Michigan State University students had an unconventional math class this week after professor John McCarthy, 57, reportedly stripped naked in Calculus 1 class and began screaming that “there is no f—ing God” and “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.” In the age of laptop computers, the most surprising thing is that the students noticed and looked up from their computers. Presumably one student asked the standard question of “will this be on the test?”
Witnesses said that McCarthy was going through a routine derivative equation when he started to talk about his colleagues and how “they’re all actors.” He added that “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.”
McCarthy was arrested but not actually charged with a crime. He can certainly be charged with indecent exposure but I hope that he is not and that the police show a modicum of discretion. He obviously had a psychological meltdown. Brilliance sometimes comes with such mental issues as vividly shown in movies like “A Beautiful Mind.”
I would also hope that the faculty treats this matter as a mental illness and allows McCarthy to seek treatment rather than simply fire him. I realize it will be difficult for him to return to the classroom, but we need to treat mental illness like other forms of illness. Thus far the school has merely reassigned his classes. I expect that he is unlikely to return to teaching but in my view the school should treat this matter as an illness rather than misconduct. What do you think?
Source: NY Daily News
So I said I was gonna hold my tongue.
So YOU said what if I don’t.
Well, I wasn’t addressing the content of what you had spoken about at all, Matt, and I didn’t intend to. First off, I have not UNDERSTOOD the stuff being said and I sometimes get a bit embarrassed about not understanding stuff others understand because then they climb on me and declare that I surely MUST understand because I’m intelligent. Well I agree that I’m intelligent and I persist in claiming not to understand some stuff. For instance, all a person has to do is use the word “paradigm” in a sentence and almost automatically, I fail to understand what’s being said. ❗
So here’s what I really meant, and why I said I would hold my tongue.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A JOKE. Once again, this is a TOUGH ROOM!
I said “I undressed and I want to let y’all know: none of it is real.”
Made a little joke. At the poor math professor’s expense. He stripped and said “none of it is real” and got himself arrested. (No prob with that strip search I guess.) So I was throwing in a little joke. I tried for a laugh.
Then you came back and said, “It’s real.”
OY. I had nothing to say. So I held my tongue. I go to a comedy writers’ brainstorming group and they tell us, “if your joke dies, don’t try to revive it — move on.”
=============
Malisha, I wasn’t being mean.
Mike Spindell 1, October 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Matt,
As a psychotherapist I don’t have much use for ODD as a diagnosis because it is too amorphous to properly define, especially in children. When you give to much leeway to a diagnostician, personal feelings ensue and their analysis of behavior is less than what I consider professional.
Sometimes a kid is in a bad school with bad teachers and the “sane” thing is to call them on it. Then too, a kid’s parents could be either ineffectual or downright sadistic.
==============
So you’re a psychotherapist, Mike? What’s the 90/10 rule?
Mike Spindell – No matter, you may continue in English.
I’m glad you did. 🙂
“So you’re a psychotherapist, Mike? What’s the 90/10 rule?”
Matt,
What OS said and though I’m a fan of Ellis, I don’t think you can quantify the percentages.
OMG, Matt, here I go.
You said: Malisha 1, October 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Good evening, folks. I’m not calling anybody in particular out. Today I had to take a friend (Muslim) to some Jewish religious services (she had asked) and so I did, so I had a large dose of not understanding things (happens to me whenever I get involved in anything religious) and then became quite tired and napped and then woke up and read the posts on this blog and got to not understanding all over again.
So I undressed and I want to let y’all know: none of it is real.
=================================================
It’s real.
=================================================
=================================================
So I said I was gonna hold my tongue.
So YOU said what if I don’t.
Well, I wasn’t addressing the content of what you had spoken about at all, Matt, and I didn’t intend to. First off, I have not UNDERSTOOD the stuff being said and I sometimes get a bit embarrassed about not understanding stuff others understand because then they climb on me and declare that I surely MUST understand because I’m intelligent. Well I agree that I’m intelligent and I persist in claiming not to understand some stuff. For instance, all a person has to do is use the word “paradigm” in a sentence and almost automatically, I fail to understand what’s being said. ❗
So here’s what I really meant, and why I said I would hold my tongue.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A JOKE. Once again, this is a TOUGH ROOM!
I said “I undressed and I want to let y’all know: none of it is real.”
Made a little joke. At the poor math professor’s expense. He stripped and said “none of it is real” and got himself arrested. (No prob with that strip search I guess.) So I was throwing in a little joke. I tried for a laugh.
Then you came back and said, “It’s real.”
OY. I had nothing to say. So I held my tongue. I go to a comedy writers’ brainstorming group and they tell us, “if your joke dies, don’t try to revive it — move on.”
@SOTB: I do not think AO changes the lens in any way. I could be wrong.
Here is the Wiki on Adaptive Optics, they talk primarily about a deformable mirror (DM) which corrects for wavefront distortions.
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a diagnosis described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as an ongoing pattern of anger guided disobedience, hostilely defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. People may appear very stubborn and often angry. A diagnosis of ODD cannot be given if the child presents with conduct disorder.
=======
I really don’t think that’s my personality.
Matt,
As a psychotherapist I don’t have much use for ODD as a diagnosis because it is too amorphous to properly define, especially in children. When you give to much leeway to a diagnostician, personal feelings ensue and their analysis of behavior is less than what I consider professional.
Sometimes a kid is in a bad school with bad teachers and the “sane” thing is to call them on it. Then too, a kid’s parents could be either ineffectual or downright sadistic.
@Mike: I am not “guarding my brilliance” at all, I admit I am wrong frequently. Two or three times just last week, in fact, in various meetings.
That said, I have no respect for authority, including my own, including Slart’s. I think ideas live or die on their own, credentials do not matter to me and I will take a grad student’s side over the reigning king of the field if I think the grad student is correct. I am immune to proof by authority or intimidation, and I strive to avoid it myself no matter who I am debating.
I have read and sometimes worked with many people I consider smarter than myself; quicker thinkers, faster workers with better insight and fewer errors. More prolific in publications. But I do not defer to them, as I do not defer to Slart, because I apply the same maxim to them as I do to myself: If you are so smart, you can figure out how to explain this in a way other people can understand it, or you aren’t as smart as you think.
Simple assertions of “you have to believe me, I have a doctorate” are just bs to my ears. I strive to avoid that argument because I do not want bullied blind submission, I want agreement through understanding. I do not defer to that argument either, if it is the only argument a person can make I will, at best, take their assertion under advisement with a strong dose of “that might be a personal belief.”
I defer (quite often) to good reason based on a foundation of premises with which I agree, whether it is mathematical, business, or psychological reasoning.
Malisha, Matt is being oppositionally defiant. Probably just so he can participate.
Malisha 1, October 7, 2012 at 10:28 am
Matt J, just to prove that change is possible, I’m going to hold my tongue.
========
What if you don’t?
Matt J, just to prove that change is possible, I’m going to hold my tongue.
Malisha 1, October 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Good evening, folks. I’m not calling anybody in particular out. Today I had to take a friend (Muslim) to some Jewish religious services (she had asked) and so I did, so I had a large dose of not understanding things (happens to me whenever I get involved in anything religious) and then became quite tired and napped and then woke up and read the posts on this blog and got to not understanding all over again.
So I undressed and I want to let y’all know: none of it is real. 😈
========================================================
It’s real.
@Slart: but that’s your reason why?
I was responding to son of thunder, in his language, because he thinks you having “Dr” in front of your name is a reason for me to drop out. So I was telling him it was a match between Drs, since he thinks that is important. Between you and me, I do not think it is important, I am adamantly in the camp of double blind peer review, because I think anything else corrupts the scientific process. Being right is sufficient reason to continue, until I get bored.
I don’t consider HARI SELDON a wizard because I do not think he did anything outright supernatural; certainly accurate prediction is not. I think Asimov statement has to be read carefully; indistinguishable from magic does not make something magic. I watched David Copperfield in person with an unobstructed view from the edge of center stage. Some of what he did was indistinguishable from magic, to me, but I do not believe it WAS magic.
On Bones, as you note, the tasks allocated to Angela end up being supernatural divination. What was that bullcrap about a triangle of numbers, composed by a dead man, that is supposed to describe the super genius villain’s personalty to the point that it could be used to find an encryption code used to fake a video the villain had not even made when this triangle was supposedly composed?
It is just a deus ex machina; when the writers put themselves in a hole so deep it can only be resolved by the Gods, in many shows the favorite modern God is “the computer.” (Funny how Angela started out this series as a sketch artist and somehow got transformed into a super programmer without ever taking a class.)
Sorry Gene, I’ve been being amused by the back and forth (and having some programming fun…).
SotB,
Don’t worry about Tony—I’m going to grant where he knew what he was talking about (or I have no reason to believe I know better than he does), and I wont kick his ass too badly where he was wrong. Tony is generally solid on his facts and I have no doubt he is competent in his area of expertise, but I have found his some of his analyses to be naive from time to time. Most of the problem here is that Tony knows about the math they used in the last 25 years (where he knows what he is talking about—but so do I) and I’m talking about the math I think they’re going to be using in the next 25 years (where I’m speculating in a field in which I have at least some relevant expertise and he likely has none at all).
Tony said: “I am a full time research scientist on the faculty of a large university. I do not have to let anything go.”
Really? I mean, the rules of the internet say you don’t have to let anything go that you don’t want to (subject to the site owner’s veto), but that’s your reason why?
With regard to ass kicking, Gene’s right—just wait until I’ve kicked before you start talking about how I’ve missed. Being impatient at best makes you look petty (if I miss or wasn’t aiming where you thought) and at worst makes you look silly (if I fail to miss [which is a good thing unless you’re trying to fly… 😉 ]). Anyway, I’m working on it and I’ll post it before too long.
With regards to Hari—what is you definition of a wizard? If you eliminate the “supernatural” as being an oxymoron in any universe (or multiverse) a wizard is just someone with the knowledge and ability to understand and manipulate aspects of the universe beyond the normal ken, right?
Mike,
I find it interesting that you couldn’t suspend your disbelief regarding Seldon. I usually have that problem when the “technobabble” or the phlebotinum hits too close to home (Angela on Bones jumped the shark a little for me when her computers were infected by malware encoded on a scanned bone and a little more in the season opener). Hari Seldon is right smack in the middle of my area of interest and that doesn’t stop me from suspending my disbelief—it starts me thinking about how to do it myself… I read the Foundation books around the same time as I started learning about chaos (and read Feynman’s autobiography). I’ve never really thought about it before, but the Foundation books are the foundation (pun obviously intended) of my belief that a mathematician can change the world (or galaxy-spanning empire as the case may be).
When my thesis advisor was a post-doc at Courant (NYU’s math department—very prestigious [I didn’t get supported there—in my defense, it was the second of my three consecutive first years of grad school… I loved the classroom on the 13th floor looking uptown 😉 ]) he set a letter to Dr. Asimov (about what I forget) and wound up getting invited to lunch. He ended up at a table in a Manhattan restaurant with Isaac and a group of equally distinguished personages marveling at the conversation (and too shocked and awed to participate much…). I would have loved to have been there.
Slarti,
I first read “Foundation” in probably 1956, when I was twelve and found it amazing. The way SciFi was distributed back then (I couldn’t afford hardcovers and it wasn’t in libraries) I didn’t get to read “Foundation and Empire” until probably 1959 and “Second Foundation” probably a year later. I though the idea of Psychohistory intriguing, but not compelling. Humans are to numerous and too variable, in my mind, to be able to make predictions on how their various interactions will turn out.
You also need to understand that I got into SciFi in a different era than you and most others who write here. I had read all of Jules Verne by the time I was 10 and with it all of my big brother’s Tom Swift books. On TV there were seminal shows like “Science Fiction Theater”, “The Twilight Zone” and the original Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers serials from the 1930’s. In the movies there were the typical monster movies, which were crap and then some breakthroughs like “Forbidden Planet”, “This Island Earth” and “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). The latter based on Jack Finney’s novel which I had read before the movie came out. Back then, those movies and the genre was considered barely respectable and among the general public/critics it was seen as no more relevant to literature as were the Mickey Spillane detective novels.
“Star Trek” began to change SciFi’s influence and I watched every episode in my lone attempt to show support for a genre I loved. However, even then while I loved the characters, the plots were formulaic at best. You grew up in an era where SciFi had not only become acceptable but was appreciated by serious thinkers, so we come at this differently. Given that it’s been more than 50 years since I first read the trilogy, perhaps I need to give it another shot and see if my younger presumptions were wrong. I’ll let you know.
Tony,
You see it is possible to admit that even in ones area of expertise, (SciFi Literature) there is more to learn and presumptions to be examined. You are obviously brilliant, but you guard your brilliance to closely. As I used to tell the people who worked for me: “I’m very smart, but even so, I can be wrong 20% of the time and its your job to tell me when I’m wrong, so I don’t screw things up for all of us”. That always worked very well for me.
@Tony C – Well you heard it from Gene H. If he hasn’t literally chewed yer’ arse out then feel blessed. Mine still smarts from the experience (whatever the details were – Thanx for the history-lane recap Gene – LOL). All I meant was that Slarti and Mike MAY just be messin’ with you. If you’ve been through the mill, as Gene suggests, then you should know to just move on as it’s no big deal. I’m sure we have a BUNCH of off-topic stuff to talk about other than this little row (i.e. argument).
@Tony C – BTW he natives call me SotB like how the natives call Westerners effendi or bwana (no not really – LOL)
Regarding the IMINT (spy) satellites like post-Corona birds like KH-11 may have used this technique on POST images sent back to NRO/CIA. They may have done the laser lens imaging thing at Perkin-Elmer (who invented the process) BEFORE the spaceflight so that they could do the transformation corrections in the photo lab. I do not think AO changes the lens in any way. I could be wrong. Astronomers use a AO pilot laser shined into space to allow some sort of correction to the telescopes imaging system to overcome atmospheric distortion. Don’t think they deform the telescope’s lens in any way.
@sonofthunder: I am a full time research scientist on the faculty of a large university. I do not have to let anything go.
Tony,
I will stipulate that I think Mike’s call was a bit premature as well.
Now you one legged fellas get back at it!
There is nothing on TV worth watching.
No, SoTB.
You got hammered because you were factually wrong about Einstein’s participation in the Manhattan Project. Big difference. In the current situation, personally I agree with Tony that most business problems don’t rise to the level of calculus and I suspect as a course it’s more about filler and revenue generation for the school than practical application. I’ve been in business a number of years and my need for calculus to solve a business issue has been practically non-existent. That being said, Slarti is a trained mathematician and Tony is not. A full hearing of the case for both side should be heard as a simple matter of fairness before Tony declares himself winner. Don’t worry about Tony. He wears big boy pants and has been here quite some time. He’s been in arguments far more contentious than this one.
@Gene: I think it should be a basic tenet of blog law that my ass shall be presumed missed until proven kicked.
@Tony C – You really need to just let this go. IMO they are just trying to bust your cajones. The two most common university math courses are Business Calculus and Business Statistics. You have to realize that this group is “special’ as most of them have beaucoup degrees and Dr. in front of their names. When you blow in here with a lot of piss-n-vinegar (i.e. apparent egotism) someone is bound to be willing to TRY and take you down a peg (or two). They did the same thing to me when I blew into Turley-ville a few months ago. I think it’s like a “right of passage” or something. Just take it on the chin and go with the flow. They really are a fun bunch of people once you get to know them better. I spend hours with them when I have the time. They can be addictive… (LOL)