ChatGPT or Insanity

One of the reasons I was eager to set up this blog is that I ran into a paper the other day and it absolutely left me dumbfounded. . . or in a more Archie McNally turn of phrase, . . . found me dumb.

The assignment is to peer review one of our classmates' papers. The paper happens to be on our personal philosophy of inquiry as it pertains to qualitative research, and specifically, qualitative research frameworks. Already, as you can tell, this is fairly heady stuff. These are not easy-to-read papers. BUT, when I read this classmate's paper, . . speechless. 

To begin, let's look at my first, or opening, paragraph to my own paper. This is the introduction that leads the reader from the shallow end and gets them ready for the deep end. Mine reads:

Understanding my philosophy of inquiry is crucial and foundational in preserving the integrity of the studies I conduct for the construction industry. The work I perform at my organization focuses on education, credentialing, and apprenticeships for the craft skilled trades in the construction industry.  Therefore, this reflection regarding my personal philosophical stance is not merely an academic exercise; it is a means of understanding and establishing my practice as a researcher who bridges the worlds of industry and education. As Creswell and Poth (2018) note, reflection like this helps to ground researchers in the assumptions that guide their methodological and interpretive choices.

This is the whole intro for me. Other paragrpahs set up the rest of the paper, but that's my first paragraph. Not terribly challenging to read, but hard to read if only because it's such an arcane topic. Still, it's a set up. 

Here's my classmate's:

Exploring the depths of individual perceptions and values is a critical protocol in the grander systematic process of dissecting how these unique traits usher the direction(s) a person takes when conducting qualitative research. Our unique compositions are forged by the cultural and social forces that are as prevalent as they are invasive to our natural environment. And it is within this setting where we seek a coherent, if not a firm grasp of a reality shaped by both our pursuit of the universals that serve as the foundations of truth along with the metaphysical world which tests the depths of cognitive rationality.  

This isn't even the entire first paragraph . . . there's more!  Also, there's more even more complex passages. Here's one:

To bear my soul, to elucidate my purpose is to emancipate myself as a researcher from the internal indecorous elements that have the capacity to corrupt the very thing I set out to purify through the process of qualitative examination. Rather than indiscriminately arranging the tenets of my being to then be evaluated by the critical lens of others, using philosophical rumination as an instrument of expression allows for transparency and conviction to congeal into principles of personal practice. Furthermore, espousing an individualized philosophy of inquiry is a personally freeing endeavor as it liberates me from the underlying biases, the innate quirks, as well as evolving psyche that bogs down productivity and/or the ignorance of the censorious who are far too quick to cast aspersions upon others.  

It goes on and on like that for pages and pages! 

I felt almost that he asked ChatGPT for alot of help, but I don't even know if ChatGPT can be this convoluted and complex. Wouldn't ChatGPT provide some simplicity? Or maybe he said it's for a PhD class, and it had to be challenging to read. Regardless, it's absurd in it's confusion and complexity if you ask me. 

Here's a snippet from his ontology section:

Coexisting in a world of alternative perspectives requires respecting the variances in which each individual interprets the salient, the subtle, and the seemingly indiscernible fractions that come together to create the foundation of their reality. Because of this willingness to accept a variety in philosophical inquiry I must be cognizant of the external resistance that accompanies entrenching oneself in a designated lane of ontology. For example, the ideological principles of certain religions place the cognition of an individual’s existence in the hands of a divine medium whereas those who are secular and/or agnostic in their conceptualization of ‘self and other’ tend to position reality as a collaborative effort between person (self) and the tangible world (the other) they inhabit. This dichotomy in the formation of an individual’s reality is the impetus for why I believe a person has the right to interpret their existence without hindrance. However, one must be aware that a rigid and/or an esoteric ontological perspective has a higher propensity to be questioned by those who adhere to conventional views of how humans perceive themselves in relation to the world around them. 

The genesis of knowledge can be traced back to the innate instincts that are entrenched into a human’s DNA before they leave their mother’s womb. We know life is sustained by nourishment via the consumption of material matter without ever being told so. Yet, we lack the knowledge, and more importantly the physical capabilities, to obtain food once we are born without the assistance of a physically mature individual. This reliance on others then ensures a person’s acquisition of information is co-created via natural assimilation practices (cultural, religious, social, geographical commonalities) for an unspecified period of time. The inability to determine when the construction of knowledge ceases to be a joint venture is the result of the alteration in our life’s path impacting how we access information/data as well as the capacity to communicate a profound revelation to others either in general or without skewing the objective facts of the discovery. 

While everyone is afforded the privilege of contributing to the formation of new knowledge, no person or cohort has the absolute authority to validate their findings as a precedent which others will use as a catalyst for additional inquiry. When the principles of epistemology are held hostage by an oligarchical system, any advancement or refinements in the truths that guide life and facilitate further inquiry are unfortunately prone to censoring, manipulation, or being withheld completely from the masses. Therefore, in the ethos of Friere, we must all be equal shareholders in the creation of knowledge as well as the alteration of existing information to ensure the intrusive, self-serving entities are unable seize control of the either formation or dissemination of fact/truth.

How he applies his thoughts to research:

In terms of how the individual pieces of research, or approach, fuse together to form a practical research design? I struggle to find the expectations associated with the prompt. Arbitrarily speaking, a well orchestrated case study on a legal Nevada brothel has the potential to shed significant light on the social, financial, and ethical nuances of legal prostitution in the United States. Interviewing and observing employees, customers, government officials, local residents, political figures, relevant scholars, etc would provide tremendous contextual insight into how the service can improve an individual’s sexual and mental health. 

Obviously, it's absurd. It's hard to read, it's borderline insane if you ask me. I've read some hard articles in my life; this one takes the cake and leaves them all in the dust. I've rarely seen anyone spend so much time and effort writing so little that can be read, understood, or processed by a sane thinking individual.