#i still have an intuitive grasp of academic discussion but it’s very hard for me to learn new things now which basically defeats the purpose

[cloudravine]

This is a response to the amazing post that @ravenclawisak wrote about Ravenclaw Isak. Thank you so much for sharing your super interesting thoughts with us, Rachel! I always love reading you. <3

Although you make a strong argument for Isak being a Ravenclaw and pushed me to look at things from a different perspective, I’m still a strong advocate for Slytherin Isak, and I’m gonna go ahead and try to explain why. :)

You say that the typical Slytherin traits Isak exhibits throughout seasons 1-3 (cunning, ambition, self-preservation, etc.) are “things that isak has said he doesn’t/didn’t like about himself.” I definitely think this is true of some of the damaging and self-destructive behaviour he engaged in, especially in season 1 and the beginning of season 3. However, I’d like to argue that those Slytherin characteristics, while they do underride a negative phase/side of his life, define Isak’s process of growth, learning and self-betterment as well.

I can see why you would connect some Slytherin traits to something a bit negative, because this is quite frankly what HP canon pushes the reader to do by default. But as a Slytherin myself, I firmly believe that my House can be extremely healthy and positive and that it encompasses many aspects of Isak’s personality, the good and the bad and everything in-between. Slytherin is about that grey zone, that space where polar opposites merge together and become a complex entity of their own — and that’s what Slytherin means in Isak.

It means being manipulative and crafty in a way which, at first, harms his relationship to people and his relationship to himself. But at the end of season 3 and onwards, it also means expertedly constructing a lie about having created the saranors2 account, thereby putting his academic life and reputation on the line for the sake of a dear friend. It means saying harsh words to Sana, words that are more biting than necessary (and perhaps come from a small place of anger), to force her to reconsider things and try to help her figure stuff out. It means presumably lying about punching Mikael out of jealousy because, goddammit, Isak prefers his friends thinking he’s an impulsive, possessive and hot-tempered asshole over exposing whatever it is he felt the need to cover for.

And that’s what Slytherin is about, isn’t it? Protecting the people you love with all you’ve got and making calculated sacrifices for them — because you may prioritise your own survival before all else, but your own survival necessitates your loved ones being happy and well. Fighting fiercely for what you believe in. Stepping up when the situation demands it. Being merciless when necessary, but also compassionate and understanding to people who prove themselves deserving, and never taking pleasure in it when circumstances force you to be a little bit unkind. Having the ambition to grow into a better person every day, to make the world a better place, to plant the seeds of friendship and love everywhere you go. Selectively using cunning and craftiness to do good.

Now I’m going to talk a bit about two sections in which you explain what makes Isak a Ravenclaw for you:

he’s smart, he’s intuitive, he’s quick to learn and internalize new knowledge to integrate it into his own worldview

[he’s] consistently driven by a search for answers—about himself, about culture, about the people he cares about, about all the different and sometimes competing worldviews that somehow coexist in this one point in time and space, about how he fits in to all of that

I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, in my opinion, all those traits can also be Slytherin. :) That’s probably because both Houses overlap on tons of aspects and are in many ways two sides of the same coin. In any case, some of the things you point out strike me as being quite Slytherin-ish. When Isak looks up bipolarity, he does so because he’s afraid and feels like he needs to get a grasp on the situation and not let it overwhelm him. When he discusses homosexuality with Eskild and realises he’s been narrow-minded and offensive in his approach, he wants to learn from his mistake not only because it’s right to do so, but also because Isak can’t stand the idea of being a bigot and a jerk. You mention that that seeking of knowledge makes him feel grounded and in-control, and I totally agree. I find such a sense of empowerement through knowledge to be very deeply Slytherin, because it’s not entirely disinterested and has some ulterior motive (albeit, in this case, a commendable one).

The excerpts from your post that I quoted seem to revolve a lot around the ideas of curiosity and adaptability, and those can be incredibly Slytherin features depending on how one looks at them. As I see it, the Ravenclaw take on it would be to want to learn and respond in a flexible way to situations because of how enriching, interesting and thrilling that is. One could make the argument that that applies to Isak, and I don’t necessarily want to argue against that claim. But I believe the Slytherin side of things—a desire to adapt and to understand things because those qualities are needed to function and be successful in every possible way—is also very true of Isak.

While Ravenclaws value those traits for their own sake because they bring something more into their lives, Slytherins value them for their purpose and usefulness because they’re the only way, the only good way, to go around. In my opinion, Isak does have a bit of the Ravenclaw side because he clearly enjoys dipping his toes in deep reflections and complex topics, he has quite an academic streak, and he’s stimulated by intellectual challenges. However, I find his love of knowledge rather disconnected from artistic creativity and individualism, two notions which are crucial to intelligence and thirst for knowledge in Ravenclaw House. In my understanding, Isak leans more heavily towards the survival/Slytherin spectrum of things. He realises the hard way that being sly as a snake risks destroying what he cherishes most in life, but he eventually also recognises that he survived in spite of it all. He did it, he came out a more genuine, complete and fulfilled person in spite of (or perhaps because of) the obstacles standing in his way; and he’s going to do all he can to continue on that journey and not only survive, but also enjoy and savour the rest of his life.  

#char: isak valtersen #skam #slytherin #house slytherin #theskamfam #thoughts: skam #thoughts: isak valtersen #thoughts: slytherin #rachel i'm sorry about this being so long! #i hope you don't feel offended or annoyed that i'm trying to make a counter-argument here :) #i just have so many feelings and thoughts on the subject and find this discussion super interesting #would love to hear your thoughts if you feel like it <3 #fandom: harry potter

[ink-consequential]

Ink Consequential: Summer 2017

Ten Word Tales

Jana A

1. I want you to redefine love. Love is not pain.

2. Sometimes, you remind me of my father, and it’s scary.

3. I wish I started years ago. But I’m starting today.

◆◇◆◇◆

Keep reading for movie reviews, short fiction, poetry, and more!

◆◇◆◇◆

Movie Review: Gifted

Lucas Brantley 

Gifted is a film directed by Marc Webb and stars Chris Evans as Frank Adler, a freelance boat repairman in coastal Florida who is raising his 7-year-old niece, Mary, who is played by Mckenna Grace.  They lead a normal, simple life until they discover that Mary has exceptional mathematical skills.  This leads to a custody battle with Frank’s mother, Evelyn (played by Lindsay Duncan), as each of the two has a different opinion on how Mary’s talent should be handled in her upbringing.

I thought this film was terrific.  Personally, I enjoy films with simple stories about people being people.  I appreciate films that don’t feel the need to extend its story to some grand, world-altering scale.  Films like this can be very engaging for ordinary people like you and me—but more on that later.  And, full disclosure, I saw this film with my mother on Mother’s Day.

Marc Webb is best known for his directorial work on The Amazing Spider-Man films starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  I didn’t like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 primarily because it never gave us a chance to breathe.  It was a sensory overload from the start, and audiences around the world agreed, which is why there won’t be another Garfield Spider-Man movie.  I’m glad Webb got to scale back his focus in this film because his directorial skills shine brilliantly and prove that he has real talent directing these slower, more character-driven stories.

The acting in this film is also superb.  Chris Evans really gets to show off his acting chops in this movie, which I was glad to see; too many times, actors that are best known for a superhero blockbuster franchise can’t escape that bubble.  Evans does an exceptional job, and his chemistry with Mckenna Grace makes that central relationship very touching.  Mckenna Grace did a fantastic job on her own.  She goes toe-to-toe with Chris Evans and Octavia Spencer (who plays their neighbor and landlord Roberta in the film), and she steals the movie in quite a few scenes.  I would honestly put this as the second-best child performance I’ve seen in a while, only trailing Dafne Keen’s performance in Logan.  Octavia Spencer herself is great, although she doesn’t appear often.

The writing in this movie may be my favorite part.  I can’t remember a time when I’ve had so many out-loud reactions to moments or one-liners in a film, and I wasn’t the only one in the theater who did.  The humor in this movie is great and well-timed by all the actors, especially Mckenna Grace; she comes off as an adorable little smart-aleck, which is very relatable for me.  Overall, however, the film is a drama and it handles its subject matter intelligently, and that’s what I want to get into.

Without spoiling anything, the film’s main conflict surrounds the custody battle for Mary since her mother has passed away and left her in the care of her brother, Frank.  Evelyn and Frank have a strained relationship (to say the least), and Evelyn seems to only become interested in Mary after the school discovers she has this talent.  Evelyn wants this talent to be nurtured; she wants to send Mary to a school for gifted children and get her into classes more suited to her intelligence level.  Frank, however, believes that she needs to grow up as a normal girl and not be treated as special in any way, so he refuses to send her to this gifted school.  Thus, the court custody battle begins.  The film handles this conflict well in that they don’t overload you with courtroom scenes in the second act; they’re spaced out between watching the characters evolve with this situation in daily life, which makes for an organically-paced story, which is another major credit to Webb’s direction.

I think many people, especially today’s youth, will find this film to be very relatable and engaging because, from what I’ve been witnessing, the main conflict is pervasive in society.  Too often, I see that kids anywhere from preschool to high school and beyond are being pushed to be great at something.  If it is discovered that a child has a talent for something, be it academic or athletic, parents often make sure that they are engaged 110% in that activity.  They push the child to try harder and harder to improve their skills daily.  In my opinion, this action by parents, while well-meaning, is counter-intuitive.  If you saturate a child’s life with this one thing and push them too hard to be better at it, they will grow to resent you and hate the activity, thus removing any motivation to pursue it.  Kids should be able to explore any number of interests they may have.  It improves their learning with the added benefit that they can grow to know what they enjoy and don’t enjoy.  There is a scene in the film where Mary is staying with Evelyn for a brief period at her home in Massachusetts.  Evelyn tries to get her to work on more math problems after going through old photo albums, but all Mary wants to do is try the piano—something she has always wanted to do but Frank could not provide for her.  Evelyn refuses her this desire.  It’s a small moment, but it resonated with me because I was begging her to let Mary be a normal kid.

I was very much sympathetic to Frank for most of the film, as is the intention, but the film does a good job of also presenting Evelyn as a human being and not just “the bad guy”.  It would have been so easy to make her a cardboard cutout of a snobbish and unfeeling old lady, but she wasn’t.  You do understand her side of the argument as well, though how she goes about pushing her agenda is anger-inducing.  You can tell that she genuinely does care about Mary and Frank, though her way of showing it is not ideal for either.  The history with Mary’s mother plays an important role throughout the film, and I won’t discuss it here because it gets into spoiler territory, but it determines the film’s resolution.

The ending of the film was very satisfying for me because it compromises.  I think this is an important film for any parent of young children to see because it teaches the lesson that you need to let kids be kids.  Don’t push them too hard to do something they may not enjoy; just because they’re good at something doesn’t mean they enjoy it.  Let them have a normal childhood, and, if they show a talent at something, give them the opportunity to try it, but don’t push them to be the best at it because that puts too much pressure on them.  You should obviously encourage them to stick with it, but if they end up not liking it, encourage them to find something else.  The character of Frank is a good role model for parents because he does an excellent job of teaching Mary about how life works and doesn’t lie to her; he trusts that she is intelligent enough to grasp the truth when he tells it, which I found very refreshing.

Overall, Gifted is a terrific film that I will absolutely buy on Blu-ray/DVD when it releases.  If I had to grade it, I’d give it a 9.5/10 or an A.  It’s also an independent film, so I would encourage anyone to support the film because we need more films like this.  Films like this—the ones that analyze everyday life in society from a singular situation—can resonate with many people because, quite often, they are situations with which we can empathize to some degree.  By doing so, the film reaches the largest audience from a singular platform, which is a quality you find in a lot of the so-called “Oscar-bait” movies.  Let’s give this film the attention it deserves.

◆◇◆◇◆

First Love

Elise Alarpy

First love, I wish I could forget you; I don’t want you anymore. Years have passed and my traitorous heart Still clings to your memory.

Darling, why is it so hard to let you go? I shouldn’t love you. I shouldn’t love you. I shouldn’t love you. But I do. I do— I do.

Honey, I’m trying to move on, I’m trying all the time. I don’t want you, I don’t need you. Leave me alone.

Dearest, I hate you. I love you, but I hate you. You wrecked us, You did this, And I am left in the aftermath.

Darling, I love you, The words I never said. I hate you. I hate myself for loving you.

Sweetheart, you're my addiction. When I finally think I’m clean, You pull me back in again. And again. And again.

First love, you’re my biggest regret, My biggest could have been. I think of you fondly, I remember you sadly, But I just want this to end.

First love, my heart was yours, Although you never knew it. I shouldn’t love you (I do) Leave me alone I hate you (I love you) (Again and again and again)

But I don’t want to anymore.

◆◇◆◇◆

The Trial

Danielle Jeanne

The bed was soft and warm by the time Brougha fell into it at the peak night hours. She could feel the blood from her right arm oozing towards the sheep skins that acted as blankets. She was feeling far too tired to actually get under the covers, let alone deal with her injuries before falling asleep. She could feel the cracked wrist bone and the black eye she had been gifted from the clan chief and knew that they would still be issues in the morning even if she tried to fix them now. She was no healer after all. She was not her mother.

*****

“—ling! Darling! It is time to get up now! The chief is waiting, along with your parents!” Brougha jolted awake at the sound of Carguk’s voice filtering in through her sleep. Her green eyes regarded him thoughtfully, confused as to why he would be the one to come tell her.

“Where is Purdash? Isn’t she still my mother’s lead Curer?” Brougha inquired gruffly, not pleased with being alone in the same room as a full-blooded orc so soon after last night. She knew how talk traveled in small encampments like Burning Blood, especially with it being so late in the morning according to the sun. Chances are that the whole tribe had heard about it by now, even the few human members.

A mincing smile grew on Carguk’s face as he looked at her right arm, confirming Brougha’s suspicions. He just wanted to see if the rumors are true. He probably wouldn’t even offer to help bind up her wrist, just to settle some morbid curiosity on the pain tolerance of half-orcs. He straightens up from where he had been crouching next to her bed, “She’s busy at the moment. Your mother’s people have a bad habit of getting sick over the slightest things. I say, getting a fever over raw meat is just being weak—”

“No one keeps you here for your opinions,” Brougha cut him off, “I’m going, get out of my way.” She pushed herself up using her right hand and made her way out of the clay hut that had her bed and not much else. As she walked through the encampment, her ears picked up hushed whispers from the tanning shack as she passed, but nothing clear. She soon found herself standing outside of the Chief’s Longhouse, hesitating before pushing aside the canvas that served as the door as she made her way inside.

She guided herself though the Longhouse and stopped once she was inside the meeting chamber. She saw her father standing next to the chief, solemn. When she notices the absence of her mother, she stays quiet. Instead of her mother, there is another woman there, one with a very serious disposition. The other woman looks at her closely and begins to hum in disapproval.

“You didn’t take the time to tend to your wounds? That is how one dies after battle, you know!” The other woman growls out. “You don’t think when you’re done fighting! You don’t even think when you are fighting! That is why I broke you last night, and that is why I will break you again!”

Brougha stayed still as she listened to the words her chief spoke. It was clear then: she was here for another fight. Another beating, if what her chief says is true. “Fine, then I will think when I fight,” she responds, “And this time you will not break me.”

“Me breaking you was not the point, Brougha. The point is that even with the berries that your mother gave you, you still lost!” the chief roared.

Brougha’s blood froze. She was being accused of cheating; her mother, of helping her with it. She knew of the berries that the chief was talking about: to rare to even name, and too powerful for an orc to even think of using, let alone a half-orc like herself.

“I did not eat any berries before I fought. Do not accuse me of cheating,” Brougha told her chief. She looked over to her father, “Explain this to me.”

“They found a few berry stains in your mother’s tent. It looked like she was trying to dilute the berries for safer consumption. She knew how important last night was to you. She made the mixture and gave it you. That is the only explanation as to why we couldn’t find the mixture in her tent,” Erigg spoke mater-of-factly.

“I was given nothing. The humans are sick, she probably made it for them!” Brougha pleaded. She had seen a few public trials of the tribe before, and she knew that there was little to no chance of the chief going back on her ideas of what went on in the encampment. “Go check with Carguk! That is what he told me was happening in the healer’s tent!”

The chief looked upon Brougha gravely. “You were found cheating and your mother was found in aiding you. Your weakness has cost you your place in the clan and your mother’s shamefulness will be surrendering her own life.”

Brougha stood frozen in place for the decree. Her mother was to die. Her mother, one of the few humans in the encampment that could heal the others, was to be put to death. That was unacceptable.

“I will go, but if I come back and prove that I am better than you, you will let my mother live.” It wasn’t Brougha’s style to ask permission to do something; she found that people tended to accept what was told to them much as she accepted what was told to her. Her charismatic gamble paid off when she saw the chief nod in her direction.

“I will give you three years to become better than me. You will come back in that time and if you do not your mother will be dead. Now go; you have some training to do.”

It wasn’t the orc’s style to have any amount of fanfare when one was banished from the village, and there was certainly no exception when it came to a half-orc. Brougha made her way out of the Longhouse and out of the wooden gates of the encampment, completely bypassing her clay hut. Her things were earned by the tribe, so they stayed with the tribe. She wasted no time in goodbyes or lingering outside of familiar buildings that she would not see for a while. The faster she left, the sooner that she would return.

Brougha had a lot of fighting to do.

◆◇◆◇◆

Haiku Hiccups

Esther C

I the journey is long, winding, wavering as I push myself further

II you will not know love until you awaken next to the one you love

III summer’s heat gives way to quenched passion and remorse in the quiet nights

 ◆◇◆◇◆

Ramadan

Jana A

As the first beams of dawn start to light up the night sky, the imam's deep melody begins: "God is great..." and so on until the end of the call for prayers. For the next 16 hours or so, I would abstain from food and water. If you're not familiar with Islam, Ramadan can seem like a daunting challenge.

"Not even water?!" Nope, not even water.

And I admit that sometimes it can be challenging. Your body gets tired more easily. Your throat feels like a barren desert. Your movement becomes sluggish towards the end of the 16 hours. Yet, millions of Muslim choose to fast each year, and a lot of people don't understand why.

I love food. I adore food. If each person is born with a vice, then I'll sheepishly admit that gluttony must be mine. I don't just eat food—I devour it, taking the time to enjoy every second of flavor.

When I'm hungry, I literally begin to fantasize about food. I close my eyes, almost purring, remembering how it feels to sink my teeth into a warm, fresh roll of bread. I plan, with perfect attention to detail, future meals. I think of more than just the taste, of course: the smell, texture, and sight of food is an essential part of the experience.

So, since I adore food so much, why do I (a mostly non-religious person) follow the tradition of fasting?

First of all, fasting brings me a great peace of mind. When physical desires are quenched, my mind feels more alive. Instead of resorting to comfort food when I'm feeling down, I pick up the phone to call a friend. Instead of eating lunch at 6 pm alone in my room, I break my fast with family and friends. Instead of carelessly satisfying hunger with whatever is in the house, I relish every moment of the dish that I spent the last 16 hours craving.

Secondly, fasting, more than anything else, brings a great empathy for people less fortunate than I. Not every person who feels hungry is lucky enough to think of the delicious meal they're going to have in a matter of hours. For a lot of people, Ramadan isn't just a month. They are hungry all year round. Some people don't have clean water to drink. When I force my body to undergo a small part of what they go through, I challenge the subconscious part of me that turns poor people into a caricature. When I'm hungry, starving people are not just figures in a far-away land. They're suddenly, joltingly, brought to reality.

Ramadan, for me, is more than the beautiful fairy lights covering my neighbours' porch, or the feasts that cover my dining room table. It's a conversation with a God who I otherwise don't talk to. It's almost like He's telling me, "Look how many blessings you have laying at your feet." And I listen the growling of my stomach, and I listen to Him.

Photo by Jana A

◆◇◆◇◆

Mountain Climbers

Esther C

I like to think that I’m known for my adventurous spirit. Roller coasters, zip lining, international travel, you name it. Stuff like that is a cakewalk for me. So, since I was blessed enough to score incredibly cheap plane tickets, I did something adventurous: I went out to visit our own Adrianna for a few days.

During my vacation to the desert, we did lots of things that you’d expect two writers to do. We visited coffee shops and bookstores, had group writing sessions, and played with her amazing kitties (though one did enjoy stealing my pillow, but I digress). That being said, I doubt that anybody expected us to literally climb a mountain.

Okay, not literally. It was actually a really big and climbable rock in Papago Park. It’s beautiful, too. Sand, sun, cacti, bees, and other desert friends all welcomed us on our journey. We did literally climb (while posing for some pictures for Instagram—what are friends for, right?), and this is where my problem began.

When it comes to climbing mountains, my biggest obstacle is, in fact, myself and not the mountains.

I was wearing a dress.

Yes, you read that right. I was wearing a dress to go climb a really big rock in the desert. In the effort of fairness, I had made the dress (I dabble in making my own clothes, and this one actually worked out for me). And, when I had gotten dressed that morning, we didn’t know exactly what was on our agenda for the day except for a bookstore and a coffee shop. You see, it’s not totally my fault that I didn’t have the foresight to bring extra clothes or better shoes, and it’s definitely not my fault that I didn’t wear almost anything but that. (Okay, maybe it’s a little my fault.)

If you’ve never worn a dress in the summer, then you may not know about the torture that is thigh chafing. It’s literally the worst, and I subjected myself to it while climbing a freaking mountain. I cannot remember the last time I was that physically uncomfortable. I’m certain that I complained to Adrianna no fewer than twelve times (I’m not totally sure why she kept listening to me, but I suspect that it was probably the puns). I have promised myself that I would never do that again; leggings were invented for a reason, people.

My discomfort aside, the sight was beautiful: Phoenix was off in the distance, there were other large rocks and many cacti dotting the landscape, and it was warm and sunny. It was a dream. Adrianna and I sat there for a few minutes, taking the occasional selfie and chatting idly. I may or may not have accidentally flashed the whole of Phoenix by sitting down improperly.

After a while, we ventured back down the rock in search of air conditioning. I must admit that I sat in a very unladylike fashion to rid myself of the discomfort. This should go without saying, but I changed clothes later in the day when I climbed another mountain, but that’s a story for another day.

All in all, I would love to go back. You know, when I’m not wearing a dress.

Photo by Esther C

◆◇◆◇◆

For My Sister

Jana A

To my sister:

You were born in December, just before Christmas, and I remember wanting to hold you like you were hand-wrapped just for me. I held you like I thought you might break, and spent the next decade or so watching you break. Sometimes I would be the one to push you.

I would apologize to you, I'm so sorry, but I was trying to make you indestructible. Here is an apology: I'm sorry I saw in you everything I hated in myself. I'm sorry I always told you that Mama loved you best. I'm sorry that I tried to raise you. You rose by yourself like ashes from a burning home. You have taught me to look in the mirror with clearer eyes.

I love you more than I have ever loved anything in this life. If I could, I would redefine all the words in your dictionary, but it's too late: you have already learned how to speak and read and write.

I don't know if you need me anymore. I hope you always know that I still need you. I hope you always know you are the only part of home that I will cry over.

Who's going to wake you up from your nightmares when I'm away? When you're sad, are you going to hole yourself up in your room like I did? Will you trust me enough to call me and say, “Listen, listen, I did something wicked and awful and bad so please show me how to fix it, but please don't tell Mom and Dad"?

I hope you will because it has been an honor to watch you grow, and I hope I never have to stop.

Love,

Your BIG sister (even if you're my height now)

◆◇◆◇◆

Six Word Sagas

Danielle Jeanne

I You never pick up my calls

II I never hated you, only feared

III Fear is power, but also weakness

◆◇◆◇◆

Editorial

Esther C

If there were a drinking game inspired by my life, I would probably request that the players take a drink every time I did one of the following:

Talk about grammar (my default conversation topic)

Talk about Jesus (since I’m at church at least once a week, that’s beyond simple to do)

Make a bad pun (my other default conversation topic)

Get upset about how things could be done better (injustice irks me)

Do math for a stranger (hello, day job)

Say something sarcastic (excluding during Lent, of course)

Internally roll my eyes (which can be hard to identify unless you know me pretty well)

In all honesty, if you played this game, you’d probably suffer from alcohol poisoning within the hour. It’s easy to reduce myself down to a list of traits that would fit a character on a TV show—like the girl from the Midwest who’s probably the comedic relief of most episodes—but I also have the occasional heartfelt moment or memorable story arc. I’m in a constant state of acceptance of who I am as a person, of growing and strengthening my identity as a woman. I sometimes have to come to terms with my inherent worth as a person on a weekly basis.

More about that last point—it’s a sticky situation, but I’m not going to sugarcoat it. So, without going into the gritty details: I've struggled with mental illness for the better part of the last 8 years (I'm 21, for context). I had a conversation with someone lately where I mentioned that, and it occurred to me that I don't know who I am without it. I've grown into adulthood without an important piece of healthy living. I'm slowly making amends to fix that, but it's difficult. I’ve often stared at myself in the mirror and wondered to myself what I'd be like without the illness, and it finally struck me: I'd be the same person I am, just healthier.

I would still love fiercely and altogether too quickly. I would still sing in my church choir, still edit and write, still delve into my artistic side on occasion. I would still have a job (hopefully; one never knows the future). I would still be sarcastic and wear lipstick like it's armor while listening to music that many people in my life wouldn't like. I would still be a woman, a person, someone who breathes and has a soul and a spirit. My faith would still be important to me—and I imagine that it always will be.

I look at that list and see that I’m so much more than comedic relief. Sure, humor is an integral part of my identity, but it isn’t the only factor by a long shot. I am a created being, a woman loved by my Creator because of that. I am constantly in awe of the complexity with which He pieced me together, honestly. Everything I listed before and more is true, right down to the illness. Yes, I’m struggling, but I’m far from alone in this, and I’m far from the single qualities that I often peg myself as.

I don’t know who I will be tomorrow, but I know who I am today: I am a person so genuinely unique that it would be impossible to write everything on a piece of paper and have a complete picture of me, and that’s the way it should be. But, in the meantime, feel free to take a shot of something whenever I correct your grammar. Amid all the negativity, it makes life a little more fun.

◈◊◈◊◈◊◈◊◈

#ink consequential #literary magazine #fiction #nonfiction #writing #poetry #poem #haiku #ten word stories #ten word tales #Six Word Stories #six word sagas #movie reivew

[365datascienceblog]

How to Transition to Data Science from Economics?

How to Transition to Data Science from Economics?

Why transition to Data Science from Economics?

Have you ever wondered “So, what’s next for me?”

Well, you’re not alone! Many graduates aren’t too sure what they want to do after graduation. That’s especially true for Econ majors. Trust me – I am one.

And one of the often-overlooked options is data science.

So, in this article, I’ll tell you how to transition to data science from economics.

I’ll examine the good, the bad, and the ugly; answer some of the most important questions running through your mind, like: “Can I”, “Should I” and “How can I” make this switch. And I’ll explain the pros and cons before finding the best way to transition to data science from economics.

How to Transition to Data Science From Economics

Let’s start with “Can I make the switch?”

The answer here is a resounding “Yes!”.

Roughly 13% of current data scientists have an Economics degree. For comparison, the most well-represented discipline is data science and analysis, which takes up 21% of the pie. Therefore, Economics is indeed a competitive discipline when it comes to data science.

This isn’t at all surprising for several reasons.

First, unlike STEM disciplines, social studies help develop great presentational skills that are essential for any data scientist.

Through presentations and open discussions, students learn how to present a topic, as well as argue for or against a given statement. These activities result in developing a confident and credible way of showcasing actionable insights. Moreover, most econ majors deeply care about human behavior and response to different stimuli.

Hence, social-studies majors can capably serve as mediators between the team and management.

Second, economists often have a different approach than Computer Science or Data Science majors.

Due to their superior understanding of causal relations, social-studies graduates can add another perspective when looking at the data and the results. This is extremely important because their casual inference allows them to think beyond the numbers and extract actionable insights.

Furthermore, Economics frequently intertwines with Mathematics, Finance, Psychology, and Politics.

Therefore, an economist’s approach is always meant to be interdisciplinary.

Finally, the technical capabilities of an economist are often quite impressive.

An average economist has a good understanding of Machine Learning without really referring to it as such. Linear regressions and logistic regressions are studied in almost all economics degrees.

I think we are pretty convinced about the “Can I” part. So, let’s move to the “Should I” part.

Should I transition to Data Science from Economics?

Well, the answer here is “Yes” – with a very small asterisk next to it.

Now, any Economics graduate possesses many of the required skills to transition into Data Science, but that doesn’t necessarily suggest they should do it… They might be more suited for something else.

For example, an Economics graduate with an affinity for Political science will most likely thrive better in a policy advisory role in a bank or hedge fund or even in a government position. Similarly, less-coding-savvy social-studies graduates are a finer fit for data analyst positions, where machine learning algorithms are relied upon less frequently. It’s not that either one wouldn’t be able to succeed as a data scientist, but their skills are better suited for different career paths.

So, let’s look at the question like an economist would – through the lens of incentives.

Where does one find the incentives? That’s right – in a job ad.

The main components of a job ad are the level of education, years of experience, and indispensable skills.

We already discussed how popular Economics is compared to STEM degrees, so you know it’s a good choice for a potential career as a Data Scientist. When it comes to economics degrees, 43% of the job ads in our research require a BA and an additional 40% a Master’s. Hence, due to the interdisciplinary nature of social sciences, you don’t need to get a doctorate to be successful in the field.

As for years of experience, if you’re transitioning from another position in business, you’ve probably had to do some analytical thinking already.

Usually, 3 to 4 years in such a setting are enough to ensure a smooth transition. But this is tightly related to your level of education. A Master of Science will need 2 fewer-years of experience in a business setting due to their additional academic qualifications.

However, if you’re trying to make a transition straight out of college, you might want to go for an entry-level job in the field.

When it comes to skills, one of the key parts is understanding statistical results and their implications.

Luckily, economics degrees are often based on statistical study cases and experiments, so you should feel comfortable interpreting the results. Of course, this expands to understanding the intuition behind machine learning algorithms and their limitations. As we already stated, Econometrics incorporates linear and logistic regressions, so Economics graduates have a great grasp of the intuition behind Machine Learning models.

Additional skills listed in such job ads include problem solving and strong analytical thinking.

A lot of economics degrees heavily rely on examining study cases, solving practical examples, and analyzing published papers, so you probably possess these qualities already.

Of course, communication skills are essential when working in a team.

As mentioned earlier, Economics graduates often serve as a bridge between the data science team and higher management.

Lastly, anybody making the switch to data science needs a certain coding pedigree.

Whether it’s R, Python, or both, knowing how to use such software is a must if you want to succeed in the field.

If you’re an Economist in your 20s, we can assume you have seen some Python or R code. Hence, you only need to gather more work experience in a business setting.

If you are above 30 and you aren’t a Computer Science graduate, you most probably didn’t use the computer in your university classes. So, you may think your main challenge is the lack of programming skills. But that shouldn’t be the case.

Just focus on the technical part – programming and the latest software technologies.

Coding has never been easier, and anyone can learn. Especially a person from an economics background. We all know you have seen some very complicated stuff.

We answered the “can” and “should” parts of the discussion, so let’s dive into the “how-to” part.

How can I transition to Data Science from Economics?

There are generally 4 crucial things you need to do to make the switch.

The first one is picking your spot.

As discussed, there is plenty of room for Economics graduates in data science. All you need to make sure you’re ready to fit exactly that role and demonstrate your strengths.

Employers value your understanding of causal inference, so you need to highlight that in your application.

Showcase the analytical part of your work. Mention insights you gained through research or academic work and quote their measurable impact. These bring credibility and provide recruiters with a glimpse of what they’ll be getting once they hire you.

Second  – use your social science advantage.

By knowing how surveys and experiments are constructed, you know where to look when examining the results. You see beyond the data and understand which Machine Learning approach should work best in each case.

In contrast, Data Science and Computer Science graduates often have a mindset of “How can I pre-process the data before I run a machine learning algorithm?”, instead of looking at the way the data was gathered. Your understanding of collinearity, reverse causality, and biases can help you accurately quantify interdependence within the data. Thus, you can have great synergy with the rest of the members on your team.

The third and most crucial change you need to make is to adapt your way of thinking.

Even though the cause & effect mentality will help you settle in your career, you need to be able to look for other things as well. The findings of Neural Networks algorithms can be confusing because they discover patterns rather than causal links. Hence, you need to be ready to demonstrate flexibility in your thinking and adjust accordingly.

Of course, this isn’t a change that can happen overnight, but rather one that happens gradually with experience.

Last but not least, you’ll need to learn a programming language or BI software.

Lucky for you, programming languages such as Python and R aren’t that hard to learn. And once you’re fluent in one programming language, you can easily master another one, despite coming from an economics background.

This also falls into the “learn as we go” area, so just make sure to be proficient in at least one of either Python or R, and your transition into the field should be smooth as butter.

All things considered, Economics majors can, and should, try to pursue a career in data science because they have the necessary skills and there is high market demand. Surely, economics skills are mandatory for any data science team. Thus, there is no doubt that you, dear Econ major, could be that person.

Ready to take the next step towards a data science career?

Check out the complete Data Science Program today. Start with the fundamentals with our Statistics, Maths, and Excel courses. Build up a step-by-step experience with SQL, Python, R, Power BI, and Tableau. And upgrade your skillset with Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Credit Risk Modeling, Time Series Analysis, and Customer Analytics in Python. Still not sure you want to turn your interest in data science into a career? You can explore the curriculum or sign up 12 hours of beginner to advanced video content for free by clicking on the button below.

https://365datascience.com/transition-data-science-economics/ #Career, #DataScience, #ProTips, #Tips

#career #data science #pro tips #tips #Articles #Career Advice

[nicholemhearn]

Public Policy after Utopia

People often ask me how the Niskanen Center’s philosophy differs from standard-issue libertarianism. Usually I say something substantive and policy-related like, “We think the welfare state and free markets work better together, and that hostility to ‘big government’ can actually be counterproductive and leave us with less freedom,” or something in that vein. That’s the sort of contrast people are generally looking for. But I’m never really happy leaving it at that.

Why not? Because this kind of answer is actually pretty superficial. It doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. For example, it doesn’t really get at what I take to be the nature of intellectual mistake involved in the standard libertarian rejection of the welfare state.  There’s a deeper intellectual issue about how to theorize about politics, and it has nothing in particular to do with libertarianism. It has to do with the utility of something political philosophers call “ideal theory.”

Politics without a compass

Many political philosophers, and most adherents of radical political ideologies, tend to think that an ideal vision of the best social, economic, and political system serves a useful and necessary orienting function. The idea is that reformers need to know what to aim at if they are to make steady incremental progress toward the maximally good and just society. If you don’t know where you’re headed—if you don’t know what utopia looks like—how are you supposed to know which steps to take next?

The idea that a vision of an ideal society can serve as a moral and strategic star to steer by is both intuitive and appealing. But it turns out to be wrong. This sort of political ideal actually can’t help us find our way through the thicket of real-world politics into the clearing of justice. I’ve discussed the problems with ideal theory at length, in the context Gerald Gaus’ tremendous book The Tyranny of the Ideal, in a Vox column. This piece will be easier to understand if you read that first. Jacob Levy’s paper, “There’s No Such Thing as Ideal Theory,” is an outstanding complement. And, on the more technical side, the work of UCSD’s David Wiens is state of the art, and adds texture to Gaus’ critique.

A major paradigm shift in political theory is underway, and it’s all over but the shoutin’ for ideal theory. But it takes a while for the shoutin’ to peter out. New paradigms can take a generation or more to trickle down through the intellectual culture. So we’ve barely begun to grasp what it means to give up on ideal theory, especially in public policy. It’s a bit dramatic to say that the death of ideal theory changes everything, but it changes a lot. It definitely changes what it means to be an ideologically principled think tank.

If you agree with Gaus, as I do, then you will think that there’s a pretty major intellectual mistake lurking within the ideal-theoretic version of libertarianism that the most prominent institutions of the “freedom movement” were built to promote. Again, this has nothing to do with libertarianism, per se. Gaus’ argument is general. It doesn’t matter which normative standard you use to rank possible social systems. It could be the orthodox libertarian conception of freedom as non-coercion, John Rawls’ two principles of justice, or a radically egalitarian conception of material equality. It doesn’t matter. In order to say that any particular system is the best in terms of your chosen normative standard, you’ve got to be able to rank rival systems against that standard. Doing that ranking in a principled, non-arbitrary way, requires evidence of what the realization of your favorite possible social world would actually look like. Otherwise you can’t really say that it does better in terms of your chosen standard than competing systems.

Utopia is a guess

The fact that all our evidence about how social systems actually work comes from formerly or presently existing systems is a huge problem for anyone committed to a radically revisionary ideal of the morally best society. The further a possible system is from a historical system, and thus from our base of evidence about how social systems function, the more likely we are to be mistaken about how it would work if it were realized. And the more likely we are to be mistaken about how it would actually work, the more likely we are to be mistaken that it is the more free, or more equal, or more socially just, than other systems, possible or actual.  

Indeed, there’s basically no way to rationally justify the belief that, say, “anarcho-capitalism” ranks better in terms of libertarian freedom than “Canada 2017,” or the belief  that “economic democracy” ranks better in terms of socialist equality than “Canada 2017.”

You may think you can imagine how anarcho-capitalism or economic democracy would work, but you can’t.  You’re really just guessing—extrapolating way beyond your evidence. You can’t just stipulate that it works the way you want it to work. Rationally speaking, you probably shouldn’t even suspect that your favorite system comes out better than an actual system. Rationally speaking, your favorite probably shouldn’t be your favorite. Utopia is a guess.

Again, this is a general problem. But it does hit especially hard for those who appreciate the unpredictability of complex systems and the inevitability of unintended consequences. It’s no coincidence that Gaus is a Hayekian. As my colleague Jeffrey Friedman argues, expert predictions about the the likely effects of changing a single policy tend to be pretty bad. I’ll use myself as an example. I’ve followed the academic literature about the minimum wage for almost twenty years, and I’m an experienced, professional policy analyst, so I’ve got a weak claim to expertise in the subject. What do I have to show for that? Not much, really. I’ve got strong intuitions about the likely effects of raising minimum wages in various contexts. But all I really know is that the context matters a great deal, that a lot of interrelated factors affect the dynamics of low-wage labor markets, and that I can’t say in advance which margin will adjust when the wage floor is raised. Indeed, whether we should expect increases in the minimum wage to hurt or help low-wage workers is a question Nobel Prize-winning economists disagree about. Labor markets are complicated! Well, the comprehensive political economies of nation-states are vastly more complicated. And that means that our predictions about the outcome of radically changing the entire system are unlikely to be better than random.

If your favorite system is quite a bit different from any system that has existed, then even if it were true that it would rank numero uno in terms of your favorite normative standard, you’re not in a position to rationally believe it. Clearly then, it’s not actually useful to aim toward a distant ideal when you don’t really have a good reason to believe that it’s better than actually existing systems in terms of liberty or equality or nationalist solidarity or whatever it is you care about

This is a hard lesson for ideologues to swallow. I still haven’t totally digested it. But a number of things have become much clearer after giving up on my sinful, ideal-theoretic ways.

Analysis after ideal theory: measurement and comparison

The death of ideal theory implies a non-ideological, empirical, comparative approach to political analysis. That doesn’t mean giving up on, say, the value of freedom. I think I’m more libertarian—more committed to value of liberty—than I’ve ever been. But that doesn’t mean being committed to an eschatology of liberty, a picture of an ideally free society, or a libertarian utopia. We’re not in a position to know what that looks like. The best we can do is to go ahead and try to rank social systems in terms of the values we care about, and then see what we can learn. The Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index is one such useful measurement attempt. What do we see? Look:

Every highlighted country is some version of the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state. Evidently, this general regime type is good for freedom. Indeed, it is likely the best we have ever done in terms of freedom.

Moreover, Denmark (#5), Finland (#9), and the Netherlands (#10) are among the world’s “biggest” governments, in terms of government spending as a percentage of GDP. The “economic freedom” side of the index, which embodies a distinctly libertarian conception of economic liberty, hurts their ratings pretty significantly. Still, according to a libertarian Human Freedom Index, some of the freest places in on Earth have some of the“biggest” governments. That’s unexpected.

This is why we need to try to rank social systems in terms of our prized political values. Our guesses about which systems lead to which consequences are likely to be pretty bad.  Suppose we were to poll a bunch of American libertarians, and ask them to tell us which country enjoys more freedom, according the Cato Institute’s metrics. The United States or Sweden? The United States or Germany? The United States or Canada? The United States or Lithuania? I’m pretty sure almost all of them would get it wrong in each of these pairwise comparisons. Why? Because typical libertarians carry an ideal-theoretic picture of the “the free society” around in their heads, and (for some reason!) a minimum of taxation and redistribution is among the most salient aspects of that picture. And that means that Denmark, say, doesn’t seem very free relative to that picture. But there’s a great deal more to freedom than fiscal policy. And we see that, as a matter of fact, the country with the biggest-spending government in the world is among the freest countries in the world, and ranks first in personal freedom.

That is our basic data. It doesn’t necessarily imply that the United States ought to do more redistributive social spending. But when a freedom index, built from libertarian assumptions, shows that freedom thrives in many places with huge welfare states, it should lead us to downgrade our estimate of the probability that liberty and redistribution are antithetical, and upgrade our estimate of the probability that they are consistent, and possibly complementary. That’s the sort of consideration that mainly drives my current views, not ideal-theoretical qualms about neo-Lockean libertarian rights theories.

Though libertarianism is of personal interest to me, I want to emphasize again that my larger point has nothing to do with libertarianism. The same lesson applies to alt-right ethno-nationalists dazzled by a fanciful picture of a homogenous, solidaristic ethno-state. The same lesson applies progressives and socialists in the grip of utopian pictures of egalitarian social justice. Of course, nobody knows what an ideally equal society would look like. If we stick to the data we do have, and inspect the top ranks of the Social Progress Index, which is based on progressive assumptions about basic needs, the conditions for individual health and well-being, and opportunity, you’ll mostly find the same countries that populate the Freedom Index’s leaderboard. Here:

The overlap is striking. And this highlights some of the pathologies of ideal theory: irrational polarization and the narcissism of small differences.

Some pathologies of ideal theory, both personal and political

Ideal theory can drive political conflict by concealing overlapping consensus. Pretty much any way you slice it, Denmark is an actually-existing utopia. But so is Switzerland. So is New Zealand. The effective difference between the Nordic and Anglo-colonial models, in terms of “human freedom” and “social progress” is surpassingly slight. Yet passionate moral commitment to purist ideals of the justice can lead us to see past the fact that the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state, in whatever iteration, is awesome, and worth defending, from the perspective of multiple, rival political values. We miss the fact that these values fit together more harmoniously than our theories lead us to imagine.

I suspect this has something to do with the fact that utopia-dwellers around the world seem to be losing faith in liberal democracy, and the fact that  “neoliberalism” can’t get no love, despite the fact that they measurably deliver the goods like crazy. Yet ideologues interpret this loss of faith as evidence of objective failure, which they diagnose as a lack of satisfactory progress toward their version of utopia, and push ever more passionately for an agenda they have no rational reason to believe would actually leave anyone better off.        

It is intellectually corrupt and corrupting to define liberty or equality or you-name-it in terms of an idealized, counter-factual social system that may or may not do especially well in delivering the goods. Commitment to a vision of the perfect society is more likely than not to lead you astray. Consider how unlikely it is for a typical libertarian to correctly predict more than a couple of the top-ten freest countries on the libertarian freedom index. The fact that ideological radicals are pretty unreliable at ranking existing social systems in terms of their favored values ought to make us skeptical of claims that highly counterfactual systems would rank first. And it ought to lead us to suspect that ideal-theoretical political theorizing leads us to see the actual world less clearly than we might, due to cherry-picking and confirmation bias.

If you’ve already irrationally ranked a fanciful social system tops in terms your favored value, you’ve effectively committed to the idea that the world works in a certain way without sufficient evidence that it actually does. This is almost always a commitment of identity and group membership rather than a judgment of reason. And it leads you to cast about for evidence that the world does work the way it would need to work in order to vindicate your ranking. You end up lending a great deal of credibility to comforting evidence, while ignoring and dismissing evidence that the world doesn’t work that way you’d like it to work. The result is that your ideal-theoretic commitment ends up driving your model of the world.

But if your ideal theory is likely to be wrong in the first place, using it as a filter for evaluating evidence is going to leave you with a disastrously distorted picture of the way the world actually works. And that means you’re going to make systematically terrible predictions about the likely consequences of this or that policy change. You may want to identify reforms most likely to promote or liberty or equality, or whatever, but you’ll end up really bad at this because your distorted ideological model of the world will leave you unable to evaluate evidence objectively.

Progress in policy requires idealistic moral passion without preconceived ideals  

For me, the death of ideal theory has meant adopting a non-speculative, non-utopian perspective on freedom-enhancing institutions. If you know that you can’t know in advance what the freest social system looks will look like, you’re unlikely to see evidence that suggests that policy A (social insurance, e.g.) is freedom-enhancing, or that policy B (heroin legalization, e.g.) isn’t, as threats to your identity as a freedom lover. Uncertainty about the details of the freest feasible social scheme opens you up to looking at evidence in a genuinely curious, non-biased way. And it frees you from the anxiety that genuine experts, people with merited epistemic authority, will say things you don’t want to hear. This in turn frees you from the urge to wage quixotic campaigns against the authority of legitimate experts. You can start acting like a rational person! You can simply defer to the consensus of experts on empirical questions, or accept that you bear an extraordinary burden of proof when you disagree.

I think the reign of ideal theory in political philosophy turned lots of incredibly smart, principled, morally motivated people into unreliable, untrustworthy ideologues. This has left the field of rational policy analysis to utilitarian technocrats, who have their own serious problems. Long story short, we ended up with a sort of divide in public policy between morally passionate advocates trapped in epistemic bubbles and technicians capable of objective analysis but devoid of guiding vision.

#nicholemhearn digest