A professor conducted an unexpected “experiment” — putting a live goldfish into a blender and asking for a volunteer to press the button — at a summer camp for high-school students. It startled the students and sparked controversy and a public discussion.
The incident occurred on early this month, in a course about critical thinking given by a professor at National Cheng Kung University’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, as part of a 14-day National Taiwan University humanities and social science camp. It became public knowledge after a student wrote about it on an online forum, saying that the professor took out a blender and told the class about an art installation at the Trapholt museum in Denmark in 2000.
The student said the professor pressed the button to show that the blender was working, and later put a live goldfish into it, which startled the students, some of whom screamed or gasped. He then told the students that they could leave the classroom if they were scared, and about 20 of the 200 students did so.
The professor reportedly encouraged the remaining students to press the blender’s button, offering a book he wrote as a gift to volunteers. He asked the class to applaud when a student walked up to the stage to press the button. Fortunately, the blender had been secretly unplugged, and the fish was unharmed.
The student said they felt that they were the subjects of the experiment, and that many of them broke down and cried, as they experienced a combined feeling of shock, remorse, discontent and discomfort, while the professor laughed as if he seemed pleased with his successful experiment.
While the professor on July 12 apologized for any emotional distress he might have caused to the students, he also said that his goal was to use the “event” and “feelings” to inspire them to engage critically and discuss life’s meaning, and values and attitudes towards it.
The professor said the aim was not to kill the goldfish, but to inspire the students, and that he had asked the class to applaud those who left before the experiment, as they had followed their conscience and had the courage to listen to their own feelings.
Despite its goal of stimulating critical thinking, whether the experiment achieved its intended effect is questionable, as many students suffered emotionally, but were left confused about the experiment’s purpose, and only remembered applauding the volunteers, instead of those who opted out.
Ethical issues were also involved: The experiment was conducted without the students’ fully informed consent, and the possible risks were not carefully considered, despite the students being given the option to opt out and being repeatedly told that the experiment would benefit them.
Moreover, the experiment was conducted using deception, which, according to the institutional review board policies that govern research with human participants, can only be allowed after a careful review of whether it is necessary, of the appropriateness of the study population and of the potential harms — including damage to self-esteem and leaving the participant feeling ashamed, guilty, stressed or embarrassed.
However, while the professor praised the students who opted out for following their conscience, the experiment could have also induced conflicted insight (the unexpected realization of their flaws, causing emotional pain, such as shame, guilt and anxiety) among the students who remained in the classroom, which was not addressed afterward.
It is crucial that students learn critical thinking and that they be encouraged to think about the meaning of and respect for life, but educators must align their educational goals and methods, or courses might leave a deep (and possibly negative) impression on students, while the intended lesson might remain unlearnt.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS