How To Take Accountability While Telling The Truth: Why NASA Is The Opposite of Donald Trump

At the end of the day, I stand for truth, and admire many of history's greatest truth tellers. My scholarship is in the area of law, math, and physics, and I have an article where I connect an answer to the Prisoner's Dilemma to non-violence and turning the other cheek as a method of forcing pure cooperation, as inspired by the social movements and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And part of non-violence is deep spiritual contemplation. I've been trained in non-violence by both parents and taught to have compassion and even when I was a small girl, and another child named Sylvia picked buttons off of my clothing, and my mother explained that this child's parents were going through a divorce so I wouldn't retaliate against Sylvia or harm her. She also trained me to see Sylvia with compassion and to view every person with compassion, even those who misperceive another person. But seeing through the eyes of compassion does not mean brutality or too much harsh lighting or too much truth, and having boundaries as in the boundary condition I lay out in one of my recent papers is important. So what is my philosophy with respect to truth? It is to see truth through the eyes of romance, and from the perspective of a scientist, I believe this leads to more accurate science and my philosophy on math is that often correct math answers are more beautiful and simple and elegant, and that math and science should be viewed through the lens of romance and idealism, as should the world, although with proper boundaries. 

I'll relate an example from the world of mathematics. My father recently presented me with a math problem he'd been working on for forty years and couldn't solve. He told me he was working on the integral of x to the (1/x), and asked me to take a shot. I initially told him, as substantiated by my text messages, that I thought there was a relationship with the natural log of x, as in ln(x), but that I'd get back to him later. I then took a drive, and on the drive, attempted to brute force the answer, or use a technique that reminds me of a dance troop named Fuerza Bruta, which in Spanish means brute force, or hard work, or maybe I'm thinking of a dance trope named Stomp!, which I saw play in Zellerback Hall way back in Berkeley. At any rate, on the car drive, I attempted to use the approach of brute force and I attempted a u substitution. The math is laid out below. It turns out that my initial impression, which I thought about for about two seconds before I second guessed myself was correct, and ln(x) is the answer. And my first impression was far simpler than my hard work where I'd overanalyzed the problem and gotten a much more complicated solution, which was wrong. So I'll demonstrate the work, which can be verified by the book James Stewart, Calculus: Early Transcendentals, which I looked in after I needed to check my answer, and not before I had the intuition about natural log or lnx, which was right. So, hey, if a person doesn't believe me, don't take my word for it, take James Stewart's.

And that's how to take responsibility with regard to an incorrect answer in math and how to admit a person is wrong, which I admitted to my Dad, because the bottom answer is wrong, and so is the top, only by a little. I'll also say that I've taken accountability to many people in my life, including writing an entire academic article as an apology to a student who expressed displeasure with my methods, and I have an entire separate entry on that, which I wrote extensively about this past summer, which I wrote to apologize and take accountability for a case that my clinic decided not to pursue and that apology was so transformative to me that it led me to my life purpose of writing a letter about impact litigating not succeeding in all cases, which led to game theory, which led to math and physics, and which led to working on disproving John Nash, or rather proving him right under certain conditions and Freeman Dyson and Bill Press right under others, and that part of taking accountability is not taking accountability for other people's mistakes, and not admitting a person is wrong when they are in the right. That would be a lie, and while I believe in privacy and boundaries and refusing to discuss aspects of my personal life which are inappropriate and off limits, I absolutely believe in accountability. And I equally think women have a tendency too apologize to much, and my fourth grade teacher, an amazing Black woman named Mrs. Richardson told me I apologized too much and not to apologize when I wasn't wrong, and I think apologizing when a person isn't wrong is morally incorrect. Although I take issue with the concept of evil and define evil as ignorance, I do think attempting to force a person to apologize for a mistake someone else made as discussed above, for example asking a rape victim or a victim of bullying to apologize to their abusers or the people who have harmed them is incorrect in a moral sense, and turns truth upside-down and which we as a nation are seeing frequently in this country with the current Administration. 

I will note my mistake was very simple. I took the derivative instead of the integral, which was the sole mistake with my derivative, and actually my mistake with the integral was not just sticking with my straight out of the gut answer, and ln(x) which I got in two seconds was right, and doesn't require (1/x) in front of it, the same way I originally got the square root of three right off by .01 when I was in a restaurant and in a highly relaxed state. Sometimes all it takes is a very simple shift in perspective, and defining terms differently. I also note this answer was not in an integral table, but I found the answer for the derivative in a derivative table. And derivative and integrals are opposites of one and other. I tend to think I'm the opposite of Donald Trump, though I stand even for Donald Trump. And not to hate on AI, but I double checked this derivative with AI, and AI agrees with my derivative. So if I am wrong, I guess AI is wrong, too, though I didn't use AI, and did this all in my head. Will I be believed? Sometimes a person is labeled "too good to be true" or because I am woman my math gifts are discounted, or seen as impossible, or if I'm being forced to perform math when I don't expect it or when I'm not in a "math zone" I'm not believed even though my all my work speaks for itself, and all of this could be substantiated by my father and my text messages. I will say I am now consulting with NASA, and even I when I once saw a hot woman thought "she can't work at NASA." Look at the space ship folks, a woman was on it! Presumably she had to do math to get on it. 

And in the end, isn't NASA the opposite of Donald Trump? Isn't science, or at least the hard sciences where there is a right answer? And can't humans from space see we're all interconnected and all one? And that's what all astronauts say. And that's what MLK says, too, and one of his greatest quotes is about how we are all interconnected in a garment of destiny, a quote which Barack Obama had sewn into the rug of the Oval Office.