co-evolution of problem and solution.

empirical psychology vs logical analysis

autch

Good example for explaining ACRREx.

Ha! Cf. Lawson,

This is more tinkering than (open-ended) design.

Now, in 2022, it seems that the lesson learned is actually the opposite. We did it! Science gave us vaccines and we mastered ourselves through this challenge!

This reminds me of an essay I read long ago about conservatism (I think), which describes the value for people in being and/or feeling part of ‘the eternal round’ (or something like that). In part it’s a desire for your children and grandchildren to live in the same world as you, the depth of that connection.

This is the sense of vertigo or overwhelmedness - sesamicity - of the wanderer in the print.

Did you not just identify the internet as something that gives us a sense of finitude and lack of variety?

Would not a lack of temporal finitude counteract this? If there is a mysterious future to discover or work towards, that would not be banal. But the problem, indeed, seems to be the inevitability of a future collapse, an end. Not difficult to imagine, but hard to face up to nonetheless.

why that number?

This is probably where Fraidycat falls down. But still, as you don't mention it, Robin, are you familiar with it?

Just follow? Not interact with? Build relationships with?

First thought: https://fraidyc.at/

But I expect the discussion below to clarify how that does not suffice (?).

Literally laughed out loud to this.

This seems like a good opportunity to try hypothes.is again. I've been meaning to get back to using it. As an experiment, I'm going to try and annotate this post as I read it.

This was unclear to me reading everything before this point. Why not note this in the introductory section on purpose and contents? The relaxed nature of this sentiment also conflicts with a lot of the strongly declarative language and completely certain statements (as if the goals are facts) in this code of conduct (in my experience, at least).

If students are "responsible for their own education" (3.3.1), can they not determine their level of extracurricular involvement and the level of grades they aim at themselves?

Students are saddled with enormous amounts of debt, have the BSA hanging over them during the first year and may have all sorts of other things going on that make them decide to just go for the 7,0 and finish their studies with as little effort as possible. We may not want this, but can we require otherwise from all our students?

Does the status of this code as 'giv[ing] direction ... as to how best to act' mean that it is entirely voluntary? Is it merely aspirational? Or are there consequences for violating (specific parts of) it? If so, then these are not clear (neither in terms of substance nor of procedure).

The university can ask its employees and students to act in accordance with a set of centrally determined values, but as it is formulated here, we are asked to hold these 6 as our core values. I do not and will not. Neither will religious or independently minded people.

This is in large part an empirical claim. Although I agree with this, I do not believe everyone at the TU does, nor that everyone should be obligated to.

In addition, I object to the instrumental view taken here (and to 'diversity' as a goal in and of itself). I believe the obligation of public institutions like universities to cultivate an inclusive community, representative of society as a whole, stems from democratic values, not from considerations of performance.

Regardless of the exact terminology, I find this a strange approach. In a document called a 'code', I expect as much explicit clarity as possible about what the organization sees as non-negotiable responsibilites and obligations, as distinct from aspirational dreams such as everybody inspiring each other and everyone (including all our students and support staff) actively striving to contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Choosing not to provide clarity on what is required, and what is merely hoped for, seriously undermines the value of this Code of Conduct as a Code of Conduct.

These 'principles' are mostly formulated as if they are facts: 'All members of the TU Delft community [do X].' If this statement is something employees and students are going to be required to explicitly assent to, it seems more appropriate to formulate them in terms of intent, responsibilities, or expectations. For instance: 'As a member of the TU Delft community, I will, to the best of my ability, [do X].'

This focuses very heavily on diversity (of background), giving the impression that this is the only important social aspect. Why not something like: 'with the corresponding goal of cultivating a healthy, safe, and inclusive environment'?

What precedes 'and so' is not the reason for what follows. Our students can, I hope, expect to be treated wiht respect and care regardless of how diverse or innovative a group they may be.

I find it strange to open a section on the purpose of this document with the goal of maintaining our reputation and 'leading position'. I'd say the primary motivation for holding ourselves to high standards is to ensure the value of the knowledge and technologies we develop, and of the education we provide, regardless of whether we're winning some imagined competition.

In addition, 'establishing and demonstrating that we are a diverse community' sounds awfully close to making this a matter of image and reputation as well. In my view, as a public institution serving a democratic society, we have an obligation to be inclusive and representative of that society.

This seems like a very helpful set of definitions to clarify the vague concept of 'integrity'.

This is the only point in this list that describes the required behaviour of the TU Delft as an institution, instead of that of its members. This should either be reformulated as a guideline for individual employees (not for students, I'd say), or serve as the basis of a separate list that details what members of the TU community can expect from the institution -- the other side of a sort of 'social contract' between the organization and its members.

This seems better placed as the first sentence of the paragraph above this list. It is not a principle or guideline.

This 'principle' is a tautology. The goal of acting in accordance with these values is already stated in the paragraph above this list.

This sounds wonderful, but it cannot be something we actively expect of everyone at the university. Do we require students to aim to inspire their teachers? Ideally, students do, yes, but it cannot be demanded of them. And when administrative staff competently make sure things run smoothly, this is not enough? Or would that fall under 'inspiring' their colleagues by example? Such a broad understanding of this exortation makes it practically meaningless.