Another semester is in the books, and for me another perfect grade point average, and as I spread the news of my academic achievements, another down-pouring of praise. It's been over three years since I have gotten anything less that an A in college. After each semester, I am told how smart I am and upon receiving each compliment I can never agree. I consider myself a modest person, but that is not the source of my disagreement. I truly do not think I am smart simply because I can get all A's in a college semester. Many of the people who give me these accolades have tenfold the knowledge I possess, in my opinion. So, it has me thinking what smart is . . .
For starters, let's address why I am being told that I am smart. I go to college and get straight A's. Period. That's enough for people to think I am a genius. Let me go ahead and clear that up for you - I am not. I have already had to refer to dictionary.com & thesaurus.com over five times in this post and I've barely made it past one paragraph. Hell, I just had to double check how to spell thesaurus. This kind of leads straight into my main premis of the post . . . some people would say that I am smart for accessing the available resources to ensure my work is properly presented. Others would think that I am smart if I could have recited the entire dictionary and thesaurus rather than referring to it. Is the effort to obtain the information, or already knowing it more important? So, back to the first sentence of this paragraph - am I smart because I can get straight A's in college. I say no. It's easy. They teach me the material, I go home and study it, and I am asked to give it back to them on a test. The only way I will take credit for being smart is the fact that I am at every class, usually 10 minutes early, give full attention to the teacher, and do the recommended work outside of class. I sit in the front, don't play on a laptop or phone, and even go to class the day before Thanksgiving and Spring Break. When I look at the empty desks around me, or see someone sitting in the back playing or chatting, I tend to think I am smarter than them. But I think so because I am putting forth the effort and they are not. It's got nothing to do with our comparable mental capacity. I think I made a smart decision to go to school and give full effort to the task at hand. But what about the guy who sat next to me, every single day. I know he didn't miss a class because I didn't. I know he listened intently because I could see it in his eyes. And after dealing with thousands of college students over the past few years, I got the feeling he was the type to read and do homework outside the classroom. However, every time the tests were handed back, he had a B and I had an A. Still, if asked if I am smarter than this guy, I say hell no. If I had to define a smart person, it's this guy because no matter his GPA, he puts forth the effort, and that's a smart choice. I guess that's what it all boils down to - I judge "smart" based mainly on effort, or a certain willingness to get better. I think people are smart when they have a persistent drive and a motivation to give 110% into whatever they are doing. However, I do concede to the fact that attempts don't always equate to results. Giving maximum effort, although extremely admirable, is simply failure when success is not achieved.So where on the spectrum of achievement do we draw the line between smart and . . . since I don't want to say "dumb" we'll go with . . . not smart.
With all that being said, I cannot blindly ignore mental capacity and the ability to retain information. Some people have it, some don't. Some are born with it, some are not. Some people can sit in a 75 minute accounting class, retain all that is being said, and spit it back out. Some think it sounds foreign, and some would literally rather cut out their eyes and eardrums. What if the previously mentioned guy next to me was a petroleum engineering major and just taking an accounting class for shits and giggles? Do you think I am smarter than him because I got an A in this accounting class and he got a B? What if we flipped the script and put me next to him in one of his classes? Who's smart now? This is the thought that crosses my mind every time I am in the garage with my dad talking about cars, or tools, or any of the other shit he's learned over the past 50+ years. And this is the guy telling me I'm so smart . . . all I know how to do is be a good student. And he's not the only one - my mom, girlfriend, hell, everyone I come into contact with has something to teach me. So who's smarter than who? I am pretty knowledgable in regard to business school; the guy across campus is pretty smart in regard to engineering school; my dad is pretty smart in regard to mechanics and the abundance of other things he's learned through hands-on experience; the people on Jeopardy are really smart in regards to . . . who knows what. I've never met anyone who can't teach me something, no matter how smart or how ignorant society deems them. Back to the guy sitting next to me - I pretty much said we both put in equal effort, I got an A and he got a B. There is a judgmental system, the grading scale, and all else being equal, I performed better than him so I would naturally be deemed smarter, right? I say I did better than him in that class. And as for me vs. a 2.0 student, I would just say I do better than that person in school. But smarter than them? No way to tell.
Now let's be clear - this isn't some "let's all join hands and live happily together because we are all smart" bullshit blog post. This is merely a topic that has been on my mind because I do believe that everyone is smart in their own regard, and there isn't a universal definition for the word (I already told you that I refer to dictionary.com so please don't comment with their definition; I am trying to take this conversation a step further and explore how the definition is applied in society). I hope you can see that my argument contains two points: 1) Do you define "smart" as how much information one's brain can encompass, or the desire to obtain that information and the never-ending drive to get "smarter"; 2) If "smart" is defined by how much you know, which I believe it partially is, look at how many different ways we can apply the word. Nobody can know everything about everything; people are smarter than others in different areas.
By no means was this intended to be boastful. I simply needed an example to refer to and chose myself as that example, and how the word applies to me. This was a tough topic to write about; I feel like my ideas didn't come together as organized as I would have liked. If you have any questions, or any thoughts, please comment. I would be thrilled if you simply said "I think smart is ______ because _____" and of course, thanks for reading.
John Nugent's
Friday, December 16, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Justice?
"Beyond a reasonable doubt." "Conclusive evidence." "Substantial proof." - All terms and sayings I've heard before, usually associated with legal jargon, and each of the three having a meaning I thought I was familiar with. However, due to recent events and experiences, I find myself seriously contemplating the true definition and applications of these theories.
I spent over eight hours on Monday April 11, 2011 in the U.S. Federal Courthouse in New Orleans. I was attending the criminal trial of someone I consider a good friend, someone whom I haven't had the pleasure of knowing for years, but would classify as much more than merely an acquaintance. I may or may not mention a few names throughout this post, but if you live in the area or are familiar with the facts of this case, you will have no problem figuring out what I will be discussing.
I am a little emotionally attached to this situation, that is why I am taking the time to write about it, but I will try to leave my personal biases out of this post. However, I apologize in advance if any reader interprets my dialect as one-sided or otherwise biased in any way.
My reasoning for attending the trial was two-fold: I was there with my father showing support for someone we care about, and I have always been intrigued by law and the legal environment so I knew this would be a great learning experience for me. The latter proved to hold true, however, the knowledge and better understanding I gained of this legal arena only opened my eyes to a cruel and dysfunctional system I would have rather not known. In subsequent paragraphs, I will try to describe my observations along with an analysis of the events that unfolded.
The trial lasted eight days, only one of which I attended. I was able to see closing arguments by both sides along with the judge's address to the jury. All other knowledge I have about this case is from following news articles and hearing versions of what occurred from those who had attended daily. I sat in the courtroom, on the left side of the aisle, in the company of supporters for the defendants. Opposite the walkway sat the family of the victim, attending in support of prosecutors for the federal government. The very first thing I learned: a court trial is like a wedding - you sit on the side of the party that you are there supporting. Behind us sat an army of news reporters from printed papers and television, pecking away at their laptops and smartphones, both of which gave the occasional annoying chirp. Now, it's one thing to have your phone accidentally go off in the classroom, church, a wedding, or a funeral, but we are in a federal court of the law with only two signs on the door: the judge's name, and "Please ensure all cell phones are turned off." This is not the place to assume it's on vibrate so needless to say, mine was powered down and pocketed.
Closing arguments were actually just what you would expect, and just like you see on TV. The prosecutors talk to the jury, summarize their most critical evidence, and give a final persuasion of why the jury should see the story their way, do what's right, and serve justice. The defense addresses the jury in a similar fashion, contradicting almost every bit of fact the prosecution claimed to be true just minutes ago. Then the prosecution rebuts, with one final argument of why the defense's case is absurdly wrong and therefore guilty. Then came the interesting part, for me at least. After a ten minute recess, the judge spent almost an hour lecturing the jury on how they should go about processing the facts they absorbed in the previous days. He instructed them to leave emotion out of the decision making process, but use their intuition to decipher the disparate claims of fact. He directed them to use their personal opinion to judge the character and viability of witnesses and testifiers and consequently determine the validity of their testimonies. And time and time again, he reminded them that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution has not done so, the jury is obligated to return a verdict of not guilty. Simply put, he urged them to use their head, not their heart, observe the evidence, in the form of testimonies in this case, and ultimately decide the truthfulness of that evidence.
So what type of evidence would prove the defendants guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? A video clip of the defendants committing the crime sure would be conclusive. That wasn't available. Personal testimonies of eye witnesses who watched the defendants commit the crime would be pretty conclusive. That was available, but that's where things start to get muddy. What if the alleged crime occurred over five years ago, and memories have become a little vague? What if stories told today differ from stories told a few years ago when a previous investigation of the same events was conducted? What if one of the witnesses happened to be escorted onto the stand wearing a jumpsuit with shackles and chains? What if one of the witnesses was questioned about discrepancies in his testimony, and the justification for his changing stories was not only lapse of memory on facts of this case, but a lack of remembrance for what drugs he was using five years ago when the event occurred? Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. Are these witnesses striking you as reliable? What if the defendants are police officers who patrol the area where these witnesses traffic drugs? Maybe it was just me, but I sensed a motive for these witnesses to sabotage law officers who enforce real justice to true criminals. My emotions are blurring the objective message I am attempting to portray, but the bottom line to me is simple: one of the classes of testimony in this case was given by witnesses who all proved to be an unreliable source of information. My theory only holds true of course if you define unreliable as being previously convicted of crime, giving changing testimonies, and possessing an assumed motive to testify against the defendant (an assumption of my own and I understand very possibly not shared by anyone else).
Second form of testimony in this case: expert witnesses. Contrasted to the first group of witnesses, experts' opinions are backed by scientific proof and credentials to verify their word is legit. If I am going to give credibility to any witness taking the stand, an expert witness it will be.The experts in this case were two doctors, pathologists specifically. One was hired by the prosecutors, the other was hired by the defense. Each testified on behalf of their respective parties, and each gave their medical expert opinion on how the events occurred. One said yes, the other said no. One said it happened, the other said it didn't. One saw white, the other saw black. Conclusive evidence that proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? I think not. Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. So, jurors must analyze the character of our experts and give weight to each opinion. In an interview after the trial, the jury foreman explicitly admitted that he gave more weight to the doctor testifying on behalf of the prosecution. Also, in the interview, the jury foreman acknowledged the conflicting testimonies from the anything-but-reliable witnesses, but justified the guilty verdict by stating, "something happened there." All of the sudden, a mechanical engineer finds himself as the foreman of a jury deciding the fate of two lives, and the best reasoning for his decision is "something happened there." Not to mention he is suddenly a self-proclaimed medical expert when he gives a statement that completely contradicts the testimony of the doctor hired by the defense. So what made the jury give more weight to the doctor hired by the prosecution? Well he was a nationally recognized and respected pathologist. He possessed every piece of credentials and experience needed to give an accurate testimony. However, in this trial we found ourselves hearing a completely different testimony from this doctor's world renowned and even higher regarded colleague. The doctor testifying on behalf of the defense has been hired for years by the federal government to conduct medical examinations and give testimonies on his findings. He was hired to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He is known by many as THE leader in his field of study. And this man was totally disrespected by the jury when they disregarded his expert opinion. Not only did the jury lend more weight to the opposing testimony, they actually believed this testimony for the defense did not raise a reasonable doubt?
The third form of witnesses was the medical staff at the hospital. Just like the criminal eye-witnesses, I suspect a lot of motive to ensure the demise of the two defendants. If the defendants were found not guilty, the blame would have been transferred to the medical staff by default. Maybe I was the only person who recognized this, but if I were a juror I would certainly have to consider this underlying motive while grading the validity of these testimonies. Although these expert medical witnesses should be held as valid, the testimonies differed so greatly from other supposed facts, how could a reasonable doubt not be questioned? And just to add to my claim of motive: x-rays taken in the ER show one broken rib, while the autopsy of the victim revealed multiple broken ribs. Perhaps something happened at the hospital? Perhaps the medical staff is partially to blame for the demise of the victim? I'm not accusing, just saying "perhaps". And if perhaps the medical staff is partially responsible, then surely they would have a motive for testifying against the defendants.
As I previously mentioned, I am emotionally vested in the verdict of this case, and severely upset by the outcome that resulted. However, I tried my hardest to follow the judge's instructions and observe the facts objectively. Each form of evidence had a prevalent contradiction that I surely thought would raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. Clearly I was wrong, as all 12 jurors unanimously submitted a verdict of guilty. My objective here is not to argue whether the defendants did or did not commit the crime, because as far as I am concerned not many people will ever know the truth. My point of argument is that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Like it or not, that is how our legal system is set up to operate and that is the mentality that I used to analyze the happenings of this case. I believe there is a multitude of doubt lingering, and I am sickened by the way others interpreted the court proceedings.
Please feel free to comment, whether you agree or not. If you have any questions about this case, or about anything written in this post, please ask. If you find any mistakes or feel the need to question any statements or claims of fact, please bring them to my attention. Thanks for reading, hope you enjoy.
I spent over eight hours on Monday April 11, 2011 in the U.S. Federal Courthouse in New Orleans. I was attending the criminal trial of someone I consider a good friend, someone whom I haven't had the pleasure of knowing for years, but would classify as much more than merely an acquaintance. I may or may not mention a few names throughout this post, but if you live in the area or are familiar with the facts of this case, you will have no problem figuring out what I will be discussing.
I am a little emotionally attached to this situation, that is why I am taking the time to write about it, but I will try to leave my personal biases out of this post. However, I apologize in advance if any reader interprets my dialect as one-sided or otherwise biased in any way.
My reasoning for attending the trial was two-fold: I was there with my father showing support for someone we care about, and I have always been intrigued by law and the legal environment so I knew this would be a great learning experience for me. The latter proved to hold true, however, the knowledge and better understanding I gained of this legal arena only opened my eyes to a cruel and dysfunctional system I would have rather not known. In subsequent paragraphs, I will try to describe my observations along with an analysis of the events that unfolded.
The trial lasted eight days, only one of which I attended. I was able to see closing arguments by both sides along with the judge's address to the jury. All other knowledge I have about this case is from following news articles and hearing versions of what occurred from those who had attended daily. I sat in the courtroom, on the left side of the aisle, in the company of supporters for the defendants. Opposite the walkway sat the family of the victim, attending in support of prosecutors for the federal government. The very first thing I learned: a court trial is like a wedding - you sit on the side of the party that you are there supporting. Behind us sat an army of news reporters from printed papers and television, pecking away at their laptops and smartphones, both of which gave the occasional annoying chirp. Now, it's one thing to have your phone accidentally go off in the classroom, church, a wedding, or a funeral, but we are in a federal court of the law with only two signs on the door: the judge's name, and "Please ensure all cell phones are turned off." This is not the place to assume it's on vibrate so needless to say, mine was powered down and pocketed.
Closing arguments were actually just what you would expect, and just like you see on TV. The prosecutors talk to the jury, summarize their most critical evidence, and give a final persuasion of why the jury should see the story their way, do what's right, and serve justice. The defense addresses the jury in a similar fashion, contradicting almost every bit of fact the prosecution claimed to be true just minutes ago. Then the prosecution rebuts, with one final argument of why the defense's case is absurdly wrong and therefore guilty. Then came the interesting part, for me at least. After a ten minute recess, the judge spent almost an hour lecturing the jury on how they should go about processing the facts they absorbed in the previous days. He instructed them to leave emotion out of the decision making process, but use their intuition to decipher the disparate claims of fact. He directed them to use their personal opinion to judge the character and viability of witnesses and testifiers and consequently determine the validity of their testimonies. And time and time again, he reminded them that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution has not done so, the jury is obligated to return a verdict of not guilty. Simply put, he urged them to use their head, not their heart, observe the evidence, in the form of testimonies in this case, and ultimately decide the truthfulness of that evidence.
So what type of evidence would prove the defendants guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? A video clip of the defendants committing the crime sure would be conclusive. That wasn't available. Personal testimonies of eye witnesses who watched the defendants commit the crime would be pretty conclusive. That was available, but that's where things start to get muddy. What if the alleged crime occurred over five years ago, and memories have become a little vague? What if stories told today differ from stories told a few years ago when a previous investigation of the same events was conducted? What if one of the witnesses happened to be escorted onto the stand wearing a jumpsuit with shackles and chains? What if one of the witnesses was questioned about discrepancies in his testimony, and the justification for his changing stories was not only lapse of memory on facts of this case, but a lack of remembrance for what drugs he was using five years ago when the event occurred? Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. Are these witnesses striking you as reliable? What if the defendants are police officers who patrol the area where these witnesses traffic drugs? Maybe it was just me, but I sensed a motive for these witnesses to sabotage law officers who enforce real justice to true criminals. My emotions are blurring the objective message I am attempting to portray, but the bottom line to me is simple: one of the classes of testimony in this case was given by witnesses who all proved to be an unreliable source of information. My theory only holds true of course if you define unreliable as being previously convicted of crime, giving changing testimonies, and possessing an assumed motive to testify against the defendant (an assumption of my own and I understand very possibly not shared by anyone else).
Second form of testimony in this case: expert witnesses. Contrasted to the first group of witnesses, experts' opinions are backed by scientific proof and credentials to verify their word is legit. If I am going to give credibility to any witness taking the stand, an expert witness it will be.The experts in this case were two doctors, pathologists specifically. One was hired by the prosecutors, the other was hired by the defense. Each testified on behalf of their respective parties, and each gave their medical expert opinion on how the events occurred. One said yes, the other said no. One said it happened, the other said it didn't. One saw white, the other saw black. Conclusive evidence that proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? I think not. Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. So, jurors must analyze the character of our experts and give weight to each opinion. In an interview after the trial, the jury foreman explicitly admitted that he gave more weight to the doctor testifying on behalf of the prosecution. Also, in the interview, the jury foreman acknowledged the conflicting testimonies from the anything-but-reliable witnesses, but justified the guilty verdict by stating, "something happened there." All of the sudden, a mechanical engineer finds himself as the foreman of a jury deciding the fate of two lives, and the best reasoning for his decision is "something happened there." Not to mention he is suddenly a self-proclaimed medical expert when he gives a statement that completely contradicts the testimony of the doctor hired by the defense. So what made the jury give more weight to the doctor hired by the prosecution? Well he was a nationally recognized and respected pathologist. He possessed every piece of credentials and experience needed to give an accurate testimony. However, in this trial we found ourselves hearing a completely different testimony from this doctor's world renowned and even higher regarded colleague. The doctor testifying on behalf of the defense has been hired for years by the federal government to conduct medical examinations and give testimonies on his findings. He was hired to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He is known by many as THE leader in his field of study. And this man was totally disrespected by the jury when they disregarded his expert opinion. Not only did the jury lend more weight to the opposing testimony, they actually believed this testimony for the defense did not raise a reasonable doubt?
The third form of witnesses was the medical staff at the hospital. Just like the criminal eye-witnesses, I suspect a lot of motive to ensure the demise of the two defendants. If the defendants were found not guilty, the blame would have been transferred to the medical staff by default. Maybe I was the only person who recognized this, but if I were a juror I would certainly have to consider this underlying motive while grading the validity of these testimonies. Although these expert medical witnesses should be held as valid, the testimonies differed so greatly from other supposed facts, how could a reasonable doubt not be questioned? And just to add to my claim of motive: x-rays taken in the ER show one broken rib, while the autopsy of the victim revealed multiple broken ribs. Perhaps something happened at the hospital? Perhaps the medical staff is partially to blame for the demise of the victim? I'm not accusing, just saying "perhaps". And if perhaps the medical staff is partially responsible, then surely they would have a motive for testifying against the defendants.
As I previously mentioned, I am emotionally vested in the verdict of this case, and severely upset by the outcome that resulted. However, I tried my hardest to follow the judge's instructions and observe the facts objectively. Each form of evidence had a prevalent contradiction that I surely thought would raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. Clearly I was wrong, as all 12 jurors unanimously submitted a verdict of guilty. My objective here is not to argue whether the defendants did or did not commit the crime, because as far as I am concerned not many people will ever know the truth. My point of argument is that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Like it or not, that is how our legal system is set up to operate and that is the mentality that I used to analyze the happenings of this case. I believe there is a multitude of doubt lingering, and I am sickened by the way others interpreted the court proceedings.
Please feel free to comment, whether you agree or not. If you have any questions about this case, or about anything written in this post, please ask. If you find any mistakes or feel the need to question any statements or claims of fact, please bring them to my attention. Thanks for reading, hope you enjoy.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Back to School
Unfortunately, it is that time again. We've been back in school now for a few weeks, and I had been procrastinating to put up a post before going back, but obviously failed to do so. Now that I'm back in the classroom and doing hours of reading and studying, blogging has been put on the back burner. So what I am going to do is put up two links of school work I did last semester, which got published on the web. One is an article on the top 10 things you need to know about "benchmarking" and the second is my review of Guy Kawasaki's The Art of the Start. Please check them out, leave some remarks of what you think, and enjoy.
http://bizcovering.com/management/top-ten-management-on-benchmarking-an-overview-of-how-to-identify-best-practices-and-avoid-being-the-benchwarmer/
P.S. - the benchmarking article is three pages long, so find the link that will navigate you to the next page.
http://bookstove.com/non-fiction/summary-and-review-of-the-art-of-the-start-the-time-tested-battle-hardened-guide-for-anyone-starting-anything-by-guy-kawasaki/
http://bizcovering.com/management/top-ten-management-on-benchmarking-an-overview-of-how-to-identify-best-practices-and-avoid-being-the-benchwarmer/
P.S. - the benchmarking article is three pages long, so find the link that will navigate you to the next page.
http://bookstove.com/non-fiction/summary-and-review-of-the-art-of-the-start-the-time-tested-battle-hardened-guide-for-anyone-starting-anything-by-guy-kawasaki/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)