Essays, Stories, Adventures, Dreams
Chronicles of a Footloose Forester
By Dick Pellek

Round Pegs and Square Holes

PhD Committee:

Now, Candidate for the PhD, I want you to give this committee your views on the idea of putting round pegs in square holes and square pegs in round holes.  Your response will be fully evaluated by this committee.

Candidate Pegleg:

Candidate Pegleg knows that not only does his answer require much more than, Yes, it can be done in both cases; or No, it can’t be done.  He knows that several considerations are in play and the depth of his answer will influence the committee’s opinion on whether or not he is an original thinker, a deep thinker, or a shallow and perfunctory thinker.  His oral exam is on the line, in more ways than one.

Pegleg also knows that their mere posing of an idea using their words, form a point of view that is theirs alone, in this case.  True, others use the round peg-square hole, or square peg-round hole cliché, but probably not with the intention of probing an issue that is seemingly more rhetorical than introspective.  Pegleg knows that PhD committees use pimping as a tool to find out what a candidate says, how he says it, and the depth to which the answers are given. In short, the committee wants to explore the thinking process and the thoughts of the candidate.

After a very brief pause, Candidate Pegleg begins:

With all due respect, we all should begin by noting that there is a difference between putting a round peg in a square hole and putting that same round peg into a square hole, or through that hole, so that it falls out or down.  It depends on the context that is associated with both the peg and the hole.  You might call it situational ethics, speaking in the manner of a social circumstance.  One point of view does not satisfy all situations and one answer does not address all the possible circumstances.  With your indulgence, I would like to enumerate a few of those situations and circumstances, in expressing my personal viewpoint. At the same time, I know that the enumeration will not be comprehensive or complete.  Nobody has all the answers and neither do I.

 ****

1.  Starting with a round peg, it can sit on a square hole but not go into that hole if the dimensions of the peg are greater that the dimensions of the hole.  If it is perfectly balanced, the round peg will stand up; if not, it will fall over due to gravity, wind, or some other outside force. Physical forces are part of the existential circumstances.

2.  If the diameter of the round peg is slightly less than the length and width of the square hole, the peg will go into and through the hole. 

3.  If the peg has a diameter slightly larger than the dimensions of the hole but is tapered, the round peg will go into the hole, but there will be a tight fit.  The tightness of the fit depends on the taper. It should stand erect, if that is the objective.  

4.  If a round peg is expected to serve as an anchor of some sort, the length of the peg should be adequate to meet the needs of the job; and the square hole should serve as a brace to keep the round peg from shifting around.

5.  What is true from a physical standpoint with regard to round pegs going into square holes, also holds true when square pegs are destined for round holes.  Anyone contemplating those two scenarios has to assume that it is possible to begin with materials that can be cut or shaped to meet the objectives.

6.  In life, we have people who seem not to fit into the circumstances in which they find themselves; and we notice that.  We can choose to cut or shape them with scalpels to improve their physical bodies.  We might attempt to alter their way of thinking through drug therapy.  Or we might reject them and their plight outright, by declaring that you can’t pound a round peg into a square hole or a square peg into a round hole.

Empathetic people think about the other person and how they might feel about their circumstances.  We can choose to listen to their views, we can choose to consider and deliberate on those views, or we can ignore them and move on to wherever we think we are going in life.  Helping them might be possible, but the last thing we ought to do is dismiss them as square pegs in round holes.  Maybe they are; or maybe they are round pegs in square holes.  Life is not a matter of stereotypic personalities and stereotypic viewpoints.  We can fashion square pegs to go into round holes: and we can accommodate people who are different, if we just allow our better selves to respond.  

****  Did you notice that the graphic is a round peg in a round hole, and not a round peg in a square hole?  The request for a graphic was solicited from AI sources.