[begin transmission 1/?]

What's that? What do I do for a living? Are you sure you want to tread those waters?
No, I'm not an English or philosophy teacher. Nor do I live in a Christian convent.
I'm an electrical engineer. Underwhelmingly that's my quite plain, current title that doesn't do my skillset and duties justice.
Electrical engineering is supremely interdisciplinary, encompassing a variety of fields. Certainly more than you'd think.

It is not limited to being bent over a workbench soldering circuitry together, even though that can be fun in its own right.
For me that was all in a past life, when I was a hungry (literally and figuratively) undergraduate student.
Burnt fingers and popped capacitors...the joys and horrors of analogue electronics. All in a rite of passage, I suppose.
No, these days the source of my headaches are computer simulations, particularly as they pertain to the defense industry.

You wouldn't know it by talking to me, as I tend to shy away from discussing technical matters with laypeople.
So instead I vociferously state my opinions on things nearly everyone has input on: politics and culture.
Also, dealing w/ impersonal, cold machines and sterile mathematics day-in and day-out makes me crave the humanities.
Okay, so I'll try to explain things as simply and cleanly as possible; but these things are complex: consider this fair warning.

If you're mathematically-inclined, get your coffee, get your pastry, settle in and enjoy the brief lecture.
If you're not...I promise, we'll take things slow. I'll start w/ the basics; it's good practice for me anyway.

Easy Mode: Systems Theory

Let us first begin w/ an explanation of systems theory (if you really want to sound highfalutin, cybernetics; the term has assumed a very specific meaning nowadays, but has classically referred to the field of automatic control systems). In engineering, we are concerned w/ the manipulation of material and forces for the betterment of humanity. Towards this end, we organize the environment into systems: sets of components in the environment that are interconnected and embody principles that characterize it as a whole. These systems can be electrical, mechanical, biological, social, financial, etc. in nature. Now, it isn't enough to organize the environment into these discretized modules label them as systems and call it a day; we also need to be able to control these systems to harness them towards our ends. Here we cross into the realm of control theory, my formal academic field of study (to those interested, you'll find control engineering curricula within the mechanical or electrical engineering departments of most universities). In control engineering, we discretize systems further into sub-components, the central component being known as the process. Conceptualize the process as a component that simply receives an input and causally spits out an output, as illustrated below:

In order to control this process, we need to introduce components to the system. We can throw in a controller, the component that generates a control signal (more on that in a bit--sit tight) and an actuator, the component that takes the generated control signal and affects the process in some manner. This assembly, of a controller, actuator, and process is known canonically as an open-loop control system:

Notice here that the input into the open-loop control system is labeled as 'desired output response'. This is critical, as recall that we wish to harness these systems towards our ends (that is, we have a desired response from our system). Also notice that the output of the open-loop control system is labeled as 'output'. This is different from 'desired output'. Thus, I hope that you can logically infer that we can have an output that is not what we want. This is important to keep in mind, as the difference between output response and desired output response (AKA error) is absolutely INTEGRAL in describing the next tier of sophistication: the closed-loop control system. A closed-loop control system is identical to an open-loop control system, with the characteristic difference being that the output response is detected by sensors and fedback to the controller. Below is the block diagram:

So now that we've described a system abstractly to an adequate level of sophistication, it's time to illustrate a real-world example. What's something that is nearly universally experienced and understood...ah, alright. Let's use the boring, textbook example of driving a car. In this scenario, the closed-loop control system is you (the driver) and the car. The car is the process, your foot on the acceleration pedal is the actuator, and your brain is the controller. As you push down on the acceleration, the car moves forward; you see with your eyes the car moving forward, and you feel the acceleration with the proprioreceptors in your body. Therefore your eyes and proprioreceptors are sensors that feedback signals to your brain. If you notice that the road is disappearing under you car at an alarming rate, and you're being plastered into the back of the driver's seat, it is probably an indication that you're going much too fast; your brain will compute this difference between what is actually happening and what you want to happen (error) and generate a signal (control signal) to your foot to ease up on the acceleration.

To cite an example of a more engineering flavor, you could easily see how systems and control theory applies to robotics. To bring, say, the end effector (hand) of a robotic arm to a fixed point in 3D space, you must apply a particular voltage to a servomotor (conceptualize these as the 'joints' of the arm) to cause it to rotate, moving the attached linkage (the 'bone' of the arm) through space. Information regarding the position of the linkage could be coded by the resistance exhibited by a potentiometer (an electrical component that assumes a particular resistance depending on it's angular position) located at the joint.

Effectively, your potentiometer is the sensor, the servomotor is the actuator, and a computer or microcontroller would be the controller that receives the potentiometer data (i.e. a resistance value) and calculates an appropriate control signal (i.e. a command voltage) to send to the servomotor based off of that data. In order for the end effector of the robotic arm to be brought to a particular point in space, a specific voltage has to be sent to the servomotor. The voltage sent can be too little, resulting in us failing to reach the intended point and feelings of disappointment; or too much, resulting in us overshooting the intended point, sometimes to comical result:

Now, the above scenarios consider closed-loop control systems. This can easily be adapted into an open-loop control system. Merely cut off the feedback loop by driving with a blindfold on. Exciting as this may sound, I would not recommend this for any non-YoRHa units operating in the field. Although an open-loop control system sounds more basic than a closed-loop control system, it is still a very important concept to understand, as there are several real-world challenges concerned with the control of these types of systems.

I think that's a good place to stop for now. Most of this was conceptual in nature, making for a light and easy read (at least I hope). In the next section we will get a bit more technical, as I'll have to introduce dynamics into the conversation. But no worries, we won't do anything too crazy.

[end transmission 1/?]

 

[begin transmission]

Professor, we have a problem.

Between you and I, that is. There's a fault between us, formed by a difference in thought and opinion.
For me such a difference is tolerable and not insurmountable in maintaining a strong friendship, but maybe it's less tolerable for you? I'm not sure. If I had to guess, no, it wouldn't be too much of a challenge for you, considering that you've managed to befriend people of Neo-Fascist ideology, despite your political leanings. In short, you're not opposed to listening, entertaining, and otherwise engaging amicably with others that think differently from yourself. That is not the issue; I could be wrong, maybe it is too steep of an incline to traverse, but I think I'm right in this instance.

Your parting words, "Alright, well I made a pact to myself that I wouldn't stick around people who are more interested in appearances than telling the truth." are particularly troublesome. For one, I've never lied about my sex. Anyone that has asked me directly and in earnest I have equally answered directly and earnestly. Granted, I qualify this with the admission that I have never volunteered the information freely; that is NOT the same as being untruthful. I have said it several times before and by now it is a relatively well-known fact that I am a very private person. I don't pry into people's lives without their permission and I expect the same courtesy be rendered unto me.

Why are you so secretive, 2B? What have you got to hide? What are you afraid of? Apart from the more sterile reasons, of not wanting my personal matters to contaminate my objectives with Lunar and threads, there are several personal reasons. The first and most readily understandable is that I am very selective with who I share details about my life with. Admittedly, I am slow to build trust with (keyword: slow. Spare me the juvenile sentiment of being so damaged you cannot ever trust), and that turns off a lot of people as it makes me come off as impersonal, slightly cold, maybe even outright hostile in certain circumstances. Why? The typical, expected response first: I have lived long and thoroughly enough to have had my fair share of horribly close relationships. Unfortunately, even sizable emotional investment does not guarantee protection from betrayal; there is no limit to the contempt of someone that is sufficiently hurt and destabilized. Sharing intimate details about yourself with another implicitly renders you vulnerable and at their mercy, for the knowledge you impart into them can be readily weaponized against you. They know exactly what stings, and so they know precisely where to strike. You're guilty of this type of betrayal, and honestly it has lead me to believe that my trust was indeed misplaced. Nevertheless, I think my reticence is understandable in this regard.

The second response: I do not have the time nor energy to maintain several consequential, sentimentally-rich relationships. Every decision we make comes at an opportunity cost, and that includes who we choose to become close to. Every minute spent in meaningful engagement with someone is at expense of a minute spent in meaningful engagement with someone else. I cherish my closest friends, the ones that have been with me for decades now, and so I do not take the sharing of personal details and connecting with others so lightly. The people I choose to invest myself in are privileged in the manner that they receive my priority. Yes, yes, it all sounds so conceited; allow me to temper that by mentioning that I consider myself privileged whenever someone shares their time, attention, sincere thoughts, and personal details with me. Unquestionably it goes both ways.

This is something I think you fail to appreciate: how much of a privilege it is to get to truly know someone. With all due respect, Professor, sometimes I get the sensation that you are not engaged in conversation with someone--particularly when you are attempting to help them with sagely advice--to help them them in proper, but to test and perhaps confirm ideas that you are enamored with at the time. I am not denigrating you here, nor am I saying that your advice is unhelpful (it is, which is why I'd hope you'd eventually come around, read this, and return); in fact, I think it is indicative of a scientific mindset, wanting to confirm/reject hypotheses. However, you and I are both aware of/harsh critics of scientism and can recognize that there is a place and time for scientific thinking.

Getting back to the situation at hand, I'm reminded of something I read from Erich Fromm. Paraphrasing, there is a need for humanity to gain knowledge, particularly knowledge of how other people tick, and in this pursuit "a child takes something apart, breaks it up in order to know it; or it takes an animal apart; cruelly tears off the wings of a butterfly in order to know it, to force its secret." . I think this characterizes you to the T. A modern, scientific mind--a well-meaning mind--however an immature, naive, and narcissistic mind. I don't levy these criticisms against you for absolutely no reason, nor do I say these while thinking I'm absolutely clear of flaws myself. God knows how wretched I am, and I struggle with my shortcomings everyday. With that qualification in order, I think you are immature out of the unwarranted rudeness you show me and others. Naive because I don't think you've had the prerequisite experience to support half of what you claim to believe. Narcissistic since you refuse to recognize your own ignorance, and an air of entitlement stemming from your expectation for me to answer to you.

The fact of the matter is that I do not owe you answers. You can ask me questions, and I try to provide an honest answer to the best of my ability. In this particular matter, there are some issues that I'm still working out and I simply haven't formulated a solution quite yet. And still, all the same, it is my prerogative to refuse to answer. Call it cowardice, call it laziness, call it hypocrisy--I already addressed this. I do not wish to share this aspect of my life with you. Take the hint, think as you will, and move on. But from as far as I've been able to tell you haven't be capable of doing so; no, instead you've devolved towards taking little passive-aggressive potshots at me and mine in the general chat. It's left me disappointed, because I expected so much better from you. You're capable of intelligent, sophisticated thought, and to see your resort to this is such a damn waste. You've insisted this is a form of constructive "bullying" on your part; a "masculine" way of getting people back on track. Well, allow me to insist in kind that your bullying isn't winning any hearts and minds, and I'm informed that several of the others have often raised eyebrows to some of the things you have said. So please, reevaluate and reconsider your approach, as you are only beclowning yourself and having the opposite intended effect. If you want people to listen to you, be someone worthy of respect. Respect as a man, in turn, is earned from competence and magnanimity. It isn't extracted from others through shame.

Masculinity is obviously very important to you, something that ought to be valued. I'm entirely in agreement; in fact we have common objectives in that we wish to restore some semblance of pride in masculinity within the hearts of our young men. It's become strikingly apparent that we differ in methodology. That's okay, but I am telling you that your implementations are in desperate need of refinement. My suggestions? Quit shaming guys for demonstrating the tiniest bit of femininity; that is what got us into this crisis of masculinity in the first place. Stop disparaging women for being women; complaining and insulting women is the mark of a pathetic incel. Relax your preoccupation with gender; seeing issues through only one lens makes you blind to the larger picture. These are all suggestions and by no means are you obligated to enact all of them or even some of them. But they are criticisms made in earnest, so please do at least take them into consideration.

Why the hell should I listen to you, 2B? You're not one to lecture about masculinity. This very mindset seems to be in vogue these days and it is worthy of contempt. Races cannot comment on the plight of other races; heterosexuals cannot comment on gay or trans issues; men cannot comment on the experience of women. For all of the preaching of diversity, some on your side of the aisle are very unreceptive towards the input of non-members of the group. Need I remind you that often times it takes a certain feminine influence and charm to remind a man of his masculinity? I am perfectly qualified to remark on matters of masculinity; because you feel threatened by this, I cannot help but feel perhaps you need to work on your own credentials and be less concerned with mine.

[end transmission]