In my view, when any student is in college, he or she attempts to take on complex problems and equations, especially in natural science, in order to be prepared to take on complex problems in the real world.
It appears to me that in the real world, it is the simple things that can help advance progress in various ways, especially where there are institutional memories.
Here are three simple examples that can probably help make paradigm shifts for many people. All are true stories from a long time ago.
I have been thinking and would like to continue to think that these true stories are particulars and not general characteristics or habits. I am also not trying to dispense my ego here. Not at all. I only imagine that these true story examples might help many people who want to help advance progress undertake their home works better.
I am now totally indifferent to these particular happenstances. I respect the perceptions and inclinations of individuals in politics. The only thing I expect of them is a reciprocation if I am inclined to disagree with that perception or inclination.
The first example is when I was invited for a job interview that I wanted to get and was expected to get. I was invited as an individual. like some others, to meet with an official one on one. It didn't occur to me before the meeting that it was about a job interview. The simple message I received before the meeting was that the official wanted to talk to some selected college students, including me.
It was a short meeting. I remember two questions and two answers. The first question was asking me if I wanted to work as a professional or an academician. My immediate question at a moment's notice was this: "What is the difference between the two?" Then I can see the eyes of the official in front of me turn up quickly to the ceiling of a big room and staring at it. Then he tried to explain the difference, which was neither clear to me nor sounded to be convincing. Once he was done, my next response was that I can work as either one. That was the end of the interview.
I know that there is a secondary source about the interview because I heard a third hand information later on that I refused to accept the job.
In hindsight, I understood that it was possibly a retaliation for leading a Student Council against a wrongful disciplinary action against a student. The wrongful action was also proven to be so, in hindsight. One student was wronged for a slight of another student.
I still remember that moment of turning up to the ceiling and staring at it.
The second one was when I became a leader of a small self-help communal group. I was elected to a committee and then to lead it. The day of the appointment by the committee, I truly wanted to be differential to more educated and more experienced members of the committee. When I insisted, they insisted back that I take it. Then I realized that there might be a sense of insecurity to take it. Insecurity was in abundance when the TPLF was new in town. I could be wrong about my perception of the situation. Once my perception came to be, I readily accepted it. I wouldn't want anyone to take any position that I wasn't ready to take myself if it involved any sense of insecurity.
Once started, the first and most important thing I wished to do for the self-help communal group was to prepare a bylaw for it. With very valuable inputs from members of the committee, we came up with one.
Then we took it to all members to discuss about it.
One of the members perceived one of the articles in it to be weak with a potential bias. One of the committee members who had made very valuable contributions started to defend it.
I heard both and was very confident about that particular article. I wished to take a different route. Instead of defending the article that one member criticized to be weak with a potential bias, I wanted to hear what he had to offer to make it stronger. I gave him a chance to modify it however he wanted to make it stronger.
Then he started to modify it and the attempt he made actually weakened the original article. He himself admitted during that conversation and said the original one was fine just the way it was and we moved on. I thanked them both.
The third one was when I was approached by a committee member of another communal group to make input about another bylaw that his committee wanted to work on. This committee was one I was nominated to be involved in during its election but I insisted not to get involved because of lack of time. I accepted in good faith the invitation of the committee member to make input in preparing the bylaw. I also discussed with him about informal discussions by leading members of the communal group in order to make it rich and participatory. He agreed. He later told me that one of the leading members of the communal group not only agreed to the informal discussion but also told him to leave convincing the members in his area to him (ኣናፍ ዺስ.)
The informal discussion appeared to go smoothly.
Then came the day for a discussion during a general meeting of the communal group. During that meeting, the character who I was told to have said ኣናፍ ዺስ took a chair to discredit the bylaw. Surprised, I asked him a very simple question: Can you prepare one that is better?
The immediate reaction I saw was to quickly turn to the side and stare at a door or window that he faced when he turned to the side.
That quick turn to the side and staring at the door or window and the quick turn up and staring at the ceiling looked exactly of the same nature except the directions in which the quick turns and staring occurred.
I fail to understand why some people willingly agree to do one thing and after a lot of effort went into it turn around 180 degrees to oppose or discredit it.
I imagine that in each of these three examples, different home works could have been done by the other parties and different outcomes could have been achieved. Every time critical thinking is suppressed, progress gets suppressed.
In the first case, when the Student Council asked for the wrongful action to be reviewed, it could have been agreed to and led to a different outcome.
In the second case, a demand was agreed to be heard and the critic didn't come up with a better alternative. The original article was agreed to and things moved on. He had ample time to read the draft version and come up with a better alternative before hand or not take on it on the spot and fail to come up with a better alternative.
In the third case, there was no need to willingly say ኣናፍ ዺስ and then turn around 180 degree after a lot of time and effort was spent on the matter.