Rant

[pastwatcher]

I hate dishonorable people. If I were a better person I'd keep this to myself, but I want to rant and I want someone to agree with me, or argue, or whatever.

We all have a language pledge, and it's fairly loose; we can speak English on the phone in our room, and write English; as long as no classmates or teachers hear, in theory it's okay, but we're also not supposed to use English to communicate in person with people who can speak Chinese. I stretched it to the limit (and broke my promise to myself, which was stricter than what I could technically be allowed) once when I went to meet Mom's friend by speaking English with /her/, because she barely speaks any Chinese, and I felt bad enough about that but I would've felt worse refusing to speak properly with her otherwise (we actually met again, but this time with her son who /does/ speak Chinese, so I just spoke Chinese). But three of my classmates--two whom I thought were almost certainly lazy enough to speak English whenever they felt like it (one of whom even burst into an English sentence today) and one whom I really didn't think would do so--were just out at the gate of our dorm, speaking pure English to each other. Never mind that we're all pretty fluid, and I even claim to be fluent (though I'm still missing some obvious vocabulary, like "elbow"), so Chinese is no problem at all.

It's kind of ironic, actually; I have a possibly bad tendency to judge certain kinds of people pretty quickly based on their clothing or behavior. Forgive my language, but if they dress like they want to sleep around (well, okay, maybe only like they want to be in a magazine) and they go no further than to find out my name (come to think of it, I still don't know the names of the two of them) before ignoring me, I'm not going to like them, and furthermore I'm not going to respect them. Now the problem with this kind of judgment is that I often think of them is dumb, which these days since I'm mostly meeting such people at Harvard or this high-level program is not true; in fact, they're not even unmotivated. But they /are/ dishonorable, often--by which I include lying. They also don't care about things like rules. I can even understand not wanting to follow rules; after all, they're not of one's own design. But the language pledge?? I can even understand realizing that at this point, using lots of English doesn't necessarily matter; at least for me, unless I'm speaking to a Chinese person there's not much improvement as long as I use Chinese most of the time, because switching is easy. But in truth, though the third girl doesn't seem to have a problem with Chinese, the other two /do/ have a problem leaving English words out of their speech. And we /promised!/ It's disgusting. No wonder the teachers want to treat us all like possibly mischievous (that's pronounced [mis-chi-vus] all vowels short, not [mis-chi-vi-us] middle two vowels long, by the way) children, if my classmates are going to act as such.

The girl whom I /did/ like was apparently coming in as the other two were going out, and when I ran into her I actually asked why she wanted to speak English. (Er, the meaning of that, despite use of the word "要，=want” is closer to "Why were you speaking English" in Chinese.) She just shrugged, and said something I couldn't hear after I pointed out that she had promised.

The worst of it is I am in the age-old goody-goody dilemma of whether or not to tell on them; I think not, obviously. They're only cheating themselves--well, that's not true, they're "polluting" me too, in theory, and to a more significant degree each other--and it's their own promise they're breaking. Furthermore, I don't like to tell on rule-breaking people, because rules aren't of my own design either. But this really seems different. Like Princeton's honor code, which I am in love with; did you know that at Princeton if you plagiarize or cheat you are expelled, not because you broke their rules but because when you came in you signed a code of honor promising you wouldn't cheat or plagiarize? So there's nothing to rebel against but the very concept of honor and promises, and "beating the system" (how I hate that phrase) doesn't make as much sense as it does at Harvard. You're also honor-bound to report cheating etc., though, with the result that at final exams, after staying a while to answer questions, the professor just leaves, and there's no proctor, but I've never seen anyone cheat. Of course I've only taken math exams there, but still.


So that's event number 2 of the day that has made me realized there are still real reasons why I'm not made for mainstream or at least "fashionable" society, at least in my age group. (The first was a Chinese table talk, with different people who /would/ have to talk about dating, and their "standards," and their "perfect men" whom they wouldn't deserve after maturing in mind for 20 years, and how "all guys cheat," etc. No, I'm not bitter, not at all.) I'd started to wonder about it--having a sense of pride in being different was something I started to think wasn't good for me, and maybe people were more like me than I thought--which is true, but there /are/ important gaps. I don't mean to imply that I think everyone is like this, nor that I can stereotype the entirety of American college students outside of me, my friends, HRSFA, and people I do respect (heh); note that I speak of two/three students out of us 27, and I attempt not to act on the jugments.

Phew. No, timmypowg has not hacked my livejournal and posted this, I promise. Oh, and I keep my promises as best I can, dammit.

At any rate, the aforementioned dinner with Anson and his mom's friend did happen, and was fun. I have to prepare for the talent show now, it's tomorrow preceded by a dress rehearsal...sigh.

Comments

[timmypowg.livejournal.com]

Go go gadget Mauro-style elitism! ;p

I think that it's not that people are dumb or unmotivated; it's just that they're not Good people. As in, they don't actively care about being moral, don't think it's cool to spend time thinking about whether abstract actions are right, give in to temptation, etc. Of course, this is a generalization, but I think it's a fair one -- other people seem to be much meaner to each other than I am to anyone... I wouldn't say they're *dishonorable*. They simply rate their convenience higher than us and principles lower.

I once had a friend who said she lived her life 100% on the basis of principles. They weren't the same principles as mine, to be sure, but they were strong. My argument at the time was that one shouldn't do that, because sometimes the blow to convenience is just too big. I can't think of anything right now, but I know that there are borderline cases. And even if I can't think of any, it's important to leave the options open -- I may have to break a rule to save a life, possibly my own.

I think the crucial difference is one of intellectual curiosity, or more like whatever causes it, though I tend to lump them together. Some people care about abstract things, learning, thinking, analyzing, etc.; others spend that energy caring about the social world, which seems to us vapid because it involves not caring about those abstract things. Make sense?

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Like Princeton's honor code, which I am in love with; did you know that at Princeton if you plagiarize or cheat you are expelled, not because you broke their rules but because when you came in you signed a code of honor promising you wouldn't cheat or plagiarize?

In practice, there is no difference between enforcing rules, and requiring people to agree to rules and enforcing the agreement. Requiring people to agree is simply a rule.

[sandmantv.livejournal.com]

Nod.

[timmypowg.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I think that requiring people to agree shifts the burden of responsibility, especially if the agreement is publicized as important. Everyone clicks on "I accept" on license agreements without reading them; this honor code is different. It's not imposed on you in the same way that license agreements are imposed. You're given the option of cheating, and if you do, you will probably go undetected or nobody will report you. If I caught you cheating, I probably would just pretend I didn't. But you KNOW that YOU made the decision to not cheat. The school trusts you not to cheat, and you are violating that very explicit trust. It's not breaking the rules but violating trust. I think it carries a different moral weight.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

It's not imposed on you in the same way that license agreements are imposed.

Some license agreements (such as the GNU GPL) are imposed due to you taking certain actions (which would otherwise be forbidden). Others are imposed via other mechanisms.

In the Princeton case, the agreement is imposed as a condition of attending. You can't say, "well, I won't agree to this, but I still want to attend." You're not given that option. If you were, I would agree that there is a difference.

But in general when rules are imposed by non-government (non-parent, for children) parties, you have the choice of following the rules or not taking advantage of the parties' services. That doesn't mean that such rules are always legitimate, or that there is no coercion. Indeed, I think most rules are illegitimate. But it is no more dishonorable to break a rule which is phrased as a rule than it is to break one that is phrased as an agreement.

[lowellboyslash.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[pastwatcher]

Hmm...I still genuinely think there's a big difference between going to a school and having rules enforced upon you, and agreeing very obviously "yes, I'll go here and I'll be this kind of a student." I think people simply don't treat online agreements and other contracts as actual promises (I'm probably an exception here as I always at least skim contracts); the honor code and the language pledge, however, are promises. And you're supposed to be your own enforcer; I really don't understand the mentality "as long as nobody's looking, I can break this rule" when it's a rule of your own honor. I think there's more than phrasing, that there's a completely different concept: if it's just a rule, it's the school's problem, and you're delighted to get away scot-free. If you've promised, it's /your/ problem. I think sophiescat's last comment phrased it better, though.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

OK, let's put the online thing aside for a minute, and look at just school rules.

I guess one possible difference is that an honor code involves the one's responsibility towards other students and/or professors, rather than towards the institution. Where there is a large power differential (as there is between a student and a university), the party with less power should feel less bound by rules/agreements. But when the power differential is smaller (as between students, or even between students and individual professors), agreements have more moral force.

[pastwatcher]

> Where there is a large power differential (as there is between a student and a university), the > party with less power should feel less bound by rules/agreements. But when the power
> differential is smaller (as between students, or even between students and individual
> professors), agreements have more moral force.

I think so too, but I haven't been able to justify it logically, really. Why do you say that?

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Lying is a way of gaining an advantage over someone. In order to equalize power, we want to permit those with less power to lie to those with more power. We want to equalize power because (a) it is impossible to have power without hurting someone to get it or starting with more power, and (b) in a just society, neither of these would happen. Power is always power-over.

[pastwatcher]

So to you there's no difference in fairness between a person with much power and the power formed by a group of people acting as an entity?

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Almost all groups of people acting as an entity have power not because they have many members, but because their members individually have power, or because the group has money obtained (ultimately) through various misdeeds.

Put another way, I'm not totally hostile to pure democracy, but I have yet to see one.

[pastwatcher]

So this adds a complication, that of measuring how much of an entity's power over a person is just...which means that a person would essentially decide for himself as he liked (grr, I'd like to be able to use "随便" in that sentence, oh well) and this could easily imply the decision always to treat a non-person entity as having less moral force. This seems not right to me. (disclaimer for not thinking clearly due to sleepiness)

[(Anonymous)]

This is novalis, not logged in because I am in Hungary. Please send email if you reply, since I think LJ will not send me a notification).

So this adds a complication, that of measuring how much of an entity's power over a person is just.

Power over someone is never justified except maybe in certain situations which I am having a hard time finding the word for; the only example I can think of is voluntary power exchanges of the BDSM sort (and even these have been known to go wrong).

and this could easily imply the decision always to treat a non-person entity as having less moral force.

This seems right to me, although almost independent of the power thing.

[sophiescat.livejournal.com]

Having gone to a school with an honor code and one without I think there is in fact a difference if not in actual level of restriction but in the attitude the community has towards potential rule breaking. At Smith the assumption (even when people didn't live up to this assumption) was that people would be rule abiding and trustworthy and to the degree they weren't this shouldn't negatively effect the lives of other students. At PTS the professors seem really paranoid about cheating - far more then anyone was at Smith and this means they have to be far more inflexible in dealing with their students. I find the lack of honor code to make a big difference on the quality of the community and the relationship between student and professor at the respective institutions.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Smith's honor code seems to me to be a set of rules. I don't see anything in the online version which states anything about student agreement, nor about honor code violations being problematic because they're a violation of the agreement.

[sandmantv.livejournal.com]

Oh sure, honor codes may be good in several ways (and more likely, they may fit certain situations better and differently).

Do you think breaking the honor code at Smith is morally worse than cheating at Princeton? That was the original point.

[sophiescat.livejournal.com]

Well I was only replying to the phrase "In practice, there is no difference between enforcing rules, and requiring people to agree to rules and enforcing the agreement." - Which is to say there is in fact a difference in the attitude the whole community has towards the rules even if perhaps this is a largely artificial distinction. So yes the rules were set and the students had limited control over how they were written (though a fair amount of control over their enforcement) but I think the attitude a community towards rules matters a great deal.

While I'm not sure about the comparitive morality of breaking one rule vs. the other (though I would lean towards it being worse in an honor code system) I feel more willing to cheat in a system that assumes I will then one that trusts me not to.

[timmypowg.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

But still no to Novalis: I, for one, never read licences. I don't know what they say, and I'll generally use the product however I want regardless. Generally this is just normal use, of course. They're exactly equivalent to my saying that I agree to be bound by a certain set of rules, and I agree that enforcing the agreement is identical to enforcing the rules.

HOWEVER, what is NOT true is that the agreement carries the same moral weight as the rules. The agreement in this case says that we, the school, trust that you will be honest. We won't look over your shoulder while you're taking tests. You can take the test during any four-hour period, and we trust that you will not look at forbidden resources or talk to people about the test during that period. You'll be in your own room, or the library, or anywhere, really, so we won't even see you. BUT if we find out that you cheated, you'll be punished.

That's the honor code at Caltech, if I remember correctly. But see, you're given complete freedom, and it would be very easy to just mathworld the theorem you forgot on the math test. What's to keep people from doing it? Nobody would find out, seriously. Nobody at all. And yet, it works. Why? Because people are trusted to conduct themselves honestly. There's faith in the system. Whether to cheat isn't a question of how you can avoid getting caught, it's whether you would violate your professor's trust in this way. I think it's much stronger among the right group of people.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

How do you know that the system at Caltech works? Couldn't there be lots of people cheating undetectably?

Reed, which I attended, had the same policy, and I never cheated; nor did anyone ever admit to me that they cheated. But it's possible that cheating was widespread, and undetected.

(also, see my response below)

[novalis.livejournal.com]

You're right -- "in practice" was the wrong phrase to use. I meant ethically speaking.

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

You are right, it is better not to tell on these girls. Primarily, this is because the rule is set up in order to help you improve your Chinese, so if they don't care about improving their Chinese then why bother trying to force them to adhere to the rule?

I'd guess the girl you're friendly with, the one who is actually good at Chinese, probably got sucked into speaking in English with the other two through peer pressure. It's sad, but it explains why she didn't really give you a reply.

Think happy thoughts!

[pastwatcher]

Don't worry, I'm not going to tell on them. But that last statement is somewhat comforting, though I don't have respect for negative peer pressure. (I think of being dragged to HRSFA and the Noteables etc. as positive peer pressure; if I actually thought it was the wrong thing to do, I wouldn't come.)

Happy thought: I should be able to see you on Wednesday! :) Do you want to arrange a place to meet, in Beijing proper? It may be difficult for me to get out to the airport, but I'm going to ask about it. If I have to go myself it could take anywhere between 40 minutes and 2 hours to get there, and I won't be able to leave here until 3 (I'd prefer 4, so I don't miss seal carving lesson), but I'll get studying done ahead of time, so that won't really be a problem.

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

I would very much like to meet up with you; unfortunately I have no idea what is going on once we're in Beijing, other than we hang out for 22 hours before catching a flight to Kunming. Do you have any ideas for how we could stay in contact once I'm there? I will have my computer, so I can try to get internet somewhere...

Also, seal carving?? Wait...you mean the seal up a letter kind of seal, not the cute fat swimmy things kind of seal...right?

[pastwatcher]

Rrgh. Well, there are Internet cafés. I also have a cell phone (011-86-10-13699127132, though if you're in Beijing you start with the 136... and if you're not you do 010-136...) so you could easily buy a phone card appropriate for calling from a pay phone. That's almost certainly the easiest way (keep in mind that I may answer in Chinese and require you to talk while I find a place where I can speak English), but if you get internet you can also email me; the problem with that is that it's best for me, obviously, to come and see you in the afternoon which is soon after you get back. If you don't call me I'll get back to my room at 4:15ish and check email, and then check again at 5 or so; it would make sense, after all, to have dinner. I'm going to assume you're less movable than am I, as you'll be in a group of friends, and at any rate if I want to speak English I need to be somewhere with no classmates or teachers, because then I'd be bound by the language pledge. (Honestly as I said I feel like I shouldn't speak English anyway, but I never promised not to contact my friends, and we're allowed to go speak English with English-speaking friends or relatives or whatever.) But if you /do/ make it into Beijing proper, that would probably be significantly easier for me. :)

天啊！！ Yes, it's the former!!

[silkspinner.livejournal.com]

So, we had this same problem in Spain, and there's a lovely sentence in Spanish which translates literally as "Well I will not return to talk with you, for you are a person without honor." The nice thing was that not saying this to someone arrogant enough to speak English would have been culturally inappropriate...anyway, maybe there's an equivalent in Chinese?

[pastwatcher]

Hahaha...I don't know. Perhaps I will try to find out if there is such an idiom; I believe the traditional Chinese sense of honor is no less strong (though it'd have to be /somewhat/ less foolish) than the Spanish.

>not saying this to someone arrogant enough to speak English would have been culturally inappropriate
Your negatives confuse me. What? (I'm going to assume the first "not" shouldn't be there.)

[lord-codfish.livejournal.com]

I believe that she meant that one would be forced to say it in such a situation... translate it as a 不得不 construction. :)

Out of curiosity, what's the Spanish sentence?

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

Well, if it's literal..."Pues, no voy a regresar para hablar contigo, porque eres una persona sin honor."

Although probably using usted instead of tu, and possibly "regresare" instead of "voy a regresar."

:D

[pastwatcher]

Sigh...I would really like to learn a significant amount of Spanish before Spring Break. (Uchoir is going to Mexico, and basically I 不得不go with them.)

Yay, though--I could have got the meaning of that sentence without knowing it already!

[silkspinner.livejournal.com]

"Pues no volveré a hablar contigo, que tú eres una persona sin honor" was what I had in mind.