Ok, so here is my extended essay for undergrad admissions to UChicago. Do y'all think this is what they are looking for?
Option 2: Describe your non-scientific method
I want to talk about Coffeenomics. Coffeenomics, broadly defined, is the free discussion and creation of ideas among friends over a hot beverage. It is a favorite pastime of teenagers looking to flex their fledgling philosophical muscles, and it is an alternative to the scientific method.
Specifically, Coffeenomics is the "the law of coffee" - the open, free-wheeling discussion and creation of ideas that inevitably arises among friends drinking coffee. Coffeenomics also borrows phonetically from its most common point of discussion: economics. When my friends and I partake in Coffeenomics, the conversation always seems to shift toward economics. One such example is when my friend Sam and I were sitting and sipping Starbucks coffee while my car tires were being rotated. The conversation turned toward my senior project, a study of poverty in developing countries. We began discussing the poverty cycle, and I shared my ideas on the elusive "poverty trap zone," first developed by Jeffrey Sachs: the idea that extremely low earners will never be able to amass wealth unless they receive outside capital. Graphically, this is plotted on an elongated "S-curve," with "income today" holding the x-axis and "income tomorrow" holding the y-axis.
Low earners inhabit the bottom curve of the S, where income today is always greater than income tomorrow. Sam and I found ourselves in an intense debate over the existence of the poverty trap zone, and our conversation took an interesting turn: what if, as economists, we could influence the shape of the income curve and so affect the poverty trap zone? Insurance, savings, and loan institutions that exist specifically to aid the poor could allow the poor to amass wealth without outside capital and help change the income curve from an S shape to more of a straight line. I attribute this hypothesis to Coffeenomics, for I doubt if I would have come up with such an unorthodox idea on my own.
What are the benefits of Coffeenomics? As a brainstorming and idea-testing tool, Coffeenomics has advantages over working alone. Self-criticism is inherently difficult: coffeenomics exposes us to others' criticism, which points out details and flaws that we are unable or unwilling to see in our own arguments. A single mind is an awful place for an idea to flourish. In addition to bringing many minds to bear on a subject, the inherent informality of Coffeenomics allows for a diverse spread of ideas to be heard, both experienced and inexperienced. This diversity of viewpoints, for example, a 'mathlete' weighing in on a conversation about Classical music, can result in surprisingly creative and simple outcomes. Many minds working together on a subject, discussing and thinking freely, can be much more effective than one mind working in stoic solitude.
As can be imagined, Coffeenomics is often at odds with the traditional scientific method. The traditional scientific method requires observation, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and finally conclusion. This is a very precise and structured way of exploring new knowledge. Coffeenomics takes the idea that exploring new knowledge should be just that - exploring. The organic nature of conversation and open dialogue ensure that weak or sterile ideas are abandoned, their best parts recycled and assimilated into new, stronger ideas, which are then bombarded with criticisms until they too are recycled. This creates a smorgasbord of sound, weighty hypotheses ready to be tested, as opposed to the concrete conclusion reached through traditional scientific inquiry. Coffeenomics is, therefore, not a substitute to the scientific method, but more of an augmentation of its first two steps: a way to realize new hypotheses or confirm existing ones.
To paraphrase the conclusion of a recent session of Coffeenomics my friends and I shared: people do not always act rationally. The traditional scientific method is a powerful, unyielding tool that seeks to confirm or eliminate a single hypothesis, often conceived by a single individual. As such, the traditional scientific method is at risk from human irrationality, which will overlook a fatal flaw to see its idea flourish or linger on damning evidence to prevent its hypothesis' destruction. Through the power of free conversation, Coffeenomics brings together disparate ideas from all walks of life, and crafts the most powerful elements of each into a series of sturdy, inventive hypotheses. These hypotheses, hardened by the fires of heated conversation, are ready to be evaluated by the traditional scientific method.
Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!
