I agree with much of your comment, but I am a mite frustrated with the assumed gender differences. Granted, there are populations of male nerds who have less than stellar reputations for good reason, but nerd arrogance isn't an exclusively male tendency. I've seen it in women, and as a female nerd I hereby assert and confess that I had more than my share of nerd arrogance once upon a time, especially as a computer science undergraduate. Even now I think back on the abusive ways I communicated and the walls I inadvertently put up that blocked genuine collaboration and collegiality, and I wince. 12 years later, I've worked long and hard on cultivating compassion and humility in my personality and have seen incalculably valuable return on that investment.
There may well be a positive correlation between nerd arrogance and what emerges as "male" from socialized (and unfortunately binary) gender differences, but in my opinion there is utterly insufficient data to confirm that statistically, so I'd prefer to stick with the "attitude of arrogance and superiority among nerds" as the question at hand instead of speculating about the gender correlation. In fact, your own anecdote undercuts your speculation by explicitly attributing the difference between computer science and jazz to the nature of the field instead of the gender ratio:
Jazz Majors were predominantly male too. However, due to the nature of Jazz where the band works as a team, there is less arrogance
The reason I say that there is insufficient data to confidently correlate gender and nerd arrogance is that there are simply too few women in the field, and given the nature of the field, those women who do enter it have already gone through an element of pre-selection. (Note: so have the men in the field.) If the population were considerably more diverse and if the field didn't have an earned reputation as having gender accessibility issues, then I would consider speculating about gender. Until then, it makes more sense to leave it to personality and socialized behaviour.
Despite fully intending to for several years, I haven't actually sat down and devised a coherent plan for key management including an authoritative physical store for the private keys (a problem because in any given day I use 4+ computers and not one of them accesses my email directly), revocation certificates, choosing a reliable keyserver, and choosing a web-based way to distribute my public key to anyone so inclined.
To make matters worse, I'm still in a state of severe digital identity flux (SDIF henceforth). I've been in SDIF for a number of years, and the problem is compounded by the fact that all the commonly used and centralized "identity authorities" (self-styled) are corporate and make me acutely uncomfortable. Until I resolve SDIF and establish the requisite collection of identities, boundaries to each, and reputations, I feel as though what digital assets I have aren't worth the trouble, especially if it's going to be temporary. I don't want to go to all the trouble of planning things (as per paragraph #1) only to then have to revoke and re-issue everything.
Slashdot has been a significant part of the formation of my identity in terms of interest, exploring diverse issues, and exposure to technologies that I wouldn't otherwise have encountered. I thank you, Rob, for everything you've done to create and cultivate this community.
I've been thinking more about Slashdot recently because of my involvement in "Nym-Wars". In at least one place Slashdot was cited as a stellar example of the civility and quality that can be fostered in a community that functions primarily pseudonymously, but also allows anonymity (two things I very much are about). The moderation system in place here is complex (I myself still find it a little confusing) but there is no question that it works. Slashdot is one of the few places where I consider the comments on an article as much (often more) worth reading as the article itself. Obviously my appreciation for this applies to the whole Slashdot community, but I am posting this specifically in recognition of CmdrTaco's influence in shaping the community.
Rob, may everything else you do in the years to come be as interesting and fruitful as your work here! Community and communication are essential, amazing things, and I'm sure your contributions to the world at large are far from over.
I agree and also was disappointed that the second part of the interview was conducted the way it was. I noticed in one of the early comments to the second part that the interviewer admits to not being a professional journalist, and that he is human and his emotions got the best of him. That alleviated my disappointment a little... but it is still a shame that this opportunity was lost. It would be interesting if "John" has the courage to contact another organization that might be willing to interview him.
This news item is oddly refreshing. It's because of my fellow netizens that, for once, I am not at all worried about what this might portend for the future. Seriously, if people don't want to pay for music, what makes anyone think that news media will be any different? In news, there is even less of an inherent monopoly regarding the content's source, and it's even easier to transmit on a whim, for free (gratis). Sure, Murdoch will end up making some money, but I expect this is a flawed business model, and it is certainly Yet Another desperate attempt at recovering the information/entertainment-distribution status quo.
Perhaps in Canada? Without going looking, I'm not sure. I seem to remember hearing about such laws in Korea and Japan as well, and the comments I've read attached to this article at least suggest that it is true about Japan.
I know that my phone makes that click noise, and it's quite loud. I can replace it with things like a quacking duck if I want, but there's no "silent" option (without hacking).
I can certainly see the logic for that claim if your entire goal for travel is geographic diversity. What about cultural tourism, though? Despite there being a not-unreasonable level of ethnic diversity in the United States, the cultural diversity is decidedly less noticeable; "melting pot", remember. So if I want to travel to experience a different way of living daily life, or to meet people who live in a certain country, or whatever, then it's a little harder to do that in the USA.
As a Canadian, I also lament the fact that we don't have the ability to travel as extensively for so comparatively little as do those living in the EU. Simply getting anywhere else in the world is so frickin' expensive...
I block as much extraneous content as possible: ads, any irritating non-ad images on sites I frequent, all javascript by default, and so forth, and have been doing so for several years (actual length of time depends on availability of some of the technologies, e.g. the NoScript fx plugin).
It began much longer ago than the "several years" I mentioned, but during that time my attention span has continued diminishing at an accelerating pace, and is currently paralyzingly low. It makes software development impossible.
I'm posting here instead of working. Yesterday during similar working hours I was commenting to acquaintances that I can no longer read or think linearly.
(At least one person already mentioned marijuana usage, and while that does have documented effects on concentration ability, it is not applicable in my case.)
I am actively (when time permits) seeking ways to mitigate the professional disaster-in-waiting that this has become.
Step 1: Firefox + NoScript + "Mark google-analytics.com as Untrusted" Step 2: Delete cookies when browser exists Step 3 (optional): Stop using Google
Yes, Step 2 will make some things more annoying. But the question is this: how much do you value your privacy? Enough to log in to Slashdot and your webmail every day, instead of just once?
I've had a long-standing grudge against Telus for years. I grew up in rural Alberta, and they own the phone lines, so even if we were to get phone service from elsewhere, the lines are still theirs.
Until a few years ago, dialup internet was the only option. And while dialup is f'ing painful to use, I was able to get a relatively decent connection, as dialup goes -- around 44kbps. Telus actually came and made a change to whatever the switching box is out at the road (interrupting a 4-6 hour non-resumable download in the process) and ever after I was only able to get a max of 24kbps.
I called and complained numerous times and eventually was told that Telus didn't provide the line as a data line -- only for voice usage. I asked them what they thought that meant since we were paying them for the dialup access at the time. They didn't really have an answer. They never did admit that they changed anything.
And this was back in the 90's, when they were still a "reasonable" company. I've watched them go further and further downhill ever since. Their business model, their customer support, the way they treat their employees, and the services they offer are representative of Canadian telecom services in general. (Does everyone remember hearing about how they blocked access to websites run by their striking employees a few years back?)
I'll just add a "hear, hear!" echo to all the complaints above about Telus, Bell, and Rogers. I love Canada, truly I do, but something has got to change. North America is behind the rest of the world, and Canada's behind the USA. What can be done? -- I don't know.
Thank you -- I hoped someone was going to mention NoScript.
I browse the internet with very limited script whitelisting. I will temporarily grant scripts at certain addresses (for duration of session or until I revoke) when needed, but other than that I leave it all turned off. I specifically have things like Doubleclick and Google Analytics, and others, permanently on my "untrusted" list.
I also have a redirect remover extension (name escapes me at the moment) set up on most of my various work and home systems so that search engines such as those run by Yahoo! (e.g. alltheweb.com) can't see which search results I click on.
Other possibilities to look into with respect to net privacy are as follows: - particularly when using search engines, use a randomized proxy so that IP address correlation is unreliable - find a way to block the "referer" data of an HTTP request -- note that this should not be done across the board because many sites require a "permitted referer" before granting access to images, for example.
The end user actually has the potential for a great deal of control with respect to how much browsing pattern data is available to remote hosts. The system breaks down at the ISP level, however, unless one wishes to get into proxy via SSL encrypted tunnel or what-have-you. But ultimately you're at the mercy of SOMEONE who will "know about you".
If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.
One of the most important precepts in a debate is that you accurately present the point of view of your opponents. In this case, since supporters of ID are demographically -and- ideologically quite diverse, then you should probably at least acknowledge the different approaches. For instance, acknowledge that not all ID supporters believe "Look, we have a changing species over time" is proof. In fact, many IDers don't (and shouldn't) present ID as science, because it's not. In fact, ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If I accurately recall my university readings, Asa Gray, a staunch evolutionist and correspondent with Darwin, was the one who proposed the first version of ID. What is ID really? A theory concerning the 'first cause', or the impetus behind evolution. This side of ID should be mentioned in your comments if you refer only to your opponents as "ID supporters". If you wish to specify your comments to a more narrow group, perhaps one deserving of the comments, please acknowledge that it is a narrower group and that not all IDers fit into the category. Accuracy, please, won't someone think of the children?!</gratuitous Simpsons ref>
In my mind, as someone who has objectively read some (not a lot) on both positions, the proof you're alleging is singularly unavailable in both cases. Just like we can't go back however many millions of years and see a giant finger come down and poke the platypus, we also can't observe the evolution from species to species over the same time period. In your list of the scientific method, hypothesis and proof, as they are used in laboratories, take a bit of a different shape. A scientist hypothesizes something, and then tries to recreate the scenario and achieve the same results in order to be able to call it proof. Again, this is pretty much impossible on both sides of this debate.
I do not deny the observations of the fossil record. There are definitely differences such as the ones to which you referred. However, the existence of fossil B is as much speculation as the message in a chromosome. Neither can be proven until they are found, and neither can be disproven ever. I'm sure all of us are aware that scientific cannot prove the nonexistence of something, even something as far-fetched as a message in a chromosome.
It surprised me that you said "I like my belief better. Until something better comes along..." There is as little "science" to be found there as in many of the ID arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the blurring of the science vs. philosophy/religion boundaries. All human pursuits are mutually relevant, because everything is connected. I just wanted to point out that part of what you said.
I love science. I think it is a tremendously worthwhile pursuit, and a critically important set of knowledge for humans to possess. What I wish is that more scientists would admit where faith enters our world view. It's there, but usually we successfully ignore it. Perhaps as an experiment, look for faith jumps in your procedures and understandings, with as much skepticism as you look for faith jumps in the procedure of your opponents. Skepticism is, after all, what science requires.
I think what I'm saying is basically this: don't be any less charitable to IDers than you are to yourself, because all that demonstrates is that you are biased. Bias is dangerous to the scientific method. Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing.
Actually, the purpose of fiction and all story-telling in general is -not- to preach, but to tell a story. Any stories that are written on the basis of "trying to get a point across" are almost invariably sub-par and loathsome to tackle. Good authors know this, and tell stories rather than weave morals.
Wasn't there a huge outcry (granted, 50/50 split, but that's still a huge number of nay-sayers) about the virus-writing class that the University of Calgary was considering offering?
No, not always. You, like many others, have just bought in to an obvious stereotype. There are many kids in public schools lacking social skills, but they're just killed (metaphorically speaking) early on, and are thereafter silent and unseen.
And nobody notices the home-schooled people with good social skills because no one would think to ask whether they were publicly-schooled or otherwise. Think about it. For how many of your co-workers do you know where they attended school?
The odds are stacked against finding socially well-adjusted home-schooled people, and socially maladjusted public-schooled people.
So how, precisely, can you justifiably assert that home-schooled kids are less socially adept? Only the inept ones show up on people's radar.
Another point in my favor: most people are surprised to hear of the prevalence of home-schooling. This would suggest that their personal experience with identifiably home-schooled people is not representative of actuality. Implications? That there might be more "normal" home-schoolers out there, just waiting to be identified!/me hears another glittering generalization off in the distance and runs off in aid of those being maligned.
I really did not enjoy this book. I read it a month or so ago for an English course I'm taking, and I considered it one of the least enjoyable books I've ever read.
The interesting thing is that I sincerely enjoyed the Earthsea series, the first one most of all. Perhaps I simply don't enjoy the "gender" topics.
At any rate, I'd recommend this for people who enjoy the intersection of gender & science fiction topics in literature, because I'm probably the anomaly.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with much of your comment, but I am a mite frustrated with the assumed gender differences. Granted, there are populations of male nerds who have less than stellar reputations for good reason, but nerd arrogance isn't an exclusively male tendency. I've seen it in women, and as a female nerd I hereby assert and confess that I had more than my share of nerd arrogance once upon a time, especially as a computer science undergraduate. Even now I think back on the abusive ways I communicated and the walls I inadvertently put up that blocked genuine collaboration and collegiality, and I wince. 12 years later, I've worked long and hard on cultivating compassion and humility in my personality and have seen incalculably valuable return on that investment.
There may well be a positive correlation between nerd arrogance and what emerges as "male" from socialized (and unfortunately binary) gender differences, but in my opinion there is utterly insufficient data to confirm that statistically, so I'd prefer to stick with the "attitude of arrogance and superiority among nerds" as the question at hand instead of speculating about the gender correlation. In fact, your own anecdote undercuts your speculation by explicitly attributing the difference between computer science and jazz to the nature of the field instead of the gender ratio:
Jazz Majors were predominantly male too. However, due to the nature of Jazz where the band works as a team, there is less arrogance
The reason I say that there is insufficient data to confidently correlate gender and nerd arrogance is that there are simply too few women in the field, and given the nature of the field, those women who do enter it have already gone through an element of pre-selection. (Note: so have the men in the field.) If the population were considerably more diverse and if the field didn't have an earned reputation as having gender accessibility issues, then I would consider speculating about gender. Until then, it makes more sense to leave it to personality and socialized behaviour.
What do you think?
Despite fully intending to for several years, I haven't actually sat down and devised a coherent plan for key management including an authoritative physical store for the private keys (a problem because in any given day I use 4+ computers and not one of them accesses my email directly), revocation certificates, choosing a reliable keyserver, and choosing a web-based way to distribute my public key to anyone so inclined.
To make matters worse, I'm still in a state of severe digital identity flux (SDIF henceforth). I've been in SDIF for a number of years, and the problem is compounded by the fact that all the commonly used and centralized "identity authorities" (self-styled) are corporate and make me acutely uncomfortable. Until I resolve SDIF and establish the requisite collection of identities, boundaries to each, and reputations, I feel as though what digital assets I have aren't worth the trouble, especially if it's going to be temporary. I don't want to go to all the trouble of planning things (as per paragraph #1) only to then have to revoke and re-issue everything.
Slashdot has been a significant part of the formation of my identity in terms of interest, exploring diverse issues, and exposure to technologies that I wouldn't otherwise have encountered. I thank you, Rob, for everything you've done to create and cultivate this community.
I've been thinking more about Slashdot recently because of my involvement in "Nym-Wars". In at least one place Slashdot was cited as a stellar example of the civility and quality that can be fostered in a community that functions primarily pseudonymously, but also allows anonymity (two things I very much are about). The moderation system in place here is complex (I myself still find it a little confusing) but there is no question that it works. Slashdot is one of the few places where I consider the comments on an article as much (often more) worth reading as the article itself. Obviously my appreciation for this applies to the whole Slashdot community, but I am posting this specifically in recognition of CmdrTaco's influence in shaping the community.
Rob, may everything else you do in the years to come be as interesting and fruitful as your work here! Community and communication are essential, amazing things, and I'm sure your contributions to the world at large are far from over.
It's probably obvious, but I did want to point out that depression is very different from "not getting the attention they desire".
I agree and also was disappointed that the second part of the interview was conducted the way it was. I noticed in one of the early comments to the second part that the interviewer admits to not being a professional journalist, and that he is human and his emotions got the best of him. That alleviated my disappointment a little... but it is still a shame that this opportunity was lost. It would be interesting if "John" has the courage to contact another organization that might be willing to interview him.
Part II of the interview is where the interviewer got upset and ended up hanging up on "John".
This news item is oddly refreshing. It's because of my fellow netizens that, for once, I am not at all worried about what this might portend for the future. Seriously, if people don't want to pay for music, what makes anyone think that news media will be any different? In news, there is even less of an inherent monopoly regarding the content's source, and it's even easier to transmit on a whim, for free (gratis). Sure, Murdoch will end up making some money, but I expect this is a flawed business model, and it is certainly Yet Another desperate attempt at recovering the information/entertainment-distribution status quo.
Perhaps in Canada? Without going looking, I'm not sure. I seem to remember hearing about such laws in Korea and Japan as well, and the comments I've read attached to this article at least suggest that it is true about Japan.
I know that my phone makes that click noise, and it's quite loud. I can replace it with things like a quacking duck if I want, but there's no "silent" option (without hacking).
I can certainly see the logic for that claim if your entire goal for travel is geographic diversity. What about cultural tourism, though? Despite there being a not-unreasonable level of ethnic diversity in the United States, the cultural diversity is decidedly less noticeable; "melting pot", remember. So if I want to travel to experience a different way of living daily life, or to meet people who live in a certain country, or whatever, then it's a little harder to do that in the USA.
As a Canadian, I also lament the fact that we don't have the ability to travel as extensively for so comparatively little as do those living in the EU. Simply getting anywhere else in the world is so frickin' expensive...
I block as much extraneous content as possible: ads, any irritating non-ad images on sites I frequent, all javascript by default, and so forth, and have been doing so for several years (actual length of time depends on availability of some of the technologies, e.g. the NoScript fx plugin).
It began much longer ago than the "several years" I mentioned, but during that time my attention span has continued diminishing at an accelerating pace, and is currently paralyzingly low. It makes software development impossible.
I'm posting here instead of working. Yesterday during similar working hours I was commenting to acquaintances that I can no longer read or think linearly.
(At least one person already mentioned marijuana usage, and while that does have documented effects on concentration ability, it is not applicable in my case.)
I am actively (when time permits) seeking ways to mitigate the professional disaster-in-waiting that this has become.
Examples, for those of us unaware?
Step 1: Firefox + NoScript + "Mark google-analytics.com as Untrusted"
Step 2: Delete cookies when browser exists
Step 3 (optional): Stop using Google
Yes, Step 2 will make some things more annoying. But the question is this: how much do you value your privacy? Enough to log in to Slashdot and your webmail every day, instead of just once?
I've had a long-standing grudge against Telus for years. I grew up in rural Alberta, and they own the phone lines, so even if we were to get phone service from elsewhere, the lines are still theirs.
Until a few years ago, dialup internet was the only option. And while dialup is f'ing painful to use, I was able to get a relatively decent connection, as dialup goes -- around 44kbps. Telus actually came and made a change to whatever the switching box is out at the road (interrupting a 4-6 hour non-resumable download in the process) and ever after I was only able to get a max of 24kbps.
I called and complained numerous times and eventually was told that Telus didn't provide the line as a data line -- only for voice usage. I asked them what they thought that meant since we were paying them for the dialup access at the time. They didn't really have an answer. They never did admit that they changed anything.
And this was back in the 90's, when they were still a "reasonable" company. I've watched them go further and further downhill ever since. Their business model, their customer support, the way they treat their employees, and the services they offer are representative of Canadian telecom services in general. (Does everyone remember hearing about how they blocked access to websites run by their striking employees a few years back?)
I'll just add a "hear, hear!" echo to all the complaints above about Telus, Bell, and Rogers. I love Canada, truly I do, but something has got to change. North America is behind the rest of the world, and Canada's behind the USA. What can be done? -- I don't know.
Thank you -- I hoped someone was going to mention NoScript.
I browse the internet with very limited script whitelisting. I will temporarily grant scripts at certain addresses (for duration of session or until I revoke) when needed, but other than that I leave it all turned off. I specifically have things like Doubleclick and Google Analytics, and others, permanently on my "untrusted" list.
I also have a redirect remover extension (name escapes me at the moment) set up on most of my various work and home systems so that search engines such as those run by Yahoo! (e.g. alltheweb.com) can't see which search results I click on.
Other possibilities to look into with respect to net privacy are as follows:
- particularly when using search engines, use a randomized proxy so that IP address correlation is unreliable
- find a way to block the "referer" data of an HTTP request -- note that this should not be done across the board because many sites require a "permitted referer" before granting access to images, for example.
The end user actually has the potential for a great deal of control with respect to how much browsing pattern data is available to remote hosts. The system breaks down at the ISP level, however, unless one wishes to get into proxy via SSL encrypted tunnel or what-have-you. But ultimately you're at the mercy of SOMEONE who will "know about you".
Good luck!
If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.
One of the most important precepts in a debate is that you accurately present the point of view of your opponents. In this case, since supporters of ID are demographically -and- ideologically quite diverse, then you should probably at least acknowledge the different approaches. For instance, acknowledge that not all ID supporters believe "Look, we have a changing species over time" is proof. In fact, many IDers don't (and shouldn't) present ID as science, because it's not. In fact, ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If I accurately recall my university readings, Asa Gray, a staunch evolutionist and correspondent with Darwin, was the one who proposed the first version of ID. What is ID really? A theory concerning the 'first cause', or the impetus behind evolution. This side of ID should be mentioned in your comments if you refer only to your opponents as "ID supporters". If you wish to specify your comments to a more narrow group, perhaps one deserving of the comments, please acknowledge that it is a narrower group and that not all IDers fit into the category. Accuracy, please, won't someone think of the children?!</gratuitous Simpsons ref>
In my mind, as someone who has objectively read some (not a lot) on both positions, the proof you're alleging is singularly unavailable in both cases. Just like we can't go back however many millions of years and see a giant finger come down and poke the platypus, we also can't observe the evolution from species to species over the same time period. In your list of the scientific method, hypothesis and proof, as they are used in laboratories, take a bit of a different shape. A scientist hypothesizes something, and then tries to recreate the scenario and achieve the same results in order to be able to call it proof. Again, this is pretty much impossible on both sides of this debate.
I do not deny the observations of the fossil record. There are definitely differences such as the ones to which you referred. However, the existence of fossil B is as much speculation as the message in a chromosome. Neither can be proven until they are found, and neither can be disproven ever. I'm sure all of us are aware that scientific cannot prove the nonexistence of something, even something as far-fetched as a message in a chromosome.
It surprised me that you said "I like my belief better. Until something better comes along..." There is as little "science" to be found there as in many of the ID arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the blurring of the science vs. philosophy/religion boundaries. All human pursuits are mutually relevant, because everything is connected. I just wanted to point out that part of what you said.
I love science. I think it is a tremendously worthwhile pursuit, and a critically important set of knowledge for humans to possess. What I wish is that more scientists would admit where faith enters our world view. It's there, but usually we successfully ignore it. Perhaps as an experiment, look for faith jumps in your procedures and understandings, with as much skepticism as you look for faith jumps in the procedure of your opponents. Skepticism is, after all, what science requires.
I think what I'm saying is basically this: don't be any less charitable to IDers than you are to yourself, because all that demonstrates is that you are biased. Bias is dangerous to the scientific method. Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing.
Actually, the purpose of fiction and all story-telling in general is -not- to preach, but to tell a story. Any stories that are written on the basis of "trying to get a point across" are almost invariably sub-par and loathsome to tackle. Good authors know this, and tell stories rather than weave morals.
This amuses me, as do the supporting responses.
Wasn't there a huge outcry (granted, 50/50 split, but that's still a huge number of nay-sayers) about the virus-writing class that the University of Calgary was considering offering?
How is this any different? Argh.
No, not always. You, like many others, have just bought in to an obvious stereotype. There are many kids in public schools lacking social skills, but they're just killed (metaphorically speaking) early on, and are thereafter silent and unseen.
/me hears another glittering generalization off in the distance and runs off in aid of those being maligned.
And nobody notices the home-schooled people with good social skills because no one would think to ask whether they were publicly-schooled or otherwise. Think about it. For how many of your co-workers do you know where they attended school?
The odds are stacked against finding socially well-adjusted home-schooled people, and socially maladjusted public-schooled people.
So how, precisely, can you justifiably assert that home-schooled kids are less socially adept? Only the inept ones show up on people's radar.
Another point in my favor: most people are surprised to hear of the prevalence of home-schooling. This would suggest that their personal experience with identifiably home-schooled people is not representative of actuality. Implications? That there might be more "normal" home-schoolers out there, just waiting to be identified!
I really did not enjoy this book. I read it a month or so ago for an English course I'm taking, and I considered it one of the least enjoyable books I've ever read.
The interesting thing is that I sincerely enjoyed the Earthsea series, the first one most of all. Perhaps I simply don't enjoy the "gender" topics.
At any rate, I'd recommend this for people who enjoy the intersection of gender & science fiction topics in literature, because I'm probably the anomaly.
Or "Wary".. in which case, it could be a simple typo. chill?