The Five-Paragraph Essay

Many high-school and college age students have been required to write a five-paragraph essay. I myself have written dozens. This essay is purportedly the only way to write an essay, but this is obviously not true. So why is this format so often used in schools, and what are its pros and cons?

The format itself involves writing an essay that is five paragraphs long. More specifically, there is an introduction and a conclusion; the last sentence in the introduction is the thesis statement, which is the driving point of the whole essay. A good thesis divides the topic into three categories, one for each paragraph.

One major advantage to this type of essay is that it is very structured. This makes it easy to grade, and helps many students to organize their thoughts when they otherwise wouldn’t be able to come up with an essay that had any sort of logical flow. In addition, this format barely inhibits the quality of the essay (depending on the topic); it is possible to write a great essay and still follow this format.

What are the most significant difficulties with this format? Well, most obviously, sometimes you simply cannot say what you need to say in five paragraphs alone. Sometimes you just need more space. Another difficulty with this format is that it is for some purposes too rigid. A flexible format can encourage a type of thinking that is not restricted to an introduction, three main ideas, and a conclusion. An adept essay writer would often feel restricted by the five-paragraph format. At the same time, though, an adept essay writer would be able to be completely expressive in any decent format. And the five-paragraph format is, if not anything else, decent.

I can certainly understand why the five-paragraph format is frequently used, but it is not always the right solution. Students should be encouraged to diversify their writing styles. As I went over in a previous post, essayist Paul Graham denounces the five-paragraph essay as “really a list of n things for n = 3 . . . [where students are] not allowed to include the numbers, and they’re expected to spackle over the gaps with gratuitous transitions (“Furthermore…”) and cap the thing at either end with introductory and concluding paragraphs so it will look superficially like a real essay.” I don’t loathe it quite as much as Graham seems to, but it is certainly not the be-all end-all of essay formats.

By the way, it was a complete accident that I wrote this post in almost-five-paragraph essay format. Honest. You’ll notice a lack of a thesis statement, though, because those are hard to do in blog posts (and also kind of useless, since with blog essays I usually make it up as I go along).

Can minors ethically participate in consensual sex?

The question proposed herein is, Can adults ethically have consensual sex with minors, or is it always wrong? I will be analyzing this position from a rational perspective.

First, when is sex immoral? It is immoral when one party is being unwillingly harmed, as in the case of rape. This can also apply in cases in which one party does not understand the possible risks or outcomes. And this is the exact reason why most people are opposed to adults having sex with minors. However, the age at which people become rational enough to understand the consequences of their decisions is lower than most people think. Some middle schoolers are much more rational than adults. It is clear enough that there is no legitimate reason why these people can’t participate in consensual sex with adults. Wait, what’s that you say? It’s illegal? Well, what kind of argument is that?!

I am certainly opposed to adult humans having sex with irrational beings. This includes babies, sheep, etc. as such beings cannot make the decision to participate. The same applies to relatively young children, who do not really understand what’s going on. But once you are old enough to understand what you’re doing and the consequences of your actions, you’re fair game. For some this happens at 13, for some it happens at 16, for others it happens at 20. But for most people this point is before 18, so it is irrational to completely ban sex with minors.

In fact, while we’re at it, we should lower the voting age to 16. I generally agree that the age at which you become a legal adult should be 18; I know a good deal of 17- and 18-year olds, and they seem just about ready to tackle adulthood. 16 year olds, though, are smart enough to be able to vote rationally. I personally probably could have started voting at around age 14, in the second half of 8th grade. I don’t know so much about other people; I could go on about why the voting age should be this or that, but that’s not really the point right now. Since I seem to have run out of things to say, I’m just going to wrap up.

In conclusion, the exact age of 18 is not a real barrier. Instead, the barrier is an understand of the consequences of one’s own actions, which people each get at different times — and frequently before the age of 18.

The Many Varieties of Paper

You might be thinking that this is a joke. And it a way, it is. But at the same time, think of how many types of paper we have. In particular, think about all the varieties of paper we use exclusively for wiping our bodies. We have paper towels for when our hands are wet, paper napkins for when our hands have food on them, facial tissues for our noses, and toilet paper for . . . well, you know. These are some rather interesting distinctions. I personally find that the right type of paper towel can serve any of these four purposes. Well, maybe except for one.

Kind of makes you wonder where the differences come from.

Article of the Day: In Praise of the Devil

This is a lovely article about why Lucifer is an admirable character. No, it is not the lunatic ravings of an ego-maniacal madman. In truth, it’s a very interesting article. The author proposes that Lucifer is not an immoral character; on the contrary:

Lucifer is the embodiment of reason, of intelligence, of critical thought. He stands against the dogma of God and all other dogmas. He stands for the exploration of new ideas and new perspectives in the pursuit of truth.

Lucifer was a rational fellow who was willing to question God’s word. This is something to be admired, but it is understandable how God would, well, demonize such activity.

They call Lucifer the Prince of Lies. A lie is defined by the Christian as anything which contradicts the Word of God – as told to us by the Bible and God’s representatives on Earth. If we accept this definition of a lie then we should praise lies. A “lie” is then a questioning of blind dogma.

Praise Lucifer!

A Thesis Regarding the Intention and Success of the No Late Work Policy

This is a modified version of an essay I wrote for extra credit in English class.

Recently, my school implemented a new policy, stating that late work will no longer be accepted. I will be evaluating the successes and failures of this policy in relative circumstances, and proposing that under certain personal circumstances, the policy is ineffective and should not be enforced.

The original intention of the policy was to prevent students from abusing the leniency previously offered regarding late work. Many students treated late work not as an exceptional circumstance but merely as an option resulting in a few points being deducted from one’s grade. As a consequence, many students were intentionally procrastinating until after their work was due and suffering only minor consequences.

The secondary intention of the policy was the fact that it is more difficult for teachers to grade late work; when students are allowed and almost encouraged to turn work in late, it puts more pressure on teachers to be flexible beyond reason.

I will address both of these intentions and evaluate them with respect to the No Late Work policy; I will also evaluate the policy regarding my personal circumstances.

The No Late Work Policy acts as an effective deterrent to abusing the ability to turn work in late, simply by making it impossible to turn work in late. It also effectively addresses the second concern by giving teachers predictable times in which they will need to grade work. However, it has caused numerous problems, which I will now address.

Firstly, the policy causes issues for students who are sick or otherwise have external circumstances causing them to miss a deadline. These students suffer due to something which was for the most part out of their control. This issue is easily remedied by allowing teachers to give extensions in particular circumstances.

Secondly, the policy is ineffective regarding students who otherwise uphold integrity regarding their schoolwork. Suppose a student normally upholds academic integrity, but forgets to turn in a large assignment. His or her grade would suffer disproportionately, and would no longer reflect that student’s level of academic excellence. Under such circumstances, the No Late Work policy effectively supports neither intention.

The primary intention of the policy would not be abused by allowing such an exceptional student to turn in an assignment one day late with only minor grade deduction. Such a student would not have a history of abusing the late work policy, but rather a history to the contrary. But due to a single mistake on one heavily-weighted assignment, the student’s grade may suffer very severely. The student’s grade in that class would no longer appropriately reflect his or her level of achievement or academic integrity. Therefore, the grade is failing to serve the primary purpose of grades themselves, and is instead reflecting the academic integrity of someone who is presupposed to have a history of failing to get in his work on time, which our student does not.

An argument that could be made in response to my argument is that rules are rules, and they should be followed. But this prompts me to ask, Why? Maybe it’s because if one exception is made, then other students will want exceptions too, many of whom will not be deserving. But the trouble with this argument is that it relies on the premises that a) other students will know about the exception; that b) other students will then want unjustified exceptions; and that c) the teacher will be unable to refuse. Each of these premises is flawed, and exceptions have been made in the past. For instance, two years ago I wanted to go off campus for lunch; at the time, I was required to go in a group of three, but could only find one person. I asked for permission to go off-campus with only one other person, and an exception was made, because the administration trusted us. Did this open a floodgate of students looking for exceptions? No, it did not.

As a response to this series of outcomes, I propose a new grading system. The student’s first late assignment should be deducted by 20% per day. The second time the student has a late assignment, the grade should be deducted by 40% per day, the third time 60%, and so on. Such a system would still discourage late work, but would be less severe for otherwise excellent students who make the occasional mistake.

The purpose of the No Late Work policy is to prevent students from taking advantage of the ability to turn their work in late. This has been successful, but other serious problems have arisen. My proposed solution can ameliorate all problems involved.

I really like that rose.

Another experiment.

So I was walking through the park one day, and this strange little man came up to me. He was barefoot, and had curly little old man toes. He pointed with a shaky finger and said to me, “I really like that rose.”

At the time, I didn’t really think much of it. I tried to avoid eye contact and kept walking. But now that I think about it, that one little sentence changed my life more than anything else I’ve ever heard. It was such a profound expression that only a man like that could express. He found something in that moment that he appreciated more than anything else in the world, and he expressed it to me. He was such a simple man, but he appreciated that rose just so much. If only we could all learn to be like that man.

Article of the Day: In Defense of Dangerous Ideas

This article by Steven Pinker is, as is said by the title, a defense of dangerous ideas.

An excerpt:

In every age, taboo questions raise our blood pressure and threaten moral panic. But we cannot be afraid to answer them.

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? . . .

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? . . .

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? . . .

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? . . .

Perhaps you can feel your blood pressure rise as you read these questions. Perhaps you are appalled that people can so much as think such things. Perhaps you think less of me for bringing them up. These are dangerous ideas — ideas that are denounced not because they are self-evidently false, nor because they advocate harmful action, but because they are thought to corrode the prevailing moral order.

After reading this article, I have formulated a proposition. The proposition is this: complete honesty is the best strategy to maximize moral uprightness.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that women are far smarter than men. Some people may be strongly opposed to this idea; but remember that it is only for the sake of argument. As it is, we treat men and women as equals, or at least try to. But if men are treated as just as apt as women, then this would certainly be unfair. We may not like the prospect, but the best thing to do would be to treat women and men as they are, and not as how we want them to be. Therefore, honesty and inquisitive investigation is the way to go.

This same logic can be applied to any of the scenarios listed by Pinker. If we make a false assumption because we are afraid of the truth, then in the end we are only harming ourselves.

Interestingly, this does not seem to be true all of the time. But a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time, it certainly is. What is the difference, then? Would complete honesty always be the most beneficial, but our culture gets in the way of it? For instance, you might not want me to tell you that you’re fat, but if you are then it may help you in the long run. But we have strong social pressure not to talk about such things. There also seem to be some circumstances in which honesty really doesn’t help at all. For example, if there’s someone who you think is ugly, but they can’t to anything about it, how can it benefit either of you to tell them? Such honesty is only hurtful. Unless, of course, there is a societal shift. If we start to care less about how people look, then it will no longer be a problem. We all like to talk about how it’s what’s on the inside that counts, but let’s face it. We care what people look like. Basing how we like someone on how they look is completely unfair, but we still do it. If we didn’t do it, though, then there would be nothing wrong will telling someone that we think they’re ugly.

Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson what he thinks about this issue.

Here we are not afraid to follow truth, wherever it may lead.

I think that makes his position clear enough.

I think the sentence that best sums up the article is this:

Rational adults want to know the truth, because any action based on false premises will not have the effects they desire.

I think that this is a wonderful point, and I’ll leave you at that.

Miles Davis: the Electric Years

This is a new blogging experiment. I got a friend to type in the title. I will be doing nothing other than sitting down and writing this topic, based only on the title. No research, no talking. Only writing. We’ll see how it goes.

Who is Miles Davis? Honestly, I don’t know. I presume he’s a musician of some sort. I’ve heard his name before, but I don’t really know much about him.

So then, what is there for me to say about his “Electric Years”? Well, they were electric, certainly. It was a time in which he was very successful. He was like lightning. He blew people away with this jazzy stylings, and today is still regarded as one of the greatest musicians of the era. He was actually the inspiration for the entire genre of hip hop. He has something of a cult following; in fact, there is a group called the Electric Miles Davis Coalition, where they run through suburban neighborhoods and knock on doors. When you answer the door, they blast Miles Davis music and dance to it. What’s the point of all this? They really just want people to hear the greatness that is Miles Davis.

True Coexistence

A week ago I participated in a discussion regarding coexistence, in the context of post-Martin Luther King Day. The conversation got me thinking about the meaning of true coexistence.

Current ideas on coexistence are certainly not it. The scope of the popular idea of coexistence is far too narrow: it only includes the human species. The world is moving in a direction to where all ideologies are tolerated. But when will we be tolerant of the needs of living species beyond humans? As it is, humankind is rather poor at respecting other animals. That is not difficult to see. We are cutting down rainforests which contain thousands of species and billions of animals. We are building offices, stores and residences and taking up more and more land for ourselves. There are those animals who have benefitted from the spread of humans, but they are in the minority.

To truly coexist with other animals, we as humans would have to stop consuming so many resources. Overall, that’s good not just for other animals but for us. We’re going to run out eventually. But to become truly sustainable would require major lifestyle changes, perhaps the most significant ever. This is not something as simple as the minute difference between capitalism and communism. This is big.

One question that I am interested in is, how effectively can we coexist with other animals and with the environment, and at the same time retain as much of modern life as possible? I for one am rather invested in modern life, and I happen to enjoy it greatly. A lot of the trick here will be stability. What parts of modern life can we retain and be able to continue them for hundreds or even thousands of years without disrupting our surroundings? A reduction of resource usage will obviously be necessary, but there are other issues as well. We would have to stop expanding our cities; we would have to stop building so much and stop producing and consuming so many goods that end up creating side effects.

But that’s enough of that. Now I will move on to another interesting question. This question is about the nature of society. In our communities, nearly all members are humans. We do have animals (i.e. pets), but they hardly count as they are generally regarded more as objects for our pleasure than fellow members of a community. Would it be possible to integrate animals into society, on the same level as humans? I find tihs prospect to the fascinating. For nearly all species, the practical difficulties of forming an interspecies society — whether it be the language barrier, vastly different morals, or some species’ simple inability to comprehend what society is — would be overwhelming. But there are a few cases in which it just might work. Look at chimpanzees, for example. I don’t know a whole lot about them, but I know that some have learned sign language. It makes me wonder just what kind of conversation one could have with a chimpanzee. For example, could you discuss philosophy? Are there chimpanzees that would be able to understand such a thing? If not, then what about something simpler such as small talk? Could you maybe have a less deep conversation with a chimpanzee, and have it be just as successful as if it were with a human?

Unfortunately, I don’t think that this kind of thing will be possible a lot of the time. Under such circumstances, the best we can do is not to integrate, but merely to coexist.

Now, by my own moral philosophy, the most moral thing to do is to maximize the happiness of as many beings as possible. But I know that we humans are selfish, not just for ourselves but for our species, so we want to maximize the happiness of our species. Will this be possible? I think so. What usually makes people unhappy these days? Some people don’t like their jobs. Other people don’t like their spouses. Still others are in the midst of genocide, or have to walk three hours a day to get dirty, disease-ridden water and bring it back to their family, meaning they have to drop out of school at a young age which ruins their chances of ever getting out of poverty. (Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?) These problems will not worsen if we make the kinds of societal changes that I have hinted at.

And hinting at them is precisely what I have done. I haven’t been more specific because this is a complex idea which cannot be fully fleshed out in a hastily-written essay. Maybe this is all just pointless speculation about concepts that will never come to fruition. Maybe it is all hopeless idealism. But maybe not. And maybe it will make you think a little. What if we did achieve true coexistence? What if we incorporated other species into the core of our society? Things could get interesting. Very interesting.

Relevant to “A New Model of Education”

Kiran Bir Sethi teaches kids to take charge. And it actually works. This is relevant to my post, An Ideal Model of Education.