benlehrburger/college-text-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 2.12k
Marketing Intern – Patti Conte, Ltd. – cold calling and persuasion
Secured publications and new artists
Project Intern – Herrmann – market research
Assigned AI-driven browser extension project and researching SaaS NLP options
After vetting their capabilities, went with IBM
Producer – TEDxScarsdale – connecting the dots
Put together an entire production
Led fundraising and ticket sales

Why do your skills complement this role?
Analytical mind: I always want to answer the “why” and understand the driving factors of a trend; I am an expert at spotting patterns and connecting the dots
Eg. Patti Conte
Data-driven: I find truth in numbers and statistics; I am well-versed with data-analytics platforms and know how to handle that data to derive meaningful insights
Eg. Herrmann current project (statistical analysis of classifier performance)
Expert communicator: I can take a jumble of information and turn it into findings that means something to people; my main area of study is understanding how people understand, so this is my greatest asset
Eg. Sister and 9th-grade teacher using infographic for example
Now learning Tableau

How do your studies prepare you for this position?
Cognitive Science
Learning peoples’ motivating factors, which allows me to make better predictions and better foresee causal relationships between people and markets
Better understand client’s needs and connect with them interpersonally
Quantitative Social Science
Learning how to take qualitative phenomena and quantify them in a meaningful way
Learning data-analytics with technical tools like R
Computer Science
Gives me particular industry knowledge in a field that has grown in its dominance over the course of my lifetime

For the sake of this analysis, I will use “well-being” to describe humanity’s end goal of making one’s life as “good” as possible. In the equation of life, happiness is not an end, but is rather a means of achieving well-being. Where well-being is a state of life, happiness is a mental-state; this mental-state can help in improving the quality of one’s life but there are numerous external factors to consider as well (Haybron, 1.1). Quantifying well-being seems nearly impossible when happiness, economic status, familial life, relationships, hobbies, access to resources, and employment are taken into account. Thus, let us not focus on measuring well-being, but instead grapple with happiness. Self-reports of happiness are often unreliable and based upon current moods rather than overall outlooks on life. However, when enough of these reports are compiled, relative measures of happiness can reveal true patterns among populations, but not individuals (Haybron, 3.1).
Lyubormirsky attempts to evaluate individual happiness in a four question exam, that when compiled returns a number on a happiness scale. Three of the questions ask about happiness in relation to others, one reading, “Compared with most of my peers, I consider myself:” (Lyubomirsky, 183). Lyubormirsky contradicts herself in this exam, where the title reads “Subjective Happiness Scale”, yet the questions are relativistic. Happiness is most definitely subjectively based, but Lyubormirsky ignores that the definition of happiness is also subjective. One person responding to Lyubormirsky’s prompts may be a life-satisfaction theorist, while another is a mental-statist, and yet another is an emotional-statist. Thus, even in identifying happiness trends among populations, there is no controlled variable, and population quantifications become as inaccurate as subjective measurements. To quantify happiness on such differing accounts seems almost as impossible as quantifying well-being.
This is not to say that subjective happiness, in part, cannot be quantified to a certain degree. Lyubormirsky cites a number of studies revealing that genetics account for 40% of one’s inherent happiness, and another 10% comes via one’s circumstances. These “set-points” are out of our control, yet it is in our power to work beyond them and exceed our predestined 50% of happiness (Lyubomirsky, 184). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, however, elaborates on this point, revealing scientific evidence that over time most people adapt to changes in their lives and return to their happiness “set point” (Haybron, 3.2). If our set points are ultimately stagnant, then we only truly have control over 50% of our happiness. This is half of a slice of happiness which is already a small slice of the well-being pie. So, does happiness matter? If happiness comprises such a minute percentage of our overall goodness, is it worth living our lives relentlessly in pursuit of it?
Aristotle does not think so. His philosophy on eudaimonia -- that pursuit of action, good relationships, virtue, and moral intellect cultivate the human soul -- does not once mention happiness as an asset. Instead, Aristotle suggests that, “Happiness … no one chooses for the sake of … anything other than itself” (Aristotle, 83). Aristotle characterizes happiness as its own entity separate from well-being. He also accounts for the mass misconception that happiness is our final destination: “we think [happiness] most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others” (Aristotle, 83). Aristotle references the well-being pie, constituted by many slices, one being happiness, which seems to appear a larger slice to most than is accurate. To achieve happiness, whatever its definition may be, we must revise our intuitions of the well-being pie and designate a sliver for happiness. While Lyubormirsky’s scale may have been flawed, she was correct in citing a study showing “that those of us who wish we were a great deal happier should be a little less hard on ourselves” (Lyubormirsky, 187). If we prioritize happiness to such an extent, there is a great deal of pressure on us to achieve it when 50% of it is already static in the long-term. The first step of working towards legitimate happiness is easing the burden, and perhaps the second is working towards happiness a little less.

Cities are growing, and in recent decades urban growth has begun surpassing its equilibrium. Urbanization is outpacing the development of real estate, hiking the cost of urban life and forcing the working class into suburbia. Historically, cities supported the working class while the middle and upper classes claimed the suburbs. But now, the trend is reversing. Such is the case in New York. As New York City and its cost of living grow, the City’s poor are pushed north into suburban cities like White Plains, New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon. Since 2000, each of these cities has routinely posted increasing poverty rates above national average. The northern flow of poverty is expected to continue as long as New York City is growing.
I am from Westchester County, which, while home to affluent neighborhoods like Scarsdale and Bronxville, is also home to White Plains, New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon. New York City’s recent growth has deepend wealth inequality in Westchester and highlighted Westchester’s need to adapt to a changing landscape. Demand for social entrepreneurship is on the rise, but when social crisis looms, social entrepreneurship ventures do not just need to increase. They need to evolve. In the following essay, I will first show that Westchester’s social entrepreneurship in response to the COVID-19 pandemic reveals that social entrepreneurship is only as good as the adaptations that it makes. I will then discuss the implications of this finding on Westchester’s social entrepreneurship initiatives to ease its widening income gap.
Many definitions of social entrepreneurship exist, but Martin and Osberg’s is most widely accepted. From their perspective, social entrepreneurship is the movement from a “stable but inherently unjust equilibrium” to a new, stable equilibrium. This is achieved by identifying opportunities within an unjust equilibrium and pursuing one that maximizes social value, making the new, stable equilibrium as just as possible.

Science and masculinity
Association is regarded as a myth
Self-evident and nonsensical
Science is usually seen as emotionally and sexually neutral
If more women were involved in science then it may take on a different methodology
Scientific thought is male thought
More men happen to be involved in science than women but this is an effect not a cause
Evidence:
Science is metaphorically talked about as masculine
eg) Sexual undertones in “hard” sciences vs. “soft” science
Facts are “hard”, feelings are “soft”
Women thinking scientifically = thinking “like a man”
Jordan Peterson: fewer women in science because fewer women than men are interested in science
In countries with a higher degree of gender equality, a lower number of women go into STEM fields
Argument:
Men are naturally overrepresented among those who are especially good at, or interested in, scientific pursuits
These differences are innate
Hence we should expect to find women underrepresented in the sciences, and there’s nothing that should be done about it
Keller’s strategy:
Explain differences developmentally rather than genetically
Developmental story explain why science in particular is seen as masculine
Myth and metaphor
Language of metaphor can become reality when scientists internalize it
Science is surrounded by metaphors and language is particularly important
Science and nature
Complement of science is Nature
Nature is seen as a feminine and vulnerable entity that men try to conquer
Leads to science as a masculine tradition
Where does genderization come from?
Scientific thought is intertwined with emotional and sexual development
Development of objectivity
Association of science and masculinity has connections to childhood development
The infant feels as though the mother is part of them/no sense of self or other → infant learns they are independent from the mother and from the rest of the world → other = objective, self = subjective
Science and love
Further, difficult developmental stage of ambiguity
Self is not completely separated from the world so there is not an absolute distinction between subjective and objective
Self can influence the world and vice versa; self is in the world; other objects in the world are also selves
Can’t have empathy without an understanding of relation to the world
Objectivity and science
We often take separation of self and other to be cognitive maturity
Classical science has taught us that it is possible to be an objective observer and it is ideal to do so
Objectivity and gender
Move from oneness (with mother) to separation (from mother; = not mother) leads to conditioning of objectivity
Father helps rescue child’s fragile ego, becoming the embodiment of separation
Father exists in the outside world and represents objectivity itself

Oneness → separation (self/other) → \|\| ambiguity (no absolute distinction)
Mother/female → father/masculine

Ben Lehrburger
COGS 021 21F
Final Project Report

Culture
Genderization of science exists because of the privilege of masculinity in European culture
Leads us to privilege objectivity overall
Internalization
Men are not better suited to science
Men are not by nature objective
Science is not intrinsically masculine
We just happen to think that science is objective and men are objective
Some type of mythology
To be expected that these gender norms will be internalized based on how you identify yourself at a young age

Marketing Intern – Patti Conte, Ltd. – cold calling and persuasion

Secured publications and new artists

Project Intern – Herrmann – market research

Assigned AI-driven browser extension project and researching SaaS NLP options

After vetting their capabilities, went with IBM

Producer – TEDxScarsdale – connecting the dots

Put together an entire production

Led fundraising and ticket sales

Why do your skills complement this role?

Analytical mind: I always want to answer the “why” and understand the driving factors of a trend; I am an expert at spotting patterns and connecting the dots

Eg. Patti Conte

Data-driven: I find truth in numbers and statistics; I am well-versed with data-analytics platforms and know how to handle that data to derive meaningful insights

Eg. Herrmann current project (statistical analysis of classifier performance)

Expert communicator: I can take a jumble of information and turn it into findings that means something to people; my main area of study is understanding how people understand, so this is my greatest asset

Eg. Sister and 9th-grade teacher using infographic for example

Now learning Tableau

How do your studies prepare you for this position?

Cognitive Science

Learning peoples’ motivating factors, which allows me to make better predictions and better foresee causal relationships between people and markets

Better understand client’s needs and connect with them interpersonally

Quantitative Social Science

Learning how to take qualitative phenomena and quantify them in a meaningful way

Learning data-analytics with technical tools like R

Computer Science

Gives me particular industry knowledge in a field that has grown in its dominance over the course of my lifetime

For the sake of this analysis, I will use “well-being” to describe humanity’s end goal of making one’s life as “good” as possible. In the equation of life, happiness is not an end, but is rather a means of achieving well-being. Where well-being is a state of life, happiness is a mental-state; this mental-state can help in improving the quality of one’s life but there are numerous external factors to consider as well (Haybron, 1.1). Quantifying well-being seems nearly impossible when happiness, economic status, familial life, relationships, hobbies, access to resources, and employment are taken into account. Thus, let us not focus on measuring well-being, but instead grapple with happiness. Self-reports of happiness are often unreliable and based upon current moods rather than overall outlooks on life. However, when enough of these reports are compiled, relative measures of happiness can reveal true patterns among populations, but not individuals (Haybron, 3.1).

Lyubormirsky attempts to evaluate individual happiness in a four question exam, that when compiled returns a number on a happiness scale. Three of the questions ask about happiness in relation to others, one reading, “Compared with most of my peers, I consider myself:” (Lyubomirsky, 183). Lyubormirsky contradicts herself in this exam, where the title reads “Subjective Happiness Scale”, yet the questions are relativistic. Happiness is most definitely subjectively based, but Lyubormirsky ignores that the definition of happiness is also subjective. One person responding to Lyubormirsky’s prompts may be a life-satisfaction theorist, while another is a mental-statist, and yet another is an emotional-statist. Thus, even in identifying happiness trends among populations, there is no controlled variable, and population quantifications become as inaccurate as subjective measurements. To quantify happiness on such differing accounts seems almost as impossible as quantifying well-being.

This is not to say that subjective happiness, in part, cannot be quantified to a certain degree. Lyubormirsky cites a number of studies revealing that genetics account for 40% of one’s inherent happiness, and another 10% comes via one’s circumstances. These “set-points” are out of our control, yet it is in our power to work beyond them and exceed our predestined 50% of happiness (Lyubomirsky, 184). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, however, elaborates on this point, revealing scientific evidence that over time most people adapt to changes in their lives and return to their happiness “set point” (Haybron, 3.2). If our set points are ultimately stagnant, then we only truly have control over 50% of our happiness. This is half of a slice of happiness which is already a small slice of the well-being pie. So, does happiness matter? If happiness comprises such a minute percentage of our overall goodness, is it worth living our lives relentlessly in pursuit of it?

Aristotle does not think so. His philosophy on eudaimonia -- that pursuit of action, good relationships, virtue, and moral intellect cultivate the human soul -- does not once mention happiness as an asset. Instead, Aristotle suggests that, “Happiness … no one chooses for the sake of … anything other than itself” (Aristotle, 83). Aristotle characterizes happiness as its own entity separate from well-being. He also accounts for the mass misconception that happiness is our final destination: “we think [happiness] most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others” (Aristotle, 83). Aristotle references the well-being pie, constituted by many slices, one being happiness, which seems to appear a larger slice to most than is accurate. To achieve happiness, whatever its definition may be, we must revise our intuitions of the well-being pie and designate a sliver for happiness. While Lyubormirsky’s scale may have been flawed, she was correct in citing a study showing “that those of us who wish we were a great deal happier should be a little less hard on ourselves” (Lyubormirsky, 187). If we prioritize happiness to such an extent, there is a great deal of pressure on us to achieve it when 50% of it is already static in the long-term. The first step of working towards legitimate happiness is easing the burden, and perhaps the second is working towards happiness a little less.

Cities are growing, and in recent decades urban growth has begun surpassing its equilibrium. Urbanization is outpacing the development of real estate, hiking the cost of urban life and forcing the working class into suburbia. Historically, cities supported the working class while the middle and upper classes claimed the suburbs. But now, the trend is reversing. Such is the case in New York. As New York City and its cost of living grow, the City’s poor are pushed north into suburban cities like White Plains, New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon. Since 2000, each of these cities has routinely posted increasing poverty rates above national average. The northern flow of poverty is expected to continue as long as New York City is growing.

I am from Westchester County, which, while home to affluent neighborhoods like Scarsdale and Bronxville, is also home to White Plains, New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon. New York City’s recent growth has deepend wealth inequality in Westchester and highlighted Westchester’s need to adapt to a changing landscape. Demand for social entrepreneurship is on the rise, but when social crisis looms, social entrepreneurship ventures do not just need to increase. They need to evolve. In the following essay, I will first show that Westchester’s social entrepreneurship in response to the COVID-19 pandemic reveals that social entrepreneurship is only as good as the adaptations that it makes. I will then discuss the implications of this finding on Westchester’s social entrepreneurship initiatives to ease its widening income gap.

Many definitions of social entrepreneurship exist, but Martin and Osberg’s is most widely accepted. From their perspective, social entrepreneurship is the movement from a “stable but inherently unjust equilibrium” to a new, stable equilibrium. This is achieved by identifying opportunities within an unjust equilibrium and pursuing one that maximizes social value, making the new, stable equilibrium as just as possible.

Science and masculinity

Association is regarded as a myth

Self-evident and nonsensical

Science is usually seen as emotionally and sexually neutral

If more women were involved in science then it may take on a different methodology

Scientific thought is male thought

More men happen to be involved in science than women but this is an effect not a cause

Evidence:

Science is metaphorically talked about as masculine

eg) Sexual undertones in “hard” sciences vs. “soft” science

Facts are “hard”, feelings are “soft”

Women thinking scientifically = thinking “like a man”

Jordan Peterson: fewer women in science because fewer women than men are interested in science

In countries with a higher degree of gender equality, a lower number of women go into STEM fields

Argument:

Men are naturally overrepresented among those who are especially good at, or interested in, scientific pursuits

These differences are innate

Hence we should expect to find women underrepresented in the sciences, and there’s nothing that should be done about it

Keller’s strategy:

Explain differences developmentally rather than genetically

Developmental story explain why science in particular is seen as masculine

Myth and metaphor

Language of metaphor can become reality when scientists internalize it

Science is surrounded by metaphors and language is particularly important

Science and nature

Complement of science is Nature

Nature is seen as a feminine and vulnerable entity that men try to conquer

Leads to science as a masculine tradition

Where does genderization come from?

Scientific thought is intertwined with emotional and sexual development

Development of objectivity

Association of science and masculinity has connections to childhood development

The infant feels as though the mother is part of them/no sense of self or other → infant learns they are independent from the mother and from the rest of the world → other = objective, self = subjective

Science and love

Further, difficult developmental stage of ambiguity

Self is not completely separated from the world so there is not an absolute distinction between subjective and objective

Self can influence the world and vice versa; self is in the world; other objects in the world are also selves

Can’t have empathy without an understanding of relation to the world

Objectivity and science

We often take separation of self and other to be cognitive maturity

Classical science has taught us that it is possible to be an objective observer and it is ideal to do so

Objectivity and gender

Move from oneness (with mother) to separation (from mother; = not mother) leads to conditioning of objectivity

Father helps rescue child’s fragile ego, becoming the embodiment of separation

Father exists in the outside world and represents objectivity itself

Oneness → separation (self/other) → || ambiguity (no absolute distinction)

Mother/female → father/masculine

Ben Lehrburger

COGS 021 21F

Final Project Report

Culture

Genderization of science exists because of the privilege of masculinity in European culture

Leads us to privilege objectivity overall

Internalization

Men are not better suited to science

Men are not by nature objective

Science is not intrinsically masculine

We just happen to think that science is objective and men are objective

Some type of mythology

To be expected that these gender norms will be internalized based on how you identify yourself at a young age