Gadfly

First off, I would like to greet each of you in the Grad Cafe forum. Secondly, I wish to acknowledge that I full well realize my SOP is awful, and I do not mean that in a manner that aspires to seem honest or self-deprecating but I KNOW it is true. That is why I am here because I have not a single resource to go to. Thus, I am well aware that this draft requires improvements as well as very likely an overhaul. I only ask that whomever wishes to critique is blunt but not mean, e.g. if one were to conclude, "it sucks and paragraph A needs to go," is fine but "you're utterly retarded and you're clueless about XY" might be kind of mean, LOL! Also worth noting is that this school as well as its program has a reputation for leaning pretty far left (beyond mainstream left), as do I. Moreover, I have not yet reached a sensible conclusion. Anyway, I will appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you. P.S. this is the desired length with room to spare from the department, i.e. 2-3 pages and single spaced. -Gadfly “There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths,” concludes 19th century Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1878), who happens to be but one of the many great thinkers applied to my undergraduate research in Sociology. As implied by the quote, my undergraduate research is aligned with an interdisciplinary orientation which spans across the sciences- both natural and social- in arguing against the application of absolute truth in social ethics. Accordingly, the notion of absolute truth is evident in our societal structure and public policies. And, as this ethical orientation is prominent, it enjoys its prominence without scientific merit. Contrarily, as physics observes evidence of bilocating atoms and protons, and as neuroscience observes evidence of against free-will in human cognition; then so does Sociology in observing the mounting evidence that society is in need of an ethical paradigm shift. Thus, the notion of absolute truth has not a rightful place in public policy which ultimately bears the structure implied by social ethics. Human consciousness is composed of a molecular structure, a plural structure of oddly behaving particles called atoms. Essentially, the odd behavior displayed by atomic particles is the tendency to simultaneously bilocate as well as appear from nothing. These same structures are what compose our consciousness, or that which confirms our existence. Coincidentally, the study of the human consciousness neuroscience has observed cognitive states of deterministic compatibilism; or that which lacks free-will though on a paradigm that echoes a limited multiple choice rather than a narrowly restricted singularity. Furthermore, physics with the aid of mathematics predicts a reality that is composed of multiple universes; that is to state, a multi-verse which may include you and me living out alternate existences. Simply stated, my inference is that from science we can gather that the natural science concept of consciousness and the social science concept of perception, which are separated only by terminology, are each subject to these scientific principles. As it follows, ones perception as confirmed by post-modern theory is an aspect that varies at the hands of both nurture and nature. Ergo, if the illusion of reality is neither singular nor absolute in truth then why are our policies which govern our lives rich in ethics that boast undertones and overtones implying absolute truth? As one who aspires to be no less a Social Scientist, it became clear that I had an obligation to be well-rounded in the social sciences and humanities as well as to become literate in the natural sciences. The reason for this hypothesis is very simple; if one is to argue cogently on matters of human social welfare, then one is almost surely required to know his origins from which he is likely arguing. Furthermore, one who engages in this practice is also to make sense of his theoretical orientations through the medium that is philosophy. Certainly, it is through philosophy that I learned to correlate these facts into valid premises and argue them cogently with the utilization of logical propositions. But, most importantly it is through philosophy that I became familiar with human ethics and morality. Surely, it is this aspect of social theory that provided my research with a fundamental direction. This is the moment that my work begun to receive the acclaim and notice that had instated me as a standout above my peers, which includes an offer for nomination into the Honors Program at Mt. San Antonio College as well as three of the four recommendations from my professors for this graduate program. In utilizing each aspect of my well-rounded undergraduate education I have conducted extensive research on a broad range of topics including the origins of marriage and the future of monogamy; the applications of evolutionary psychology to sex crimes; Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, and their applications to social reality; media, propaganda, logical fallacies, and society; Plato’s Cave and Postmodern Sociology; and certainly not least is my research on the sociology of drugs and drug prohibition policy in the United States. Noteworthy, is my paper Hanson, Venturelli and Fleckenstein: subject to a greater skeptical inquiry. In this piece I challenged the research of the authors of the textbook Drugs & Society. My premise is that the claims argued and published by Hanson et al are highly suspicious in terms of their use of outdated research, retracted studies, and fallacies in stating arguments against certain illicit drugs. In preparation for this paper I replicated the research by Hanson et al in addition to my conducting own research. Over the course of my investigation I found evidence of erroneous claims and arguments that were made from retracted data. In addition, a good portion of Hanson et al’s claims made about MDMA were based on premises that have since been argued against successfully in laboratories with the use of brain scans. However, Hanson et al have failed to make mention of that. Moreover, among a variety of sources I used in my research was that which was co-authored by UC Santa Cruz researcher Craig Reinarman, Crack in the Rearview Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology (2004). The utilization of the Reinarman et al piece was to argue a rebuttal against Hanson et al’s insistence at the crack-baby myth. The conclusion of my research was a success; despite the fact that my esteemed instructor is a 25 year veteran of Los Angeles County Sheriffs NARCO division and my argument against his book; I was awarded 55 out of 50 points in a course with no extra-credit points and finished the course in the 98 percent range. The inference that I hope is evident at this point is my application of an interdisciplinary approach. In listening to lectures on Affect Theory by Deborah Gould, PhD, I felt a sense of relief in knowing that I am all over the place in terms of theoretical inclusions. Dr. Gould’s theories which span across aspects of politics to sexuality are nonetheless interconnected within a broader body of coherent social theory. Furthermore, Dr. Gould validates her argument in terms of cognition as such pertains to society at large. Certainly, not to be overshadowed as it is highly appropriate to the study of sociology is life experience. Outside the confines of academia where I am likely to be considered a highly regarded prospect for academic scholarship, I am a nontraditional student who is a virtual specimen of sociological theory. I have spent most of my life attempting to survive in low-wage occupations with little to nil in terms of viable prospects for upward mobility. Having lived through this reality I made many observations pertaining to myself and my peers as well as our surroundings. It was upon becoming more conscious of these observations that I began to hypothesis about society. Most intriguing was the fact that so much of what I began to theorize about stood out to me much like a mathematical equation might to a mathematician or perhaps a physicist. Miraculously, many of those hypotheses I have been able to validate in argument though certainly with an added richness of depth. However, my desire is no longer with simply thinking about such theories, but my desire is to test them in route to aiding in the movement for social change. At my current institution I have been challenged by a student body and faculty that one may conclude as largely conservative. Certainly, one could assert that my work as well as I has been in a virtual lions den. In addition, to my stance on drug prohibition and utilitarian ethics and public policy, I have also been prompted to defend the inalienable rights of the LGBT community using arguments derived from the aforementioned disciplines in addition to biology, anthropology and history. However, such does not imply any negative connotation whatsoever. Contrary, I feel that working in such an environment has made me stronger in terms of logic and debate which is largely what academia and academic research is all about.