Cultural Conundrums

Angela Merkel says that German experiment to create a multicultural society has "utterly failed".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-merkel-immigration-idUSTRE69F1K320101016

This is a big, yet inevitable, punch in the Europe's cosmetic pluralistic visage, it has been using to unsuccessfully mask its strongly tribalistic anatomy. Especially coming from Merkel who was the last (wo)man standing in this highly polarized debate centered on cross-cultural immigration.

A moment in the Sun

Between the shadow and the soul*

Lie stories dark and untold

Waiting for that moment to burn bright

And cast long shadows into the night.

I'm told I should improve my style
So the story isn't lost amidst yawns and rheumy eyes.
If you ask me, it's the time
In the right moment it'll all sound riveting, and with a punchline!

When the hour finally arrives, late today.

Dusky and dim, it asks me as it ebbs away

Search for it under the light of stars

But I know well the moment has slipped afar.

Hiding behind a cloud, it dissolves in the rain.

Maybe with you around, tomorrow I can try again.

-- Archana

*Inspired by Pablo Neruda's https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49236/one-hundred-love-sonnets-xvii 

Evolution/Devolution of Artifical/Real Intelligence

I recently came across the following two articles and, rather fortuitously, ended up reading them in quick succession:

1. A fascinating account of journey of Demis Hassabis, the founder of Deep Mind (now Google's), towards the elusive and alluring goal of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI).

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/deepmind-and-google-the-battle-to-control-artificial-intelligence

2. A fascinating (albeit in an entirely different way!) about the surprisingly prevalent and growing group of people who feel vindicated in denying even elementary scientific facts such as "earth is round". For the record, I did not even know that I am a 'globetard' :(

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth

---

Nothing better highlights this strange conundrum of information age.  While we are on a quest to deconstruct and expand the fundamental core of intelligence at the disposal of human civilization, by actualizing it in agents presumably free of human limitations, we simultaneously grapple with our own stupidity and shun essentially everything rational. I wonder if this signals that it would be AHS (Average Human Stupidity), and not AGI, that will finally push us over the edge into The Singularity.

If an alien civilization were observing us, it would find this absolutely incredible!

Merrimack

Somewhere between the boundless blues,
The twinkles of silver
turn into streaks of gold.
Nights merge into days, days into years
Raconteurs wither away,
the story never gets old.

-- Archana

Summer memories

Does it matter?

What does it matter

That there is no happiness to share?

The pain remains faithful

And persists in the heart's lair.

When does it matter

That a fleeting moment stays?

I hold my dreams always near,

And wander far, losing my way.

Whom does it matter

That we walk together a mile?

To strangers all along,

Until the end, the journey seems futile.

Why does it matter 

That I could never say it loud?

My thoughts remain silent

As only my words were allowed.

It does not matter 

That I know it may never be mine.

When it parts the clouds

It is still called Sunshine.

-- Archana

Psychoanalysis of a teacher

One of the challenges, or occupational demand, of being a researcher in academia is to simultaneously be an effective teacher/communicator. Pedagogy in science is manifestly different from scientific writing, though one finds frequent appeals to a loose correlation between the two (usually an artifact of specious reasoning rooted in biased and restricted sampling).

One common theme in both teaching and writing science is that, like in any other activity, practice and experience either makes you better or, over time, lends a certain amount of begrudging leniency to your own flaws and that of your audience. Nonetheless, there is a vital difference between the two. In writing, grappling with hanging infinitives, spurious articles, oxford commas, and chasing that elusive submission-ready draft happens in relative isolation. On the other hand, teaching plays out in front of a fresh audience with every single trial. To add to the associated insecurity, there is really no one to teach you teach! Unlike the situation in writing, astutely depicted below:

Given its unfortunately and inescapably exhibitionist nature, with students being both silent critics and potentially disapproving witnesses at each turn, developing a pedagogical style for instruction can be a rather tortuous journey.

I came across this rather interesting discourse describing the travails of being a teacher in the essay Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers by Roland Barthes. Barthes adeptly adapts the analogy of psychoanalysis to teaching. The surprise is the demolition of the usual fallacy of the more knowledgeable person being the analyst in this situation. The teacher is the one on the couch! Read below and commiserate.

---QUOTE---
How can the teacher be assimilated to the psychoanalyst? It is exactly the contrary which is the case: the teacher is the person analysed. Imagine that I am a teacher: I speak, endlessly, in front of and for someone who remains silent. I am the person who says / (the detours of one, we or impersonal sentence make no difference), I am the person who, under cover of setting out a body of knowledge, puts out a discourse, never knowing how that discourse is being received and thus for ever forbidden the reassurance of a definitive image - even if offensive - which would constitute me. In the exposi, more aptly named than we tend to think, it is not knowledge which is exposed, it is the subject (who exposes himself to all sorts of painful adventures). The mirror is empty, reflecting back to me no more than the falling away of my language as it gradually unrolls...

... I then feel coming unstuck piecemeal in front of everybody. Scarcely have I made the audience smile with some 'witty' remark, scarcely have I reassured it with some progressive stereotype, than I experience all the complacency of such provocations; I regret the hysterical drive, would like to retract it, preferring too late an austere to a 'clever' discourse (but in that contrary case it is the 'severity' of the discourse that would seem hysterical to me). Should some smile answer my remark or some gesture of assent my stereotype of intimidation, I immediately persuade myself that these manifestations of complicity come from imbeciles or flatterers (I am here describing an imaginary process). It is I who am after a response and who let myself go as far as to provoke it, yet it suffices that I receive a response for me to become distrustful. If I develop a discourse such that it coldly averts any response, I do not thereby feel myself to be any more in true (in the musical sense), for I must then glory in the solitude of my speech, furnish it with the alibi of missionary discourses (science, truth, etc.). Thus, in accordance with psychoanalytic description, when the teacher speaks to his audience, the Other is always there, puncturing his discourse. Were the discourse held tightly fastened by an impeccable intelligence, armed with scientific 'rigour' or political radicality, it would nevertheless be punctured: it suffices that I speak, that my speech flow, for it to flow away.....

... Such is the cross borne in every public act of speech. Whether the teacher speaks or whether the listener urges the right to speak, in both cases we go straight to the analytic couch...
---UNQUOTE---

Sigh!

Recap 2017: Coming-of-age year as a university professor

I cannot believe that I have not blogged in over an year (last post being January 10, 2017!!). This can be ascribed, at least partly, to the fact that last year I started my faculty position full throttle. I think all my experiences can be categorized into three broad categories --  Love, Labor, Lost, as I explain below.

LOVE: Things that I enjoy(ed) the most, i.e., these are the reasons I do what I do.

1. Long, intense research discussions --- collaborators, students, visitors, everyone's invited (and thank you!).
2. Designing new research courses --- I developed and taught a new graduate course on quantum information in Fall; it was a lot of fun, I learned a ton, and (most) students in the class worked hard and liked the content.
3. Writing comprehensive and interesting papers --- it still gives the same sense of exhilaration, which I got on seeing my first published paper.
4. Mentoring students --- this is probably the high point of the week for me. It is amazing to have junior collaborators (a.k.a. postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students) work with you and witness/be a part of their evolution as a scientist.
5. Background reading for grant/proposal writing --- Submitting grants is an essential part of being an academician in the US. Though one of the high-stress points, the preparation for writing a (good) grant necessitates a thorough reading and vetting of scientific literature in the relevant field. So despite the accompanying paperwork (which can be overwhelming for a beginner, especially), it can be used as a platform to catalyze conception of new ideas, clarify current ones, and place completed ones into a cohesive framework.
6. Initiating new collaborations --- there is nothing like getting challenged by new perspectives and making friends in the process.
7. Learning new things --- I sat through a graduate course on wonderful general relativity taught by a colleague. Would totally do it again if another interesting course comes by (this is a great perk of being in a university environment!)
8. Attending research seminars --- It is always instructive to hear scientists talk about their work, even those outside your immediate area of research. Plus it also rejuvenates those lazy weekday afternoons with a cup of coffee, a bite of donut, and informed questions from students serving like an extra shot of serotonin!

LABOR: Things that I remain neutral about, i.e., I know I have to do these as a part of my job and I won't mind doing them again.

1. Faculty meetings
2. Organizing and giving research seminars
3. Giving talks at over-subscribed conferences (such as, APS march meetings)
4. Maintaining my website and online academic profiles (such as, Linkedin and google scholar)
5. University/Departmental service (serving on committees, reviewing internal reports and grants etc.)
6. Teaching non-physics majors
7. Revising Nth draft of a paper-in-works over time t (when N >3 && t --> 1 year)

LOST: Things that I have to come to terms with, i.e., in order to enable the LOVE, I have to keep doing/tolerating these (left to myself, I would never put up with them..ever!)

1. Grant and paper rejections (especially the nasty ones)
2. Grading homeworks for big undergraduate classes (soul crushing!)
3. Writing lukewarm letters of recommendation for students I barely know
4. Administrative meetings
5. Piles of pestilential paperwork [1]
6. Emails (will there ever be an end??)
7. Departmental politics (ughh!)

[1] Alliteration suggests that I hate it more than I care to admit.