Okay, so I’ve been wanting to do a blog post on the relationship between personal pride and hermeneutics. Basically, I want to do a ton of research on the psychology of pride, and do more research on hermeneutics and the methodologies humans either consciously or subconsciously (or involuntarily, as pride is an involuntary emotional response) engage in to expand upon their self-narrative, thus giving their lives further meaning.
Today in class when Beth had us spend the last fifteen minutes working on a blog post, I went to her to tell her about my idea and ask her if she had any recommended readings for that topic. Instead, she said, “You’re probably not going to like what I’m about to say.” She then proceeded to tell me that research, though it is valuable and imperative, can at times take us down very deep into the rabbit hole. I had to agree with that, as every time I found another article to read on the psychology of pride, I would read the first paragraph and all of a sudden realize there were at least four books that I should read before I even begin the article. And then I would go find those books in the library, skim through them, and think, “well now there’s no way I can read this book without reading that book first.” Basically what I am saying is that Beth is right, the research rabbit hole does exist, and it’s dangerous to delve too far into it.
To be honest, I have printed out a fair amount of articles and taken out a number of books from the library to help me with my research on the relationship between involuntary emotions and hermeneutics, and the value they hold in allowing individuals to create a positive self-narrative necessary for survival. And I am going to continue that research on that side regardless of Beth’s accurate description of the dangers of the research rabbit hole. But whether that is a future blog post or a dissertation, I do not know, the point is that it’s way too much work to do for a blog that is quickly moving through different topics as we make our way through the semester.
Instead, the purpose of this post (which I’m finally getting to after all my previous ramblings, sorry everyone) is to shed light upon the fact that the research rabbit hole is not a myth (in the figurative sense… but if anyone finds a legitimate rabbit hole that holds a bank of knowledge equivalent to Milne Library, please let me know because that sounds awesome) and too much research can lead one to going in circles. To relate this to our class readings, this idea of thoroughly researching without ending up with any new knowledge is very present in The Big Short. Eisman, Vinny, Ledley, Hockett…well, basically anyone in the book who we have been introduced to that has done copious research in attempt to understand what the heck CDOs are and why anybody ever thought they were a good idea ultimately comes to the conclusion that the entire concept makes no sense. But, regardless of its nonsensical nature, there was nothing anybody could do to reverse the damage that CDOs were to have on the future economy and those to be affected by the crash.
I don’t really think I’ve made any definitive point in this blog post. I guess, to try to summarize whatever it is I’m trying to say, infinite research does not have an end result in progress. Action results in progress, and perhaps if actions against the implementation of CDOs were taken earlier, maybe the 2008 crash would not have happened. But on the other hand, capitalism is a flawed system and humans are innately greedy, so something bad probably would have happened eventually anyway. Also, research results in knowledge and knowledge is invaluable, so I’m not trying to convince anyone to stop researching either. Honestly, I have no idea what I’m doing at this point so I shall end here.
Wow, that was really scattered. Hopefully my next post won’t be so uh… wordy? casual? And maybe there will be more of a point to it? Anyway, yeah, sorry everyone, see you all on Friday.