As IF Times

link:  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/claudine-gay-harvard-universitys-embattled-president-stepping-rcna131930

By now, the news headlines have subsided but the controversy  lingers.  Claudine Gay has resigned from her position as the president of the august Harvard University under increasing public pressure, not to mention evidence, that she had improperly inflated her academic credentials.  Specifically, other academics have revealed that much of her academic work was plagiarized from their work without acknowledgment.  In her resignation letter, which we assume she wrote herself, she blames racism as the source of her outing, not her academic shortcomings. Ironic, since racism was likely the reason for her appointment.

In the wake of this revelation, the entire industry of DEI: Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, is now under closer scrutiny.  This movement grotesquely invaded institutions at all levels over the past generation led by government policies and which then became de facto mandates at all large corporations.  These mandates are of course another manifestation of people living in fantasy rather than accepting reality. The absurdity of quotas based only on race or other characteristic deemed favorable as a means of postings or promotion in society can only happen in the human world. While humans may occupy the top of the pyramid in the animal world, a certain gene exists within us that is innately self-destructive as if we had a built in limiting mode.   We may wonder what happened to cause the sudden disappearance of prosperous civilizations such as the Aztecs or the Romans; perhaps this is a clue.

When policies are promulgated to promote mediocrity over efficacy, the natural order of rational behavior is cast aside for the preferred objective of emotional gratification.  Rational people can accept that actions lead to consequences, whether or not those consequences are desirable.  In our modern time of vast access to information and knowledge, this truth should be self-evident and yet, denying observable realities is the acceptable norm.

It’s hard to fault Gay, since she was bright enough to work within a system that actively encouraged her ascension through the ranks by understanding the milieu of her environment.  Clearly she didn’t need to run the academic gauntlet since the fix was already in.  Her profile fit the narrative…except that the MOST important aspect, academic excellence, was clearly not a consideration.  This phenomenon is clearly played out in thousands of employment scenarios throughout our modern society, **cough, cough Karine Jean-Pierre** The infamous ‘Peter Principle’ is rampant throughout our society but with the modern twist of social entitlement.  Claudine Gay is not the issue. The issue is the zeitgeist that promotes this activity.  Gay is the desired result of such zeitgeist.

Interestingly, this ties into the most massive change embarking upon mankind, the rise of Artificial Intelligence, specifically with the popularity of such as Chat GPT.

Most people think of Chat GPT as computer generated solutions.  In fact, this powerful program actually searches and collates KNOWN articles and solutions to assemble a response for the user. In other words, it’s essentially an advanced search engine.  It draws upon the vast body of knowledge already known in order to produce a ‘solution’.  For example, if you were to pose the question of how to build a bridge, you would get all kinds of responses based on what humans have already done.  But this will not take into account possible advances in technology which would make these responses obsolete.  If you were to pose ‘how to live forever’, there would be no solution since no data exists on this. What you would probably get are compilations from articles written on longevity by….humans.

Thus, original work and research by humans must be encouraged in order for humans to progress.  It is not enough to regurgitate what is already known. This is precisely why the likes of Claudine Gay and our present social environment of entitlement is so dangerous.  This kind of irrational thinking and spurious credentials have far reaching destructive consequences for all.  Injudicious use of such as Chat GPT will result in many more intellectual frauds to shape our societies based only on their membership in the right demographic. It’s the manifestation of the old computer expression, GIGO; garbage in, garbage out.  Imagine the combination of DEI and ChatGPT.  Now that’s truly frightening.

As it happens, the luster of a Harvard association was lost long ago when such intellectual giants as Al Gore, Brian Stelter and Lori Lightfoot were included onto their roster.  It has become the home of failed politicians and propagandists.  Which begs the question; where will Claudine go?

It’s bizarre to even think of having a discourse about this, but given the events in the world today, the topic begs to be discussed.

The topic is: What is common sense?

Empirically, the meaning of ‘common sense’ is:  sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of a given situation or facts.  At its most basic level, the application of common sense is one of the most important attributes which allow for one’s survival, beyond the normal 5 sensory ones that we all possess.  Even in the animal world, common sense is a natural survival mechanism allowing for the avoidance of unsafe situations.

While most everyone has some innate level of common sense, it’s also true that this skill is developed over a lifetime, based largely in part to unpleasant experiences.  Some achieve common sense the easy way by listening to people with actual life experience, such as parents or close friends.  Others have to acquire common sense the hard way, through personal experience, often bad ones.

Regardless of how it’s acquired, over a lifetime, one accumulates a storehouse of knowledge which presumably directs one away from undesirable activities, which would have led to undesirable consequences.  Those that choose to ignore common sense and pursue some course of action despite warnings are seen as somewhat lacking in intellectual capacity.  Ultimately, common sense is all about maintaining self preservation.

It’s also true that for most people, their perceptions of the world around them and by reflection, their own self worth in that world is dictated by their place in that world.  Numerous psychological thinkers such as Philip Zimbardo, B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget and Ivan Pavlov have described in their work the tendencies of humans and their behaviors in a social context.  What we have learned from these studies is that humans are quite malleable in their views and even in the case of things that are contrary to ‘common sense’.

In our modern world, two great influences are at play.  Firstly, the sheer amount of information that is available to people is at a level never before seen in history.  Access to information and knowledge in any domain is virtually unlimited. Logically, this vast amount of information should augment whatever level of common sense is in our warehouses.  On the surface, one could assume that this leads to an intelligent and rational society.

Bizarrely, the other great influence at work are the outlets that specifically reject the notions of ‘common sense’ and thus propagate narratives that are clearly at odds with what are observable, concrete facts.  Among the most blatant is the ‘debate’ over gender.  We’re seeing this carried out at all levels now as the narrative being pushed is that gender is a  social and mental construct, not a natural one.  You would think that this is the easiest issue to dismiss out of hand because of, well, common sense.  But in fact, the heated and pervasive battles over defining gender has escalated to the point where politicians have had to create rules demanding that the views of gender deniers receive appropriate consideration in society.  Thus, we are at this point in history that we should ignore all common sense built up over thousands of years and accept that 2 distinct genders has been a false narrative.  That’s quite an error to make for all that time.  Odd that it took so long for someone to notice.

If the most elementary of observations about the human condition can be made to be ambiguous, what chance do other issues of significance have for the public mind?  Most people who have lives don’t really have the chance to delve into the nuances of major political issues.  Thus, they fall on the views espoused by media talking heads and such views become their views.  Thus everyone will consider their views independant….in a me too kind of way.  Ask anyone about their views on Climate change, vaccines, urban crime, foreign wars, price inflation and their major source of information will be popular news outlets which of course parrot the narratives by political sources.  The champions of these causes defy all common sense in their narrative and their actions and yet, they continue to be paraded as experts.  *Cough cough*, John Kerry, Greta Thunberg..

Most if not all of the narratives pushed by media outlets have been disproven by empirical and measurable observations, but once entrenched in peoples’ minds, they cannot be dislodged especially if continuously pushed by media and ‘authorities’.   The wearing of masks and vaccinations are a recent example. We had discussed previously the famous psychology experiments by Solomon Asch in which he demonstrates the pressure of conformity among people.  The most notable experiment was replicated more vividly in an episode of the TV show Candid Camera in 1962. To summarize, a subject entering an elevator encounters all of the occupants facing towards the rear of the car.  Not wanting to stand out, the subjects also decided to face rearward as well.

But all hope is not lost as some lament.  A conclusion by James Surowiecki in his book, “The Wisdom Of Crowds”, points out that Asch notes;

“….that while people slip into conformity with striking ease, it also doesn’t take much to get them to snap out of it. Asch demonstrated this in a series of experiments, planting a confederate to defy the crowd by engaging in the sensible, rather than nonsensical, behavior. That, it turned out, was just enough. Having just one peer contravene the group made subjects eager to express their true thoughts…”

And Surowiecki concludes by noting that, “….Ultimately, diversity contributes not just by adding different perspectives to the group but also by making it easier for individuals to say what they really think. […] Independence of opinion is both a crucial ingredient in collectively wise decisions and one of the hardest things to keep intact. Because diversity helps preserve that independence, it’s hard to have a collectively wise group without it.”

Hopefully, it’s time that people started facing the front of the elevator.