1996.07/03 Exclusion Principle

EXCERPTED FROM MESSAGES TO VIVIAN LUMBARD

> << I am actually concerned about the decline of my interaction coefficient of
>  late.  But this is a big topic, and I will save it for later (since I've got
>  to zip off to a lecture soon...)  >>
> 
> Let me know when later is.....

Okay.  I don't think later has arrived yet (mainly because I've got the
time right now, but since it is approaching 1AM I should *probably* get some
sleep...)  

> Alright.  I'll wait.  :-)  Hope you slept well....

Well, I suppose later has crept around.  I'm rather concerned about my 
declining interaction with people.  New people, that is.  When I was at
Oracle, living in an apartment by myself, I rarely met any new people.
There was a whole contingent from work which kept me occupied for the
year, but that was about it.  The lack of any social activity on my part
led, quite predictably, to little new social interaction.

The last year at Tech was in a similar vein.  I was already familiar with
a large base of people and spent most of my time getting reaquainted with
them.  Most of them were undergoing a parallel phenomenon; furthermore,
most of them were workaholics, and some were even bitter about their almost
total lack of human connection.  It is possible I might trod the same path
myself, and I would like to avoid it if I could.

The situation seems pretty clear, n'est-ce pas?  Just start "going out" more
and meeting new people.  (BTW, that was my first approach.  This last year I
went to readings, Karaokeing, etc.)  Alas, there is a secondary phenomena
occuring, which deals with identification and acceptance.  Let me give you a 
current example.  Right now I'm "starting" a new job here at IDA, and it
would be a good thing to get to know the people working here.

Anyway, I'm have a tremendously difficult time getting to know the research 
staff.  I'm on a first name basis with basically everyone else, the 
secretaries, the guards, the other summer researchers.  At the recent 
pool party we had, by choice I spent the majority of my time with the
children (and got to know each of them pretty well), even though I knew 
the "point" of the festivity was for staff to "scope out" the summer help.

What's happening here?  I've found in the past that the keys to interacting
with people are empathy and identification.  If you can feel what they feel,
and agree with why they feel it, then you are halfway to understanding them.
The non-research staff seems very real to me, and I can identify with them
easily.  But the research staff is different.  They are, from necessity,
an exclusive lot, withdrawn from other people.  Furthermore, it will take
quite awhile (again from necessity) before I'm considered "one of them",
i.e. a safe and trusted quantity.  I have every confidence that I could do 
so... but I'm faced with the question, should I do so?

Let me digress one level further.  At Caltech there is a restaurant on
campus called the Athenaeum.  It is a "members-only" place, which only 
the professors and graduate students have access to.  Undergraduates only 
see the inside on a) special events, b) by invitation, or c) if they
happen to work there as a waiter.  :-)  Anyway, one fine summer day I
was invited there by a nice humanities professor Dr. Bush, who wanted to 
discuss a paper I had written over lunch.  (There is a totally separate
storyline here, remind me to tell it to you someday).

So I'm sitting in a chair waiting for Dr. Bush, looking out onto the 
courtyard at the faculty eating lunch.  This was around the time that I 
first started seriously entertaining the notion of becoming a professor 
myself, so I mentally projected myself forward and wondered what it would 
be like.  Alas, I didn't really like what I saw.  One of the cornerstones
of the academic life was exclusivity: "I am professor and you are not."
Worse yet: "Therefore I deserve special privileges that you do not."  
A little farther down the road is arrogance: "And thus I am better than you."

I have difficulty identifying with a group of people who have as a primary 
tenet to exclude people from that group.  This problem has only deepened 
in recent years, because on the whole older people are staunch upholders 
of the "exclusivity principle", and most of the people I meet nowadays are 
older.  The problem of acceptance is twofold: how do I become accepted by
such groups, and on a more fundamental level, should I accept this state 
of affairs?  

It is a sad fact of our world that accomplishment is measured by exclusivity.
People deem something worthy if it is inaccessible, and they view something
commonplace as unimportant.  This, of course, is total garbage.  Worthiness
is not intrinsic, and importance is always contextual.  Yet because everyone
believes it, it is extremely difficult to accomplish any type of endearing
positive change without first gaining access to those very exclusive groups
able to do so.  

So therein lies the crux of my dilemma.  My primary goal in life is to make
a significant contribution to humanity.  But I am beginning to believe that
I will be unable to do so unless I first become accepted by an exclusive
group.  Whether it is academia, government spy-guys, etc. makes little 
difference (except, perhaps, in the tangible effect on my life  :-)  At the
moment, I cannot see any other realistic alternatives.

Of course, some people in the studio audience might be asking themselves:
"All well and good, Kim, but what the hell does this have to do with you
meeting new people?"  The same principle applies here: very few adults I
meet are willing to accept me as I am; almost all of them see me as a
representative of one or several groups.  It is becoming more difficult for
me to wade through layers of obfuscation whenever I meet someone new,
especially since inevitably there is some aspect of my life which lies
outside of the exclusive realms in which they will associate.  

But let me not place the onus on them.   I, too, sometimes find myself 
critical of the activities of others.  How do I identify with what I do 
not accept?  Should I accept the premise of the exclusive?  I have been 
wrestling with these questions all my life, and until recently my simple
answers sufficed.  But I am quickly coming to a watershed from which every
path I see is undesirable in some fashion... is there a good path?  Or will
I simply have to choose the path least repugnant and live with it?  

I do not know.

> It seems as our lives' focus narrows, it is more difficult to meet and
> connect with new people.  Also, the busier you are, sometimes the tougher it
> is.

I am not sure that I agree with you.  Focus is often the basis for an
expansion in connections.  Suppose, for example, that I become interested
in dancing... there are hundreds of clubs / dance halls / classes / groups
devoted to the most narrow range of dancing.  Furthermore, connections
sometimes only form by focus.  

You are making a big assumption in your last statement, namely that
busy-ness precludes interaction, which is patently false.  First, there
are some businesses which *are* interactive!  If I'm a bartender, a
salesperson, an activities coordinator, etc.  then more business means
more interaction.  Second, busy-ness is often the spur which drives 
people to new interaction.  I don't mean this in the "Gee, I'm so busy
I'm not meeting new people" type of sense, I mean it in the "I feel
really invigorated I think I'm going to try something new."

> << ...most of them were workaholics, and some were even bitter about their
> almost total lack of human connection.  It is possible I might trod the 
> same path myself, and I would like to avoid it if I could.>>
> 
> Can't say I blame you.  But are you even close to feeling bitter?

I don't think so.  But then again, like some diseases bitterness may
be undetectable until full blown...

> Or being a workaholic?  

Heh, heh, heh.  This is an excellent question, for which I have no easy
answer.  It all depends on whether you define it in the sense of 
potential (in which case I definitely am) or the actual (in which case
I'm doing my best to be a bum, despite overwhelming odds against me...  :-)

> What do you want?

o  I want to make a significant contribution to humanity.
o  I want to fall mutually in love with a woman and with her raise a heathly
family.
o  I want to enrich people's lives when I can, and avoid hurting them when 
I can't.  (If only these two were disjoint...)

That's not all of what I want, but it serves as a useful first approximation.

> It's a worthy goal.  One question, though, what do you classify as
> "significant?"  You don't necessarily have to change the world...a tiny
> corner works well, too.  :-)

An excellent question, which has a variety of different answers.  I'd say
that significant to me means:
  1) persistent  - it will last beyond my corporeal existence.
  2) widespread  - it affects a large number of people
  3) `affective' - it affects each individual deeply

Of course, an equally valid question might be what does "contribution" mean.
  1) useful      - people desire it and will use it
  2) positive    - it improves the quality of life
  3) fundamental - it serves as the basis for future advance

The best question is what I mean by "humanity".  I leave that to your 
imagination...  :-)

> All good.  But keep in mind, some significant contibutions are as simple as
> teaching someone to read, befriending and guiding a young child, or helping
> out in the community.  Don't discount the "smaller" realm of contributions
> when reviewing your accomplishments...

I am a strong proponent of making significant contributions at all levels,
large and small, globally and locally, years-in-the-making and in-the-
moment.  However, I do believe that actions which satisfy more of the
requirements are, in some sense, more desirable than those which satisy
less.  So 'teaching someone to read' ranks very high because it meets
five of the six criteria above strongly (lacking only widespread).  
However, 'helping out in the community' meets only four weakly (and is
the major reason why I don't do so).

> Interesting.  Curious, under the "affective" area, does each individual need
> to know that it affects them?  You see, I think I'm making a significant
> difference as an ATCS,  and few people understand what it is I do.  I am
> making thousands of decisions a day which affect tens of thousands of people
> each day.  

I would say the flavor of #3 is that the person is aware of the effect
(if not of the source).  From the framework above I'd say you decisions
were widespread but not affective.  Affective would be more along the 
lines of teaching someone to read, befriending and guiding a young child, 
etc.  :-)

> Change happens one person at a time.  

I personally like the way the Phantom Stranger says it.  He's talking to a
scientist living at the end of time, near the entropic heat death of the
universe.  The scientists then are trying to reach back through time to the
Big Bang to "borrow" some of the energy in order to rejuventate their
dying universe.  The Phantom Stranger tells him:

"Salvation is rarely doled out in packets so large."

> You can't fix everything; you won't
> live long enough!  

It is not my intent to fix everything, since as you have pointed out 
that is impossible.  Instead I've made a prioritized list, see, and I'm
working down from the top...  :-)

> I see this at work, too, on small and
> large scales.  We have some controllers who feel the secretarial staff is
> nothing (unless they need something).  These same secretaries are the ones
> responsible for inputing our pay, and all the myriad other paperwork and
> time-consuming duties that make *our* lives easier.  Then there' are the
> "good ole boy" clubs in management and the workforce...

That is exactly the type of thing which I have difficulty with... and
also exactly the type of thing which is most widespread.

> The problem with stereotyping is that many people start to believe it as
> fact, rather than a generalization that may or may not have basis in reality
> when applied to an individual - or career - or situation. 

Very succinct.  I may put this into my quote database...  

Speaking of quotes, Margot the Lady Astor was having tea with Winston 
Churchill.  She thought him mostly an uncouth ruffian (which he mostly
was) and said, "Sir, if I were your wife I'd poison your tea."

To which WC immediately responded, "Madam, were I your husband I'd drink it!"

8^)