsi), I thought I would point out a few resources on Persian.Persian Profile Pages
Compare this to Arabic
UCLA Arabic ProfileAlthough I think most of us in the U.S. tend to muddle the two, it actually is an important distinction. Not only are the two languages NOT related, but the cultural traditions are different yet intermingled.
You may be familiar with "Persian" culture from the Greek era when they and the Greeks were at each others throats. At that time, Persia was a major cultural and technology center who gave us several nice innovations including paradise, divans, jasmine and other important necessities of life. One important facet is that the Persians of this era were not Islamic (Mohamed would not be born for about another 1,000 years). Many Persians at this time were Zoroastrians, and this belief system has persisted into the modern era (it's one reason some Iranians left).
Although Persian civilization later embraced Islam for the most part, there is an awareness of a longer pre-Islamic history. Some Iranians view this pre-Islamic past positively, but others are either ambivalent or negative towards it because it is "pagan." It's always interesting to see how different groups of Iranians react to pre-Islamic Persian archaeology and history.
Arabic civilization is its own unique entity, but it did borrow from the Persian civilization, which is why the two are often blended together in Western minds.
"Persian" vs. "Farsi"
Another interesting aspect of the language of Iran is it's English name. When I was college (before this decade), I heard speakers from Iran call their language "Farsi" (although the culture was "Persian." Now there has been a shift to calling it "Persian" again (but not everywhere)
Here's some information on the debate with different perspectives
If you're getting confused, don't worry - even I got thrown by the Farsi/Persian debate.
For now, I am sticking with Persian, but am prepared switch on a dime. One benefit of the term "Persian" is that people do have a better concept of "Persian culture" than of "Farsi culture" - now you have to make sure we can distinguish "Persian culture" from "Arabic culture".
My previous post mentioned Mr Thingamajig, the animated American idiom generator who can really talk your ear off. The funniest thing is that he does mimic a stereotype of the endlessly talking American.
Is it a true stereotype? Well, we don't ALL talk as frequently as Mr. Thingamajig, but in comparison to some cultures...we sure do gab a lot.
An American at Breakfast
In fact, since you're here....let me tell you a story.
At one point, I was lucky enough to live in a dorm in Wales with students from Europe and America. I don't actually consider myself a great talker (e.g. I don't do airplane conversations and will use headphones when necessary).
On the other hand, I was trained that if you are eating at the same table with someone you are morally obligated to attempt small talk (it's rude to eat in silence). This applies even at breakfast, especially at a conference.
But when I performed my small talk duties at breaksfast, I noticed my European colleagues would answer, but then get the most delicate of frowns (more like a slight squint). The more questions I asked, the deeper the furrow in the brow. What to do? Apparently the answer was to SHUT UP ALREADY.
I discovered the great truth that many Europeans do not require small talk at breakfast (it is rather early after all). I was off the hook! I could just munch my cereal quietly and absorb the morning vibe. What a treat, but still a little strange. Who knew I could chatter so much in the first place?
A few days later at dinner, I noticed that the conversation lapsed and there was complete silence. Sure enough after about 30 seconds, a fellow U.S. citizen asked another question and conversation began again. I guess you can't keep a good small-talker down.
It’s a common complaint that Americans are a little clueless on the nuances of external geographic realities. Actually the truth is that Americans are often clueless about what happens in the next state as well as outside the US. On the other hand, the international community doesn’t always fare so well either.
Witness this article on European Views of Wales in which neighboring countries typically consider Wales a slightly exotic region of England and ask if Wales has bagpipes (not really) or if Sean Connery is Welsh (no, he’s Scottish). Some people realize that there is a separate Welsh language, but one person said she only knew that it was “hard.”
Ironically, most of these comments are pretty much what I would in the USA, but at least we have an ocean-wide gap we can use as an excuse!
Actually, this shouldn’t be about playing a blame game about who knows the least geography, but a recognition that we ALL need a little help.
After all it’s just as dangerous for a European to assume that Walmart defines America as it is for an American to assume that the Eiffel Tower defines France.
It's nice that we have a de facto Mexican heritage day (May 5 or Cinco de Mayo) to go along with the Irish heritage day of St Patrick's day, but if I'm to have any pretensions to lecture on global awareness, I thought I had better look up the background at some point.
To my surprise Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of a victory over an occupying French army who had come in when Mexico defaulted on their loans. Specifically el Cinco de Mayo remembers the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862.
Who's to blame? Now that's the interesting part. Everyone agrees that the French did the invasion, but different articles identify different co-conspirators. We have
- Spain and Britain who sent in forces along with the France.
- Conservative Mexicans who didn't like the current administration (President Benito Juárez may have been too indigenous) and invited the French government to intervene.
- The United States because Mexico went into debt after the Mexican-American war two decades earlier. It should be noted that the Union government and later US government SUPPORTED the native Mexican government - partly so that the Confederates wouldn't have French support and probably also because of the Monroe Doctrine.
It reminds me of the classic adage that "all politics are local."
Whoever gets the blame for this episode, I'm glad Cinco de Mayo is one of the times the U.S. and Mexico DID work together.
The stories are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_mayo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/10.html
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=747
Every now an again it's nice to check to see how non-US cultures handled education. A great example is the Chinese Civil Service or Keju exam. Lasting from the 7th century AD to the last dynasty in the early 20th century, this was an exam which determined if a person was academically qualified enough to become a well-paid government administrator/bureaucrat. Today we have counterparts like the SAT (how good a college you can go to), MCAT (how good a medical school) and the LSAT (law school).
On the positive side, exams like these theoretically allow anyone with the resources and ability to learn enough material to pass to become credentialed. But Dr. Hoi Suen from Penn State feels that this kinds of high stakes exam will inevitably lead to problems.
"With approximately 1,300 years of history and extensive official and unofficial records that were kept throughout this period, China’s is the only examination system that can provide us with a glimpse of what might be some long-lasting chronic problems of high-stakes, large-scale testing programs as well as of the efficacy of attempts to remove unintended negative consequences" — Suen (2006)
The Problems
So what were they? Pretty much what you get with the SAT/MCAT:
- Keju test handbooks similar to the Kaplan handbooks
- Violent or suicidal behavior from students who either failed the exam or were studying for the exam
- Massive cheating in the form of
- students memorizing entire essays and poems to copy down later
- bribing test proctors and graders - sometimes they looked for "key phrases" in essays so graders would know who to score highly
- hiring fake test takers
- bringing in crib notes
- Security implementations such as body searches, isolated exam rooms, anonymous forms and physical punishment for convicted cheaters.
Baton Effect
In addition to these issues, Suen also found something called the baton effect - which basically says that Chinese society focused only on learning material on the test, which in this case meant literature and poetry at the expense of medicine or technology. The baton effect shows that high-stakes testing actually can influence what people learn.Think of how many people today who complain that we don't study literature and poetry enough because the US students are too concerned with studying "for-profit" fields like accounting, medicine or the law.
So the problem may not be that testing will inhibit education, but that it can be TOO influential. You ideally want a test that matches what your society really needs, and yes there are plenty of diverging views out there.
Any Solutions?
Of course, China and the U.S. are not the only high-stakes testers out there. Most countries today have some sort of high-stakes test for university admissions and some used to have them for high school. And I think it's safe to say that once a test becomes high stakes enough to count, you will get the cheating and the destructive psychological behaviors described. I've heard great academic dishonesty stories from some of my non-US colleagues.
But what are the alternatives? Traditionally the alternative has been "the old boy's network" or whatever variant you have in mind. I need to hire someone for a task and I check in with my social network to see what "qualified" applicants are out there. Actually, when the population is small scale, this might actually be the best solution.
But once your population gets too large, caste think tends to set in. Anyone not born in the right circles would somehow have to find a patron (possible, but not easy).
Is there a third way that's more equitable? Maybe the ultimate solution is just to open more pathways to success. We're not all meant to be doctors or lawyers or government workers, so why should we all be trying? Wouldn't a system that rewarded something other than academic performance be interesting?
For instance, a highly-skilled welder may actually be well-paid and know quite a bit about metallurgy, gas chemistry and structural engineering. Welders may even need to receive continuous training to keep up with the latest techniques...Some welders even wield their torches to become metal craftsmen (and their art may command high prices).
But how many professors or lawyers want their children to grow up to become welders? (Actually see P.S. 2 for my reasons why not).
Class and High Stakes Exams
All of this speculation leads me to think that the biggest reasons for the problems encountered by the Keju and the SAT/LSAT/MCAT is that they are entries for people to gain or maintain a relatively higher social status. Hence there is much more competition in them (as well as a very strong desire to circumvent the system).
There are actually lots of other high stakes certification exams like the CPP (Certified Payroll Professional) and ones for welding, yet I don't think the issues of academic dishonesty are quite as prevalent. They're challenging, but not as many people take them.
Postscripts
P.S. 1 - An interesting development recently is that "chef" has become a much more glamorous profession thanks to the rise of cooking channels. One person admitted that he was glad to have found cooking...because he really hated school.
P.S. 2 - Another annoying quasi universal is that societies often set the highest social class to those who do the least work. Cognitive labor is always above manual labor, and no labor at all can be the best. I think that part of it is that manual labor can be a bit dangerous (welding accidents are more likely than attorney accidents). And it is cleaner, which counts for a lot in our subconscious mammal brains....still many societies have missed out on key technical innovations because the philosophers "didn't want to get their hands dirty" doing actual experiments.
