solutions. Let’s see if we can get her CSG file. Maybe look into Department-friendly therapists or psychiatrists who could properly address her needs and ours.
Regardless, Reidier’s relentlessness about his wife suggests that the state of his family has an immeasurable effect on his focus. For the project’s sake, it seems best to keep this volatile nuclear unit stable.
We’re best served to move him out of the Fermi Lab and Chicago altogether. Too much new activity, new attention, new security, etc. would lead to questions. It’s easier to install him in a new place with our givens already set in place. Furthermore, by moving the family we’ll also be helping to sever any personal ties they developed that might have proved porous. And, of course, it’ll be much easier to install the NBs. 43 In fact, with some diligent house hunting, we’ll be able to kill three birds with one stone: give us our access, Reidier his seclusion, and Eve a stable home.
So, if Reidier’s insistent on moving, let’s do him the “favor” and collect that chit for later.
-DP
PS I know our contract with UCLA on BCI research still stands, do any of our rights transfer to personnel that have moved on or aid that they’ve provided to other universities? Can we use this to influence Malle 44 at all?
As insightful as Pierce is, however, he has a glaring blind spot. He initially classifies Reidier as a competitive egoist: one whose ambition is his Achilles’ heel. Later, though, Pierce posits that Reidier is moving for Eve: a selfless act prioritizing her needs above his own. He never acknowledges how incongruous this seems. It’s the contradiction that’s Pierce’s blind spot. It’s his lack of scope.
My intuition tells me that Pierce operates from the philosopher’s view of character. Achilles is angry, Odysseus is cunning, a compassionate person is compassionate. Our traits trickle all the way down. They shape who we are and how we choose what to do. This doesn’t take into account how, as Kwame Anthony Appiah 45 describes, the philosopher’s view is being challenged by the psychologist’s perspective. Psychologists, after a hundred years of experiments, are finding that there is no character. Behavior isn’t driven by permanent traits that apply across the board. Rather, someone could be honest at work, but deceptive with his spouse. People don’t have character, but rather a multiplicity of tendencies activated by context. As Paul Bloom of Yale writes, we are a community of competing selves “continually popping in and out of existence.” 46
Pierce wants a set character who responds to specific leverage in a specific way every time. His snap judgments, though insightful and most likely correct, are not integrated into a dynamic whole. Rather they’re filed away as foregone conclusions. Accordingly, the road map to Reidier is set.
This blind spot of Pierce’s seems to have also led him astray in his assessment of Malle. While Pierce correctly divines Malle’s utility in relation to Reidier’s work, he overlooks Malle’s usefulness on apersonal level. Although Malle’s professional success has primarily been in the neurological field, his academic accomplishments (especially his early ones, during his time living with Reidier) were in psychology. 47 Pierce, however, captivated by his ambitious character assessment of Reidier, classifies Malle merely as a professional asset. He fails to see how Reidier might have a more personal need for Malle: Eve.
Both Pierce and Reidier have played their hands close to their vests. Both apparently withheld and calculated. Interestingly, the two ended up working very well together in addressing the practicalities and necessities of the situation in order to make the project move forward. Ironically, it might have been this very dynamic of considered dealings that locked
The Reidier Test
onto its inevitable course.
A
TITLE CARD: GALILEE 6:21
TITLE CARD: EXPERIMENT 25
CONTROL
Regardless, Reidier’s relentlessness about his wife suggests that the state of his family has an immeasurable effect on his focus. For the project’s sake, it seems best to keep this volatile nuclear unit stable.
We’re best served to move him out of the Fermi Lab and Chicago altogether. Too much new activity, new attention, new security, etc. would lead to questions. It’s easier to install him in a new place with our givens already set in place. Furthermore, by moving the family we’ll also be helping to sever any personal ties they developed that might have proved porous. And, of course, it’ll be much easier to install the NBs. 43 In fact, with some diligent house hunting, we’ll be able to kill three birds with one stone: give us our access, Reidier his seclusion, and Eve a stable home.
So, if Reidier’s insistent on moving, let’s do him the “favor” and collect that chit for later.
-DP
PS I know our contract with UCLA on BCI research still stands, do any of our rights transfer to personnel that have moved on or aid that they’ve provided to other universities? Can we use this to influence Malle 44 at all?
As insightful as Pierce is, however, he has a glaring blind spot. He initially classifies Reidier as a competitive egoist: one whose ambition is his Achilles’ heel. Later, though, Pierce posits that Reidier is moving for Eve: a selfless act prioritizing her needs above his own. He never acknowledges how incongruous this seems. It’s the contradiction that’s Pierce’s blind spot. It’s his lack of scope.
My intuition tells me that Pierce operates from the philosopher’s view of character. Achilles is angry, Odysseus is cunning, a compassionate person is compassionate. Our traits trickle all the way down. They shape who we are and how we choose what to do. This doesn’t take into account how, as Kwame Anthony Appiah 45 describes, the philosopher’s view is being challenged by the psychologist’s perspective. Psychologists, after a hundred years of experiments, are finding that there is no character. Behavior isn’t driven by permanent traits that apply across the board. Rather, someone could be honest at work, but deceptive with his spouse. People don’t have character, but rather a multiplicity of tendencies activated by context. As Paul Bloom of Yale writes, we are a community of competing selves “continually popping in and out of existence.” 46
Pierce wants a set character who responds to specific leverage in a specific way every time. His snap judgments, though insightful and most likely correct, are not integrated into a dynamic whole. Rather they’re filed away as foregone conclusions. Accordingly, the road map to Reidier is set.
This blind spot of Pierce’s seems to have also led him astray in his assessment of Malle. While Pierce correctly divines Malle’s utility in relation to Reidier’s work, he overlooks Malle’s usefulness on apersonal level. Although Malle’s professional success has primarily been in the neurological field, his academic accomplishments (especially his early ones, during his time living with Reidier) were in psychology. 47 Pierce, however, captivated by his ambitious character assessment of Reidier, classifies Malle merely as a professional asset. He fails to see how Reidier might have a more personal need for Malle: Eve.
Both Pierce and Reidier have played their hands close to their vests. Both apparently withheld and calculated. Interestingly, the two ended up working very well together in addressing the practicalities and necessities of the situation in order to make the project move forward. Ironically, it might have been this very dynamic of considered dealings that locked
The Reidier Test
onto its inevitable course.
A
TITLE CARD: GALILEE 6:21
TITLE CARD: EXPERIMENT 25
CONTROL
Similar Books
