JOURNAL: 030806

VERY DIVERSELY COMPLICATED DAY:

COMPLIMENT #1) I sent in an email to cast University last week. The University is the only program in Seoul that offers a legal degree taught in English. I wanted a list of the books they use. I have decided to write a three phase book on legal English (beginner, intermediate and advanced).

There is not a single program in Seoul that teaches English for people who want to practice law or get a law masters. I would have a monopoly and could pick my school. I told them that since they are the only school that offers such a program that I would like to use their texts so that students wishing to go to Kaist would apply with English skills learned directly from the vocabulary of their texts. I sold it to them as a business proposal and offered to tutor their students for free on weekends if the students would offer to help me learn Korean. I sent my resume and links the hundreds of dockets posted on the internet in Iowa and South Dakota.

Instead of a list I got a call today from a man named Mr. Kim. He is the chair of the legal department. The American equivalent would be contacting a staff member at Harvard asking for list of books and having the Chancellor of the University call you back personally and ask you to have lunch with him. It is so astounding that two people accused me of lying and said that it doesn't work that way. I literally had to show them the incoming call from Kaist University with his name on the ID before they would believe me. They about pissed their pants when I told them he gave me his home number.

I guess it is A HUGE HONOR and thousands of students get turned down every semester trying to get into the school. Meeting the Chair is like meeting the President. I meet him tomorrow for lunch. I am going to try and get a picture of us together.

COMPLIMENT #2) I teach advanced English. There is no higher course available at Pagoda. Only the best students get there. A woman came in today - about 30, fluent in Chinese and an international PR person for a huge semi-conductor company in Seoul. I don't really follow the book, I just use the language points and tease the students with Socratic questioning.

This culture places "face" and the support of virtue as the pinnacle of good citizenship and taste. Absolutism is the perfect trap for the Socratic method.
I ask them questions like what they would do if they were accidentally given a $100 in change when they were supposed to get $10 and noticed immediately. They ALL say they would return it. I then corner them and say "DO YOU BELIEVE THAT RETURNING THE MONEY IS UNCONDITIONALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO." They all fall for that question and either say "yes" or indignantly say "OF COURSE - THAT IS LIKE STEALING." I love that answer the best.

I then say, what if you notice it only after you get outside the store. They say they would go back in.

I then ask what they would do if they noticed after they got on the subway. They say they would the next time they walked by the store.

I then say what if the store was a news stand between stop 10 and 15, but they don't know which one. Would they stop at each subway stop and check? There is only 1 stand at each stop so this would really only take them about 30 minutes.

At this point they generally concede they would keep the money. I then say, if you know you can find the stand and you have agreed that it is an UNCONDITIONAL TRUTH that returning the money is right, why is time and convenience an issue. UNCONDITIONAL means that you agree that you have the obligation without considering conditions such as time and convenience.

At this point the woman said that I tricked her. I pointed out that I never said anything. All I did was ask questions. That is the Socratic method. I never made her give me an answer. I said I was only trying to see if she gave the answer because she felt the ANSWER was right of if she felt that the RESULT was right.

If she gave the answer because she believed that the RESULT was right, then taking the money at the store immediately is exactly the same as not returning it because it is inconvenient. Consequently, not returning the money was exactly the same as keeping the money if you discovered the mistake in the store.

If she gave the answer because she believe the ANSWER was the right thing to say, but not something she would necessarily do, she might as well just steal it at the store. If inconvenience and time justify not returning the money, then why does your own personal needs or the needs of your family justify keeping the money. It seems to me that having the money to provide support for your children is a much better excuse for keeping the money than convenience. If this is truly the measure of your obligation, in reality you are saying that you would keep the money based on your value of time, but would return the money based on the value of providing support for your family. This means that to you, convenience triggers a moral obligation before concern for your family does. That sounds quite selfish.

THE RESULT: Either A) you were lying or B) you should ALWAYS just keep the extra money since time and convenience are NOT an issue if returning the money is an "UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION."

She said: "That hurts my brain."

Another student in the class has been intentionally enrolling in my classes because he likes my teaching style. He said "just listen to him and think. Eventually he will take over your head and you will become insane enough to see he is right."

MY WALLET IS HONORED BY THE FIRST COMPLIMENT.

PERSONALLY I PREFER THE SECOND COMPLIMENT

That means that I value driving people insane more than money. I'm not sure how to do that, but I hope to find a way to do both at the same time.