Seat Change Chain Reaction
A seat change chain reaction is a phenomenon I have often witnessed as a student. It may occur when a student, for various reasons, sits in a seat that is not his or her usual seat. If this new seat is usually occupied by another student, then a seat change chain reaction will occur that may, under the right circumstances, relocate an entire row or even an entire classroom of students. The most common cause of a seat change chain reaction is when a student from the previous class has not yet vacated a seat usually occupied by an incoming student. The incoming student will be forced to find a new seat and even when their usual seat is finally vacated may see no reason to move back to it.
posted by Unknown @ 12/24/2005 03:36:00 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Though I may like the idea, I think you may like the idea too much. Perhaps you should work on the structure of your argument more, as it appears that you have gotten ahead of yourself.
You begin with what a "seat change chain reaction" is. It seems you are, properly, leaving the definition to be learned from the structure that will follow. Though I think the practice is better than most, it seems to me that it would be better to stay self consistant with your philosophy and let the structure speak for itself rather than defining a new word or phrase to incompase the idea that you are setting forth. I gather that the term "seat change chain reaction" is meant to apply to what happens when an entire row is completly changed. This idea seems implied from the term itself but the rest of the righting sharply goes against this interpretation of the term by saying "...then a seat change chain reaction will occur that may, under the right circumstances, relocate an entire row or even an entire classroom of students". You first say that it "will occur" and then that in addition to it occuring it "may relocate an entire row...". This latter part was what I saw as the implied meaning, but here the former is clearly stated to be the meaning. But that implies that the term is to simply mean that if your seat is taken then you will have to select another. To be honest though, it renders the term clearly ambiguous but still allows for misinterpretation.
You also claim later that "The incoming student will be forced to find a new seat...". This is hardly complete as surely there are other options such as waiting outside until all seats are vacated or simply taking a walk until class actually starts. Though what you imply is understood by me, the structure you build upon seems faulty and I am sure you can see the danger.
I like your attempt though, I wish to take nothing away from that. I do fell, however, that if you did provide a proper structure, that you could not possibly come to the same conclusion that it seems you are implying in this post. Your emphasis would be dampened greatly, and I am sure it will be no surprise to you as I am sure that you have observed a similar dampening of meaning everywhere else you have tried to question.
I think you're taking this way too seriously. It's only meant to be an observation and pseudo-definition of an interesting phenomenon that mostly goes unnoticed. Your response, which is 3 times as long as my original post, is almost entirely devoted to ripping apart my structure. This is fine and probably valuable advice if I were to publish this in an encyclopedia. However, this is a blog, and my purpose is merely observation, not scientific definition.
You misinterpret the following statement:
"If this new seat is usually occupied by another student, then a seat change chain reaction will occur that may, under the right circumstances, relocate an entire row or even an entire classroom of students"
I believe the statement to be grammatically correct, but you may be right that the structure is somewhat confusing. I will attempt to clarify:
A seat change chain reaction has occurred if the person B’s move forces Person C to move. The seat change chain reaction is terminated when everyone has a seat. If Person C took Person B’s chair, then the reaction would be terminated because there would be no more free radicals and the system would be stable. However, under the right circumstances (as long as each move leaves a free radical) the entire classroom could end up re-arranged. This does not necessarily mean a set of moves as ordered as the diagram, but it is just one possible set.
There’s a reason I’m an Art Major and not an English Major. Every English class I have ever taken has preached only structure and rules for “good writing”. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a 5 paragraph essay that really made me say “Wow, I never thought of that before”. The fact is, all that structure they cram down our throats is bullshit. I think my meaning is there (for the most part) and that should be the only thing that matters.
I'm sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent. And to be clear, I was not talking about grammer at all. Nor was I talking about any form of writing techniques as structure. Instead, I was only talking about the structure of your argument. It simply was not sound. What you communicated implied that the chain reaction actually occurs. I don't think this is true at all, and I think most people would have a hard time believing that it happens very often. Simply stating that it might occur and how it might occur, does not mean that it represents reality very well. As well, just becuase parts of it (perhaps one or two seats changing) is no reason to assume that the phenomenon happened. And if it does happen, you provide no indication as to why it completly happens when it does. Does it make a difference if there are 10 seats in the row? What if there were 1,000 seats in the row? If there were two seats in the row? The argument is too simple.
"I think my meaning is there (for the most part) and that should be the only thing that matters."
If you are trying to comfort yourself with your own words, then sure I guess. And if I look at your meaning (ie your intent) then I would have to say that it seems like you are pushing an idea that does no really depict reality very well. I would hope you are more intellectually honest than that.
Ok...your first response did not offend me....nor did your second...your third does....I am not trying to "comfort myself with my own words"....and don't insult my intellectual honesty. I'm speaking as sincerely and honestly as anyone possibly could.....but I'm gonna just move on to my response....I don’t mean to sound defensive, I actually really enjoy this! It keeps me thinking, writing, and expressing myself better.
You say, “What you communicated implied that the chain reaction actually occurs. I don't think this is true at all…”.
Well, quite simply a chain reaction did occur.
The dictionary.com definition for Chain Reaction - A series of events in which each induces or influences the next.
Event 1: Person A sits in the seat usually occupied by Person B
Event 2: Person B, being aware that they are physically unable to occupy the same space as Person A (at least without some pretty intense physics), chooses an alternate seat.
Series of events, one induces the other - Chain reaction! And it will continue until everyone has been seated.
You say, “I think most people would have a hard time believing that it happens very often. Simply stating that it might occur and how it might occur, does not mean that it represents reality very well.”
I don’t know what’s hard to believe. If someone sits in the seat you usually sit in, you will probably sit in a different seat. (not to say that you don’t have the option of bludgeoning them over the head with a textbook, moving their body, and taking the seat that’s rightfully yours…but most of us aren’t THAT territorial). As for reality, I have moved, I have caused people to move….no one really seems to mind.
You say, “As well, just because parts of it (perhaps one or two seats changing) is no reason to assume that the phenomenon happened.”
The dictionary.com definition for Phenomenon - An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
You say, “And if it does happen, you provide no indication as to why it completely happens when it does. Does it make a difference if there are 10 seats in the row? What if there were 1,000 seats in the row? If there were two seats in the row? The argument is too simple.”
How long it will continue is impossible to tell because there are too many variables determining where people choose to sit. (i.e. desire to sit near a friend, eye sight issues, superstition, etc. All those things may effect where a person will sit)….But you can be fairly certain that most people will choose an empty seat over one with a person in it. All I’m saying is that as long as each person’s move displaces another than the chain reaction (series of events in which each induces the next) will continue.
As for my argument, what argument? Am I arguing that it’s morally wrong to sit in a different seat? I don’t think so. It’s just a simple observation of a simple phenomenon (occurrence perceptible by the senses).
Anyway....Do appreciate the comments!!
Post a Comment
<< Home