Setting The Record straight
So, it seems I’ve been written up in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, a newspaper whose prestige and journalistic excellence make the Wall Street Journal look like the Shop-Rite coupon book. The article, by Meghan Waters, is about “nerd culture” in Waterloo, and I am the prototypical nerd who Waters found to interview.
A few corrections:
- While I said some very nice things about Mike Lazaridis, I did not compare him to God. (Sorry, Mike!)
- I did not use the phrase “create some nerd capital.” Indeed, if you find a phrase that sounds like I wouldn’t have used it, I probably didn’t use it.
- I did not confidently declare that in the future, “nerdlings will dream about” the University of Waterloo as they now do MIT and Caltech (“just give it some time”). I speculated that something like this might happen, particularly if the US were to continue its descent into medieval theocracy.
Despite these and other minor errors, I’m glad that my plan to increase the number of women in science by “nerdifying the world” has now received the wide public airing it deserves.
Follow
Comment #1 October 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Nice. I’m just waiting for you to get interviewed by the NYT.
Comment #2 October 16th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Scott,
You write:
“…if the US were to continue its descent into medieval theocracy.”
Maybe this whole issue is being overblown; the Religious Right is trying to replace what they see as the slow erosion of public morality and Christian ethics by the all-pervasive march of globalization and free-market capitalism. (Then again, there may exist an implicit irony here: we Americans – including one presumes the Right – want the comforts and luxuries of free-market capitalism, but without the social problems it seems to engender.) Well, that’s the Right for you. As for technological and scientific progress, I don’t believe the Right in general wants to diminish that; they just want it framed within a broader Christian-based system – whatever that may be.
Comment #3 October 16th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Maybe this whole issue is being overblown; the Religious Right is trying to replace what they see as the slow erosion of public morality and Christian ethics by the all-pervasive march of globalization and free-market capitalism.
That is, they want to do something systemic to prevent the obsolescence of Christianity from being made manifest; to prevent Christianity from being washed away due to cultural change. That is, they wish to ensconce Christian values at a governmental level. That is, they wish to establish a theocracy.
As for technological and scientific progress, I don’t believe the Right in general wants to diminish that; they just want it framed within a broader Christian-based system – whatever that may be.
That is, they wish to impose theocratic limitations. It isn’t the limitation of science that is the cause for concern; it is the nature and reasons for the limitation.
So, maybe the whole issue is being overblown: after all, the Religious Right is just trying to establish a theocracy.
Comment #4 October 16th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Can I live in a medieval theocracy if it means I won’t have to listen to rap and won’t have to see rappers grabbing their crotches on tv? Where do I sign up?
Comment #5 October 16th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Nerdifying the world? Not if it means … the terrifying world … of Chess Club … where “primal aggression is set free.”
Comment #6 October 16th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Hi Warren
you don’t have to listen to rap music and, even if you had to, living in a medieval teocracy would be too high a price.
or feel free to move to one of the teocracies that have already been established.
Comment #7 October 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Can you be more specific by what you mean by “descent into medieval theocracy”?
Comment #8 October 16th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
The Cambridge English dictionary defines “medieval theocracy” as “any Islamic government, or Scott Aaronson’s judgment regarding the United States.”
Comment #9 October 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
> have to see rappers grabbing their crotches on tv
My tv comes with a great feature, which they call the “power off” button. Perhaps your tv has this feature too, in this case you are actually able to turn it off.
Comment #10 October 16th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Can you be more specific by what you mean by “descent into medieval theocracy”?
Yes. I mean descent into a situation where it’s acceptable (or even necessary) for those in political power to believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, that a ball of 200 cells has the moral status of a person, and that the imminence of the Second Coming means we don’t need to worry about climate change. Such beliefs can only occur in the context of a medieval, 14th-century worldview. To be clear, I have nothing against people dressing up like knights, going to Renaissance Fairs, etc. The problem only arises when leaders actually base their actual decisions on a pre-Copernican understanding of the universe.
Comment #11 October 16th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
The Cambridge English dictionary defines “medieval theocracy” as “any Islamic government, or Scott Aaronson’s judgment regarding the United States.”
I don’t own the “Cambridge English dictionary,” but I can tell you exactly what I think: that the American government has been sliding toward where Islamic governments already are. Obviously, I staunchly support a government in free fall over ones that have already hit rock bottom.
Comment #12 October 16th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
That medieval theocracy thing is just a side show, I think; I found much more interesting the idea of creating nerd/geek potential as a form of industrial/innovation policy, since it is the nerd/geek that drives an innovation-based economy in the ICT and future nano/bio/converging techno-economic paradigm. And as they can settle where they want, living close to physical ressources not being of the essence anymore, to create an urban infrastructure they enjoy is the royal path to economic development… The definition of nerd/geek in the piece is of course lousy, but the point as such is as interesting as it is important.
Comment #13 October 16th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
All that is fine, but I want to know why do reporters keep getting things wrong. When someone says something, and you want to put what he said between quotes, then you write exactly what he said. Why are reporters so sloppy?
Comment #14 October 16th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
jens, I’ve been “quoted” by reporters and they basically just made up things that they thought I might have said. I’ve had a PR person for my organization ask me for some nice juicy quotes which she then proceeded to feed me. (It was a lot of fun, let me tell you, in the same way that a tug-of-war is fun, as I kept trying to say my own actual words and she kept giving them back to me in “improved” form, which had very little resemblance to what I had actually said.)
Is this what reporters learn in J-school? Are they being cross-pollinated with the PR people?
Did Scott actually say any of the things he was quoted as saying?
Well anyway – I’m glad to see the world waking up and taking notice of his plan to nerdify it. (This paper’s got bigger circulation than the WSJ, too, right?)
Comment #15 October 17th, 2006 at 2:50 am
“Medieval theocracy” – what a laugh riot. Bush sees the religious right as a constituency, nothing more. Unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove, who are indispensable. Now there’s a scary thought…
Comment #16 October 17th, 2006 at 3:39 am
cheshire cat: I’m not as cynical as you are. So far as I can tell, Bush actually believes his swill.
Comment #17 October 17th, 2006 at 3:50 am
little night musing: All of my limited experience with journalists supports what you say. Usually, the reason a journalist is interviewing you at all is so she can put into your mouth what she can’t put in her own for reasons of “neutrality.” The best you can hope for is that some of your actual views make it into the article by accident.
Of course, in the blogospheric age, all of us can now offer our own versions directly — and this, ironically, should increase our willingness to talk to journalists.
Comment #18 October 17th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Can I live in a medieval theocracy if it means I won’t have to listen to rap and won’t have to see rappers grabbing their crotches on tv? Where do I sign up?
Take the next flight to Iran.
Comment #19 October 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
According to the Harper’s index, 39 percent of the population thinks that US Muslims should have to carry a special ID.
The current government is unfortunately representing the views of some large fraction of the population, I think.