I'd like you to take a moment and contemplate a question. "Is this a world I'd want to grow up in?" - for some of you who are parents, or who are expecting children you have probably already thought about this question at length, but for the moment try looking at it from another angle. I'd like everyone to think about what they went through growing up, what it was like, and think about how the world has changed in your lifetime and how different you think your childhood would be if you were going through it all again.
Discarding beliefs for a moment, the concept of reincarnation is something that has existed for quite a while. The idea that when you die, you begin a new life, some beliefs put this as a new human life, others put it as the possibility of coming back as any living thing. I was asked how I would feel about growing up in this world, if reincarnation was real and I was to be reborn as a child, with no recollection of this life. The question made me think about how attached I am to the life I live now, and how the definition of who I am has been shaped. It made me realise that if I was reborn today as a child, most of what I went through would not happen again. I say that as I was born in 1988, and while I am a Millennial, I was born in that odd interim period, where growing up I witnessed the transition from old tech to new, from a world without the internet to a world with it, from a world without the ubiquity of smart phones, to a world where they have essentially become an extra limb.
The people I have grown closest to, beyond my family, are people I met online. People who I met in other countries, and people who for the most part had nothing to do with my childhood. I grew up in a small town, I knew a few people yet knew a lot about many more because that's how small towns work, everyone knows everything about everybody. Nevertheless, the fact the number of people I knew was so limited put me in a position where I felt lonely. I felt that way because I didn't connect with the people around me. I had interests they did not. I loved video games when it was still considered a geeky thing to be interested in. I loved computers when they were not as widely available as they are now - our first was second-hand from a relative so we didn't pay that much for it so I had a head start on that front. Even the TV shows and things that I watched, other kids my age didn't seem interested in. I loved Pokémon and later Yu-Gi-Oh when both were considered geeky things to like. In short I was the odd kid.
I think if I was growing up today, with the internet available to me, I would find people I shared common interests with. It wasn't until I was about 19, a year after I had left that small town to study at University, that I started using the internet to join forums, and sign up to websites dedicated to things I was interested in and formed connections for the first time with complete strangers who liked the same things I did, and was able to have conversations without feeling judged. I was able to indulge in my interests. I feel today the dominance of social networks have led many to feel isolated and alone online because they are in essence digital equivalents of small towns. Your facebook, twitter, instagram, and tumblr accounts etc all inevitably become filled with people you follow who have crossovers with others you follow up until the point where you realise you are living in a bubble online. I feel forums are something which particularly younger people don't tend to venture into as much, but those forums are communities, and when you want to feel less isolated and less alone online the way to remedy that is through an online community that you can engage in, and become a part of in order to express yourself more openly and connect with people who share your interests.
In many ways I feel the fact I grew up experiencing the transition from old world to new, I got to explore the different ways people used the technology. With the internet being so ubiquitous I think there is a complacency that can develop when you grow up never having lived without it. I think your view of what it can actually be used for can be rather limited. It's like growing up with certain foods in your life constantly, at some point you experience another culture or simply another way of living where you see the same foods but cooked in completely different ways and have that moment of epiphany when you finally say "Wait, you can do that?" and your horizons expand. There is an oft quoted fact, that we only use a small fraction of the web, and that there are two levels, a surface web and a deep web, the former is small and the latter is gargantuan in comparison. The former is reached through search engines, and the latter is not searchable. Even at that we only use a small fraction of the surface web. I like to think of this in terms of the planet. We live in a country, which is in essence the surface. The rest of the world is the depth we never explore, and of the surface country we live in, even at that we only explore a tiny fraction of it.
I don't know how different my life would be if I grew up in the world as it is today, but in my lifetime the size of this planet has felt like it has shrunk. I am aware today of people in countries around the world, no longer as abstract concepts but on a personal level, the people I have met online and engage with almost every day cover an area that spans the globe, from Sydney, to Tokyo, to Indonesia, to Germany, to the UK, to Canada, and the USA and beyond. I don't know how different my life would be but with my horizon expanded so much I'd like to think I'd have found my tribe at a much younger age and perhaps it wouldn't have taken me as long to find happiness.
Education: High School
I hated High School, but then again I think most people do. The reason I hated High School more than any other part of my education was because to me it was the time that felt like it had the least to do with educating students. Before High School I felt like school was about learning. We learned things we didn't know, which we would use throughout life. Basic Maths and English among others. When it came to High School however, it felt like most of what was taught - and I use that word loosely - was a collection of subjects that for the most part just felt like time consumption.
High School to me, felt like one big exercise in memory and recall. It felt like for 95% of the year you were fed information, then for 4.9% of the time you revised it, and the final 0.1% was the actual exam which was in essence a way to test your recall. The only subject I feel needed you to actually comprehend what you had to recall was Maths class, simply because the exam you would be given would contain questions that were unique and had not been seen before. In every other subject all it seemed you had to do in order to pass was recall everything you were told, it didn't matter at all if you actually understood any of it or not. However even with Maths class I will say much of what was taught were concepts that I have not used since I left school.
After those exams, fast forward a few years - or even just a few months - and if you asked me and everyone else to resit the exam with no preparation the majority including myself would fail. The reason being, we never comprehended what we were taught, to an extent where you would be able to do it over without having to go back and revise. This causes a lot of problems, more so with subjects you actually need when you leave school. As I said however, most of what we were taught I have never used. Taking Maths class as an example, I was once able, and fully comprehended how, to solve a quadratic equation, perform simultaneous equations, use vector Maths, use trigonometry to find unknown angles in triangles, among a whole host of other exercises. Right now, I can't do any of these, and in the 14 years that have passed since High School I have never needed any of it - except Vector Maths but even then I was able to use algorithms to handle it without having to understand it myself.
High School and Education as a whole I feel has been devalued. No longer is the goal to educate the student, but simply to provide daycare. That is, if education was ever about learning in the first place, I know my parents had similar experiences, once being able to do all that I noted above, but now incapable as that knowledge has long been lost as it was never used. The reason I believe Education has turned into daycare however is for the simple reason that it is not a choice. I never felt as free as the day I started college, when for the first time I was studying something I had a genuine interest in, and I was surrounded by people who were there not because they had to be, but because they chose to be. College by far was the time of my life when I learned the most through education that I actually went on to use after it. As for High School before it, and University which came after College, neither felt like anything but a waste of time. I have a lot to say on the latter but I'll devote a post to that in itself.
I think if you want a society to advance, you have to build on what came before, to iterate. There are times when it feels like society as a whole does not want people to progress beyond a given level of intelligence. A time when it feels like education is simply a holding pattern, intended to delay your entry into the next stages of life, not to prepare you for them. It feels incredulous to believe that the education system we use today has been largely unchanged in the last 50 to 100 years. Terminology has changed, names of qualifications have changed, subject names have changed, and the focus of some subjects have all changed but the methods, the structure, and what seems to be an ethos have all remained the same.
What's even harder to believe is the fact that the flaws in these systems have been known about for decades, highlighted repeatedly, by each successive generation, but nothing has changed. It seems the issue comes to a fore in each generation as they pass through the system and for a short period after, then it is forgotten about. The mentality that you will never have to go through it again takes hold and the issue is wrote off as something that will never change. That is of course until you have kids and you are forced to relive the experience vicariously. Though not all of us go through that; I myself don't have children but if I did then education would be something I would stress over, of that I can be certain. If not for the issues I have highlighted but for the Hell I endured beyond the syllabus, growing up as a closeted gay guy in an all-male school was not a pretty picture, mix in social awkwardness, glasses, and the fact I was basically a nerd and you can imagine why I hated it so much.
High School to me, felt like one big exercise in memory and recall. It felt like for 95% of the year you were fed information, then for 4.9% of the time you revised it, and the final 0.1% was the actual exam which was in essence a way to test your recall. The only subject I feel needed you to actually comprehend what you had to recall was Maths class, simply because the exam you would be given would contain questions that were unique and had not been seen before. In every other subject all it seemed you had to do in order to pass was recall everything you were told, it didn't matter at all if you actually understood any of it or not. However even with Maths class I will say much of what was taught were concepts that I have not used since I left school.
After those exams, fast forward a few years - or even just a few months - and if you asked me and everyone else to resit the exam with no preparation the majority including myself would fail. The reason being, we never comprehended what we were taught, to an extent where you would be able to do it over without having to go back and revise. This causes a lot of problems, more so with subjects you actually need when you leave school. As I said however, most of what we were taught I have never used. Taking Maths class as an example, I was once able, and fully comprehended how, to solve a quadratic equation, perform simultaneous equations, use vector Maths, use trigonometry to find unknown angles in triangles, among a whole host of other exercises. Right now, I can't do any of these, and in the 14 years that have passed since High School I have never needed any of it - except Vector Maths but even then I was able to use algorithms to handle it without having to understand it myself.
High School and Education as a whole I feel has been devalued. No longer is the goal to educate the student, but simply to provide daycare. That is, if education was ever about learning in the first place, I know my parents had similar experiences, once being able to do all that I noted above, but now incapable as that knowledge has long been lost as it was never used. The reason I believe Education has turned into daycare however is for the simple reason that it is not a choice. I never felt as free as the day I started college, when for the first time I was studying something I had a genuine interest in, and I was surrounded by people who were there not because they had to be, but because they chose to be. College by far was the time of my life when I learned the most through education that I actually went on to use after it. As for High School before it, and University which came after College, neither felt like anything but a waste of time. I have a lot to say on the latter but I'll devote a post to that in itself.
I think if you want a society to advance, you have to build on what came before, to iterate. There are times when it feels like society as a whole does not want people to progress beyond a given level of intelligence. A time when it feels like education is simply a holding pattern, intended to delay your entry into the next stages of life, not to prepare you for them. It feels incredulous to believe that the education system we use today has been largely unchanged in the last 50 to 100 years. Terminology has changed, names of qualifications have changed, subject names have changed, and the focus of some subjects have all changed but the methods, the structure, and what seems to be an ethos have all remained the same.
What's even harder to believe is the fact that the flaws in these systems have been known about for decades, highlighted repeatedly, by each successive generation, but nothing has changed. It seems the issue comes to a fore in each generation as they pass through the system and for a short period after, then it is forgotten about. The mentality that you will never have to go through it again takes hold and the issue is wrote off as something that will never change. That is of course until you have kids and you are forced to relive the experience vicariously. Though not all of us go through that; I myself don't have children but if I did then education would be something I would stress over, of that I can be certain. If not for the issues I have highlighted but for the Hell I endured beyond the syllabus, growing up as a closeted gay guy in an all-male school was not a pretty picture, mix in social awkwardness, glasses, and the fact I was basically a nerd and you can imagine why I hated it so much.
Criticism vs Critique
There is a fine line between Criticism and Critique, one which the internet has shown us most people are oblivious to, or of which people are wilfully ignorant. Criticism is a judgement of you or your work that can be either positive or negative. Critique on the other hand is an analysis of your work and serves as a commentary centred upon it. The easiest way to remember the distinction is to think of Criticism as a conclusion, whereas Critique is the thought process that leads to that conclusion.
We are living through a period where most people who give criticism, do so as an effort to make themselves appear as an authority on any given matter, without providing any critique. The reality is that if you were an authority on the matter you would be able to provide a well-reasoned argument or analysis to accompany the criticism, i.e. critique. However these people make statements with no explanation or justification, and expect the recipient to listen to them. When questioned or challenged, most simply reply that they have a right to make such assertions with no need to justify their comments - which belies the truth that they are not an authority on the matter, but simply someone who feels they are entitled to tell you what to do.
What all of this overlooks however is that although anyone is free to comment, no-one is under any obligation to listen to you, or to give your opinion any weight. Criticism without critique in my view should be taken as nothing more than an expression of an opinion, and as such it is inherently meaningless and weightless. The internet allows anyone to comment on anything, it is up to you to decide whether or not you listen to what those people say. Until meaning and weight is given to an argument, I take the view of treating it with little regard.
This is a blog. What is written here are opinions and represent expressions made by me. They are as such, inherently meaningless and weightless. In some cases, posts will be thought out, and presented with reasoning. Other posts will simply be thoughts that have been floating around inside my head which I felt the need to articulate. At no point do I ask you, or indeed expect anyone to follow verbatim any advice or commentary I give on this blog. What you believe and what you accept is up to you, and no-one else to decide. What is written here is intended to make you think, and question, nothing more.
If you disagree with me that's fine, I'm not here to try and change your mind, I'm only here to let you and everyone else see what's inside mine. I'm not here for you to try and change my mind either - although that may happen with well-reasoned arguments.
I made this post primarily because of an issue I have come across repeatedly online, and that is the idea that you must provide a solution if your criticism is to be considered valid. I reject this idea, as I said above criticism can be positive or negative and does not come with critique. Criticism is the expression of opinion, and represents a judgement, a conclusion that has been drawn. Opinions are not facts and do not need to be proven or justified in any way, I can hold the opinion that a given movie is the worst movie ever made, there is no quantifiable truth in that statement. That statement could be turned into a fact if a standardized means of grading movies could be agreed and a consensus reached that the movie I named was indeed graded as the worst using that means, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the statement I made was my opinion.
Critique is made by those who understand more about the topics they discuss. I will provide that when I speak about things on which I possess a deeper knowledge.
I reject the idea that a solution must be presented before criticism can be considered valid. I reject this idea because it puts you in a position where for example, someone with a brain tumour suggests decapitating themselves as a means of treatment, while a second person's advice not to do so, is completely ignored unless they can provide an alternative treatment. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand why the former is a bad idea and should not be pursued, even if they can't tell you how to actually treat the tumour. You do not need to have a solution to a problem to be able to point out the flaws in the potential solutions presented.
That last point is one that I feel we are struggling with as a society. As politics has become so polarizing, each side is reacting by directing criticism without critique at the other. No effort is made to understand the reasoning or motivation behind the opposing side, and there is an outright rejection of any criticism that does not provide an alternate solution, even when critique is given. Each side wants to think they have the solution and is incapable of contemplating a scenario where they don't have a solution, as that is perceived as weakness or incompetence. If we are to move forward we need to learn once again how to distinguish between criticism and critique and recognize the difference between criticism being provided in an attempt to make us consider a different point of view, and when it is being made in an attempt to simply make us see the flaws in our own point of view.
If you support the Banana party, and I point out a flaw in one of their policies, that doesn't mean I support the Coconut party, or the Apple party, it just means I see a flaw in the policy and want to know the reasoning behind it. This is something it seems people struggle with the most, jumping to the conclusion that opposition to their belief means that you support whoever their opposition is.
We are living through a period where most people who give criticism, do so as an effort to make themselves appear as an authority on any given matter, without providing any critique. The reality is that if you were an authority on the matter you would be able to provide a well-reasoned argument or analysis to accompany the criticism, i.e. critique. However these people make statements with no explanation or justification, and expect the recipient to listen to them. When questioned or challenged, most simply reply that they have a right to make such assertions with no need to justify their comments - which belies the truth that they are not an authority on the matter, but simply someone who feels they are entitled to tell you what to do.
What all of this overlooks however is that although anyone is free to comment, no-one is under any obligation to listen to you, or to give your opinion any weight. Criticism without critique in my view should be taken as nothing more than an expression of an opinion, and as such it is inherently meaningless and weightless. The internet allows anyone to comment on anything, it is up to you to decide whether or not you listen to what those people say. Until meaning and weight is given to an argument, I take the view of treating it with little regard.
This is a blog. What is written here are opinions and represent expressions made by me. They are as such, inherently meaningless and weightless. In some cases, posts will be thought out, and presented with reasoning. Other posts will simply be thoughts that have been floating around inside my head which I felt the need to articulate. At no point do I ask you, or indeed expect anyone to follow verbatim any advice or commentary I give on this blog. What you believe and what you accept is up to you, and no-one else to decide. What is written here is intended to make you think, and question, nothing more.
If you disagree with me that's fine, I'm not here to try and change your mind, I'm only here to let you and everyone else see what's inside mine. I'm not here for you to try and change my mind either - although that may happen with well-reasoned arguments.
I made this post primarily because of an issue I have come across repeatedly online, and that is the idea that you must provide a solution if your criticism is to be considered valid. I reject this idea, as I said above criticism can be positive or negative and does not come with critique. Criticism is the expression of opinion, and represents a judgement, a conclusion that has been drawn. Opinions are not facts and do not need to be proven or justified in any way, I can hold the opinion that a given movie is the worst movie ever made, there is no quantifiable truth in that statement. That statement could be turned into a fact if a standardized means of grading movies could be agreed and a consensus reached that the movie I named was indeed graded as the worst using that means, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the statement I made was my opinion.
Critique is made by those who understand more about the topics they discuss. I will provide that when I speak about things on which I possess a deeper knowledge.
I reject the idea that a solution must be presented before criticism can be considered valid. I reject this idea because it puts you in a position where for example, someone with a brain tumour suggests decapitating themselves as a means of treatment, while a second person's advice not to do so, is completely ignored unless they can provide an alternative treatment. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand why the former is a bad idea and should not be pursued, even if they can't tell you how to actually treat the tumour. You do not need to have a solution to a problem to be able to point out the flaws in the potential solutions presented.
That last point is one that I feel we are struggling with as a society. As politics has become so polarizing, each side is reacting by directing criticism without critique at the other. No effort is made to understand the reasoning or motivation behind the opposing side, and there is an outright rejection of any criticism that does not provide an alternate solution, even when critique is given. Each side wants to think they have the solution and is incapable of contemplating a scenario where they don't have a solution, as that is perceived as weakness or incompetence. If we are to move forward we need to learn once again how to distinguish between criticism and critique and recognize the difference between criticism being provided in an attempt to make us consider a different point of view, and when it is being made in an attempt to simply make us see the flaws in our own point of view.
If you support the Banana party, and I point out a flaw in one of their policies, that doesn't mean I support the Coconut party, or the Apple party, it just means I see a flaw in the policy and want to know the reasoning behind it. This is something it seems people struggle with the most, jumping to the conclusion that opposition to their belief means that you support whoever their opposition is.
RIP Isao Takahata
Today at the age of 82, Isao Takahata has died. He was a Japanese animator and director and was most known for a movie called Grave of the Fireflies, but to me his life had greater significance as one of the co-founders of Studio Ghibli alongside Hayao Miyazaki, Toshio Suzuki, and Yasuyoshi Tokuma.
It wasn't until 2007 that I first became aware of Studio Ghibli, with the first title that I saw being Spirited Away. I was rather late to the party at the time, it was a close friend that first introduced me to these movies. What appealed to me most was the distinctive art style, and the greater focus on story telling and the empathic connection between the viewer and the characters on screen. To me animation had always been something to observe, with a few exceptions I never got too invested in the emotion and the depth of the story being told, mostly because it failed to capture my imagination. Studio Ghibli was the first time in my life that animation became an art form, up until that point it had always been entertainment to me, nothing more. Studio Ghibli changed that however, the composition, the craft, the beauty that was embodied within the work was such that it felt at any moment you could pause the movie and that scene alone would stand as a work of art. There are many cinematic works that can claim such brilliance.
I feel saddened by Isao Takahata's passing, and I am in no doubt he will be missed by many. Studio Ghibli will not be the same without him. May he Rest In Peace and may his legacy live on. If you have not experienced Studio Ghibli before please explore the collection, you won't be disappointed. In honour of Isao Takahata, I recommend starting with Grave of the Fireflies, you may need some tissues to hand however as it was one of the most heartbreaking animations I've ever seen.
It wasn't until 2007 that I first became aware of Studio Ghibli, with the first title that I saw being Spirited Away. I was rather late to the party at the time, it was a close friend that first introduced me to these movies. What appealed to me most was the distinctive art style, and the greater focus on story telling and the empathic connection between the viewer and the characters on screen. To me animation had always been something to observe, with a few exceptions I never got too invested in the emotion and the depth of the story being told, mostly because it failed to capture my imagination. Studio Ghibli was the first time in my life that animation became an art form, up until that point it had always been entertainment to me, nothing more. Studio Ghibli changed that however, the composition, the craft, the beauty that was embodied within the work was such that it felt at any moment you could pause the movie and that scene alone would stand as a work of art. There are many cinematic works that can claim such brilliance.
I feel saddened by Isao Takahata's passing, and I am in no doubt he will be missed by many. Studio Ghibli will not be the same without him. May he Rest In Peace and may his legacy live on. If you have not experienced Studio Ghibli before please explore the collection, you won't be disappointed. In honour of Isao Takahata, I recommend starting with Grave of the Fireflies, you may need some tissues to hand however as it was one of the most heartbreaking animations I've ever seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)