Heinlein says I'm not a competent human?
Jun. 30th, 2004 08:35 am
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. --Robert HeinleinLet's see:
Change a diaper: I possess the theoretical knowledge. It would have to be really, really important before you'd get proof, though.
Plan an invasion: Sure, though I don't know how good the plan would be. But all that gaming experience has to be good for something, right? :-)
Butcher a hog: Nope, and not looking to change that.
Conn a ship: Nope.
Design a building: At what level of detail? I've helped specify one but didn't draw up the engineering diagrams, nor would I have had the right clues for materials requirements.
Write a sonnet: Not without a rules refresher. Maybe not even then. Now music, on the other hand...
Balance accounts: Yup.
Build a wall: For a suitably basic wall, yeah.
Set a bone: No one's ever asked me to and my first-aid card has expired, so I'll call that a "no".
Comfort the dying: I think so, though I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. (Aren't we all?) Ask again after the first session of the para-rabbinic program in a few weeks.
Take orders: Absolutely, but I have to believe the order-giver is in a position to do so.
Give orders: Yup, when necessary. The hardest part is establishing authority.
Cooperate: I like to think so.
Act alone: Frequently and I've been praised for the results, so yes.
Solve equations: Sure. I was doing that long before I was "supposed" to be. Mind, my knowledge of higher math (differential equations etc) is weak, but you didn't specify the domain. I grok algebra, basic calculus, and just plain logic.
Analyze a new problem: Don't we all? But yeah, I think I'm better than average at this.
Pitch manure: Um, I gather this involves more than applying first vertical and then lateral and then vertical motion to a shovel? Then I guess not. :-)
Program a computer: Yup.
Cook a tasty meal: Past guests have said so.
Fight efficiently: Probably. Martial arts and the real thing are pretty different, so I can't say for sure. And note that he said "efficiently", not necessarily "well". :-)
Die gallantly: If I say "no", does that get me off the hook for proving it? :-)
Re: MIT
Date: 2004-07-06 05:15 pm (UTC)to like their humanities courses. Several of them are concentrating in
music, and some of them seem to have considerable talent.
Re: MIT
Date: 2004-07-06 06:14 pm (UTC)That does not mean I appreciated being required to take them, or being required to go through the whole HASS-D "pick one from column A or B" hokey pokey. That does not mean I did not resent the academic and schedule burden, not to mention the high-handedness of presuming to dictate that I must "broaden" myself.
I don't think I'm the only one to make this distinction.
And the fact that I, or anyone else, enjoyed a class does not (1) justify its being required -- presumably degree requirements should have educational bases and (2) does not mean anyone else would enjoy the class. Presumably there are people at MIT who enjoy studying French; does that mean all MIT undergrads should be required to take French to graduate?
Re: MIT
Date: 2004-07-07 05:25 pm (UTC)What do you think are appropriate humanities requirements?