Skip to content

An Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,412

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract 

Katherine Bullock received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of Toronto (1999). She is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga. Her teaching focus is political Islam from a global perspective, and her research focuses on Muslims in Canada, their history, contemporary lived experiences, political and civic engagement, debates on the veil, and media representations of Islam and Muslims. Her publications include: Muslim Women Activists in North America: Speaking for Ourselves, and Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil: Challenging Historical and Modern Stereotypes which has been translated into Arabic, French, Malayalam, and Turkish. Bullock is President of Compass Books, dedicated to publishing top-quality books about Islam and Muslims in English. She is past President of The Tessellate Institute, a non-profit research institute in Canada, and of the Islamic Society of North America- Canada.  She served as editor of the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) from 2003 – 2008. She was Vice President of the North American Association of Islamic and Muslim Studies (NAAIMS) from 2013-2017. Originally from Australia, she lives in Oakville, Canada with her husband and children. She embraced Islam in 1994. She discusses: religious identity and national identity, and their relationship; the plurality of Canadian Muslim identity; generations of Canadian Muslims; denominational and interpretational differences between generations of Canadian Muslims; and identity issues facing generations of younger Muslims.

Keywords: Aboriginal, Canada, Canadian Muslim, generations, Islam, Katherine Bullock, Muslim, religion.

An Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock: Past Chair, Islamic Society of North America-Canada (ISNA-Canada); Lecturer, Political Science, the University of Toronto at Mississauga; Past President, Tesselate Institute; President, Compass Books (Part One)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To make things transparent and upfront, you are a former Christian. Now, obviously, you are a highly prominent Muslim woman, a Canadian Muslim woman. We have been in correspondence since 2018 with the publication of an interview on October 8, 2018 (Jacobsen). 

Since that time, I have been independently working to build relevant relations, as time and energy permits, and projects with some leading members of the Canadian Muslim community. 

Our work in this series will continue in this ongoing work. In between 2018 and 2020, recently, you accepted an invitation to join the Advisory Board of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Now, as per a proposal by me, you accepted moving forward with an educational series after a discussion on relevant topics to the Canadian Muslim public and needing some discussion. 

Our trajectory will be three-fold: 1) internal issues, 2) external issues, and 3) ongoing or potential solutions to the issues. The first two, 1) and 2), will be leading, naturally, into 3), which is good. 

I like happier endings; I assume the same for you. Our educational series here will focus on the statistical trends, which should exist in the back of the minds of the public in regard to the issues mentioned and the claims made here. Every single religious individual is – ahem – an individual.

To begin, let’s focus on the central issue facing Canadian Muslims as an internal issue, the actuality of identity and the relation of religious identity to national identity. What is religious identity compared to national identity in general? How are these related and not related to one another?

Dr. Katherine Bullock: A religious identity is how one connects to one’s spiritual self. I know that some people find religions can be dogmatic and domineering, but they still feel a spiritual connection to something larger than themselves, a link to an intangible presence in the universe.  They will say, “I am not religious, but I am spiritual.”  Back home in Australia, when I thought of myself as an atheist, I nevertheless, had spiritual experiences.  For instance, I always found swimming in the ocean or the local outdoor swimming pool a spiritual experience.  Underwater, I would watch the light rays dancing under the waves, separating into beams that faded at the edges into the grey-blue opaqueness of the water.  I would hold my breath, watching the swaying light that seemed to be reaching down into the murky depth to illuminate my life with the knowledge of something other-worldly.  Eventually, my spiritual experiences, which happened while thinking of myself as an atheist, led me down the path to embracing the concept of a Creator-God, and thence to Islam.

This spiritual journey took place in Australia, and later, in Canada.  I am a proudly and blessedly a citizen of both.  Nationality is one’s political, economic, social and cultural identity.  There should not be any conflict between a spiritual or religious mode and one’s citizenship; especially in today’s multicultural, multi-ethnic, globalized world.

2. Jacobsen: In particular, what is Canadian Muslim identity as a concept, i.e., its components and relations between its parts? Naturally, I assume a plural category rather than a singular one. 

Bullock: Canadian Muslims come from all over the world.  Our communities are incredibly diverse.  The most significant countries of origin are Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India. According to the National Household Survey of 2011, there were also more than 1,000 Muslims who identified as Aboriginal (First Nation or Métis).[1]

There is also sectarian diversity, mirroring that of the world – Sunni; Shia; Ahmadi; Ismaili.  Inside each of these broad groupings are also differing theological schools.

All this makes it hard to say, in a general way, “This is a Canadian Muslim Identity”!

3. Jacobsen: When it comes to the older and the younger generations, the older generations of Canadian Muslims – brushing over denominational or interpretational differences for the moment – may hold more firm beliefs and senses of self, i.e., firmer religious identities. 

Young generations of Muslims may not have this. Youth exists in a state of uncertainty, sometimes producing anxiety, due to the inchoate state of one’s mind and sense of self-identity. 

Without endorsement or not of religion, what is a concern amongst older generations of Canadian Muslims in terms of the passing of values, practices, and beliefs in a modern, technological, and largely secular society to younger generations of Canadian Muslims?

Bullock: I’m not sure that religious identity works like that.  The 2016 Environics Survey of Canadian Muslim opinion, which I worked on, found some interesting statistics that complicate the way you’ve asked the question.[2]

First, 40% of those who had been in Canada less than ten years found that their attachment to Islam had increased since arriving.  For those in Canada more than twenty years, it rose to 47%.

Second, perhaps counter-intuitively, stronger attachment to Islam was found amongst younger Muslims, who reported attending the mosque at least once a week, especially for non-prayer purposes (e.g. social events), which was more than older generations.

On the other hand, a frequent conversation I have with parents is concern over passing along the values and religious practices of the Islamic faith (remembering as I say that that we must be aware of denominational or interpretational diversity in what those look like, as you have noted above).  Parents worry particularly about passing along the habit of praying five times a day – especially the morning prayer which is done at dawn – no easy thing in the summer at 4.00 am; about no alcohol or drugs; about no dating before marriage; and about not eating pork – i.e. no pepperoni on pizza and no marshmallows.

4. Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, does Islamic denomination or interpretation influence the kinds of concerns amongst the older generations of Canadian Muslims about the passing of Islamic values and practices, and beliefs, and Muslim identity?

Bullock: Denominational or interpretational concerns certainly exist, but I don’t think it’s generational.  I see youth getting tied up into narrow views of Islam, or dissolving into broadness, as much as older people.

The more important concern I hear about from older people is about passing along customs and traditions that are not necessarily Islamic, but part of their cultural identity.  Contentious issues are around dress and marriage, and careers – whether the child will wear “western” clothes or country-of-origin clothes; whether the family will choose the spouse or not; and whether the child will go into medicine/engineering or journalism; whether the woman will work outside the home or not.  None of these are about Islam as worship.  They do cause inter-generational conflict.

5. Jacobsen: From the younger generations of Canadian Muslims, what are the identity issues facing them now – not from the concerns of older generations but solely within their own perspectives on the world?

Bullock: Although I quoted the Environics survey’s findings on youth attendance at the mosque, there are other findings that suggest the picture is more complicated.  A 2014 documentary, called Unmosqued,[3] found that many Muslims feel unwelcomed or uncomfortable in mosques, especially youth, women, converts, minority ethnicities in a mosque dominated by one ethnicity, and black Muslims.  They don’t always leave the religion, though many do, rather, they try and establish other spaces (called “third spaces”) where they can be Muslim.

The Environics survey pointed to some troubling statistics:

  • Only 41% of youth aged 18-34 reported a strong sense of belonging to Canada;
  • 83% of Canadian born rejected traditional teachings about husband as breadwinner and head of household;
  • 78% of Canadian born Muslims noted discrimination as the most important issue facing the country; it was 54% amongst the youth 18-34;
  • 50% of Canadian born, and 41% of youth 18-34 believed they would face more discrimination in the future; and
  • 32% of Canadian born and 24% of youth 18-34 24% feel inhibited in expressing their political or social opinions.

Together these tell a story of a cohort of young people who are not sure of their identity, rejecting aspects of traditional teachings, not sure where they belong, not sure if they fit in, and not sure about expressing themselves.  They are un-moored.

I am not a psychologist, but I know enough about self-esteem and self-confidence to understand that to flourish individuals need to feel certain about their identity, comfortable fitting in with their society and expressing themselves.  They need to feel moored.

A successful community can only be made up of individuals who are doing well.  If we have some who do well, and others who do not, then we have work to do.  Young people in this cohort need programming to assist with handling discrimination; counselling; self-defence; self-esteem; empowerment; they need teaching/guidance on hope, on coping tools; on addressing discrimination; on bystander training; and help feeling they belong to Canada.

6. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Bullock.

References

AboutIslam & Newspapers. (2018, September 17). Katherine Bullock: Woman Leading Canada’s Largest Muslim Group. Retrieved from https://aboutislam.net/muslim-issues/n-america/katherine-bullock-woman-leading-canadas-largest-muslim-group/.

Baig, F. (2018, July 6). How ISNA-Canada’s 1st female chair hopes to overcome a major scandal. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/isna-seniors-forum-1.4734877.

Bullock, K. (2019, October 28). ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ left us with enduring stereotypes. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/i-dream-of-jeannie-left-us-with-enduring-stereotypes-119279.

Bullock, K. (2019, September 23). How the Arabian Nights stories morphed into stereotypes. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-the-arabian-nights-stories-morphed-into-stereotypes-123983.

Bullock, K. (n.d.). Katherine Bullock, Ex-Christian, Canada. Retrieved from www.thedeenshow.com/katherine-bullock-ex-christian-canada/.

Hamid, M. (2018, September 17). Katherine Bullock, the new chair of ISNA. Retrieved from https://themedium.ca/features/katherine-bullock-the-new-chair-of-isna/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2018, October 8). An Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock. Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock.

Shah, S. (2019, August). Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting. Institute of Islamic Studies.

Tessellate Institute. (2016, April). Survey of Canadian Muslims. Retrieved from www.tessellateinstitute.com/projects/national-survey/.

The University of Toronto Mississauga . (2020). Katherine Bullock. Retrieved from https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/political-science/katherine-bullock.

The University of Toronto Mississauga. (2018, August 2). UTM political science lecturer chosen as first female head of major Muslim non-profit. Retrieved from https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/main-news/utm-political-science-lecturer-chosen-first-female-head-major-muslim-non-profit.

UnMosqued. (2014). UnMosqued: A Documentary Film about Immigrant Founded Mosques in America. Retrieved from www.unmosquedfilm.com.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Past Chair, Islamic Society of North America-Canada (ISNA-Canada); Lecturer, Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga; Past President, Tesselate Institute; President, Compass Books.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Richard Sheen.

[3] Sarah Shah, “Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting,” Institute of Islamic Studies, Occasional Paper Series, August 2019.

[4] Tessellate Institute. (2016, April). Survey of Canadian Muslims. Retrieved from www.tessellateinstitute.com/projects/national-survey/.

[5] UnMosqued. (2014). UnMosqued: A Documentary Film about Immigrant Founded Mosques in America. Retrieved from www.unmosquedfilm.com.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One) [Online].February 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, February 22). Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Interview with Dr. Katherine Bullock on Religious and National Identity, and Generational and Denominational/Interpretational Differences in Islam (Part One) [Internet]. (2020, February 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/bullock-one.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 15, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 4,338

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Richard Sheen is a young independent artist, philosopher, photographer and theologian based in New Zealand. He has studied at Tsinghua University of China and The University of Auckland in New Zealand, and holds degrees in Philosophy and Theological Studies. Originally raised atheist but later came to Christianity, Richard is dedicated to the efforts of human rights and equality, nature conservation, mental health, and to bridge the gap of understanding between the secular and the religious. Richard’s research efforts primarily focus on the epistemic and doxastic frameworks of theism and atheism, the foundations of rational theism and reasonable faith in God, the moral and practical implications of these frameworks of understanding, and the rebuttal of biased and irrational understandings and worship of God. He seeks to reconcile the apparent conflict between science and religion, and to find solutions to problems facing our environmental, societal and existential circumstances as human beings with love and integrity. Richard is also a proponent for healthy, sustainable and eco-friendly lifestyles, and was a frequent participant in competitive sports, fitness training, and strategy gaming. Richard holds publications and awards from Mensa New Zealand and The University of Auckland, and has pending publications for the United Sigma Intelligence Association and CATHOLIQ Society. He discusses: the human being, animals, and the human being in philosophical/metaphysical considerations; abstracting from the human being to humanity, and this connection to faith and the rationalist form of ethics; and a society that makes sense to him, and a thought experiment.

Keywords: CATHOLIQ, faith, God, metaphysics, New Zealand, philosophy, religion, Richard Sheen, science, theism, Tsinghua University.

An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is a human being? What makes a human being part of the animal kingdom in the fundamental sense and, perhaps, not in some other senses (unlike other members of other species)?

Sheen: I think this question can be answered from two different perspectives: the scientific, and the philosophical/metaphysical. I will focus on the philosophical/metaphysical as I do not consider myself well-versed enough in biology to provide an interesting enough answer that one cannot easily find on Google.

A human being is, first of all, a person. While the nature of personhood is highly debated, it is generally accepted that a person is fundamentally distinguished from non-persons in the sense that they are able to experience and interact with the world in a self-conscious way, and are able to make decisions or take action based on this subjective, self-conscious experience of reality. In other words, a person possesses free will, and hence, is a free agent – their decisions and actions (hypothetically)originate from their very own free will, rather than as a necessary reaction or consequence locked within a deterministic chain of causal interactions external to the person him/herself.

Free will is a widely misunderstood concept in modern society. People often attribute free will, or what is loosely interpreted as “freedom”, as the ability to do whatever they wish to do. This cannot be further from the truth. Consider this simple hypothetical example:

A man, low in spirit and tired of the boredom that his empty and unexciting life offers, decides to “break free” of the chains that he believes is holding his life back from passion and enjoyment. He goes on a spending spree, and celebrates his decision with vast amounts of expensive food and alcohol. In this process, he is acquainted with a number of “friends” – a prostitute, a drug dealer, and a shady businessman. He became very intimate with the prostitute and distanced himself from his wife, and became increasingly addicted to the pleasure that the various sorts of recreational drugs his drug dealer friend offered. He later quit his job and lied to his wife and children during his absence from home, and proceeded to enjoy the next few months on his private savings. By the time he realized his pockets have been drained empty, he realized the mistakes he has made, but his former employer will no longer accept him, and he had no luck finding other means of income. In the depth of his despair, his businessman friend offered him a job that promises a fortune – to distribute parcels of “products” to various clients, none of whom provided any form of identifiable information. He was often told to meet individuals of particular descriptions at various reclusive locations to deliver the parcels, and was never allowed to open the parcels nor ask for the identity of the recipient. Later, an accident resulted in one of the parcels breaking apart, and he was horrified to discover that the contents were, in fact, human organs. The thought of justice flashed across his mind, but in spite of the call of decency, he insisted to keep the contents of the parcels secret and continued to deliver them in cooperation as long as his friend paid him handsomely. Months down the road, his friend’s illegal human organ trade was busted by the police, and he was sentenced to trail along with other accused.

In this hypothetical example, this man destroyed both his own life and his family’s future by quitting his job, abandoning his responsibilities, and pursued a form of so-called “freedom” in hopes of re-igniting passion and excitement for his life. He believed that he was following his free will, and chose what he believed would best provide him with passion and excitement that would add value to his boring, ordinary life. But in reality, instead of truly choosing for himself, his actions were simply the result of him gradually falling for the powers of lust, greed, and opportunistic thinking, as he failed to resist the lure of these lower desires that led to his moral corruption and eventual life downfall. While he had the choice and possibility in every single phase of this gradual downfall to resist further temptation and come back to his senses and moral responsibiltiy for his family and himself, he failed in every single circumstance, and for this reason, he is fully responsible for the harm that he has caused to himself and others, and is hence, deemed immoral and unethical and worthy of punishment.

This is an example of how in the pursuit of this so-called “freedom”, one, in reality, forfeits the actual essence of free will and instead submits oneself to the caprice of nature and chance by yielding to one’s lower desires and submitting to their corresponding external stimuli. In this sense, those who choose to follow this illusory “freedom” are precisely the most deprived of free will, for every aspect of their will and existence are chained or controlled by these negative external influences so that their life and existence become severely limited by these external factors (this does not mean all external influences are bad). Free will is hence decisively not “the freedom to do whatever you want”, but rather, the choice and possibility to overcome one’s own limitations and transcend the immediate, to rise up to the virtue and dignity of the gift of free agency by resisting the influence of negative external influences (such as the lust for immediate pleasure and power upon the slightest of temptation, often at the cost of others or one’s own future) to preserve that which is good and noble in spite of the risks, difficulties, or even at the threat of death (such as a civilian refusing to give away the hiding locations of Jewish refugees despite being forced at gunpoint by German soldiers during WWII). Free will is the possibility to resist the influences of evil in the pursuit of a higher purpose, to be able to resist and transcend the amoral desires(note: “amoral” rather than “immoral”, as natural desires by themselves are neither moral or immoral, they are only given moral or ethical qualities under relational context) that nature has hard-coded into us, and to be able to actualize this higher purpose for the realization of the ultimate good. The essence of free will, and hence, of humanity, is the ability or possibility to reject the temptations of evil, in spite of the dangers and potential costs. It is distinct from evolutionarily-wired natural desires and reflexes such as hunger, fear, jealousy, greed etc. which are irrational in nature.

The keen reader would have noticed that my answer has a superficial resemblance to Kantian metaphysics. However, to me, human beings share far more similarities with other members of the animal kingdom than Kant believed. As the Chinese philosopher Xunzi remarked, there is only a very thin line between humanity and bestiality. While the aforementioned possibility of free will opens the road for us to a higher dimension of virtue, meaning, and moral goodness, human beings are also very prone to the same limitations from our lower desires, no different from that of a wild beast. Human greed has resulted in centuries of devastation and massacre, while arrogance and envy provides fuel for all sorts of moral conflicts that often result in horrible tragedies. The Nanking Massacre demonstrated to the world the full capabilities of human malice and bestiality, and when pushed to extreme enough conditions, such horrors are bound to repeat themselves throughout the course of history. This reminded me of an unrelated quote by Joseph Conrad I have come across many years ago: “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness”. Perhaps just as written in Ecclesiastes of the Bible, metaphorically speaking, there truly won’t be anything new under the sun.

2. Jacobsen: How does one abstract from the individual human person to humanity (or, perhaps, the human species) as an extension of the concept? In other words, what justifies the idea of humanity as a real one? What are the characteristics of humanity? How does this idea of humanity, and the concept of the human person, relate to the ideas laid out on faith and a rationalist form of ethics?

Sheen: I think there are two ways to make this abstraction, but both ways share the same path, which is through genuine relation between human individuals. By genuine, I refer to any sort of relation, whether direct or indirect, that results in at least some degree of perceivable impact on any of its members within this relation, whether willingly or unwillingly.

The first path is formal, or contractual, and is best represented by the Social Contract Theory. This path was primarily explored by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and focuses on the formal contract or agreement between members of a particular group or society that involve certain ethical obligations for each individual member or group. The Social Contract Theory has important influences in modern democratic political systems, and can be said to be the philosophical foundation of modern civilization. It is a rational process based on the evaluation of the individual existential circumstance, the collective existential circumstance, and the optimal relation between these two, hence it is calculative in nature.

The second path is, what I believe, transcendental. Purely formal, rational deductions in ethical issues can easily lead one into types of morally-detached self-interest theories, such as the subjective moral laws adopted by the type of individual that I have mentioned in the previous interview session, who regulates their behaviour and conforms to ethics not out of understanding and respect for the good, but rather to deceive others and gain an upper hand in social interactions, such as pretending to be honest and gain others’ trust before secretly betraying them and making it look like an accident. As such, for society to be truly humane (rather than simply the result of rational calculation), one must also account for the possibility of individual free will to transcend our natural weaknesses such as greed, envy, and arrogance etc.. This process, or “act” of transcending one’s inherent limitations and rising above purely self-interested calculations is only made possible through the understanding and realization of the purpose of the highest good, which as I see requires at least a minimal belief in the objective truth and value of the good in itself.

The second path of the abstraction from individual to humanity is what holds the determining element for the idea of humanity to qualify as a “real” one, for purely logical algorithms can equally come to a rational “contract” from a perspective of pure self-interest (we can, of course, program these algorithms to interact on the basis of the acceptance of some sort of absolute, collective good premise, but it would not be possible to say that these algorithms would thus have “faith” in this highest good, for deterministic processes are not individual agents, hence do not “believe”, less revere or worship, in any meaningful sense as they do not have free will, but can only mimic it — they are neither persons nor agents).

As the second path necessarily involves the aspect of free will, of possibility and transcendence, it naturally follows down the road of belief and faith – for free will is ultimately a metaphysical concept, we have no physical proof of its existence, nor do we have any evidence for its non-existence. We do nonetheless require faith in free will for our actions to truly possess any moral significance, as St. Augustine remarked, if Adam and Eve did not have the freedom or possibility to resist the temptation to consume the forbidden fruit, that their actions were fully predetermined and inevitable, then God would have no justification to punish them, for they cannot be held responsible for something they have no choice over. Moreover, “they” would not even “exist” from the perspective of personhood, as there is no free agent in which we can attribute these decisions to. In conclusion, the idea or concept of humanity is real in the sense that it has real impacts or implications on the human individual(s), while the nature of free will is what links humanity to faith and God, as a minimalist concept of God is that of the ‘ultimate first cause’, and as free agents, our own decisions are also the ‘first cause’ of our actions.

This, of course, begs the question that free will is real and that we do possess it to some extent, but then, this is what faith is. Unless any logical reasons are given to definitively reject its reality, the reasonable position is to maintain an agnostic believe in its reality. Since free will is an a priori concept, science and any other form of empirical arguments are entirely irrelevant and powerless in its verification, despite some ill-informed attempts as of recent. But if we were to take free will out of the equation of humanity, we might as well define humanity as a cluster of purely functional objects not much different from a collection of smartphones, computers, and roombas that are forever locked within a deterministic cage of causal cycle and repetition.

3. Jacobsen: What forms of society make most sense to you? In that, if you existed as some benevolent alien super-intelligence, given the forms of rationalist ethics, definitions of the individual human person and humanity, what form of societal organization for these organic creatures makes sense for them? Of course, this implies a targeted objective or end, even a moving target “end,” as the metric for success or failure of the societal organization for these human creatures. I leave the definition of this end or targeted objective as the metric based on the definitions of human person and humanity to you. 

Sheen: Well, suppose that if I were a benevolent alien super-intelligence and am tasked to create an ideal society that “makes the most sense” for each individual according to the type of rationalist ethics I have laid out, I would probably focus on two aspects: the intellectual, and the emotional (assuming that this benevolent species possesses the capacity for reason and emotion just like humans, albeit at a far superior level in terms of sophistication).

The intellectual aspect must centre on understanding and communication. Understanding is first of all the most important aspect of social relations. We cannot engage in any meaningful relation with any sentient being if we cannot in some way understand each other, which means we must be able to communicate with each other effectively. Given the limited capacities of our understanding and means of communication (yes, even if we were a species of super-intelligent aliens with >200 IQ!), there are bound to be conflict and disagreement between individuals. Given my belief in the objectivity of human reason, any sufficiently intelligent and benevolent being ought to be able find ways to seek mutual understanding with other beings to the greatest possible extent in order to avoid conflict. If we assume that the power of the intellect in such beings are close to infinite, communication would be the only barrier that we face, as when given equal amounts of information, different individuals will likely arrive at the same objectively correct solution regarding most problems. Hence, some form of optimal communication must be achieved.

Emotional responses can often cloud our rational judgement, and may create obstacles in activities or pursuits that would otherwise not be of much challenge. Fear causes us to hesitate, while distrust can lead us to close off towards others. A super-intelligent alien species – suppose that they are truly super-intelligent in a way conceivable to us – ought to possess the ability to minimize the negative impact of emotions that often restrict our very own potential as human beings. This also requires extremely effective communication, particularly so since emotions are fundamentally distinct from logic, they are often descriptive rather than deductive, and are subjectively qualitative rather than objectively quantitative. They cannot be easily formulated and transferred as objective information, hence, require an even more “integrated”, or perhaps “personal” or even “spiritual” means of communication to optimally express. In some ways, we humans possess this form of communication through empathy, but our ability to truly link our mind and heart with others is very limited, and only rarely blossoms with the occasional “soul mate”, be it a friend or a spouse that only very fortunate individuals may come across once in their lifetime.

Communication is hence the most important element in the establishment of this ideal society. A conceivable, but technologically impossible (from our current understanding of science and reality) method is through some form of “mutual nexus” or “stream of thought” in which every aspect of the mind and heart of every participating individual is always perfectly linked together, which allows for absolute understanding without misconception between each and every individual, as everyone would be able to perfectly express their thoughts and emotions and lead others to reason and experience the exact same way as themselves. In some sense, this leads all subjective perspectives, emotions, and experiences to become objective, and “omnipresent” to every experiencer. Suppose that such beings possess incredibly superior intelligence, they would theoretically be able to process the thoughts and emotions of all other members simultaneously by accessing this nexus of thoughts, and in some ways, achieve some form of “spiritual union” with all other members, or even “Oneness with the Universe” in some sense. It would superficially resemble a hive-mind, but simply with every individual in consensus over every thought and decision, based on the full and complete understanding between each other and the universal pursuit of the highest good. The ultimate purpose of this society would be thus defined as the pursuit of the greatest possible degree of unity and communion through compassion, understanding, intimacy, and a universal goal to strive for the highest good.

Now that I think of it, in some ways this hypothetical society would resemble “heaven”, as in this society, there will be no conflict nor dissolution, only genuine union achieved through true and intimate understanding and empathy. “Heaven” is often understood by Christian philosophers as a place where we are “at One with God”. This “Oneness” entails an absolutely perfect form of union through love (which requires understanding and empathy, for we cannot love nor care for that which we do not know), and in this union, we find ultimate peace and eternal rest. This reminded me of something the Chinese philosopher Ye XiuShan expressed in his introduction for Professor Huang YuSheng’s Truth and Freedom (Beijing, 2002): “The refined soul may often catch a glimpse of heaven through the harmony of those which we often perceive as dichotomies, such as the divide between reason and emotion, or between idea and reality. As we transcend the limitation and conflict between our dualistic reality through the realization of this harmonious Unity through the gradual refinement of our soul, we are brought to an image of the Kingdom of God. As understood in Christian philosophy, our world is but a shadow of eternity, as it is merely a creation of God.” The ultimate goal or purpose of heaven would be unity and communion with the entirety of reality, and ultimately, to be “at One with God”. Similarly, if we understand things from this perspective, that which resembles “hell” would be a world of conflict, of separation, dissolution, exclusivity, antagonism and of deceit(which is fundamentally antithetical to mutual understanding and harmonious communion). In this sense, traces, or elements of both the highest good and of the greatest evil can be found within our limited world, where a semblance of the ideal world(heaven) is found in the coming together of a unity, such as friendship, community, marriage and family, and the image of evil(hell) is seen in the casting apart of such communions, such as the breaking of trust, dissolution of community, and divorce of marriage and family.

I would, however, say that such a society is impossible to achieve in this world. Even if all properties of such a super-intelligent species suffice for the establishment of such a “nexus”, there will always be external risks and limitations such as that of the physical constraints of our universe, and perhaps influence from other species or the caprice of nature alone. If we were to apply this principle to us humans, who are far more limited in every aspect of our capabilities, the only semi-realistic framework would be a completely decentralized social system where AI and blockchain technology are combined to create a platform for pure democratic voting for legislation, proposals and regulations for the collective good. This system would have no central government nor any other centralized forces such as corporate beneficiaries to make decisions for the rest(often unjustly), only a public executive agency that carries out the changes desired by most members of the community. Of course, I cannot even begin to fathom the degree of bloodshed and destruction that would follow if something like this were ever to be pushed for or implemented, for humanity will forever be enslaved by our lust for wealth and power, and those at the top will never allow power to be shared by the majority at the cost of their own pleasure and luxury.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Artist, Philosopher, Photographer, and Theologian.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 15, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Richard Sheen.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three) [Online].February 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, February 15). An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Human Being, Humanity, and Human Society (Part Three) [Internet]. (2020, February 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-three.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Marco Ripà

Numbering: Issue 22.B, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,535

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

In this paper, we show enhanced upper bounds of the nontrivial n_1 × n_2 × n_3 points problem for every n_1 ≤ n_2 ≤ n_3 < 6. We present new patterns that drastically improve the previously known algorithms for finding minimum-link covering paths, solving completely a few cases (e.g., n_1 = n_2 = 3 and n_3 = 4).

Keywords: Graph theory, Topology, Three-dimensional, Creative thinking, Link, Connectivity, Outside the box, Upper bound, Point, Game.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 91A43, 05C57

Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Symbols and images did not proportion optimally and required a manual input. A P.D.F. available if this remains a preferred format for viewing the materials. Please click here.*

1 Introduction

The n1 x n2 x n3 points problem [12] is a three-dimensional extension of the classic nine dots problem appeared in Samuel Loyd’s Cyclopedia of Puzzles [1-9], and it is related to the well known NP-hard traveling salesman problem, minimizing the number of turns in the tour instead of the total distance traveled [1-15].

Given n1 n2 n3 points in ℝ3, our goal is to visit all of them (at least once) with a polygonal path that has the minimum number of line segments connected at their end-points (links or generically lines), the so called Minimum-link Covering Path [3-4-5-8]. In particular, we are interested in the best solutions for the nontrivial n1 x n2 x n3 points problem, where (by definition) 1 ≤ n1n2 n3 and n3 < 6.

Let hl (n1 , n2 , n3) ≤ h (n1 , n2 , n3) ≤ hu (n1 , n2 , n3) be the length of the covering path with the minimum number of links for the n1 x n2 x n3 points problem, we define the best known upper bound as hu (n1 , n2 , n3) ≥ h (n1 , n2 , n3) and we denote as hl (n1 , n2 , n3) ≤ h (n1 , n2 , n3) the current proved lower bound [12].

For the simplest cases, the same problem has already been solved [3-12].
Let n1 = 1 and n2 < n3, we have that h (n1 , n2 , n3) = h (n2) = 2 ⋅ n2 – 1, while h (n1 = 1, n2 = n3 ≥ 3) = 2 ⋅ n2 – 2 [6]. Hence, for n1 = 2, it can be easily proved that

F1

1

Figure 1. A trivial pattern that completely solves the 2 3 5 points puzzle.

2

Figure 2. Another example of a trivial case: the 2 5 5 points puzzle.

Therefore, the aim of the present paper is to solve the ten aforementioned nontrivial cases where the current upper bound does not match the proved lower bound.

2 Improving the solution of the n1 x n2 x n3 points problem for n3 < 6

In this complex brain challenge, we need to stretch our pattern recognition [7-10] in order to find a plastic strategy that improves the known upper bounds [3-13] for the most interesting cases (such as the nontrivial n1 x n2 x n2 points problem and the n1 x n1 x (n1 +1) set of puzzles), avoiding those standardized methods which are based on fixed patterns that lead to suboptimal covering paths, as the approaches presented in [2-8-11].

F2

F3

The current best results are listed in Table 1, and a direct proof follows for each nontrivial upper bound shown below.

Table 1

Table 1: Current solutions for the n1 x n2 x n3 points problem, where n1 n2 n3 ≤ 5.

Figures 3 to 12 show the patterns used to solve the n1 x n2 x n3 puzzle (case by case). In particular, by combining the (2) with the original result shown in figure 4, we obtain a formal proof for the 3x3x4 points problem.

3

Figure 3. hu (3,3,3) = hl (3,3,3) = 14. This solution has been proved to be optimal [12-13].

4

Figure 4. The 3x3x4 puzzle has finally been solved. hu = hl = 15 and no crossing lines.

5

Figure 5. Best known upper bound of the 3x4x4 puzzle. 19 = hu = hl + 2.

6

Figure 6. An original pattern for the 4x4x4 puzzle. 23 = hu = hl + 1 [13].

7

Figure 7. Best known upper bound of the 3x3x5 puzzle. 16 = hu = hl + 1 [13].

8

Figure 8. Best known upper bound of the 3x4x5 puzzle. 20 = hu = hl + 2.

9

Figure 9. Best known upper bound of the 3x4x5 puzzle. 24 = hu = hl + 4.

10

Figure 10. Best known upper bound of the 4x4x5 puzzle. 26 = hu = hl + 2.

11

Figure 11. Best known upper bound of the 4x5x5 puzzle. 31 = hu = hl + 4.

12

Figure 12. Best known upper bound of the 5x5x5 puzzle. 36 = hu = hl + 3.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the improved hu (n1 , n2 , n3) can lower down the upper bound of the generalized k-dimensional puzzle too. As an example, we can apply the aforementioned 3D patterns to the generalized n1 x n2 x … x nk points problem using the simple method described in [12].

Let k ≥ 4, given nk-1 ≤ … ≤ n4 n1 n2 n3, we can conclude that

F4

3 Conclusion

In the present paper, we have drastically reduced the gap hu (n1 , n2 , n3) – hl (n1 , n2 , n3) for every previously unsolved puzzle such that n3 < 6. Moreover, we can easily disprove Bencini’s claim that hu (3,3,4) = 17 = hl (3,3,4) (see [2], page 7, lines 2-3), as shown by combining (2) with the upper bound from figure 4.

We do not know if any of the patterns shown in figures 5 to 12 represent optimal solutions, since (by definition) hl (n1 , n2 , n3) ≤ h (n1 , n2 , n3). Therefore, some open questions about n1 x n2 x n3 points problem remain to be answered, and the research in order to cancel the gap hu (n1 , n2 , n3) – hl (n1 , n2 , n3), at least for every n3 ≤ 5, is not over yet.

References

[1]       Aggarwal, A., Coppersmith, D., Khanna, S., Motwani, R., Schieber, B. (1999). The angular-metric traveling salesman problem. SIAM Journal on Computing 29, 697–711.

[2]       Bencini, V. (2019). n_1  n_2  n_3 Dots Puzzle: A Method to Improve the Current Upper Bound. viXra, 6 Jun. 2019, http://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0110v1.pdf

[3]       Bereg, S., Bose, P., Dumitrescu, A., Hurtado, F., Valtr, P. (2009). Traversing a set of points with a minimum number of turns. Discrete & Computational Geometry 41(4), 513–532.

[4]       Collins, M. J. (2004). Covering a set of points with a minimum number of turns. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications 14(1-2), 105–114.

[5]       Collins, M.J., Moret, M.E. (1998). Improved lower bounds for the link length of rectilinear spanning paths in grids. Information Processing Letters 68(6), 317–319.

[6]       Keszegh, B. (2013). Covering Paths and Trees for Planar Grids. arXiv, 3 Nov. 2013, https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0452

[7]       Kihn, M. (1995). Outside the Box: The Inside Story. FastCompany.

[8]       Kranakis, E., Krizanc, D., Meertens, L. (1994). Link length of rectilinear Hamiltonian tours in grids. Ars Combinatoria 38, 177–192.

[9]        Loyd, S. (1914). Cyclopedia of Puzzles. The Lamb Publishing Company, p. 301.

[10]     Lung, C. T., Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11(4), 804–811.

[11]     Ripà, M., Bencini, V. (2018). n × n × n Dots Puzzle: An Improved “Outside The Box” Upper Bound. viXra, 25 Jul. 2018, http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0384v2.pdf

[12]     Ripà, M. (2014). The Rectangular Spiral or the n1 × n2 × … × nk Points Problem. Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics 20(1), 59-71.

[13]     Ripà, M. (2019). The 3 × 3 × … × 3 Points Problem solution. Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics 25(2), 68-75.

[14]     Sloane, N. J. A. (2013). The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Inc. 2 May. 2013. Web. 8 Jul. 2019, http://oeis.org/A225227

[15]     Stein, C., Wagner, D.P. (2001). Approximation algorithms for the minimum bends traveling salesman problem. In: Aardal K., Gerards B. (eds) Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization. IPCO 2001. LNCS, vol 2081, 406–421. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] FoundersPIqr Society; Creator, X-Test.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/solving-the-n_1xn_2xn_3-points-problem-for-n_3-6-ripa; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Marco Ripà.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Ripà M. Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6 [Online].February 2020; 22(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/http://www.in-sightjournal.com/solving-the-n_1xn_2xn_3-points-problem-for-n_3-6-ripa.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Ripà, M. (2020, February 8). Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): RIPA, M. Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Ripà, M. 2020. “Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Ripà, Marco “Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Harvard: Ripà, M. 2020, ‘Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.B. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Harvard, Australian: Ripà, M. 2020, ‘Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.B., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Marco Ripà. “Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.B (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Ripà M. Solving the n_1×n_2×n_3 Points Problem for n_3 < 6 [Internet]. (2020, February 22(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Dr. Leo Igwe

Numbering: Issue 1.B, Idea: African Freethinking

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: African Freethinker

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2019

Issue Publication Date: TBD

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,344

Keywords: Africa, children, critical thinking, education, Leo Igwe, Nigeria.

Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Thinking skills are pertinent to learning and intellectual formation of individuals because these abilities nourish the mind and sharpen the intellect. Thus, it is of importance that children from as early as the primary school age be exposed to this kind of thinking. It is at a younger stage that children are more inquisitive and curious. So it serves as an appropriate age to introduce critical reasoning to them. Unfortunately, courses on critical thinking are offered at tertiary levels, and at stages in life that children have become adults, and have made up their minds regarding so many issues. Critical thinking is taught at a point when individuals have largely become accustomed to culturally defined norms. The definition of critical thinking is often couched in some obscure verbiage that primary school pupils cannot relate to. Like a complex exercise that is not meant for children but for adults only, critical reasoning has been made inaccessible to children in primary schools. And this trend has to change. The trend must change because if we are to realize a critical thinking society, we must begin very early to inculcate critical thinking skills.

Subjects on critical thinking are taught when it’s apparently difficult for many to cultivate these cognitive abilities. Individuals should, at very impressionable stages, be made to show appreciation and not disdain for critical reasoning skills. Thus, critical reasoning modules should be introduced to children at the primary level of education or even earlier.  In fact critical thinking based instruction should be the first mode of instruction that pupils are exposed to. This is because critical thinking enhances the mental abilities of persons equipping them with the necessary competences that they need to examine ideas, solve problems and navigate a complex and complicated world.

Critical reasoning will ensure the minds of children against manipulation and exploitation by charlatans, con artists and peddlers of radical ideologies.

Incidentally, the school curricula in Nigeria are programmed to get students to proffer answers not pose questions, to memorize, not think. Education is mainly a form of indoctrination. The school system has no ample space for critical inquiry and interrogation of received knowledge. At the primary level, there is no subject or course that is exclusively devoted to fostering critical reasoning. Excellence in studentship is predicated on providing solutions not generating problems or finding faults. This trend in the educational system encourages rote learning and memorization of ready-made answers, not the generation of questions and problems. This culture of learning predisposes students to blind faith, gullibility and incuriosity. It leads to the graduation of students who are unable to analyse and interrogate issues and events; students who are contented with received knowledge and wisdom

At the moment, the primary educational system in Nigeria only encourages the learning and acquisition of quantitative and verbal reasoning skills. At primary schools across the country, pupils are taught verbal and quantitative aptitudes from basic one to six. Quantitative reasoning encourages thinking based on numbers and figures, or on measurable indices. Whilst verbal reasoning fosters the ability of pupils to understand and evaluate problems using words or written expressions.

For instance, in quantitative reasoning, pupils are taught addition, division and subtraction. The exercises are tailored to get pupils to generate answers. And in verbal aptitude, pupils are taught the formation, spellings and meanings of words. Pupils are asked to supply these meanings as part of the tests and examinations. However, cognitive abilities require much more than supplying answers to mathematical or verbal reasoning exercises. Too often human beings are presented with situations, mathematical and written expressions, that provoke their curiosity and clearly insatiate the mind.  For instance, in quantitative reasoning some pupils wonder why two times two equals four; and two plus two is also four. In verbal reasoning, some pupils ask why are the singular and plural of sheep the same.

So in response to quantitative and qualitative reasoning texts, children have questions; children raise questions, spot mistakes, identify errors and inadequacies. This form of reasoning is necessary for the improvement and betterment of the society because it triggers a thinking process that is geared towards social change, innovation and transformation. Critical reasoning prepares students to point out shortcomings and confront the challenges of everyday life. It equips pupils with the capacity to highlight gaps, assess situations and tackle problems.

Thus it is important to introduce children to critical reasoning and make this intellectual habit part of their every day learning process. This is especially the case because knowledge comes in bits and pieces, and in ways that arouse curiosity in the minds of students. So there should be a subject that permits students to vent their curiosity and express their inquisitiveness. Very early in their education, children should be taught subjects where they are rewarded for posing questions and interrogating whatever they see, hear, read or touch. Quantitative and qualitative reasoning texts are not error-proof. They are laden with questions, or with statements that stimulate the mind and excite one’s intelligence. Pupils should be made to know that it is a mark of learning to express, and not suppress questions in all areas of human endeavour. Pupils should realize that it is a sterling quality, a demonstration of intelligence, to ask questions or better to question everything.

In conclusion, critical reasoning should be included in the educational scheme of Nigerian primary schools in order to improve the quality of learning in the country. Critical thinking is linked to other intellectual habits and other aspects of life. It builds on other thinking skills and competences. Thus, critical reasoning compliments quantitative, qualitative and other reasoning abilities that pupils should cultivate in schools. To realize a critical thinking society, Nigeria should invest in the teaching of critical thinking and the cultivation of the habit to question ideas. Nigeria needs to start nurturing critical thinking minds early enough, at the primary school level.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Founder, Humanist Association of Nigeria; Founder & CEO, Advocacy for Alleged Witches; Convener, Decade of Activism against Witch Persecution in Africa: 2020-2030.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Igwe L. Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria [Online]February 2020; 1(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Igwe, L. (2020, February 8). Critical Thinking and Primary Education in NigeriaRetrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): IGWE, L., Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria. 1.B, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Igwe, Leo. 2019. “Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria.” African Freethinker. 1.B. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Igwe, Leo “Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria. 1.B (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

Harvard: Igwe, L. 2020, ‘Critical Thinking and Primary Education in NigeriaAfrican Freethinker, vol. 1.B. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe>.

Harvard, Australian: Igwe, L. 2020, ‘Critical Thinking and Primary Education in NigeriaAfrican Freethinker, vol. 1.B., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Leo Igwe. “Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria” African Freethinker 1.B (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Igwe L. Critical Thinking and Primary Education in Nigeria [Internet]. (2020, February; 1(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/critical-thinking-nigeria-igwe.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Gayleen Cornelius on South Africa and Its Culture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Gayleen Cornelius

Numbering: Issue 1.B, Idea: African Freethinking

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: African Freethinker

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2019

Issue Publication Date: TBD

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,030

Keywords: Africa, Afrikaner, culture, Dutch Reformed Church, Gayleen Cornelius, misogyny, patriarchal, South Africa.

Gayleen Cornelius on South Africa and Its Culture[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Almost everything about South Africa looks great on paper. Progressive legislation has been at the forefront of South African politics since Apartheid fell in 1994. Same-sex marriage was legalized a decade before the world’s biggest democracy; the USA. Women’s rights have been championed by the South African government as the cornerstone to societal progress. There are however numerous factors that continue to undermine these efforts and today South Africans feel that there is an untold war by a retaliatory traditionally patriarchal society against women.

Culture is definitely a huge issue in this case. South Africa is a multicultural society and more often than not, citizens and residents alike exchange various cultural attributes or get in conflict because of them. It just so happens that all of the traditional cultures in South Africa are patriarchal and this has fostered a general acceptance of misogyny by the South African society. Some cultures dictate that it is a husband’s right to beat his wife and so domestic violence is rife because of this. No one bats an eye or intervenes when this happens because of how South Africans respect culture more than the law. The Afrikaner community is also very patriarchal thanks to the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church about the good housewife. Countless Afrikaner women are victims of many forms of domestic abuse from physical, verbal to financial abuse because they are expected to be subservient to their husbands.

There is a general retaliatory attitude against the progressive legislation the government puts because a lot of South Africans see it as an attack towards their culture. After same-sex marriage was legalized for instance, the main victims of homophobia were mainly lesbian women. There are accounts of what has been termed “correctional rape” by heterosexual males against lesbians all over South Africa up to this day at alarming rates. The perpetrators believe that their victims will be fixed after the rape, or maybe it’s just plain cruelty.

The crime rate in South Africa is one of the highest in the world, especially in big cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town. This goes hand in hand with the alarming rape rate in the country that has been declared an epidemic. Statistics show that hundreds of women are raped in South Africa every day, especially in neglected black townships that don’t get much attention from law enforcement because service delivery in most cities prioritizes white suburbs, thanks to Apartheid.

Poverty also undermines the efforts legislators have made to promote human rights. Income inequality is alarming in South Africa and despite the country being one of the richest in Africa, it is very easy to go homeless in South Africa rather than any other African country because of the nature of capitalism and white-owned real estate that hasn’t changed since Apartheid. It is common to see poor families marrying off their underaged daughters to make ends meet and this puts a lot of girls at risk of child marriages.

Tough immigration laws affect a lot of African migrant women who come to South Africa in search of a better life in their thousands every year. It’s very difficult for them to get permits to work and so they end up working in a very dangerous and unregulated sex work industry. A lot of them are at risk of rape, crime, STI’s and arrest. Some of them end up being sold off by women trafficking goons or as cheap labour to white farmers who treat them just like slaves. African immigrant women probably have it worse than anyone else in South Africa today.

The legislators probably overlooked these factors because they have undermined the impact progressive laws and efforts to empower women. More measures should be put in place to counter these problems and make it a better South Africa for women.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Editor, African Freethinker (South Africa).

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Cornelius G. The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking About [Online]February 2020; 1(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Cornelius, G. (2020, February 1). The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking AboutRetrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): CORNELIUS, G., The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking AboutAfrican Freethinker. 1.B, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Cornelius, Gayleen. 2019. “The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking About.” African Freethinker. 1.B. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Cornelius, Gayleen “The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking About.” African Freethinker. 1.B (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

Harvard: Cornelius, G. 2020, ‘The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking AboutAfrican Freethinker, vol. 1.B. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius>.

Harvard, Australian: Cornelius, G. 2020, ‘The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking AboutAfrican Freethinker, vol. 1.B., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Gayleen Cornelius. “The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking About.” African Freethinker 1.B (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Cornelius G. The Most Important African Event That No One Is Talking About[Internet]. (2020, February; 1(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/south-africa-culture-cornelius.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and African Freethinker with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

 

An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 4,041

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Richard Sheen is a young independent artist, philosopher, photographer and theologian based in New Zealand. He has studied at Tsinghua University of China and The University of Auckland in New Zealand, and holds degrees in Philosophy and Theological Studies. Originally raised atheist but later came to Christianity, Richard is dedicated to the efforts of human rights and equality, nature conservation, mental health, and to bridge the gap of understanding between the secular and the religious. Richard’s research efforts primarily focus on the epistemic and doxastic frameworks of theism and atheism, the foundations of rational theism and reasonable faith in God, the moral and practical implications of these frameworks of understanding, and the rebuttal of biased and irrational understandings and worship of God. He seeks to reconcile the apparent conflict between science and religion, and to find solutions to problems facing our environmental, societal and existential circumstances as human beings with love and integrity. Richard is also a proponent for healthy, sustainable and eco-friendly lifestyles, and was a frequent participant in competitive sports, fitness training, and strategy gaming. Richard holds publications and awards from Mensa New Zealand and The University of Auckland, and has pending publications for the United Sigma Intelligence Association and CATHOLIQ Society. He discusses: the full scope of philosophy; and the ethics driving or motivating him.

Keywords: Auckland, CATHOLIQ, faith, God, New Zealand, philosophy, religion, Richard Sheen, science, theism, Tsinghua University.

An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the full scope of philosophy to you? Does philosophy have limits?

Richard Sheen: I think every form of human reason, or more broadly speaking, all linguistic, logical and/or systems of meaning in general, are fundamentally limited in their scope to discover and comprehend truth and reality to their fullest extent. This includes all empirical frameworks as well, such as science, as empirical input must be processed by the mind via rational procedures that conform to a particular logical framework, e.g. probability and causal inference.

From one perspective, the world can be seen as a series of gigantic puzzle pieces, with each domain consisting of their own mysteries and wonders waiting for us to discover, but our ability to fully comprehend the completeness of truths in the form of information — any information — is fundamentally limited by the inherent incompleteness of formal logical systems and language in general (which I perceive as the “building blocks” of all other emergent properties). On the other hand, our experience of reality is limited by our perspective as observers, and in strange ways, elements of perception seem to influence our reality, as observed on the subatomic level in quantum physics. What this entails, is that our world of truths is fundamentally limited, or “capped”, by the inherent, systematic restrictions of the foundational building blocks (or perhaps the “operating system” of the universe) in which our reality is grounded upon. In some ways, this is analogously similar to how virtual realities such as computer games must be built upon coding systems called “engines”, with each “engine” having their own maximum processing rates and other systematic limitations. Our world in many ways resemble such a virtual reality, and comes with all the possibilities and limitations of its own “engine”, as seen in the limitations of logic, mathematics, and the laws of nature.

Aside from inherent limitations in the information and truth systems that formulate and describe our reality, as human beings we are also limited by our emotions, cognitive biases, fallacious reasoning, and other limitations in cognitive ability in general. As a result, we often find ourselves faced with a world filled with complex and seemingly chaotic information. As our mind struggles to find patterns and make sense out of the chaotic continuity of “sensory data” that fills our horizon, we inevitably contemplate upon the meaning behind our existence — what is the meaning, purpose, or at least a subtle reason for our own existence, and for the existence of the entirety of reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? 

While scientists have wrestled with this question for ages, their answers fall short of the demands of reason itself — for what can be scientifically proven, must necessarily lie within the realm and expectation of tangible and repeatable observation and experimentation. But beyond the scopes of our observable universe, or even the possible multiverse, a priori laws or truths (such as the law of identity) formulate and sustain the “functional premise” of our physical reality, similar to how strings of basic code formulate the foundations of an operating system. These a priori laws must necessarily be unconditional in order to give rise to the conditional that is our universe (or other higher-order conditional functions and frameworks that are not yet known to science and logic/mathematics, but nonetheless provable through human reason) and its existents. As Immanuel Kant famously exclaimed, human reason is naturally inclined to deduce, from the limited existents of the conditional the unconditional that forms the foundations of the entirety of reality and existence, whereby the discovery, or even subtle awareness of the unconditional, may finally lead the mind to rest within the completion of knowledge, or at least the faith of it (this of course does not necessarily entail that the unconditional is already given).

Some may say that to seek the unconditional is a fool’s errand, for not every question can be answered, nor should every question have a definitive answer. I tend to agree, as there may very well be no answers for the greatest questions in life, the metaphysical and the philosophical — questions that go far beyond mere explanations of the scientific and the physical like the Big Bang; questions that seek to unravel the mystery of being itself: why there is something rather than nothing, instead of simply how the universe came to be.

Why, we ask? The keen thinker may have already noticed that the question “why?” pertains to reason and purpose. It seeks a motivation, rather than a mechanism. It seeks meaning amidst the coldness of time and space, and it is not satisfied with merely the explanations of the “how”. It seeks an answer of philosophical nature, of the purposive, the axiological, and the teleological. It is of course very easy, and extremely comforting to bury one’s head in the sand and proudly proclaim that such questions of meaning and purpose are “meaningless” or that the entire universe is “meaningless” (if such a claim is even sensible, given that we are a part of the universe), and that to even ask such questions requires a particular sort of naivety and foolishness that only a delusional daydreamer may entertain. However, reason is not satisfied with knowing only the functional relations of facts and numbers, no more than how humanity cannot survive only on food and other functional, biological and practical necessities alone. We require reason, motivation, value, and ultimately, purpose and meaning in order to find ourselves in this world, to truly actualise our potential, and testify to our freedom and dignity. We must align ourselves with the grand teleology of existence, and that answer lies far beyond the reaches of science and mathematics alone.

Philosophy is hence, the complex framework of thought that pertains to truth, reason, value, meaning, and ultimately faith, that constitutes the very nature of our humanity and existential reality. To philosophise is to ponder upon the eternal questions of life, questions of meaning that lie beyond science and logic/mathematics alone. As we struggle to piece together the grand puzzle of existence, by linking every domain of truth, applying every school of knowledge, and filling every blank as we seek to contemplate the “Mind of God”, we are attempting to understand, and appreciate, with great humility and reverence, the miracle that is life and existence itself. To understand, in spite of our weaknesses and limitations, and to love, despite our flaws and imperfections, and ultimately, to believe, despite our fears and uncertainties. This contemplation of the exalted, and this pursuit of the virtuous, I believe, is the ultimate purpose and the fullest scope of philosophy – philosophy is not only of the mind and thought, but also of action and application. Philosophy must change the world, beginning from the tiny, positive things that the virtue of thought brings in oneself, and gradually to share it with the world.

2. Jacobsen: What ethics drives or motivates moral acts and thoughts in life for you? Why those ethics?

SheenFor me, ethics is one of the most important aspects of both one’s social life and one’s spiritual life. Ethics must not only consist of the attitudes and ways in which we treat others, but must also encompass all values that pertain to a good and healthy life in general. To be ethical, one must not simply conform to the standards of ethical laws or other forms of formal demands, but also wholeheartedly love the good, as it is entirely possible for one to have no regard for the inherent value of the good yet simply conform to ethical laws as a means to an end, e.g. getting their own way in society, or merely “following” ethical laws due to fear of punishment or simply as conditioned behaviour. As such, to me, ethics and morality must be treated as one and the same. While these terms cannot be used interchangeably from a strictly academic perspective as ethics generally refers to external, societal expectations while morals are largely internal values, I do not believe that one can truly respect and act ethically if one does not have faith in the value of ethics or at least believe that goodness itself is important to some degree, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.

The first part of my ethics stems from my firm belief in the power of rationality and the value of goodness in itself, in this sense I would refer to myself as a rationalist. I am confident that reason is capable of showing us objectively why some things are good and others bad, albeit just like all other areas of philosophy and all dimensions of science (and human reason in general), the ability for reason to arrive at objectively “correct” answers in ethics is also limited, and to a greater extent than the limitations in science and logic/mathematics. This is often seen in highly complex hypothetical scenarios that theoretical ethics deal with, such as the (in)famous trolley problem and its variations. However this does not imply that we should discard ethics, or at least objective normative ethics altogether and adopt a form of blissful, nihilist, and ultimately irresponsible (individual)relativism that so many resort to nowadays. I believe, just like how we cannot discover and prove the consistency and completeness of all truth systems there is to know within our reality, we cannot know for certain all objectively correct moral values and always apply the “best” ethical frameworks or solutions, for in many situations we cannot fully determine what the “best” frameworks or solutions must necessarily entail, less apply them effectively given each unique circumstance. But this does not render the pursuit of truth and goodness in itself meaningless like some would claim, for the pursuit of goodness is in itself its reward, and speaking from my past experience of a dark, lonely, and “wasted” childhood, I am confident that there are beautiful and meaningful things to be discovered even from the most mundane pursuits and the most mediocre perspectives. This then leads to the second part of my ethics: faith.

The incompleteness of truth and the limitations in our understanding of goodness in itself leads me to the realm of faith. I identify as Christian and believe in the transcendent ultimate reality that most of us would refer to as “God”. While my understanding of the term “God” may perplex many readers, the simplest way to express this understanding in our current context is to see God as “the highest good in itself”. The same understanding of God applies to all truths, facts, and all other possible existents and cognisable concepts. Of course this simplistic understanding brings in many logical dilemmas such as the problem of evil or the existence of the “perfect island”, and may strike a nerve for those who are sentimentally predisposed to scoff at the mere idea of a higher power. But the idea simply seeks to provide an ultimate foundational framework for us to interpret our reality, and more or less, to grant peace to our mind and soul, in spite of the fact that we cannot truly comprehend the unconditional ultimate reality within our limited minds. To me, just like if mathematics were false, we would have no good reason to trust in architecture; if the highest order laws and frameworks of the ultimate reality that formulate the foundations of our rationality and reality are false, then we would have no good reason to trust any lower order laws and frameworks of truth and interpretation that are derived from or necessarily “anchors” on them, such as logic, mathematics, causality and all patterns of nature and science in general.

It is of course possible to argue that such highest order laws, frameworks — the ultimate reality (God) which possesses, encompasses, upholds, or perhaps manifests itself as these unknowable truths that exceed our limited reality, are simply false, imaginary, and nonexistent. It is entirely possible, and relatively common today, for even highly educated individuals to subscribe to a form of naïve realism for our physical, empirical world and to adopt a non-realist position in logic, mathematics and abstract truths in general. One’s solution would necessarily depend on the order of supervenience in which one associates between the relation of the physical and the non-physical. It is equally logically untenable from a philosophical perspective to fully subscribe to a form of naïve realism and evidentialism, as Hume has proposed, we do not have purely logical reasons to account for the reliability and consistency of causality, as causal inferences are by definition non-deductive in nature. As such, purely evidentialist epistemic frameworks are also doxastic in nature – that is, they rely on the belief in a series of unprovable premises, such as the reality and existence of the external physical reality, the existence of material or matter itself, and the complete reliability and consistency of causality in nature in the particular way we experience it.

By far, many attempts have been made to debunk the validity of and to scoff at the nature or meaning of these questions raised against naïve realism and “pure” evidentialism, but none have successfully refuted them no more than how no attempts have successfully established truly logical reasons for us to trust in, and only in, the power of observation and evidence alone. The Logical Positivism movement of the Vienna Circle was by far the most sophisticated attempt at this endeavour, but the problems they faced, which ultimately led to the demise of the movement, have largely been forgotten today (As A.J Ayer, a major proponent for Logical Positivism later remarked, “nearly everything about it was false”). Similar to how the profound knowledge of medieval theologians and Enlightenment philosophers have been largely ignored or even forgotten by both the religious community and the academic community today, what we are often given now then, is merely a dumbed-down version of fanatic scientism/crass materialism and religious fundamentalism/blind faith, neither of which possess the merits of independent thought and rational analysis, and in many ways, devoids the human mind of its freedom and dignity as attained through the capacity to reason and discover truth by its own will and desire.

From a logical, and partly doxastic perspective based on my limited knowledge, I am inclined to believe that the physical supervenes on the informational (logical – mathematical) — otherwise we would have little reason to trust the consistencies of our scientific understanding and predictions through logic and mathematics –, and that the informational frameworks that sufficiently determine the existential state of our physical reality must necessarily anchor themselves upon a highest-order framework that transcends our limited epistemic and cognitive frameworks. This highest order framework that is necessarily required for the completeness, consistency, and predictive validity of our logical and empirical frameworks, would pertain to what we refer to as “God”, or at least what we should refer to as “God”. This however does not mean that I am proclaiming complete and definitive knowledge of God, I cannot and will not make such an arrogant statement regarding that which is ultimately beyond my limited scope of understanding, and so much transcends my horizon and very being in a way that exhausts even the wildest of my imagination. My statements only lay out a foundational framework for an order of hierarchy of truths and reality and its corresponding epistemology. It is a way for us to interpret reality from a more “holistic” or “complete” perspective, to make sense of reality by combining both the logical – factual, and the axiological – teleological.

The rationalist nature of my ethics and my faith in the ultimate reality leads to my conclusion that reason is, metaphorically, God’s greatest gift to mankind, and in some ways, bears the truest image of God. This means most of our questions regarding the ethical and moral may be answered through applying sound reasoning in the correct way, which has been the traditional endeavour in our philosophical traditions of ethics such as Deontology, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism and other newer or less popular philosophical traditions and systems.

One may reasonably ask, as a self-identified Christian, why I have not referred to the Bible or any sort of scripture for answers to ethics and morality in general? My answer is simple: in order to correctly interpret scripture or any form of information in general, one must first humble oneself down, and apply one’s reason and comprehension to its fullest extent. It is very easy to be lead astray if one simply follows, without independent thought or introspection regarding the soundness of, any sort of external guidance — be it divine revelation, humanly guidance, or perhaps from the patterns of nature. As such, while we can often find sound guidance from external references, it takes dumb luck to never be lead astray if one never applies introspection to the information one is given. Hence, reading the Bible, or any other book etc., also falls under the category of reason, for without reasonable interpretation, knowledge and wisdom is necessarily lost in the process, and are very often misinterpreted or even twisted, either deliberately, or as a result of cognitive immaturity.

What about Jesus, the central figure of Christianity? What is his purpose in this system of ethics? I would first answer by stating that, at least through the proper teachings of Christian philosophy and theology, it is generally understood that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of “the highest good in itself”, the “Son of God” (this is not to be understood in a purely literal way). He was the perfect human being who demonstrated the utmost highest moral and ethical qualities as laid out by the highest frameworks of goodness, both demanded, and later deduced via reason, and in the context of scripture revealed through divine revelation. Jesus was not a conventional Jew, but rather, a “heretic” to the Jewish tradition. He was a challenger to the old ways, and laid out many of the foundations of modern ethics through his teachings, such as the Golden Rule, later formally elucidated by Immanuel Kant as the Categorical Imperative. To be a Christian entails a very huge moral and ethical responsibility – to be more Christ-like in one’s beliefs, intentions, motivations, and ultimately actions and impact to this world. This includes learning from the teachings of Jesus Christ, most importantly to learn, understand and apply the nature and essence of love to one’s life– to fill oneself with a gentle patience and kindness through love, to cleanse one’s hatred and prejudice for this world with forgiveness, and to genuinely will for and aid in the good for others for its own sake, despite the dangers and risks. As I see it, this transformation of love is the greatest of all miracles that is possible for us – to transform oneself through learning and following of the teachings of Jesus, and subsequently, to find salvation within the embrace of love that is reflected in our truest image of God that is reason for the highest goodness itself.

To sum it up, rationalist ethics combined with an element of faith in the ultimate reality that is God and the perfect example of a good life as shown by Jesus is what drives my pursuit of moral goodness and my dedication to an ethical lifestyle. The element of faith is necessary for me because our reason is limited and highly fallible, and in order to account for the completeness of knowledge and the integrity of goodness in itself, we must go beyond the ambiguous evidence, and make a ‘doxastic venture’ into the realm of the highest epistemic and axiological frameworks and truths that forever lies beyond the reaches of our finite logic, rationality, and the limited and systematically ambiguous evidence in our world. (I will go further into this in the subsequent sessions)

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Artist, Philosopher, Photographer, and Theologian.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Richard Sheen.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two) [Online].February 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, February 8). An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Richard Sheen on the Full Scope of Philosophy and Ethics (Part Two) [Internet]. (2020, February 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-two.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Paul Cooijmans

Numbering: Issue 22.B, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,829

ISSN 2369-6885

Biography

Paul Cooijmans founded GliaWebNewsYoung and intelligent?Order of ThothGiga SocietyOrder of ImhotepThe Glia Society , and The Grail Society. His main high-IQ societies remain Giga Society and The Glia Society. Both devoted to the high-IQ world. Giga Society remains the world’s most exclusive high-IQ society with a theoretical cutoff of one in a billion individuals. The Glia Society, founded in 1997, is a “forum for the intelligent” to “encourage and facilitate research related to high mental ability.” Cooijmans earned credentials, two bachelor degrees, in composition and in guitar from Brabants Conservatorium. His interests lie in human “evolution, eugenics, exact sciences (theoretical physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence).” He continues administration of numerous societies, such as the aforementioned, to compose musical works for online consumption, to publish intelligence tests and associated statistics, and to write and publish on topics of interest to him.

Keywords: disorder, giftedness, heredity, high range, intelligence, I.Q testing, Paul Cooijmans, sex differences.

Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Prelude

While I write this it has been exactly twenty-five years since I began spreading and administering difficult intelligence tests. My primary goal was to find out whether, and to what extent, it was possible to measure intelligence in the high range. Psychologists in the Netherlands, including a few experts on “giftedness”, had told me it was impossible to discriminate meaningfully above the 99th percentile. I found that hard to accept, and tried to create test problems that were suitable to investigate this matter. This project turned out to be the most successful enterprise of my life so far, and I have stuck to it ever since. On this occasion I wish to discuss a number of insights and observations that have become apparent to me over time, and that have particularly puzzled, amazed, or worried me.

In advance, I want to say that some of the things I found are contrary to what I had previously thought or believed. My mind enables me to accept things as they are even when they go against my possible expectations. It lets me acquire insights that more biased people with closed minds would reject. In addition, I have a relentless curiosity that compels me to investigate matters that appear to contradict what I have been previously told or what is generally believed.

Misperception of item difficulty

One of the first things I learnt is that test problems are harder for who has to solve them than for the creator. I had to make the problems ridiculously easy, in my perception, to make them solvable by apparently intelligent candidates. This also meant that the apparently correct norms turned out higher than I had intuitively projected; some twenty I.Q. points higher. This intuitive misperception of difficulty and level of norms is something I still recognize in comments that reach me regularly: “Your test norms are much too high!” or “Why are your norms so low?” Both of those criticisms are frequent, and I mention this so that people who make such comments will realize that their viewpoints are not self-obvious, but that that others see it the opposite way.

The mechanism behind this false perception or expectation, I believe, is the phenomenon of projection. Involuntarily and unawares, we project our mind contents, ability level, ethical level, and further traits, on others, expecting them to be the same as we are. We have this built-in prejudice, or unconscious bias, that all people are the same as we. But they are not. To escape this, it is needed to “step out of yourself” and see the facts in an objective perspective. With regard to test item hardness and norms, this means to go by honest statistics and accept what they show, even when this goes against intuitive judgement.

Sex differences

Another fact that could not escape my attention was the under-representation of females among (self-selected) high-range test candidates, as well as their lower productivity: female candidates take less than half as many tests per person as do males, and make up only 15 to 20 % of all candidates. There are eleven times more male than female test submissions. The average score of females is also several I.Q. points lower than that of males. Of course, one’s initial reaction is to think, “What am I doing wrong? What exactly in the tests is scaring off or disadvantaging females? Where is the sexist bias?” From there on, it takes many years to realize that no, there is no anti-female bias in I.Q. tests, but there really are fewer women than men in the high range of intelligence; not necessarily because women are less intelligent – a larger male spread of I.Q. would also explain the difference.

Someone suggested to me that females might do better on tests designed by females, but of course the sex of the test constructor is irrelevant if a test is objective and unbiased. A test with pro-female bias might or might not let females score higher (it did not when I tried to create such a test) but that would not be a valid test to begin with, and besides, it would not address the matters of female under-representation and lower productivity but only the score level. Actually, among high-range test constructors, females are under-represented too (the male/female ratio may even be infinity) so that we can not establish whether the sex of the constructor makes any difference.

The same under-representation of females at the high end is seen in the real world, as betrayed by demands like, “We need more women in high positions in [business, politics, science, whatever]” or “We need quota for women in high positions”. The media bombard us daily with activist propaganda like that; demands for more women in professions requiring hard physical labour or combat functions are less frequent, for some reason. But could it be that, in general, people just like doing what they are good at and avoid activities or professions that are too demanding for them?

I have thought about these sex differences a lot, and in conjunction with my interest in intelligence and observations of higher-I.Q. groups and communities, I have come to hypothesize that sex differences might be reduced in populations of higher average I.Q., as a within-species extension of the general biological phenomenon that sex differences are smaller in more advanced species. Higher or equal representation of females in currently male-dominated fields could then be achieved by eugenically raising the intelligence level of the population at large. Such a reduction of sex differences through raising average intelligence (as opposed to using quota and “positive discrimination”) would no doubt have additional societal consequences that one can only speculate about.

Sex differences exist not only in mental testing but also in the realms of voting behaviour and political preference or attitude. As can be seen in election statistics and in pertinent personality questionnaires, women are markedly more left-wing and progressive than men. This is the largest of all psychometric sex differences I am aware of, and it has huge societal implications: through female suffrage it affects the way countries are ruled, through women’s over-representation in education, schooling, and academia it determines how children and young people are raised and educated (or indoctrinated) and through women’s disproportional role in justice (the majority of judges are female in my country) it decides the treatment of criminals and thus the safety of society – or lack thereof. Whether one considers the female influence on society positive or negative, the ongoing forced feminization of institutions and positions of power has far-reaching consequences that we will increasingly feel in the years and decades to come.

Something I have also come to suspect is that sex differences and their suppression lie at the heart of the low ceilings and poor high-range validity of some mainstream I.Q. tests. I intuit that constructors of such instruments would be embarrassed – or terrified, rather – to publish a test that shows men to be much more highly represented than women at the high end, and take measures to hide this discrepancy. For instance, since men do better than women on truly difficult problems, those are left out of most mainstream tests, resulting in lower ceilings, less headroom for men to outscore women, and the absence of validity in the high range.

The role of intelligence and heredity in behaviour

Then there is one more thing, crucial and life-changing, that I learnt through my study of intelligence: while intelligence is a major causal factor in human behaviour, having a large hereditary, biological component, there rests a taboo on mentioning this. In public and political debate, and even in much of social science, only viewpoints adhering to the doctrines of social-environmental determinism are allowed to be expressed. That is, the idea that human behaviour and personality are formed through social-environmental experience with the exclusion of any biological influence. This has consequences for policies regarding fields like immigration, justice, and education. In effect, we are conducting a large-scale experiment with human stocks that is analogous to Trofim Lysenko’s agricultural methodology, which was applied for several decades in the former Soviet Union. Lysenko denied the role of heredity in growing plants. If one bothers to read about that period, one will discover how it went with those crops.

“Giftedness” as a problem or disorder

In the world of experts on “giftedness”, and also in some high-I.Q. circles, there exists a notion that high intelligence is a problem, or a cause of problems, and that one may need some species of therapy for it. Some think that intelligent individuals are more prone to suffer from psychiatric illnesses like depression. I believed such things myself before I got involved in I.Q. societies and testing. Somewhat to my surprise however, not by far all of the highly intelligent persons I met over the years had problems like that; rather, it seemed as if having a very high I.Q. protected people from psychosocial problems, and helped them to function normally, in the social respect. To put the preceding sentence in perspective, I must add here that I have been in contact with several thousand people of whom I knew the I.Q. tests scores on one or more out of a few hundred different tests, both high-range and mainstream. My tests statistics have also consistently shown a negative correlation of about -0.3 to -0.4 between high-range I.Q. test scores and psychiatric disorders (and indicators of disorder in the form of personality test scores).

Of course, intelligent persons with psychosocial problems exist, but I have come to believe that those problems are caused by other issues and dispositions one has next to being intelligent, and in some cases those issues relate to growing up as a high-I.Q. individual in a low-I.Q. environment. High intelligence in itself appears to be a positive force toward healthy social functioning. The concept of “giftedness” as a condition that requires help is mainly a money-making device for therapists. It is also my modest impression that often, persons who are at best somewhat above-average in intelligence are incorrectly identified as “gifted” by therapists keen to make money, and by I.Q. societies more interested in membership growth than in quality of membership. And, some not-so-bright people prefer to believe that their problems are caused by “giftedness” rather than to accept their weaknesses and limitations. The inflated concept of “giftedness” has little meaning to me any more, and I do not accept the “gifted” label as a guarantee that the person in question is intelligent at all.

The measurability of intelligence in the high range

Regarding my original goal of finding out to what extent intelligence can be measured in the high range, I do not have the final answer yet, but so far there is no question of that the “g” factor disappears or becomes much smaller in scores on difficult I.Q. tests. Only on the easier tests that lack sufficiently difficult problems, “g” does disappear entirely when the test ceiling is approached. Put in other words, diverse tests that contain sufficient numbers of hard problems to avoid “ceiling bumping” intercorrelate positively toward the tops of their ranges, meaning that a common factor – “g” – is operating.

For clarity, the question as to the measurability of high-range intelligence is really the question as to whether “g”, the general factor in mental tests, is still present at high score levels. To date it seems in my data that “g” loading decreases somewhat (but not much) from the bottom half to the top half of the high range, but even that is only on some tests, while on other tests it is opposite. This is by no means a final conclusion though.

The failure of high-I.Q. groups to solve real-world problems

While topic-based interest groups may have significant societal impact – think of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and others – societies that select members solely by I.Q. test scores never seem to do anything of societal importance. People ask sometimes, “If they are so smart, then why do they not solve the world’s problems?” Well, my answer is that intelligent people tend to be individualists who always keep debating, arguing, contradicting one another, and never agree on anything, let alone that they would take collective action toward a common goal. They have no sense of collectivism or commonality, of belonging to a group. I have witnessed new or potential members of an I.Q. society being warned off by existing members. Such oikophobia, and such acting against the interest of the group, are typical of groups selected purely for intelligence. And, where intelligent people do cooperate for some reason, it seems that the output level of the group is determined by its least able member; as if intelligence is recessive in groups or cooperation.

These problems with cooperating toward a common goal form one of the very few down sides of high intelligence I have encountered. Another one, probably related, is the intellectuals’ proverbial tendency to sympathize with Marxist ideologies. My view is that the psychological phenomenon of projection is at the bottom of that: intelligent individuals, involuntarily and unawares, assume their own inborn cognitive potential in all or most others, even after it has been pointed out to them that they are wrong in that. This unconscious bias toward egalitarianism disposes them to respond favourably to Marxist propaganda. The cure is an in-depth study of psychometrics and individual differences.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Administrator, Giga Society; Administrator, The Glia Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sheen-one; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Richard Sheen.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Cooijmans P. Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing [Online].February 2020; 22(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Cooijmans, P. (2020, February 8). Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testingRetrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): COOIJMANS, P. Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B, February. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition):Cooijmans, Paul. 2020. “Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Cooijmans, Paul “Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.B (February 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Harvard: Cooijmans, P. 2020, ‘Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testingIn-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.B. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Harvard, Australian: Cooijmans, P. 2020, ‘Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testingIn-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.B., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Paul Cooijmans. “Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.B (2020):February. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Cooijmans P. Insights acquired over twenty-five years of I.Q. testing [Internet]. (2020, February 22(B). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/insights-testing-cooijmans.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

%d bloggers like this: