The meaning of one cent

A certain event occurred to me the other day, which caused me to pause for a moment and consider the meaning of the penny. The penny by itself is a rather lonesome entity, having very low self-worth. The penny does stand out from the rest of the coins due its unique color, but unfortunately, at least in my opinion, its color leaves much to be desired. I suppose the one "saving" grace (pun intended) of the penny is that when they are collected en mass, they begin to take on greater value (not to mention weight). In spite of all these shortcomings, the penny can help to convey expressions of humanity. For example, if you have ever suffered through a horrible experience at a restaurant and your plight had one primary benefactor, namely, the "server" (politically correct form of waitress/waiter), then you may utilize a penny as a tip, to convey your emotional disgust with the quality of the service you received. Keep in mind that I do not necessarily recommend this course of action, but the point is that a penny can indeed help to convey human emotion, a trait of humanity. A penny can also be used to convey a trait of humanity, commonly called stupidity. As an example, I refer to the event to which I alluded earlier. I received a letter in the mail a few weeks ago from a business (which shall remain nameless) with which I had maintained a monthly subscription. Because I had cancelled my subscription and because the company had overcharged me, they were sending me a refund check for the overcharged portion. As you may have already guessed, the amount of the check was $0.01. Upon opening the letter and seeing this check, several emotions came racing to the forefront. First, I was in disbelief that a company would actually spend $.29 in postage plus the cost of the envelope to mail me a check for 1 cent. Second, I was frustrated, because I wondered how many other times this had happened to other former customers--could this help to explain the increase in subscription rates that I was required to pay? The company had been electronically withdrawing the monthly fee from my account; why did the company not electronically deposit that 1 cent instead? Third, but only for a brief moment (1 cent's worth of my time to be exact), I felt joy that my lost "sheep" had been returned to the fold.

I now wonder what I should do with this check. It does not have the same level of permanence as a coin, and it would require significantly more effort than what it is worth to convert the check into a coin (or at least a digital representation thereof). Of course, this is only looking at things from my perspective. What additional costs may be incurred by others as a result of the company's brainless action?

I posed the question of what I should do with the check to one of my college classes, and even my class was divided on the issue. "To cash or not to cash, that is the question!" One of my students observed that if I do not cash the check, then the company will probably call me sometime in the future wondering if I received the check, thus propagating their stream of brainless activities. I'll leave you with a final thought posed by another of my students: "A penny deposited is a penny earned."

Musings of an Overworked Educator

After submitting my midterm grades and teaching my classes this morning, I had a moment to reflect on a bit of educational philosophy. This musing actually began as a result of a question posed to me by one of my students. This student, who we shall refer to as George, wondered why another one of his professors would provide George a list of things to memorize and then only test George on just a few of those things on the list. George's complaint was that the professor was not completely fulfilling his role, because the professor did not identify the salient items on the list for George. Because of the fact that George is an exceptionally talented and, I believe, gifted student, I took his query seriously, and a rather lengthy discussion ensued. I include a summary of that discussion below as well as some "after-thoughts".

The fact that an instructor would require his or her students to memorize facts is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself (although from the perspective of many a student, it sure seems that way). The very act and process of memorizing facts, I believe helps to build faster recall and develop greater cranial storage capacity. On the other hand, there are many professors who rely on rote memorization as a measure of the student's understanding of concepts. This is unfortunate because memorization is only a good measure of a student's knowledge of the facts. I define understanding as the realization of how certain facts are inter-related and/or how those facts can be used to solve a particular problem; essentially, understanding is the application of knowledge. By its very nature, memorization cannot hope to measure the application of knowledge; nevertheless, it is still needed to capture the level of knowledge that a student has attained.

So, why not provide students with a list of items that are priortized, and then inform the students that they will be tested on only a few of the items? I think the answer is relatively obvious, but given the nature of human flesh and the level of maturity of most students these days, the answer is that most students would only study a few items at the top of the list. While it may seem overly pragmatic, I believe that most professors introduce a sense of ambiguity about test contents, because that is the only way they know how to motivate students to study.

My earlier statement regarding the maturity level of students actually sparked another discussion relating to how sad it is that many students have never been taught the value of learning. As I was contemplating this fact, I reflected back on my own past and felt regret for the many wasted years that I spent in college. I do not regret actually going to college, but I do regret how I wasted those years while I was there. My primary focus for those (seemingly many) years was to attain a degree; that was my goal. Unfortunately, my perspective of goal setting was inherently flawed. I viewed goals as something that I wanted; it was almost a sense of greed for me to get a degree. Without me even realizing it, I was actually living a life of discontent; I was not happy with my current situation, and I wanted to be in a better situation. I even spiritualized it claiming Philipians 4:13, "I press toward the mark...", meanwhile forgetting Hebrews 13:5, "...be content with such things as ye have...". The result of this greed and dissatisfaction with my current situation led me to neglect the process of education but reach for the product of education. In other words I did not bother to really internalize the material as it was taught to me. I read very few of the textbooks, and the few that I did read were primarily so that I could honestly answer the inevitable question on the final exam, "Did you read the entire textbook this semester?". In spite of my disregard for the learning process, I still managed to come through with a high B average in my undergraduate degree and a 4.0 in my masters degree. I do not say that to boast, but I say that to my shame. To those of you who wish you had the ability to not study and get an A, I say that you should stop being discontent with the way God made you, and realize that this ability feels more like a curse than a blessing. As I look back now, I only wish that I had been forced to struggle through school. Perhaps then, I might actually still remember what I learned back then.

As I work toward my Ph.D., I once again find myself back in school, but I have a renewed vision of my goal and I have determined that I will maximize the value that I gain from the learning process by finding satisfaction in learning. Then, when I have finished my courses and the last period is typed in my dissertation, I will be able to more fully enjoy the product of the many years of hard work. Of course, the biggest difference this time will be that I will have no regrets.

If only my students could catch this vision now, and not have to look back with regret in ten or fifteen years.

Cool Numbers

I realize that I am violating my warning in the previous post by the very act of creating this new post, but I suspect that if you happen to be any sort of technologically, economically, and/or mathematically inclined individual, you will find that my trespass can easily be overlooked as a result of the great value you will find in this information. Allow me to provide a bit of a background first (at the very least it will serve to whet your appetite for the information even more). As is common for most weeks in our house, there comes a time during the day each Sunday when an important decision must be made: do we succumb to the drowsiness which invariably attacks by taking a nap, or do we purchase and consume a liquid substance known for its caffeinated properties in an attempt to ward off drowsiness for another hour or two. Today, my wife and I opted for the liquid refreshment, for which I of course agreed to pay, on the condition that it was my wife who would procure the beverages. Feeling extremely lazy, I allowed my wife to seek out my other pair of pants where my last few dollars had found a temporary (as seems to be all too often with cash) resting place. As my wife was preparing to embark on her journey of procurement, she noticed an interesting inscription on one of the dollar bills she held in her hand. The inscription read "See where I've been. Track where I go next! www.WheresGeorge.com". Upon realizing what the inscription implied, I hurried to the nearest computer (which happened to be within 15-20 feet of where I was sitting--fortunately) and within moments I was viewing one of the most interesting web sites I have ever come across. I would highly recommend visiting this site, and in fact, I include the link here for your convenience: http://www.WheresGeorge.com

While at the WheresGeorge site, I also found a link to a site that turned out to be equally as interesting. If you like mathematics in any way, you are sure to find this site interesting: http://www.coolnumbers.com

Both sites are definitely worth a visit, and I'm planning to spend a few minutes in my Introduction to Computer Applications class tomorrow to show them these small Internet treasures that I have uncovered.

Biblical Parenting

With the understanding that some may begin to feel that this site is becoming too eclectic, I am having a difficult time restraining myself from confronting and refuting the rather obvious errors in logic that some "Christians" have made in the context of Biblical training. This is a long post, but then again, the title of this blog includes "Rants and Ravings", and that is pretty much what this is, albeit, not related directly to technology. I just had to get this off my chest.

Some of you may be familiar with the book "To Train up a Child" by Michael and Debbi Pearl. In my opinion, this book is a must-read for all new parents. In fact, I would encourage every parent (new and old) to read and heed most every piece of advice in this book. Newer parents will more than likely reap greater benefits from the book than older parents (i.e. those with older children), but at least the parents with older children will finally realize why their children didn't turn out so well (assuming that is the case).

My wife recently sent me a link to a website that was apparently some ill-conceived attempt at dismantling the Biblical principles behind the Pearl's book. I'm including the link below, because if I didn't you would probably think that I'm making this up. It is sad, but true that there really are "Christians" out there who attempt to coerce God's Word into saying something that they would be more "comfortable" doing, instead of accepting the truth of God's word and obeying it.

Here's the link, but keep in mind that this should in no way be construed as an endorsement of the site: http://www.kjsl.com/~lindav/notrain.htm

What I'd like to do is to go through some of the more egregious errors in the site by quoting them and discuss what is logically wrong with the arguments presented. Here goes...

The Hebrew word which is translated as "Train" in Proverbs 22:6 is kha-nokh. When I cut and paste the real Hebrew into the Hebrew-English Dictionary, it shows these words "to guide, to tutor, to educate ; (biblical) to teach" as well as "to inaugurate, to dedicate, to consecrate" as the NIV translation mentions. You can try it for yourself using the links I provided.

In the first paragraph, the author clearly admits that the word "Train" means to guide, to tutor, to educate or to teach. By the very definitions of guidance, education, and teaching, there implies a process by which the "trainee" must succumb in order for that education to be successful. As I recollect my educational history and the educational history of my siblings and peers, there rings true one common thread: pain avoidance. What is it that motivated each of us to do well in school? The motivation for me (and I believe most everyone else) was two-fold: I wanted to feel the reward of success and I wanted to avoid the pain of failure. More often than not it was the fear of failure that kept pushing me to do better. Was I ever slapped on the wrist for getting a bad grade? No, of course not, but the pain of failure was real nonetheless. In the same sense, we as parents must find both a source of reward for proper behavior in our children and at the same time a real pain that a child can understand for improper behavior. I reiterate that this is in the context of behavior not relating to disobedience. Since a young child is not developed psychologically enough to understand the emotions intertwined with success and failure, it is necessary to provide "baser" forms of punishment (i.e. providing a painful stimulus). This in no way means that the parent is abusing or beating the child! Just as God never gives us anything more than we can handle, we parents must also never give our children more punishment than they can bear.

In the same verse, "Child" is Na-ar, which translates as "youth, youngster, adolescent ; (law) minor; (biblical) servant, armsbearer." This word does not appear to be used for infants, nor very young children. Everything I have found in the Bible which refers to discipline refers to youth, adolescents and adults.

I also take issue with the paragraph above in that most of the statement is conjecture rather than Biblical fact. If you look up the word "Child" in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, it actually states, "a boy, from the age of infancy to adolescence; a girl of similar latitude in age". Let this be a lesson to us that we be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures to see if those things were so, instead of just taking someone else's word (spoken or written) and accept it for truth. The second reason I take issue with this paragraph is the last sentence. Remember that training and discipline are two separate practices: the Pearl's make a clear distinction between training and discipline. Proverbs 22:6 is in the context of training, not discipline. While it is true that you may not need to discipline an infant, it is true that you should train that infant early. Of course, you have to use a little common sense here too. You shouldn't start training an infant until he or she can actually respond to the stimuli (i.e. they are crawling or walking). Just to be clear, the I would never advocate the training of a child (using painful stimuli) at less than 6-7 months. In some cases it may make sense to wait until they are a year old, but it depends on the physical and psychological development of the child. If you wait until they are two or three, however, you've waited too long, and you will reap the consequences of your error.

My husband says that even The Old Testament does say to hit children, it also says to sacrifice animals and to stone rebellious teenagers (and other sinners). So, anyone who spanks their children is living under the Law and therefore, not under Grace. If we are living by Grace, we must apply grace to our children.

The argument presented above is eerily similar to the argument that some people use to claim that the ten commandments are no longer relevant to our society. The Old Testament says that we should not commit murder or adultery, but it also says that we should sacrifice animals and stone rebellious teenagers. Does that mean that murder and adultery are okay, because the law is passed away and we are now under grace? God forbid! Why do we view grace as a license to do the things that are more convenient and comfortable for us? Instead, we should view grace as the license to be free from sin while we live in obedience to God. Is it gracious to allow your child to do whatever he or she wants without constraint? No, and neither does God let us do everything we want without constraint. By the way, discipline is covered in great detail all throughout the Bible (not just in the Old Testament).

God does not have a rod in His hand to hit us with it every time we don't obey. He punishes us by our own consequences. For instance, God says, "Don't go to your right or to your left, stay on the straight and narrow path which are my commandments and if you don't, you will suffer the consequences." He gives us our own free will to decide how we will respond, he does not want robots. Nor should we train our children to be like robots, obeying without thinking. If our children do not obey, we have to explain to them what we require and why. We take away privileges when they don't obey, as God does to us. He takes privileges away from us when we are disobedient. He only does this with His children. The ungodly may prosper, but when God's children disobey, they suffer the consequences. That is the way that God scourges us. (Hebrews 12:6-8) Who are God's children? The ones who have The Holy Spirit. (Romans 8:14) And who has the Holy Spirit? Those who have have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. (Acts 2:38)

I really do not know how else to comment on this logic, except to say that it is simply stupid. What about Jesus and the money changers in the temple? What about Hebrews 12:6, "For whom the Lord loveth he chaseneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." The interesting thing about this verse is that the word "chaseneth" actually refers to training, while the word "scourgeth" literally means "to flog". In other words, God Himself realizes that for us to have a right relationship with him, it will require both training and discipline. By the way, God does not simply punish us by our own consequences. God does hold a rod in His hand, but the difference between us and Him is that he is far more patient with us as adults, because we have already been trained (hopefully) to come back to Him in repentence for mercy. If we as parents were to take the proposal that we punish our children solely by the natural consequences of their actions, we would have a lot of dead children today. "Johnny, don't go in the road... Johnny disobeys... Johnny, come back here, right now!... Johnny disobeys... car comes..." The natural consequence is that Johnny will die as a result of being hit by the car. I know for a fact that no parent in his right mind is going to allow that consequence to take place if the parent had the opportunity to stop it.

In elementary school we dared not talk in class for fear of getting our ears tweaked or our hands slapped with a ruler. In junior and senior high school we dared not disobey for fear of detention. In college, we dared not disobey for fear of demerits and ultimately expulsion or suspension. What would the entire educational process be like without the threat of those punishments along the way? The answer is unfortunately clearly seen in today's public educational system: students who have little to no respect for authority, gangs, murders, rapes, and so on. Given the preceding statements, it is clear that punishment or "negative behavior modification" is a part of the education process, however, it is important to remember that it is only part of the process. It would appear from the author's viewpoint that the Pearl's book is suggesting that the only thing a parent do is constantly spank their child. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you catch nothing else from this post, catch this... Biblical forms of discipline and training do not work unless a parent first establishes and maintains a loving, nurturing relationship with his or her child. The act of Biblical discipline (as opposed to the world's "equivalent") can only be carried out in a spirit of meekness and love for the child.

Unfortunately, the website goes on with more ridiculous ideas and philosophies that I do not have the time to refute right now. I will end with this thought. If you are a parent who has "tried" the Pearl's (I should say, the Biblical) method of child training and discipline and you feel like you have not seen success, then may I suggest that you really haven't developed and nurtured a real loving relationship with your child? I know that sounds rather harsh, but without love and a grieving spirit toward your child's sin, discipline will only serve to control the childs outward behavior. It is the combination of love and proper training and discipline that will win your child's attitude and win your child's heart to the Lord. Keep in mind that as parents, we are only stewards of a gift that God has given us. Train them the way that God would have you to train them: train them to love God.

Neo-Grammaticism

About a week ago, I had a somewhat humorous e-mail discussion with a colleague regarding the use of punctuation and to some extent, the use of grammar in general. Rather than try to summarize the discussion, I simply include it here as it occurred, with only minor amounts of editing. While the connection between this topic and technology may appear rather obscure at first, it should become more obvious as you read through the discussion. (Note: This discussion began as a result of my submission of a proposal to my colleague for review.)

Colleague: Next project: train John to avoid using two spaces after a punctuation mark.

John: This single space business after a period sounds far too much like neo-grammaticism, which I'm sure is a not too distant cousin to neo-evangelicalism, which I know does not align with our institution's position. If my memory serves me correctly, it has always been the rule that two spaces should follow a period, until not too long ago. In fact, I'm sure that I have been docked points on one or two term papers for not having two spaces. I suspect the reason why these English people have to change the rules so often stems from their inability to bring excitement into their field any other way (notice my stubborn attempt to refuse compromise through my continued use of two spaces). I think the only thing that's going to get me to change that habit is through some sort of electro-shock therapy (don't get any ideas!).

Colleague: Most people don't voluntarily request shock therapy, but... I refer you to the title of a book I requested: The PC is Not a Typewriter. Apply principle liberally.

John: You know, that whole argument about typewriter vs. PC just doesn't hold water with me. Based on what I was taught in grammar school (and it was a Pensacola grad who taught me this, so I know it has to be true), the two spaces were there so it was easier for the reader to distinguish between start and end of sentences. If that's the case, what difference does it make which "technology" you use?

Okay, I confess... I hate change. I know, that sounds ludicrous, given my "stature" as a guru of technological change, but it's true. I think the reason I hate change has to do with the fact that no one remembers what it was like prior to the change. Then you have these revisionist historians who want to rewrite the past so that the change never occurred. That really scares me. Why can't we just forget the change and live happy and peacable lives? Could it be that these change agents are constantly working toward a one-world grammar? I mean, think about it... consistency in punctuation? That in itself should scare the Wallies out of you. :-)

End of Conversation

Disclaimer: My apologies to Pensacola graduates who were forced to just now endure my sarcasm. No personal offense was intended.

Initial Post

The purpose of this blog is for me to capture my thoughts as it relates to my research interests and/or papers. Additionally, this is an outlet for me to exercise my writing skills as I prepare for my dissertation... something which looms in the distant future at this point. I'll just mention a quick disclaimer that I wouldn't recommend using any of the content I post on this site as the basis for serious theoretical research, as most of what I will post are my own "rantings and ravings", and so are not necessarily publishable in quality (although I would like to think that eventually the content on this site will reach that level of quality).

Of course, other topics of interest (not necessarily related to technology) may appear here over time. For example, I've recently been musing over the concept of the morality of music. Is music itself really a moral entity, or does it rather possess an "affective morality" in which the music through its intrinsinc properties (as designed by the composer/author) conveys on the listener a particular emotional and/or physical response that "causes" the listener to make specific moral choices? So far, I'm not entirely convinced either way, and perhaps there is even a third, more logical choice of which I am not aware. I do think that we need to use caution when claiming that anything is the "cause" for something else, as there is a definite difference between causality and correlation. In other words, we might find shoe size is highly correlated with intelligence. Logically, a person with a larger shoe size is more than likely older than a person with a smaller shoe size, and thus has more experience and a higher level of intelligence. Was it the shoe size that "caused" the increase in intelligence? No, of course not. So the question is whether or not it is music that "causes" our reaction. Or, is music merely correlated with our ethical response? Are there other intervening factors which may share some commonality with music? These are interesting questions to which I would like to someday find a satisfactory answer, but with which I am still perplexed.