this is wrongly, but commonly, attributed to Bill Gates, the actual author was Charles J. Sykes. and there are 3 more of his rules shown on the Snopes site.
some are good, some demonstrate a bit too much staid adult mentalityfor my liking.
A commencement speech given by John Mellancamp, to the graduating class at IU:
Full text of John Mellencamp's address to the Indiana University Class of 2000
May 7, 2000
Editor's Note: Grammy Award-winning rock star John Mellencamp gave the commencement speech at Indiana University's graduation ceremony Saturday. His speech was substantially as follows:
"How are you guys doing today?
"I'm going to take this off. It's too hot." (Removes black gown and drops it on the stage.)
"I would like to thank the faculty and student body for asking me to be here today. Congratulations to you guys for graduating from Indiana University.
"There is no real reward in life for settling for something we don't want. Life is about getting exactly what you want. You guys are now at the time in your life when most people start looking for themselves. 'Who am I?' 'What am I supposed to do?' And 'God, I hope there's more to life than this.'
"I'm sure you guys know some guys your age and they will tell you that they have already found themselves. They'll tell you about how much money they're going to make; all the places they're going to go, and that they have a clear vision of what they should be doing. I think you guys should know that they probably don't. They probably don't have any more of an idea than you guys do.
"Don't let these people scare you into thinking that you're already behind in the race, and don't let this false fear hinder your decision-making about yourself.
"Growing up and succeeding is about knowledge. Find comfort in the fact that it would be virtually impossible for a young person to know what to do with his life at this stage. Also, know that no one expects a young person to know what to do right now, so really, the pressure's off. Take the pressure off yourself." (Applause.)
"I know that secretly inside your head right now you guys are thinking, 'I'm a graduate. That means no more living off the old man. No more scholarship money. No more grant money. No more staying up all night drinking. Look out! I'm on my own! I must hurry up and succeed at something.'
"That's not right.
"That may be how you feel at the moment, but you still have the same support system around you that you've always had. Hold on to that. Use the support system for advice. Your family and friends are the best things you'll ever know. I used those lines in a song back in the '80s.
"Now I'm not talking about being lazy. I'm talking about taking time for yourself and finding out who the hell you are.
"You guys are looking at one of the most fortunate guys you'll ever see in your life — me. I'm just a dumb, smart-aleck kid from a small town in Indiana who, in his early 20s had a vague notion of something he thought he might like to do, with absolutely no vision at all that it could last 25 years.
"You know, most guys in rock bands — they make a couple albums, have a couple of laughs, have a couple of drinks, get married a couple of times. In five years, it's over. So you might wonder how in the hell did this goofball Mellencamp last so long? Well, he's an OK songwriter. His shows are a little bit above average. Damn good looking fellow, though!
"Yah, but that's not enough to sustain you for 25 years.
"I had to take the vague notion I had and turning it into a vision and staying connected to my vision. Vision and connection. There you have it, guys. Having a vision and staying connected.
"You guys should know that when I was your age I had no vision what was going to be happening to me 25 years later, zero.
"At 22 years old, all I could think of was making just one record. I didn't even know how you went about making a record. I knew you had to go into a recording studio but I didn't know what happens inside there.
"But after the 20-some albums, my vision is very clear about what it is I should be doing, and I'm still working every day.
"There's a secret to having a vision. You have to be able to reinvent yourself and your vision as time goes on. No one wants to repeat or revisit something they've already accomplished or done.
"Finding yourself and reinventing yourself is all part of growing up, which you never really do, guys. You never really grow up. And that's a good thing.
"Be careful that you don't get bored, or feel sorry for yourself. Those are very dangerous areas and bad decisions can occur in those moments.
"Recognize your opportunities. There's so much opportunity in this world that sometimes it takes my breath away, and I don't even know what to do with it. It's very exciting and fulfilling, so the old adage, 'opportunity only knocks once?'
"Pffffffft. Not true.
"Opportunity is always at your guys' doors. Remember that. It's always there. It's just a matter of whether or not you guys are going to take the opportunity to use the opportunity.
"I hope I don't sound like I'm preaching to you, because I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your life. It's not my style. It's not my intention.
"If someone were to ask me casually about life, I would simply say, 'Play it like you feel it, baby, and live it up, kid. You'll be all right.'" (Applause.)
"All anyone can do is speak from their own experience in life. I have made many, many mistakes. My rule for myself is, 'Paint fast, John, and make mistakes.' Some of my mistakes are so laughable it's ridiculous, but I've also had the best time that any human can expect in this world. I have done stuff that most people could never imagine. I've done stuff most people don't even know exists! And I say that in no bragging manner.
"I've been all over the world a couple or three times. I've played my songs to millions and millions of people. I've laughed out loud with the toughest guys in this world and I have been around the biggest jerks you could ever lay eyes on. I've raised five kids. I've been married three times, and I'm married to one of the most beautiful and understanding women in the world. Anyone who knows her will say that Elaine Mellencamp keeps John Mellencamp civilized.
"I've never given up, and I've never given in. I've lost many times, and said on the way down, 'You're going to have to kill me,' and some did. But that's OK because I've always enjoyed the fight much more than the victory.
"I don't expect any of you guys to take much of what I'm saying today very seriously. This is your guys' moment, not mine. Hell, you're graduating from college. That's a big deal no matter how you cut it, right?
"But take this with you from me. Try to enjoy your life, 'cause this is it, baby. This is all we got. Stay connected with your vision. Exploit your opportunities and never give up. And always, always, above anything else, always be honest and never kiss foot.
"If you can follow those few little suggestions, maybe you won't have to go through your entire life and say, 'No, damn it, my name is not Johnny Cougar.'
I think advice, like religion, MLMs, and infomercials is mostly BuII$hi+.
It's pretty hard to distill ANY of life's really important lessons into mere words.
Living REALLY well is something done by a very few. Likewise, living really poorly isn't tremendously common (at least not in the western world) either. That leaves a whole bunch of the rest of us to flounder around, sometimes pulling off a "coup", but more often just wallowing around in the same mediocrity that a gazillion generations past have.
Cutesey aphorisms or barroom philosophy will never change that...
Thanks for the input. I'm not surprised that others have expressed those thoughts. As I said, it's the first time I saw them presented as such and I knew nothing about Bill Gates.
I'm not a big John Mellencamp fan, but I've heard interviews with him and he seemed OK. When I got my associates degree from STL community college our speaker was the channel 4 news lady. Right now I'm wondering how well John M would get along with Bob Knight.
Recommended Posts
HAPe4me
According to Snopes,
http://www.snopes.com/language/document/liferule.asp
this is wrongly, but commonly, attributed to Bill Gates, the actual author was Charles J. Sykes. and there are 3 more of his rules shown on the Snopes site.
some are good, some demonstrate a bit too much staid adult mentalityfor my liking.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A commencement speech given by John Mellancamp, to the graduating class at IU:
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I dunno,
I think advice, like religion, MLMs, and infomercials is mostly BuII$hi+.
It's pretty hard to distill ANY of life's really important lessons into mere words.
Living REALLY well is something done by a very few. Likewise, living really poorly isn't tremendously common (at least not in the western world) either. That leaves a whole bunch of the rest of us to flounder around, sometimes pulling off a "coup", but more often just wallowing around in the same mediocrity that a gazillion generations past have.
Cutesey aphorisms or barroom philosophy will never change that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Thanks for the input. I'm not surprised that others have expressed those thoughts. As I said, it's the first time I saw them presented as such and I knew nothing about Bill Gates.
I'm not a big John Mellencamp fan, but I've heard interviews with him and he seemed OK. When I got my associates degree from STL community college our speaker was the channel 4 news lady. Right now I'm wondering how well John M would get along with Bob Knight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
From Richard Feynman's 1974 Caltech graduation speech...enjoy
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such
as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a
method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try
one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it.
This method became organized, of course, into science. And it
developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It
is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in
understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when
nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of
it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me
into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of
mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and
so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to
investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my
curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I
found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by
investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.
I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations,
so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a
hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should
go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how
much there was.
At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated
on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most
pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and
watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into
the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she
quietly appears and settles into the bath with me.
One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl
sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began
thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this
beautiful nude babe?"
I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her,
I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?"
"Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a
massage table nearby.
I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of
anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel
it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?"
I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!"
They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's
reflexology!"
I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.
That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I
also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the
latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able
to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his
hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both
mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that
succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key
and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it
works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing
in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and
him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was
unable to investigate that phenomenon.
But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And
I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have
been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So
I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have
some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading
methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice,
you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up
in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to
improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't
work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their
method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We
obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--
in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to
handle criminals.
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest;
but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain
temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--
including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what
we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.
A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the
subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the
only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't
land.
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because
it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something
must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.
But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of
having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something
that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that
I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are
the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about
that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other
scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after
that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to
tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be
a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll
leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the
applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any."
He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of
this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're
representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to
the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you
under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind
to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look
good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether
drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it
would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a
result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're
being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the
government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument
in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish
it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When
I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology
department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an
experiment that went something like this--it had been found by
others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A.
She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to
Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment
under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.
I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her
laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under
condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change
to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real
difference was the thing she thought she had under control.
She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her
professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the
experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time.
This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general
policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but
only to change the conditions and see what happens.
Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even
in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an
experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator
Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his
heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen"
he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light
hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why,
he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because
there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the
experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there
wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs
at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money
to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are
destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves,
which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the
experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific
integrity demands.
All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For
example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937
a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long
corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and
doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if
he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from
wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the
door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was
so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door
as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was
different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very
carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly
the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats
were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell
after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the
rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement
in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the
corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded
when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his
corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible
clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to
learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions,
the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one
experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running
experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat
is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the
experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
rat-running.
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next
experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young.
They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on
sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats
in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries
of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't
discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the
things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not
paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of
cargo cult science.
Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other
people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves
have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the
techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and
smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists
are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can
do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a
million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and
get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't
get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an
irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is
science?
This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which
he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology.
And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the
things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have
shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent--
not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students
who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a
policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain
results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific
integrity.
So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere
where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have
described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain
your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on,
to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.