Pointless Philosophy

San Diego Day 2 27/01/2012

2012-01-27T23:59:00.008+08:00

It's another very cheery looking day in San Diego, but my day pretty much began with a rant from the hostel's reception guy. I woke up sinfully at 2pm, so I was in a hurry to get to the convention center to attend some of the talks. On the way out, I passed the reception dude and he was being friendly (as most Americans I've come across appear to be) and asked where I was headed to. So I told him that I was going for the psychology conference at the convention center. That got him started, with him asking, "what are you gonna do with a psychology degree? It don't pay shit man."

I can't reproduce exactly the entire dialogue, but the idea is this. He thinks there is no market for psychology and, if there is, it's a retarded market that doesn't pay well. As I wasn't sure how much he knew about what falls under the huge blanket term of psychology, I told replied that it really depends. His misgivings soon made sense, or at least I could understand. He eventually revealed that his girlfriend is pursuing a Masters in marriage therapy and counseling. They're getting buried in debt from her school fees, since she goes to a private school, and he's very sure she's only capable of finding work that will pay $20-30k per year after she graduates. If she doesn't go into the marriage and counseling stuff, she won't be able to get a job because nobody hires psychologists, or at least what he thinks psychologists are, because "every idiot out on the street can be a psychologist." And she still expects him to pay for her daily stuff, so he's visibly stressed out and pissed off.

I tried to familiarise him with broader ideas of what psychology can be, although I didn't refute his notions of psychology because I can't disagree with him on the fate of his girlfriend's education and employment, and indeed yes, compared to many other jobs, psychology jobs generally aren't the highest paying of the lot. The US government typically associates psychology with health, and we know what sort of stance the US government has when it comes to providing funds for health. And, if I'm not wrong, I think it is true that many Americans see pursuing psychology as a backdoor career if you can't do anything else. In Singapore, on the other hand, relative to the US, people do not simply jump into a psychology-related career and spend years on it expecting little financial payoff - the norms tend not to guide thinking and behaviour in this manner. And for those who have prudently chosen to do psychology (I must emphasize once again that this is relative to the US), there are job opportunities that are adequately emphasized by the Singapore government, with particular focus on behaviourally driven research guiding the country's policies. Singapore's academic landscape is also relatively young and new universities can be expected to emerge, with opportunities for professors and lecturers.

I can sympathize with the dude though - with only his hostel reception job (I'm not sure if he owns or manages the hostel; I hope he does), his debts won't go away and his wife may not be able to help much, especially since "she'll probably wanna start a family and then we'll also have to buy stupid shit. This is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because the rich can get into good jobs and won't have to make stupid decisions like getting a job in some psychology thing. If Obama gets re-elected, we're all gonna be dead. This country is a stupid shithole!"

So, on that note, I took a pensive walk to the convention center (it's a 2-mile walk by the way - lots of good walking exercise everyday), pondering his outburst at and hatred for the US government and, presumably in an associated manner, his country as his last words indicated.

I think most citizens are generally prone to voicing dissatisfaction with their country, and it often has to do with some government-related issue. People are always sensitive to the ways they aren't benefitting from the system. However, when I look at Americans, I have this feeling that beneath the veneer of expressed unhappiness about their lives as Americans, they still love their country. It is zealous, it is irrational, but regardless whether they can back up their love for country logically, there is a deep-seated patriotism nonetheless. That stops Americans, even the unhappy ones, from leaving the country for good. I think it might have something to do with an inflated sense of community; things like having an ideology to die for, fanatically loving a national sport, having personalities and celebrities they're proud of. On the other hand, when I think hard about Singaporeans, I'm not sure if Singaporeans really love their country. But there is so much complaining on the ground and yet, they will also probably never leave. One of the reasons I speculated is that most Singaporeans just won't survive if they had to live overseas; Singaporeans are a comfort-loving lot and all that noise is just lots of complaining going on. Of course, I'm not taking anything away from those who really do feel attached to Singapore and love their country.

So, I'm back at the convention centre. I attended a few very interesting talks, mostly evolution-oriented.

One looked at the typical psychological concept, Belief in God. The gist is that (if we are allowed to be scientific and amoral about it) God serves an adaptive societal function - it allows altruistic punishments to be meted out while minimizing the costs to the punisher. Because if let's say you were attempting to punish a transgressor, society will definitely benefit but you could incur a cost to yourself since attempts to punish a person can result in retaliation, or you might be seen as an overly aggressive, violent person, etc. So, in other words, societies create gods to outsource the costs of punishment to them, thereby reducing the cost and responsibilities of the persons or institutions dishing out the punishments. This talk also showed that Belief in God was insufficient as a psychological concept, because priming a Belief in God can sometimes lead to conflicting outcomes. Instead, God is in the details - whether people believe in a benevolent, loving God or a domineering, punishing God can lead to different outcomes. In a few creative behavioural studies, it was found that people cheated more when they were primed with ideas of a forgiving God than when they were primed with a punishing God. An analysis of 53 cultures with data on whether they believed in heaven or hell and their crime rates also showed that cultures that believe dominantly in heaven have higher crime rates than cultures that dominantly believe in hell. While certainly correlational, I'd say this finding is still pretty fascinating.

Sat through two other very interesting talks that touched on dopamine receptor dimorphism and serotonin transporter dimorphism, and their effects on prosocial behaviour and religion. But I shan't go through those haha.

I had an hour and a half to kill before Jolene presents her poster, so I decided to get some pizza (probably the cheapest meal you can get in the US). I went to this place called Berkeley Pizza and tried to order a slice and a beer (that's my almost-finished pizza and brown ale in the picture - forgot to take a shot before chowing down!). The cashier suggested that I take up the two slices and a beer offer instead. I decided against it, because (1) I only wanted to eat one slice, and (2) I was naturally assuming that, while I would be economically getting more for my money to take up the offer, the one slice and a beer combination should still be somewhat cheaper overall. I didn't check the prices. The guy said okay and served.

Guess what? One slice and a beer cost $9.50. Two slices and a beer? $8. What the? I guess the cashier must've thought I was a retard, since the deal was meant to make it a no-brainer that we should all get two slices instead of one. But, that simply leaves me to conclude logically that if I really wanted to only eat one slice and a beer, I should still have bought two slices and a beer anyway, and throw one slice away. Amerika!

Berkeley's Pizza was reeling Star Wars IV on DVD though, pretty awesome.

Went for Jolene's poster session, and mingled a lot with other people while checking out their posters. I came across quite a number of posters that focused on the relationship between women's alcohol consumption and their subsequent or associated lack of sexual inhibition. Turns out they were all from the same university. I tried to probe them on what they thought the implications of their studies might be. They all remained tight-lipped like some conspiracy was happening.

One study that stuck in my head was on achievement-oriented individuals and how success or failure in a task led to changes in their collective self-esteem. When achievement oriented people failed in a task, they were more likely to dislike their group and want to dissociate themselves from those they are associated with. On the other hand, success in a task didn't make them like their groups more, because they were already expected to succeed anyway. Competitive rats.

Had fried cod fish tacos for dinner at the Tin Fish. Really super, and that's a huge-ass taco in the photo! You probably can't tell, because the Pepsi next to it is colossal too.

A photo of a bustling Friday night in Gaslamp Quarter.

Making my way home past some dark alleys. That's a tent with a homeless man sleeping inside. I had earlier passed another homeless beggar who had a sign next to him that read, "SHE HAD A BETTER LAWYER."

Just two streets away from me - ELM STREET. Hahah.

Tried to Skype home to make my dad happy but it turned out to be a very failed attempt because, while I could hear him, he couldn't hear me at all for some reason. I ended up writing what I wanted to say on paper and flashing it to the camera. But he still looks happy enough so I guess I'm off the hook a little now for always not calling home. Good night!

San Diego Day 1 26/01/2012

2012-01-26T23:59:00.000+08:00

I was all prepared to bear the wrath of a terrible jet-lag borne from 20 hours of traveling, but awesomely after a solid night of sleep it was gone. I was set to go at 10am today!

One night, and this is what a guy does to his room.

A view of my accommodation from the outside bathed in the light of day.

Sunny sunny San Diego, with it's cool breeze, is about a very comfortable 15 degrees Celsius in the day.

Psychic services just around the corner of my inn. Amerika!

Nothin' comes close to the Golden Coast!

I'm located right next to the inspiring waters. I need to go for a run here one of these days!

Just a submarine.

Just a ship turned into a museum.

Just some old school pirate-looking ship.

Found a place selling hotdogs. Did I mention that I love hotdogs covered with mustard and sprinkled generously with onions?!

That's just a miltary vessel with chinooks.

And just some fighter planes.

That's a giant statue replica of Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of the soldier's kiss, showing a soldier passionately kissing his love after reuniting with her at the end of WWII.

Just a carousel. These shots above are shops and eateries at the Seaport Village along the harbour.

Just a frickin' horse.

As I walked along the port towards the San Diego Convention Center, this tiny blue tank-top jogger kept lingering nearby. So I conveniently snapped a shot of her.

Stairs leading up to the convention center.

Another view of the convention center.

I got worried for a moment that I was at the wrong conference!

After registering, I decided to take a walk around the historic Gaslamp Quarter while waiting for the conference poster sessions to start. The name "Gaslamp Quarter" is a reference to the gas lamps that were common in San Diego in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The place features nice cafes, shops and picturesque architecture.

Found this hostel. At US$22 for a shared dorm, it beats the usually very competitive Hostelling International, which offers US$28 for its cheapest room. I'm thinking of shifting to here after the conference ends on Saturday! Or maybe I'll just trek to some other part of San Diego and see what I can get.

Jacques Lelong is having a 50% off lelong.

Another photo of the trolley tracks, transporting those mini trains through the roads of the city.

Spotted a zeppelin in the sky, which can only mean more advertising going on. Amerika!

Moving barriers and traffic lights, specially made for guiding trolley/car traffic, prevent cars from crossing the tracks while the trolleys are passing.

This was a big-ass pizza slice for US$3. Keeping my meals cheap!

The lit sign actually says Dick's Last Resort. I must check this out one of these days before I leave Little Italy.

Looking ace. Ready to take it away for the poster!

Finally, I'm at the conference proper in the evening, and I'm presenting my poster on the first night! As my Nokia phone camera is not quite the DSLR, I enlisted Jolene's help in taking a picture of me next to my poster with her iPhone, so that one will have to wait. Meanwhile, here's a picture of my poster, made up of A3 sheets of paper, an upgrade from the cut-up A4 papers when I was at APS!

Just a picture showing that the dude next to me is old school, cool and uses A4 paper too.

His poster showed that when people (both men and women) are primed with "ideal models" - i.e. very attractive same-sex persons - they were more likely to buy image-enhancing products, like clothes, make up, etc. We chatted, and mused about our lousy poster location - a secluded corner that did not have good human traffic - and our unsexy poster titles. Mine was "The Effects of Birth Order on Social Group Formation"; his was terrible, something like "Alterations in Consumer Behavior Due to Ideal Model Exposure" (that's a lousy attempt on my part to recall his title but it's something as dry and unappealing as that).

While standing there waiting for people to come by and chat about the poster, I thought of a hook. Whenever somebody walked by and looked vaguely interested in reading the text on the poster, I'd smile at them and say, "are you a first-born?" It did not matter whether they were first-borns, later-borns or only children - asking them the question and getting a reply did the trick 100% of the time, making them to stop and find out more. Just another one of those typical psychological hacks that exploit human social behaviour. One curious girl exclaimed, "No! Why would you think I'm a first-born?" And I replied, "well, there are naturally more first-borns in the world, since first-borns would have to come first before later-borns, so I was just trying my luck with a reasonable statistical chance of success." She couldn't stop laughing for a whole minute LOL. And it was indeed true; most people I threw that question to replied affirmatively that they were indeed oldest children, and my seemingly 'amazing' ability to predict their first-bornness probably made it more interesting to them. Additionally, if the research confirming birth order effects is true, there should be more first borns in academia anyway because first borns are supposedly more intelligent, conscientious, introverted and conservative - traits required for and associated with pursuing an academic career.

So, by the end of the poster session, I'd spoken to about 15 people and gotten 8 emails (poor ideal models dude had 3), pretty decent! One reason why I don't like to print handouts is because it allows people to get away without leaving a contact. By getting people to leave their emails on the pretext that I would send them more details on the study, I can establish contact for further collaboration. Interestingly, a girl from MSNBC (who wasn't a psychology student or academic) came for the conference to get ideas for her various columns and stopped by to chat, and was keen to follow up on this birth order effects research. Some potential media exposure sounds just about nice and useful to me!

After the poster session, Jolene, Sharon and I went for the SPSP social night held at Tivoli, a bar at Sixth Avenue and Island Street. Laysee just concussed, falling victim to jetlag. Compared to APS's social night place (named something-Buffalo), Tivoli was crappy because it was small and very warm. But we tried to make as much of the night as possible happen, having good laughs and trying to get happily married Sharon, who claims she's left her drinking and smoking days behind, to drink more. San Diego is apparently famous for its India Pale Ales, but IPA tastes like sour piss to me. Their brown ales are really good though! We ended the night at an early 11.30pm, as jetlag started getting the better of Jolene and Sharon, and Sharon has a poster to present at 8.15am tomorrow anyway. As bad as I might feel about it, I'm sure I won't be up to support her haha.

Snapped this on the way home. This 7-11 looks like a resort. Bought myself some burritos to microwave. Yums!

San Diego Day 0

2012-01-25T23:59:00.000+08:00

So I set off for San Diego! Getting up at 5am to meet a 8am flight, a grueling journey ahead awaited me: 6 hours 50 minutes from Singapore to Tokyo, a three-hour wait to transit, 8 hours 15 minutes from Tokyo to San Francisco, a seven-hour wait, and finally 1 hour 10 minutes from San Francisco to San Diego.

As usual, I'm having my drink of choice - crappy 2010 cabernet sauvignon - on the plane, in hopes of being able to get some sleep. Didn't work this time.

The first meal I got myself - a 6" buffalo chicken Subway sandwich. Nothing fantastic about it, but the Subway menu is sick with 3x more choices than the one we have in Singapore. That's a coffee from Peet's. I will have to endure tasteless, thin coffee for the next week or so.

The San Francisco airport doubles up as an exhibition centre; pretty cool! Those are classic biplanes hanging off the ceiling.

More exhibits, presumably depicting San Francisco's pop culture over the years.

The view from my travelator.

I'm finally in San Diego! One thing that traveling teaches me is the art of time-wasting. I think I'm quite capable of making hours go by like minutes while flying or taking long coach rides now.

Flying with airlines that provide video entertainment also allows me to catch up on movies. I watched Real Steel and Crazy Stupid Love - titles that I thought wouldn't be too mentally and emotionally heavy. They turned out to be pretty engaging shows! Irving and Phylicia kept waxing lyrical about Real Steel when they caught it last time, and I must say that I became a kid again because I can be a sucker for silly movies featuring fighting robots, idealistic kids and father-son related themes. I thought Crazy Stupid Love would be a really retarded romantic flick (and yeah I guess it was), and nothing else, but it turned out to be quite a funnily spun tale where it seemed like the director(s) just wanted to troll all the characters involved. Had a good laugh, and after The Ides of March I had a pretty good impression of Ryan Gosling's acting. Plus it's always fun to watch a satire about pick-up artistry.

After checking out of the airport, I waited for bus 992 that would take me to Old Town, a more central part of San Diego. I'd read in the travel guides that Little Italy featured a cluster of inexpensive places to bunk in, so I was headed there. While waiting for the bus, I got to know Karolina from Poland. It wasn't hard to see that she was headed to the SPSP conference too - she carried a huge tube that read -MPRESSION FORMA-. The 20 minute bus journey passed in a flash as we chatted. Along the way, two asian girls hopped on, and from the accent of one of them I immediately knew she was Singaporean. Might be another SPSP attendee!

I reached Old Town at about 8.30pm. It was like a ghost town, with all the shops closed and hardly a soul about. I approached a man with a baby and asked him for directions to Little Italy, and he said it's near but told me to walk indirectly around a couple of blocks. As if sensing my curiosity about the recommended route, he added, "it's safer to go by that way. I would if I were you." Hmmmm.

Anyway, there are these things called "trolleys", pseudo-trains that intermingle with traffic. It's a really nice touch to the city!

So, I set off on a hunt for a place to stay. After some shopping around for an hour and a half, I finally settle...

At US$50 a night for a private room, Harborview Inn & Suites totally trashes the rest of the competition for low price (the average price, after checking out 6 other low-cost hostels and inns, is US$70-80). This definitely doesn't beat the price of a shared dorm, but for the duration of my conference I wanted to have a private place to stay. This will work very well, thanks!

Room is ace!

There's even a microwave. Nice.

For some stupid reason, my universal plug can never get stuck into the powerpoint socket (same happened in Taiwan). So I did some improvisation.

Stocking up on grub. The chocolate milk is sinfully good.

All set for my San Diego adventure!

But this ain't SeaWorld, this is as real as it gets!!! (haha those who know it will get it)

American TV is generally very amusing and entertaining, but after a while, there is an air of over-the-top-ness about it. Watching the box feels sometimes like I'm always being sold something - an idea, a product, a value. Their advertising efforts are crazy.

SPSP 2012

2012-01-25T06:16:00.005+08:00

Time to bring some heroes down to ground.

Just Joseph Gordon-Levitt

2012-01-19T02:00:00.001+08:00

Relative

2012-01-18T13:35:00.000+08:00

When a good man and a good woman
Can't find the good in each other
Then a good man and a good woman
Will bring out the worst in the other
The bad in each other

Lab Rats that can Create Brain their own Stimulation Levers

2012-01-17T15:42:00.001+08:00

For some weird reason, I think I was dreaming about lab rats pressing on levers to electrically stimulate their brains' pleasure centres, so while lazily rolling in bed before I got up today, I was thinking that's how humans are basically behaving as our world gets more and more technologically complex.

With insights from science allowing us to reduce huge, complicated and dynamic systems into their simple causes and effects, we're able to know what causes what to a very accurate degree. We know what drives us at the deepest level. We're not that different from animals. From the studies of laboratory animals with electric nodes wired up to the pleasure centres in their brains, it was found that the electrical stimulus was reinforcing and can override behaviour. Laboratory animals will press a lever at high rates (> 6,000 times per hour) to deliver brief stimulation pulses to brain regions. The reinforcement from direct electrical activation of this reward substrate is more potent than other rewards, such as food or water. The potency of this electrical stimulation was most dramatically shown in a classic experiment where the animal subjects suffered self-imposed starvation when forced to make a choice between obtaining food and water or electrical brain stimulation (Routtenberg & Lindy, 1965). The second distinct feature of reward from electrical brain stimulation is the lack of satiation; animals generally press to stimulate continuously, taking only brief breaks. These two features - super-potent reward and lack of satiation - are important characteristics of direct activation of brain reward mechanisms.

Unfortunately in this sense, I suppose, science and technology co-exist and advance each other accordingly. Every new item on the market is sold to reproduce that kick from activating our brain reward mechanisms and promises, in fancy marketing language, to give us enhanced kicks. These include nifty new gadgets and websites promising entertainment that suck us into hours of unproductive, addictive fun. But this is not limited to technological products - the market reflects peoples' demand for novel and better ways to activate their brain reward mechanisms (obviously), and with that we see flashier cars, harder drinks, trendier clothes, swankier clubs, bigger brands, super-sweet foods, etc. These things do not satiate us, and they replace our otherwise normal behaviours.

Whatever is "better", on average, ultimately boils down to what activates those brain reward mechanisms more and faster, and people are willing to pay good money for it. An immediate distinction between now and the past is that, with our advances in ideas and technology, we're getting more and more capable of delivering those quick-reward ends compared to other periods in our history. We've become laboratory rats who are capable of creating our own fancy brain stimulation levers, and we're psychotically pressing them. In contrast, a caveman was capable of only activating his pleasure centres by doing the menial but traditionally sound things that led to good feelings - seeking friendships, taking care of relatives, falling in love, communicating with others, finding food to eat, etc. These days, who needs such longwinded activities? They take too long before they lead us to the promised land.

A Cold, Hard (and Amoral) Look at Leadership

2012-01-13T13:51:00.000+08:00

When properly looked at, natural leadership occurs when a dominant person acts in his/her own self-interest and, in the process, enables followers to benefit from his/her self-serving behaviour. In ancestral times, as a silly and simple but relevant example, perhaps it was a man who knew where the watering hole was, and wanted to get there anyway. Followers who were less competent in finding it could help him carry his goods while he led them there. This natural process selects for competent, capable leaders who could articulate to followers how, by being subservient and giving up some autonomy and self-interest, they could gain something from his capabilities. Leadership and followership evolved because it was an efficient process that eventually led to a net advantage for whole groups over the course of social history, both human and animal.

Servant leadership is the idea that leaders should want first and foremost to serve followers and are held accountable by the people the leader governs, in pure altruistic fashion. Like many other modern good-to-haves, servant leadership is unlikely to have emerged simply from rational thought alone - its formulation was forged from a drastic need to deal with the fact that the influential ability of leaders meant that leaders could also get away with many dastardly things. The evolution of leadership wouldn't be complete without a counter from followers, who adapted by evolving emotions that made them upset, angry, cheated and disgusted when leaders become corrupt. Servant leadership is a socially constructed dynamic that actively suppresses the tendency of leaders to put their own interests ahead of their followers' interests.

But just as much as we have those emotions acting as alarms to warn us against being too unfairly taken advantage of, people far and wide still see confidence, dominance, assertiveness and aggression as virtues in leaders. When we can potentially see these traits as attractive in a leader, we allow him or her to get away with doing whatever it takes to "get shit done." A tasteful mix of these characteristics in a person makes him or her charismatic, and we often forgive charismatic people for taking a little more than their fair share of the pie.

Because at heart, the propeling force of leadership is self-interest. Lots of it. A person wouldn't last as a leader without it, and simply bestowing a fancy title on anybody doesn't make the person a sustainable leader. This is the reason why a student studying politics doesn't necessarily become a politician after that; governors, CEOs, directors, pastors and generals are a self-selecting lot and, for better or worse, their immense, self-aggrandising belief in the value of their own ideas, goals and needs over others' persistently drives their rise to the top.

Animals

2012-01-09T14:09:00.000+08:00

On Evolutionary Explanations of Restrictive Eating Disorders, and the Value of Radical Ideas

2012-01-06T18:25:00.008+08:00

My supervisory professors have been missing in action the past 2-3 days, so I've had more time to turn my attention to themes and research that I'm quite interested in.

One of the fascinating topics I did some reading on is restrictive eating disorders (i.e. anorexia and bulimia) from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary theory posits that every psychological, behavioural and physical trait expressed by an organism was selected for by aiding the organism in its survival and/or reproduction, and therefore had a functional purpose for existing at some point in evolutionary time. A trait could never exist if the environment was not conducive for its expression (i.e. hinders the organism in survival or reproduction).

By this logic, it might therefore be reasonably assumed (however inconceivably) that there could have been some adaptive function for the existence of anorexia and bulimia at some point in our evolutionary history. They are annoyances in our modern world because there could be a mismatch between its usefulness in the ancestral past and the environment today.

There are at least five major evolutionary explanations for restrictive eating disorders, each with its own flaws, as outlined by Dr Igor Kardum and colleagues from the University of Rijeka in a 2008 paper reviewing evolutionary accounts of anorexia and bulimia, namely (1) the reproduction suppression hypothesis (Wasser & Barash, 1983), (2) the model of parental manipulation (Voland & Voland, 1989), (3) the sexual competition hypothesis (Abed, 1998), (4) the adapted to flee from famine hypothesis (Guisinger, 2003), and (5) the combined concepts of 'social attention holding power' and the 'need to belong' (Gatward, 2007).

The most palatable (and, thus, conventional and popular) idea tends to revolve around competition among females catalysed by the media (sexual competition hypothesis). It is the notion that in wealthier societies, to be able to resist food is seen as a mark of having high status, while in poorer societies, to be able to get food is conversely the indicator of high status; thus anorexia is more prevalent in modernised societies while relatively larger-sized females are exemplified as beautiful. This is propagated via media imagery.

I will not go into detail with all the ideas as it can get rather technical, but in particular I wanted to point out two radical ideas put forth that, while still works-in-progress, were really interesting and reflective of creative, convention-defying attempts to think of new ways to consider this issue.

In particular, I thought Voland and Voland's (1989) model of parental manipulation interestingly attempts to account for why eating disorders tended to happen more with wealthier, higher class individuals. This model draws on kin selection theory and asserts that anorexia may be adaptive (useful) insofar as it increases an anorexic's helping behaviour to her own kin's survival and reproduction while suppressing her own reproductive success (because anorexia leads to a decline in fertility). Non-evolutionary research in the 70s showed that members of anorexic families possessed mutually overprotective attitudes, and anorexic individuals tended to worry constantly about the well-being of their families. In the ancestral past when families were larger, anorexic female helpers could suppress their own reproduction and therefore divert their own resources towards helping collateral kin, leading to greater inclusive fitness (genes belonging to family members). This sets the precedent for some interesting speculations. The model of parental manipulation suggests that anorexia is actually somehow exacerbated by parental influence. Many studies report significant correlations between dominant and overprotective mothers and the probability of anorexic reactions of their daughters. Anorexia reduces a female's fertility and hinders her from bearing additional offspring. Additionally, when a daughter is overprotected and dominated by her mother, her ability to find a mate is also reduced. In wealthy families, males are the more valuable sex as they have the resources to attain more mates. By inducing anorexia (thereby restricting the reproduction of daughters and also reducing their food intake), especially for families in higher societal strata and class, parents can then concentrate investment potential towards sons, who in wealthier families have higher reproductive value.

The next radical idea is Gatward's (2007) combined concepts of 'social attention holding power' and 'the need to belong'. 'Social attention holding power' is defined as an individual's ability to hold attention and gain investment from other members of the group, and this concept is closely related to the degree to which a person feels in control. Naturally, higher status individuals hold more social attention in their group and feel more in control. The need for belonging to a group is a fundamental human need, as ancestors who did not belong to any group were unlikely to survive for long in the harsher environments of the past. Because survival depended on belonging to a group, people had to compete for resources and this competition could lead to exclusion, if one wasn't careful. Anorexia might therefore have been adaptive in the past to prevent competition for food and resources, as well as compete in a more nuanced manner for status (a reference to the more conventional sexual competition hypothesis outlined above), thereby promoting group harmony and reducing the likelihood that one might get expelled. I would personally go on to speculate that in our modern society (essentially functioning and subconsciously perceived as a really large group), nobody feels like the highest status female who doesn't need to conform to restrictive eating disorder, because there is an implicit assumption that the highest status female is the one they see artificially created by the media. So everyone else who feels subordinate will increase her tendency to engage in restrictive eating disorder, an adaptation brought on by the need to maintain the large group's social harmony.

These are certainly radical theories that need to withstand more empirical testing, but reading about them excites me because they represent interesting attempts to get away from more conventional and acceptable ideas that do not necessarily get us very far, as evidenced by the fact that many extant theories on the causes of eating disorders still have ambiguities and gaps. Of course, there has to be a deal of initial plausibility, lacking which we would just think the idea is quack. But science is ultimately pushed by great thinkers with ground-breaking insights.

On a concluding note, the authors of the review paper highlight one consistent element found among all proposed evolutionary theories of restrictive eating disorders - response to threat. All the major evolutionary explanations can be reasoned as a form of response to threat (to survival and/or reproduction) that leads people (especially females) to develop symptoms of eating disorders. This independently corroborates research linking eating disorders with feelings of insecurity and need for control.

Circumventing Being Challenged

2012-01-05T16:51:00.005+08:00

I was reading a very humorously written article titled Bullshitting: Lessons From the Masters. 6 "bullshitting techniques" were identified by the author, and I thought points 3 and 4 were fascinating in and of themselves, regardless whether in this context of bullshitting or not:

3. Act arrogant - keep it up. Although arrogance might seem to work against you by offending people, it is the supreme intimidation technique - people are readily cowed when someone acts like he is better, smarter, more powerful than they are (ergo, the Donald Trump phenomenon). The only danger is if you act modestly or question yourself, because people WILL attack weakness. In fact, even when you are being arrested (as in Stanford's case), attack your accusers.

4. Claim esoteric knowledge or techniques. It doesn't matter if the formula you use to explain your success makes no sense - people aren't secure enough to challenge something they can't understand. In fact, it pays to make the secret to your success as incomprehensible as possible while linking it to something beyond questioning, like say relativity, quantum physics, evolution or, for the old fashioned, God.

Ideal Selves and Real Selves

2012-01-05T16:31:00.005+08:00

I've always been fascinated with the very abstract, psychoanalytical concept of having a real self and an ideal self.

(While my more rigorous, cognitive side scoffs at me buying into such 'fluffy' concepts, another side that appeals to intuition tells me that the brilliant psychoanalyst Karen Horney had hit on an important subconscious concept (there - my use of the 'cognitive side' versus the 'intuitive side' to describe myself betrays this). Because how can something "else" tell "me" something; isn't that something "else" a part of "me" as well? And indeed, perhaps the use of the contemporarily established fluffy term "self" is shorthand for different mental modules or subroutines, each competing for a place in the consciousness, like a TV screen allowing only one channel to come to the fore.)

Anyway! I think a condition of human nature is that we create ideal selves that our real selves aspire to. But our wellbeing depends on the nature of that ideal, external, aspirational self. As Karen Horney suggests, in the instance of lying or being hypocritical, a false self is created. When a person creates a false self, the gap widens between who he is and who he can be or wants to be. Eventually, he can lose touch with his real self, which sets the stage for neurosis to develop, thereby affecting both his mental and physical health.

Resolutions for Success

2012-01-05T02:36:00.003+08:00

I'm not big on new year resolutions (and "inspirational" internet images), but I don't disagree with much of this and this should provide some ideas for the resolution-inclined!

Case in Point

2012-01-04T01:45:00.001+08:00

A reluctant smoker with an unlit cigarette in hand is more likely to smoke if you hold up a light for him, rather than if you only offered just a cold, unlit lighter.

NYE 2011

2012-01-03T03:40:00.000+08:00

One of the best New Year's Eve celebrations by far. You know you're in for a treat when the $400+ room you've booked at M Hotel becomes upgraded to a suite at the top floor.

Those are awesome speakers linked up to a frickin' Bose sound system!

This - Maotai Yingbin - was the perfect killing machine.

But guns don't kill people - people do. Especially when Angie gets hold of the bottle!

Isaac very gamely gets soaked.

All the finished booze.

Thank goodness for photos, preserving memories that most of us couldn't remember the next day!

Have yourself a happy new year and a blessed 2012!

Now, or Never

2012-01-02T19:20:00.001+08:00

The frames have changed, the lenses suddenly different. My head is a vortex, I'm shaken at the core. This paradigm shift keeps my mind sickeningly awake, yet with insatiable clarity. My ignorance is glaring in the light. Does it take a wrong to do right?

2011-12-30T17:02:00.000+08:00

"The role of the artist is exactly the same as the role of the lover. If I love you, I have to make you conscious of the things you don't see."
- James Baldwin

A Man

2011-12-29T16:30:00.000+08:00

"A man carries cash. A man looks out for those around him — woman, friend, stranger. A man can cook eggs. A man can always find something good to watch on television. A man makes things — a rock wall, a table, the tuition money. Or he rebuilds — engines, watches, fortunes. He passes along expertise, one man to the next. Know-how survives him. A man fantasizes that kung fu lives deep inside him somewhere. A man is good at his job. Not his work, not his avocation, not his hobby. Not his career. His job. It doesn’t matter what his job is, because if a man doesn’t like his job, he gets a new one.

A man can speak to dogs.

A man listens, and that’s how he argues. He crafts opinions. He can pound the table, take the floor. It’s not that he must. It’s that he can.

A man can look you up and down and figure some things out. Before you say a word, he makes you. From your suitcase, from your watch, from your posture. A man infers.

A man owns up. That’s why Mark McGwire is not a man. A man grasps his mistakes. He lays claim to who he is, and what he was, whether he likes them or not.
Some mistakes, though, he lets pass if no one notices. Like dropping the steak in the dirt.

A man can tell you he was wrong. That he did wrong. That he planned to. He can tell you when he is lost. He can apologize, even if sometimes it’s just to put an end to the bickering.
A man does not wither at the thought of dancing. But it is generally to be avoided.
Style — a man has that. No matter how eccentric that style is, it is uncontrived. It’s a set of rules.

A man loves the human body, the revelation of nakedness. He loves the sight of the pale bosom, the physics of the human skeleton, the alternating current of the flesh. He is thrilled by the wrist and the sight of a bare shoulder. He likes the crease of a bent knee.
Maybe he never has, and maybe he never will, but a man figures he can knock someone, somewhere, on his bottom.

A man doesn’t point out that he did the dishes.

A man knows how to ridicule.

A man gets the door. Without thinking.
He stops traffic when he must.

A man knows how to lose an afternoon. Playing Grand Theft Auto, driving aimlessly, shooting pool.
He knows how to lose a month, also.

A man welcomes the coming of age. It frees him. It allows him to assume the upper hand and teaches him when to step aside.
He understands the basic mechanics of the planet. Or he can close one eye, look up at the sun, and tell you what time of day it is. Or where north is. He can tell you where you might find something to eat or where the fish run. He understands electricity or the internal-combustion engine, the mechanics of flight or how to figure a pitcher’s ERA.

A man does not know everything. He doesn’t try. He likes what other men know.

A man knows his tools and how to use them — just the ones he needs. Knows which saw is for what, how to find the stud, when to use galvanized nails.

A miter saw, incidentally, is the kind that sits on a table, has a circular blade, and is used for cutting at precise angles. Very satisfying saw.
He does not rely on rationalizations or explanations. He doesn’t winnow, winnow, winnow until truths can be humbly categorized, or intellectualized, until behavior can be written off with an explanation. He doesn’t see himself lost in some great maw of humanity, some grand sweep. That’s the liberal thread; it’s why men won’t line up as liberals.

A man resists formulations, questions belief, embraces ambiguity without making a fetish out of it. A man revisits his beliefs. Continually. That’s why men won’t forever line up with conservatives, either.

A man is comfortable being alone. Loves being alone, actually. He sleeps.
Or he stands watch. He interrupts trouble. This is the state policeman. This is the poet. Men, both of them.

A man loves driving alone most of all.

A man watches. Sometimes he goes and sits at an auction knowing he won’t spend a dime, witnessing the temptation and the maneuvering of others. Sometimes he stands on the street corner watching stuff. This is not about quietude so much as collection. It is not about meditation so much as considering. A man refracts his vision and gains acuity. This serves him in every way. No one taught him this — to be quiet, to cipher, to watch. In this way, in these moments, the man is like a zoo animal: both captive and free. You cannot take your eyes off a man when he is like that. You shouldn’t. Who knows what he is thinking, who he is, or what he will do next."

- Tom Chiarella, What Is a Man? (for Esquire)

Conjuring Thoughts of a Return to Eden

2011-12-28T15:47:00.000+08:00

Stars - Changes

This time in between the day and the night
The light kills my sense of life
So scared, I'll turn it on, turn it on, turn it on

It's dull, this dusk, this desk, this dust
My eyes adjust, I'll blow out the flame
Can you and me remain

Changes, I've never been good with change
I hate it when it all stays the same
Caught between the gold and the gain

Changes, I've never been good with change
I hate it when it all stays the same
Caught between the cold and the wave
My heart beats up again

Once said, words make a world of their own
I misread, I can't get you back on the phone
So tired, I'll turn it off, turn it off, turn it off

How's that last week we were whole
You're far away and I hardly know
Can you and me delay

Changes, I've never been good with change
I hate it when it all stays the same
Caught between the gold and the gain

Changes, I've never been good with change
Troubled when it all stays the same
I'm caught between this cold and the wave
My heart beats up again

Are you my trouble
Are you my trouble
Are you my trouble
Trouble

Are you my trouble
Are you my trouble
Are you my trouble

If you want to win,

2011-12-27T16:56:00.000+08:00

you can't be afraid to lose.

Cleverbot is Clever!

2011-12-26T00:32:00.000+08:00

I was messing around with Cleverbot, and this conversation was recorded.

Me: You're not that clever.
CB: Neither are you.
Me: I never said I was, but you're Cleverbot, which implies that you're supposed to be clever, so therefore my assertion that you're not that clever makes more sense.
CB: I'm not avoiding that subject at all. In fact, I've admitted to that fact.
Me: Well played, Cleverbot.
CB: Sarcasm, how nice.

Valued Things

2011-12-25T23:55:00.000+08:00

Things that are of value are double-edged swords. We can get immense happiness, joy and utility from having things that we value, but at the same time we are susceptible to the pain of not having those things we value. Additionally, we are also liable to experience the troublesomeness of having to strive for those things we value. For example, a woman who wants a man who is both competent and good looking certainly has more on her plate to deal with than one who would just rather have competence. But at the same time, having more things to value means that you're more selective, which means having higher standards. People chasing things they value are likely to enjoy the hunt itself and play it like a game.

Choosing to follow a philosophy of life that is more zen (where detachment means no loss and no unhappiness) or more liberal (where it is better to have loved and lost than not loved at all) might ultimately be a matter of what one tends to gain or lose.

Last Dance

2011-12-12T01:31:00.004+08:00

Oh when the cold wind blows
I feel it to the bone
Oh when you say you know
I feel I am not alone

And even though I may return
To empty places on my own
Where I remember everything you want me to forget.

And you provide a parachute
When I am falling like a stone
And I remember there's a life that I have not lived yet

You and I
Truth and lies
I’ve been fooling myself too long
You and I
Breaking ties
How could we be so right and so wrong?

I hear the words you say
Your mouth against my skin
My world just falls away
You light me from within

And even though I may return
To empty places on my own
Where I remember everything you want me to forget.

And you provide a parachute
When I am falling like a stone
And I remember there's a life that I have not lived yet

You and I
Truth and lies
I’ve been fooling myself too long
You and I
Breaking ties
How could we be so right and so wrong?

What Can a Simple Physical Attractiveness Rating Exercise Tell Us?

2011-10-14T12:36:00.004+08:00

Recently, as part of a larger study I'm doing with my professor on the effects of social status and desirability, I had to get a large sample of photographs (of both men and women between the ages of 19-24) pre-rated for attractiveness.

I found the following patterns:

1) Men showed more agreement in ratings when the female was highly attractive. That is, if a female was very pretty, the ratings would be high, and the standard deviation would be low.

2) Women showed more agreement in ratings when the male was very unattractive. That is, if a male looked ugly or weird, the ratings would be low, and the standard deviation would be low too.

3) Men generally showed more agreement in ratings overall (there was less variance in the ratings), while women generally showed less agreement in ratings overall (there was greater variance in the ratings).

I don't think these findings are groundbreaking, because there's bound to be research out there already formally documenting such results. But it was interesting to just deduce on my own the implications of these results.

Firstly, these show that men all know a good-looking female face when they see it. This indicates that physical attractiveness is an important marker of whether a woman is desirable or not and what constitutes physical attractiveness (in a face, at least) is quite universal (in the culture these male respondents come from, at least). Attractiveness ambiguity at the lower end of the spectrum suggests that men are still willing to give some women who might be less attractive benefit of the doubt. Men are thus more sensitive to the higher end of the female facial attractiveness spectrum.

Secondly, when a man is potentially attractive, not every woman may agree - each may have her own idea of what an attractive male looks like. This thus suggests that what makes a man desirable may not lie in his physical attractiveness; more information is needed about the man before most women are willing to be attracted to him, such as his status, character and background. Looking at a picture of a man therefore provides insufficient information for most women to make judgments about his desirability. But they tend to agree when a man looks unattractive. Women are thus more sensitive to the lower end of the male facial attractiveness spectrum.

Taken together, when we look at how come men look out for the higher end more while women are highly sensitive to the lower end more, it suggests that there are different payoffs in the mating strategies between males and females. For men, it is more costly to miss an opportunity to get to know a very attractive woman (what we might call a Type I error). On the other hand, for women, it is more costly to get attracted to a man who is potentially very undesirable (a Type II error).

Furthermore, the most attractive male will never be as highly rated as the most attractive female, while the most unattractive female will never be as poorly rated as the most unattractive male.

What does this imply for the society I live in at large, if we at least assume the ratings to reflect psychological dispositions and preferences of men and women in Singaporean culture?

For the men, it suggests that you're screwed if you're below the threshold of desirability, whatever that threshold depends on (looks, status, personality etc). Women will be sensitive towards these below-threshold men, so that they can be avoided.

For the women, it suggests in a rather morbid and cynical manner, that unless you're at the top (of what society defines as attractive), most guys won't be paying attention.

Why do these extrapolations seem to mirror what really is happening in society? Because our success at reproduction lies at the heart of our actions and behaviours. We wouldn't care about how high our mate value is, if it didn't matter. But the truth is it does (at least to some extent), because we are constantly rated by members of the opposite sex (and they also make use of how the members of our own sex rate us to make secondary judgments).

Because we care enough, we strive to better ourselves in those ways that eventually lead up to the kinds of patterns we see in society - men trying to peacock themselves up with material adornments, such as nice cars, suits and jobs (so they won't look down-and-out at the bottom of the ladder), and women trying to one-up each other on physical attractiveness, such as make up, clothing and even cosmetic surgery now in countries where such surgeries are readily available and social norms permit them (so they can be at the top).

One-Upmanship

2011-10-11T12:30:00.002+08:00

I'm reading Sleights of Mind by neuroscientists Stephen L. Macknick and Susana Martinez-Conde. It is a highly engaging and entertaining double-up between neuroscience and cognitive psychology (think brains, neurons, vision, perception, attention, memory, etc), and magic. Two topics that I have a fond loving for since I was a little kid.

Anyway, here's a nice excerpt on perspective paintings that are life-like (unfortunately nothing to do with magic, but all to do with illusion all the same):

"Artists have been utilizing visual illusions since the fifteenth century, when Renaissance painters invented techniques to trick your brain into thinking that a flat canvas is three-dimensional or that a series of brushstrokes in a still life is a bowl of luscious fruit."

"Trompe l'oeil is a French term that means 'trick the eye'. It flourished in the seventeenth century in the Netherlands. The lifelike pictures appeared to jump from the frame.

An early and perhaps apocryphal example of trompe l'oeil, reported by Pliny the Elder, is the legendary competition between two renowned painters in ancient Greece, Zeuxis and Parrhasios. Each artist brought a covered painting to the contest. When Zeuxis unveiled his work, his painted grapes were so realistic that birds flew from the sky to peck at them. Convinced of his victory, Zeuxis tried to uncover Parrhasios's painting to confirm the superiority of his work. He was defeated, however, because the curtain he tried to pull back was Parrhasios's painting itself."

2011-10-11T10:49:00.003+08:00

After getting out of the train at Bras Basah MRT, I hopped into the passenger lift which would bring me up four storeys to the main gantry exit area. That was when I realised I was the only guy in there, with about 7 or 8 females. So, I just thought, it'd be a pretty nice time for the lift to endure a breakdown there and then. And I pictured myself saying, "ah, sorry to inform you of this, but I have a very contagious virus on me." What happens next is up to the imagination; perhaps throwing out "just kidding" and garnering relieved sighs and maybe some smacks for kino haha.

Then the lift door opened and off to work I was, as everybody mundanely shuffled out.

Attractiveness and Beauty

2011-09-21T01:17:00.003+08:00

Affluenza by Oliver James explores the idea that "there is a correlation between the increasing nature of affluenza and the resulting increase in material inequality: the more unequal a society, the greater the unhappiness of its citizens" (my lazy literal quoting from Wikipedia).

After reading some reviews, the book is not without its critics. But there is one particular point he makes which I find interesting enough that I want to extend on it: the distinction between attractiveness and beauty. His definition is simply a perspective and is by no means objective, but the one he provides is useful to distinguish between superficial attraction (obvious, immediate, instinctive indicators and cues of sexual and physical attractiveness, such as waist-to-hip ratio, long hair, big boobs, a typically slim frame, skimpy clothing, etc) and beauty (a quality and attractiveness that transcends physique and enamates from within, by virtue of one's character, personality and how one carries himself/herself).

There is, for example, little doubt that a bombshell is attractive. Men are instinctively wired to be drawn to such cues of physical attractiveness. Beauty, conversely, has greater subjectivity to it, and is often in the eye of the beholder in the sense that if one is drawn to it, one just is, but at the same time, appreciating Oliver James's notion of beauty requires going one step further than just visually appreciating a person. It involves studying a person in the context of her behaviour and what she says, and then realizing that there's something more to her than simply meets the eye.

What is interesting about Oliver James's distinction is that very often, when it comes to attractiveness, there is often some societal or cultural standard that is in place, and everyone who wants to be attractive will be compelled to emulate it (and he argues that in affluenza-stricken cultures, there is greater incidence of such obsessions to emulate, such as South Koreans all aspiring to look a certain way through cosmetic and plastic means). On the other hand, what is beautiful has nothing to do with aspiring to look or behave in any particular way that is defined or demanded by society. A beautiful girl shines because of who she is, for who she is.

So, in that sense, seeking to be attractive deindividualizes, while being beautiful brings out one's individual beauty and never comes about through conformity to a societal standard. There can be many people who look the same, attractively, while there can never be two or more people who are beautiful in the same way.

I don't want to make this an issue of sex differences, but for simplicity's sake, a relevant example for men could also be in terms of their jobs. What appears to be an "attractive" occupation in Singapore, quite clearly, is to be a banker. This is perhaps the sort of job that a man would often hide behind in order to conceal his lack of individuality or personal choice in carving out a career path that he can call his own. I'm not trying to criticize the industry or its employees, but from personal anecdotal experience, I don't really know of many bankers who actually love their job. It's just something that is worth pursuing because it has high social prestige and pays well. In that sense, it is an attractive job, and it is a job that certainly deindividualizes. It is a big industry where nobody is really his own man. Conversely, having an interesting, "beautiful" occupation would be one where an individual has carved out and determined his own career path and whose job he will shape, rather than have the job shape him. I'm leaving this one at that, because this isn't my main point, but rather simply to explore what other forms this attractiveness/beauty divide can take.

My main insight is that it is quite clear, in which case, a person may feel more or less secure. A person who has a societal standard to live up to will certainly feel less secure than another person who has only his or her own personal standards to live up to. A woman who is compelled to look attractive according to a certain way will be afflicted with the insecurity either that one day, she will no longer look as attractive as what her culture deems "young and hot", or that her value pitted against thousands of other women vying to look just like that attractive exemplar defined by society will only be miniscule. Ugly competition is likely to be rife in this scenario. Contrast this to the woman of beauty whose attractive power comes from the beat of her heart, the thrill of her soul and the strength of her character, and this lady is her own woman - she cannot be bogged down by needless comparison.

It is silly to believe that any of us can be free of this affliction to conform and disregard the pressure that society and others put on us. Even I'm not spared, as I'm pelted quite regularly with social pressure by countless people who are curious, cynical or disdainful about the PhD route I'm taking. But I believe in my path. With every small step we take to actively switch from believing beauty lies in some exemplary ideal and striving to be like that (just like everyone else), to believing that beauty lies in being comfortable with who you are and bringing out the best in yourself for what you believe in, I think we can start to observe a positive shift in our collective self-esteem.

An Encounter with Xiao Li

2011-09-20T23:00:00.003+08:00

I met a Chinese national, presumably a foreign worker because of his adornments, today at my bus stop while I was headed to SMU. He approached me to ask if the buses were going to the Serangoon MRT station. I replied in the affirmative, and as my bus arrived I told him that I was headed to Serangoon MRT too so we could head down together. I might be getting ahead of myself here, but I thought I caught a glimpse of surprise in his eyes as he enthusiastically said, "好(great)!" and we got up the bus and took a seat together.

As we traveled along by bus and then later by train, I learnt that his name is Xiao Li and he had lost his way while trying to get supplies from Serangoon Gardens. Having just moved here from Henan six months ago and living at Yishun now, much of Singapore is still alien to him and he knows not a word of English. My mandarin is terrible, but we got along well enough. Sometimes, the great thing about such encounters that involve language barriers is that you end up trying to transcend the limits imposed by things like language, ethnicity, nationality or creed, and as a result connect more as fellow humans. As trivial as it was knowing that he had recently bought a computer from Little India and that the heat in Singapore takes some getting used to (Henan is predominantly cold), it was good company, and I felt happy knowing that he's getting by with some friends he made while on the job. It must not be easy traveling thousands of kilometres away from home to work in a country that is quite obviously xenophobic and elitist against such individuals.

In one TV programme that interviewed foreign workers in Singapore, one Bangladeshi worker was asked what he thought about Singapore. He said, as his voice cracked, that Singapore is a beautiful country, but when it comes to Singaporean people, sometimes he feels that Singaporeans respect and care for dogs and cats more than people like him. We virtually dehumanise these people and relegate them to a level lower than animals.

That sentiment really hits me hard. It is compounded by the fact that right now, in order to facilitate a study that my professor is trying to run, I need to recruit people who work low social status jobs as participants. However, more specifically, we need low social status workers who fit this demographic: Singaporean Chinese males aged 20-24, and Singaporean Chinese females aged 17-21. After two weeks, recruitment has yielded almost nothing, and I've come to realize that, insofar as a job can be considered "low social status" in Singapore, Singaporean Chinese aged 17-24 are very unlikely to be found there. As a Singaporean Chinese man myself, it is quite clear that we are the privileged lot in society.

I think more tribute should be paid to the people working the jobs we do not want to do. We may not like the policies that lead to such a crazy influx of foreign immigrants (I personally think these policies are problematic and do not solve more deeply-rooted economic problems), but we do not have to blame and shame the people who have arrived on our shores as a result of bad policy. When we utilize the things that constitute our high standard of living, such as clean public toilets and beautifully architectured buildings, a less privileged person dirtied his hands so that we are able to. A less privileged person took up that "low social status" job so that we didn't even have to entertain the possibility that such jobs are on the market for us to consider. I know that for most of my educated Singaporean Chinese counterparts, it is highly discomforting to imagine taking up one of these "low social status" jobs; I've been there. I've worked as a temp labourer to shift things before, but I'll bet I did so only because I know that few people know about this (it's different to say that I used to be a shifter - that can even be something to brag about - compared to if I am now and telling people about it). When I helped out at the SMU gown collection as an usher, ushering my fellow school mates who were from my year to the gown collection point, there were many instances where I had to endure questions that revolved around the idea of: "Why are you doing this kind of job?" Regardless of your own self-confidence, such questions still test your resolve. Jobs are low social status not ultimately because of how much they pay (although that is often partly the case), but simply because there is a stigma associated with them (just imagine comparing between working as a McDonald's waiter versus working at a yoghurt stall - both may pay the same and both involve the same job scope, but many people will find working at the yoghurt stall more trendy and palatable).

As a people, we can be more gracious, and sometimes by just taking that one step to put aside our prejudices, we can be a lot happier too. It's a choice and one that, I believe, many Singaporeans are capable of making.

Let's Hear it for EP

2011-09-18T00:02:00.000+08:00

The last three evolutionary psychology-themed books that I had read are:
Demonic Males by Richard Wrangham
The Murderer Next Door by David Buss
Naturally Selected by Mark van Vugt & Anjana Ahuja

Evolutionary psychology has often been dominantly been associated with the mating stuff, and while that is an important aspect of evolutionary psychology (one hugely important layer of the foundational bedrock, in fact, because reproduction is vital to the spreading of genes), it has taken a form of its own and its less credible and less cautious adherents may take it to extremes and give the entire field of evolutionary psychology a bad name. To quote what a rather vocal school mate of mine once remarked on Facebook when he heard that evolutionary psychology was finally being offered as a module in SMU, he said, "Serious? But what is evolutionary psychology besides the American pick up artist crap?"

But evolutionary psychology's scope, once we extend beyond the basic tenets of sexual selection and mate preferences (i.e. due to the different value bestowed upon males and females' resources and the amount of parental investment in offspring), delves into why the human mind accomodates the capacity for aggression, coalitions, cooperation, reciprocity, morality, fairness, guilt, sadness, friendships, food taste preferences, loss aversion, attachment styles, jealousy, insecurity, fear, maternal feelings, love, hypocrisy, leadership, dominance, hierarchies, in-group/out-group bias and - I should stop here because the list will continue for quite a bit more - murder.

After four years of undergraduate studies in psychology, I'm personally certain that an evolutionary perspective holds the promise for the ultimate question of "why". We may know everything we know so far in disparate fields ranging from cognitive psychology to cultural psychology to neuroscience, but without understanding the adaptive nature of how our mind is designed, nothing really makes sense. It's like knowing that the human body is made up of stuff like kidneys and brains and hearts but not knowing what any of these things have got to do with each other and how a human being works. This is not to say that other psychological disciplines are unimportant. We need other specific psychological perspectives to give us greater texture on the mental adaptations that evolutionary psychology seeks to uncover. Every field is now increasingly working together to push the boundaries of understanding our mind. But I feel that it is important to clarify the promise that evolutionary psychology holds for the entire field of psychology as a whole.

The more I read too, the more I'm convinced that discovering our evolutionary and ancestral heritage holds the key to nipping our monkey instincts in the bud. The more adaptive and instinctive behaviours we can uncover, the more we can come up with creative solutions to deal with the undesirable ones. As a reknown analyst on terrorism once wonderfully put it, when posed with the question of how to deal with terrorists, he said, "don't hate the enemy." Because as long as you hate the enemy, you will never seek to understand it, and if you don't seek to understand it, you will never get the better of it. For much of the past century, many scholars have tried to deal with human evils by condemning them to the academic hallows of being aberrations, figments of violent western culture, or psychopathy (to name a few notorious red herrings). Refusing to believe that humans have adaptations for atrocities like violence and war just won't cut it anymore.

I'd acknowledge the ape in me, because that takes me out of the dark.

2011-09-15T23:43:00.002+08:00

I'm just ab-sal-lutely cooked right now. I've been wanting to blog about my grad trip for the longest time - officially 3 weeks, unofficially months - but it's hard to pen the perfect journal when you don't have time. It's now half done, sitting in the drafts of blogger.

Here's a typical outline of my day. Today, I headed out at 0830 to start early so that I could recruit fast food restaurant staff for a study that SMU is doing (details are P&C). It's a pain to talk to fast food restaurant staff (or any eatery staff for that matter) later in the day because there are always going to be customers you're standing in the way of. It's lunch time, it's impossible to talk to fast food restaurant staff anymore, so I make my way down to my office at SMU's School of Social Sciences. I get some coding work done for a professor who's researching the creativity of chocolate design, and intermittently I try and work on my publication. It's 2.45pm. I decide to give the recruitment task another go, and manage to pique the interest of some staff to participate. No word of commitment though, so I'm left to "okay, just drop an email to the address on the paper when you've decided," so I'll just have to wait for their email later. It's 3.15pm, so I rush down to School of Business for the negotiation class I'm doing teaching assistantship for. I try doing research assistantship work while being a teaching assistant. Class ends at 1845. I head back to my office at School of Social Sciences. Time to take a break from work - so I spend two and a half hours crafting out emails to prospective mentors (prospective grad students like me need to send these emails out to acquire the interest of professors who will then look out a little more for your graduate school application). I give myself a crash course on their work and research interests, eventually sending out three emails. Two of them reply, so I reply to their replies. It is about ten o' clock at night. Spurred by hunger, I head home, but decide to take the long 147 bus ride (50 minutes) instead of the train (30-35 minutes), so that I can get some video coding work done on the bus. I reach my home bus stop at 2315, and make a stop at my favourite prata shop to packet nasi goreng ikan bilis home. I finish dinner while checking my email, take a shower and now here I am at midnight wondering if I should continue working or head to bed, since I'm heading out early tomorrow morning again to repeat the recruitment process.

Of course, this isn't literally typical - the details change. But for about a month now, the work has been quite crazy, so I'm really looking forward to my Behavioural Sciences Institute (BSI) employment come October. For legal purposes, I'll have to wean myself off all these disparate (and very numerous) RAships and TAships so that I'm clean for full time work as a researcher for BSI. While the per hour pay that I'm getting now for all that RA work has been good so far, it's just not sustainable because the work is really random and both too little (won't add up to a substantially liveable amount) and too much (really) at the same time.

On the other hand, the email sending so far has been pretty good I think. I have been getting very positive and welcoming replies. Of course, one could really argue that these professors are returning templated emails to me; even I suspect that sometimes, especially when they do not bother starting with any address to me, such as "Dear Jose". But at least they aren't just instant-deleting my mail or sending back negative templated emails, so I'll take that as a good start. I sent my first email out on the 7th of September and, 9 days on, I've sent out a total of 8 emails. It gets easier and easier each time.

I think I'll call it a day here. Once October comes the proper blogging catch up can begin.

Back...?

2011-08-26T00:55:00.001+08:00

The days go by, and weeks turn to months. While I've repeatedly resolved to start updating and writing here again, a lack of time and will has consistently shoved its fat ass in the way. Enough of that; today will end the hiatus. There has been a lot, at least from my own egocentric perspective, to write about. This includes the following list of significant events that have conspired since the end of May (the venus flytrap stuff doesn't count, and it has sadly passed already by the way, due to my lack of competence in caring for it):

1) Graduation trip - South Asia
2) Association for Psychological Science 23rd Annual Conference at Washington DC
3) Holidaying in Hong Kong
4) all the other scattered yet interconnected things that have happened between Hong Kong and today

I'll start on my grad trip... Tomorrow or the day after. Uh oh lol.

A Thin Margin

2011-07-12T12:12:00.000+08:00

"The big lie about capitalism is that everyone can be rich. That’s impossible. Capitalism works only if the vast majority of the population are kept poor enough to never quit working, are kept poor enough to accept distasteful jobs society cannot function without. If everyone were a millionaire, who would empty the trash or repair the sewers? It follows that the poorer the general population is made, the greater the worth of the money held by the wealthy, in terms of the lives which may be bought and sold with it."

— Michael Rivero

I can't say for sure where my future will take me. I do harbour very serious hopes of eventually becoming an academic researcher who writes his own books and gives conferences on subject matters pertaining to human nature, and this is a profession that is likely to pay well if I get far ahead enough.

But I will never forget that this privileged route I can choose to take, just to even give my passions and ambitions a shot whether I succeed or not, means that I am adequately fed, clothed and housed upon the hardships of others, many of whom will never have the opportunity to get a formal education, leave the borders of their country, contemplate career choices, survive until the age of fifty, or live without the insecurity of those things I am privileged with - food, clothing, shelter and social stability. Who I am and what I can do rests on the shoulders of primary workers who began an agricultural revolution thousands of years ago such that division of labour freed some people from being chained to the soil. I belong to that category of people free from hard labour so that I can, in economic speak, "put my resources to better (more efficient?) use". With a cosmic roll of the dice, I might very well be a poor labourer who has no access to any of the opportunities I have now.

For those reasons, it would be a sin not to make the most of my potential. I will strive to ensure that I make the most out of what I can do and contribute and, as far as I can manage, give back to society where it has allowed me to chase my dreams.

2011-07-11T02:06:00.001+08:00

Can't believe how easy it was to not see it coming. I'm thankful that at my trough, a friend I've once helped came giving me my own advice.

Never externalize your insecurities. Feel low? Avoid situations in which you will be judged socially or where you're expected to "be yourself". Take some time off alone to work your issues out before dumping them on a cherished one. Some of those cycles of despise, when allowed to start during moments of weakness, can be awfully hard to get rid of.

You'll find yourself, alone.

My First Plant - The Venus Fly Trap

2011-06-05T23:37:00.005+08:00

Against the superstition of my parents, I got myself a venus fly trap from Takashimaya Cold Storage two days ago! (I used to own a typical female tree lizard when I was 11 years old and had to release it into the wild when my mum became pregnant with my brother because it was 'inauspicious'.) Why only now? Because I had never seen it sold anywhere else around Singapore before. This is officially the first plant I have ever owned, and as an evolution and natural design junkie this is probably THE plant to own.

Costing a silly $28.50, the venus fly trap has always been a childhood fascination for the simple fact that it is a very different kind of plant, which makes it cool. It doesn't just sit around, immobile, settling for bland water. It lures, seduces, attracts and kills, which means it has personal tastes and an appetite. Awesome.

You can read up all about it at HowStuffWorks, but in a nutshell the venus fly trap is an ode to evolution. It is native to the coast of North and South Carolina, because of the abundance of wetlands and humidity. Most plants can't survive in these areas because the soil is acidic, and minerals and other nutrients (which are necessary building blocks for plant growth) are scarce. The venus fly trap has evolved the ability to thrive by finding an alternate means of getting key nutrients such as nitrogen via living creatures like insects which also contain additional energy-laden carbohydrates.

As a result of trying to own a venus fly trap outside of its natural wild habitat, my venus fly trap is quite a baby for the care it requires. In order to mimic its natural conditions, distilled or rain water is needed as it cannot survive off tap water that is treated with unnatural chemicals. The dissolved solids in tap water - sodium, calcium, alkaline salts, sulphur, chlorine and magnesium - are detrimental to its health. My brother and I had quite a bit of fun trying to distill our own pure water, using a trick I learnt from the survival tip on how to extract drinking water from sea water (click here for another variant of this trick that can be done at home). Other simple, practical and readily available sources of pure distilled water include condensed water from air conditioners and car battery water.

The venus fly trap may survive without eating prey, but it certainly flourishes when it has nutritious food sources. So, if the venus fly trap is not located in the wild, feeding must be manually done. Good food includes flies, spiders, crickets, slugs and caterpillars within the length of 1/3 an inch (one inch being the size of an average trap). 2-3 bugs a month constitutes a healthy diet.

In the absence of a brain and animal perception, the venus fly trap accomplishes its task of capturing prey through specialized leaves that are both mouth and stomach in one. The leaves forming the trap secrete a sweet nectar that attract insects in search of food. It's a very interesting process but gets a little bit scientifically technical from here on, so a copy and paste from the HowStuffWorks page will have to do:

"When an insect enters the trap, it is likely to run into one of six, short, stiff hairs on the trap's surface. These are called trigger hairs, and they serve as a primitive motion detector for the plant. If two of these hairs are brushed in close succession, or one hair is touched twice, the leaves close down upon the offending insect within half a second.

What causes the leaves to squeeze shut? Nobody knows exactly how the sequential, mechanical stimulation of the trigger hairs translates into closing the trap. The prevailing hypothesis of the day is that:

1. Cells in an inner layer of the leaf are very compressed. This creates tension in the plant tissue that holds the trap open.
2. Mechanical movement of the trigger hairs puts into motion ATP-driven changes in water pressure within these cells.
3. The cells are driven to expand by the increasing water pressure, and the trap closes as the plant tissue relaxes."

The plant is thus capable of "distinguishing" between prey and inedible debris according to whether more than one trigger hair is touched. The food selection process may not be perfect (because real food in the form of flies and spiders may be crawling all around the plant, but the fly trap may be closed shut over something useless such as a leaf or twig), but this simple strategy has allowed it to do without muscles or a brain, which are very costly organs and tissues to sustain.

The digesting process is also very remarkable. Once the trap fully closes, the leaves form an airtight seal through long hair-like projections known as cilia so that digestive fluids and insect parts are kept inside the trap and bacteria and molds cannot enter. The finger-like cilia create the awesome impression of spiny teeth that has captured the imagination of monster-plant story spinners, but they are really only used to keep the trap latched shut.

Sometimes, a trap does not close shut and as a result may suffer from a bacterial infection, rot and fall away. The venus fly trap can tolerate losing traps because it can eventually sprout new ones. However, beyond this, the venus fly trap is also capable of losing traps "strategically" through "planned obsolescence", and this is one of its most amazing characteristics to me. When a trap runs its course of about 10 to 12 closures, it loses the ability to capture anything. The leaves of a trap remain spread wide open and it then devotes all its energy to the process of photosynthesis for the remainder of its life span, usually around 2 to 3 months. This former trap thus no longer goes through the ritual of attracting insects and eating them. In a purely evolutionary sense, this is somewhat similar to how menopausal mammals contribute to their social groups. This way, if a trap is repeatedly stimulated by inedible objects either because it is incompetent or poorly located, the rest of the plant can recoup some of the energy and ATP lost on its inefficient trap and make it focus instead solely on photosynthesis.

Once the insect is firmly gripped by the trap, a process of digestion begins. The trap secretes acidic digestive juices that dissolve the soft tissues and cell membranes of the food, serve as an antiseptic to kill bacteria and enzymatically digest DNA, amino acids and other cellular molecules into small pieces that can be eventually ingested by the plant. The process continues until only the hard exoskeleton of the prey remains. Once the prey's nutrients are depleted, the plant reabsorbs the digestive fluid. This serves as a signal to reopen the trap, and the prey's remains are left behind. In natural conditions, wind and rain water helps to remove the remains but, indoors, I'll have to manually remove them for my plant.

As this is my maiden attempt, I'm not certain of my ability to keep my venus fly trap alive. But I'll give it a shot. Most plants hardly pique my interest but this high-maintenance creature certainly is a beauty!

Chinese Prayer

2011-06-03T11:37:00.003+08:00

When I go to the chinese temple to pray, I usually experience a sensation of reverence. This is quite a recent and novel development, given how it was that only about four or so years ago I was anti-religion to some degree.

However, much of the awe and humility isn't so much because of the holiness and spirituality behind the religion and practice (although they do play a huge part still), but rather because of the fact that it belies a long-standing tradition. When I get on my knees, I am acknowledging that this practice arises from a philosophy and way of life that has sustained the lives of thousands of generations before me.

I find it virtually impossible not to pay my respects to that.

Midway

2011-05-17T12:41:00.004+08:00

Been offline for a pretty long while, but the girlfriend and I have departed Southeast Asia and headed off for the India-Nepal leg of our trip. At this point, we had just left India after 5-6 days traveling around the bustling cities of Delhi, Agra and Jaipur, and are nicely nestled in Kathmandu. 6 days here, and then I'm off to Washington DC for my psychology conference!

Actually, there's a transit point between South Asia and the US for me, where I'll be in Singapore for a day. I think that day is a Monday... Bad ass fate.

Once more, get updates from Angie's blog, where she details our adventures around South Asia!

Southeast Asia on a Shoestring

2011-04-25T21:13:00.002+08:00

I'm currently out of the country at the moment on my long-awaited graduation trip. For updates, do head over to Angie's blog, for a really awesome coverage of our journey!

No Yong, Chin & Ng (2011), YET

2011-04-12T23:47:00.005+08:00

Fudge. We didn't get SUPC, so there goes the chance for the Asian Pillars of Psychology trio to make our mark as undergraduates. There's always more ahead.

Meanwhile, this comes as a very relevant article (forwarded to me by my evolutionary psychology professor) after last night's eventful visit to Le Baroque, with the NUS law exchange students holding some kind of post-exam party:

Is Love Color Blind?
by Steve Sailer

Challenge Accepted, Challenge Done

2011-04-06T23:24:00.020+08:00

About a month and a half ago in Whine and Dine, I basically allowed myself to rant about the mountain of work I had to do (a rather rare occasion that I did about something mundane). In it, I said that I had to grapple with:

1) four modules
2) one thesis
3) three essays
4) three presentations
5) at least two publication projects
6) the Stanford Undergraduate Conference project
7) planning my graduate trip
8) working out my APS presentation in Washington DC
9) Graduate Record Examination
10) running a friend's psychology study
11) teaching assistantship
12) research assistantship
13) and more

all at more or less the same time, and that the one-week mid-term break was a make-or-break point where I either pull through or completely crumble, my dreams turning to dust and my GPA going down the drain.

Yes it was a rant post, but I ended it off basically saying CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Today, I stand relatively unscathed, having completed almost everything and making it through (with the sole exception of the Stanford Undergraduate Conference not garnering a reply yet). Because of this, which I do consider to be quite a success on a personal level, I therefore feel compelled to reiterate some personal mantras I always tell myself, at the risk of sounding pompous.

Negativity never helped make anything better. It might make you feel better in some small kind of way, but just by rationally thinking about it, panicking, stressing out and complaining never improved things, especially if the odds are against you. Why make your looming mountain of work harder for yourself to complete, and worse still, irritate other people around you? It does not suffice to say that sometimes we can't help it. All it does is satisfy some part of our brain responsible for emotional gratification, or our primal desire to bail out or seek sympathy. You can continue to think that way if you do not want to accomplish anything. Perhaps the only negativity that is permissible is associated with hate, such as a burning desire to destroy or own your work so as to get it out of your way.

Just do, part one. Many times, the worst part of doing something is the part before we even get down to doing anything, because we contemplate the fear of failure, we experience the anxiety of embarking on a task that is potentially difficult or painful, and we entertain the apprehension of even trying. That is the worst and most unforgivable thing that can stop us - when we don't even give it a shot. If failure doesn't even get a chance, forget about success.

Just do, part two. You are often more resilient than you give yourself credit for. The moment you're thrown into the deep end, you'll find a way to survive. Of course, there's the odd failure, but going back to point 2, at least you found out. It would be extremely silly to miss the chance of finding out that you can succeed. And in most cases, we make it through somehow. Those times we make it through will give us the confidence we need to take on greater tasks in future.

Just do, part three. There's a lot of work to be done and you haven't started, so the road ahead looks like an examination paper with twenty questions, or a blank document expecting to be filled with 10,000 words. JUST GET STARTED. Do the more enjoyable parts first, or do the questions that are easier first. Once you gain momentum doing the tasks that are least costly to your time and efforts, you'll usually find that the rest of it isn't as difficult as you thought. The most daunting part of an essay is knowing that your document is completely blank. Start filling it out. The rest gets easier once the content starts to flow and your job list starts to shrink.

Enjoy the ride. Relish the challenge. Think of life as a journey, and that this is a small bump in the road. Years down the road, you'll laugh ridiculously at how difficult you thought your problems were then. Get real.

Point 5 requires you to be optimistic. Yes, you have to be, otherwise you would not dare to do anything. Like point 1, pessimism about your own capability is a feeling to be entertained if you don't want to pull through. It is not going to be easy for people who are dispositionally pessimistic, I'll grant that, but whatever it is, find a way to suppress your pessimism. Talk to people, get social support, and most importantly, do that because you WANT to remove your self-doubt, not because you want others to agree how uniquely dire your situation is.

Yes, the truth can sometimes sound like tough love, but truth is not a democracy. Carpe diem.

Human or Spiritual?

2011-03-27T02:37:00.002+08:00

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

- Teilhard de Chardin

I'm not sure where I stand on this one but it does provide some food for thought.

Last Spanish Class

2011-03-24T17:04:00.003+08:00

I guess I've always thought this, though I've never felt compelled enough to write about it until today when my Spanish class came to an end. We spent the last class studying about the festivals in Spain, and our Professor explained to us the significance behind the festivals which are heavily influenced by Catholicism. Finally, we finished off the lesson with a video showing the various festivals celebrated by natives across the country.

As the video went on I couldn't help but marvel at the diversity and the richness of the culture and tradition I was witnessing. It struck me that it is really the small but very embedded things like these - looking forward to your holiday festivals, carrying out the rituals of the tradition (the Spanish eat twelve grapes while counting down to the new year, carrying the "Three Wise Men" (Los Reyes Magos) on platforms while the whole town is gathered on the streets, getting chased by bulls while wearing red in Pamplonas, dancing and making merry in public), visiting friends and family on important dates, always having something to cheer, drink, dance, sing and celebrate about - that make one proud to be part of something and want to perpetuate these things, generation after generation. I almost felt like crying for some reason. I think I feel quite strongly that I'm missing out on something important.

Cultural traditions like these retain the child-like innocence and longing in those who have been captivated by them when they were kids. They grow up, get married, have kids and want their own sons and daughters to experience what they did, because the experience is so significant and personally meaningful, and therefore important. Art, beauty and performance in culturally rich countries like these live on because these festivals allow those forms of expressions to thrive. It does not take some profit-driven economic nonsense to determine if art to them is worth pursuing or not. At least from what I saw, art and performance is important because the tradition and the culture is worth preserving. And boy were those festivals huge. On fiesta day, my Professor says that nobody stays at home. Sometimes, Spanish who are overseas miss it so much that they gather around television sets watching the celebrations back home, because it is inconceivable to forget about the celebrations. What longing and devotion that is. Maybe that's really what it takes to feel like part of something, and how a character that is guided by the heart, so that ideals and beliefs are stood up for, is formed.

I've thought hard about it, and I honestly can't say anything about my own personal culture that I'm particularly very proud of, nor do I even really know what it really is. I just was never brought up adequately that way, and I think my brother is there too (although he's far less aware of how potentially important this can be, which can be bliss seeing how agonized I am about this issue). Chinese New Year isn't half what it was one or two mere decades ago, and most youths I know of aren't proud of it or see it as a chore. I think Christmas fares somewhat better, but it is so terribly commercialized that I think many people are chasing commercially-fabricated dreams rather than celebrating traditions and values. Kudos to those who still genuinely put in the yearly efforts to re-establish kinship ties.

I must go to Spain one day to see for myself what this is like, right in the flesh. I will never truly know what they're experiencing, because I never grew up there and I think that it is in our developmental years that these things capture the heart. But I think it will be more than enough for me to experience it vicariously through the emotions on their faces.

2011-03-13T13:58:00.001+08:00

"But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads?"

- Albert Camus

Is Philosophy Dead?

2011-03-11T14:13:00.006+08:00

I am reminded of the latest book Stephen Hawking published late last year titled The Grand Design. In it, he proclaims that "philosophy is dead."

I can only hope that he said those words in the spirit of a publicity stunt, because if he really meant it, I must say that I am sorely disappointed. For someone whose enterprise is dedicated the search for knowledge, meaning and truth (and no less someone many people admire for his intellectual brilliance), the statement demonstrates that he has completely and utterly missed the point.

Since the beginning of man's ability to philosophize, thinkers who consider themselves the end-all-be-all of knowledge have been trying to kill philosophy over and over again to no avail. I am reminded of Hegel's belief that philosophy ended with him.

One only needs to return to Albert Einstein for insight on why seekers of knowledge even do what they do:

"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion."

To quote a few useful rejoinders to the statement that "philosophy is dead,"

By Angie Hobbs from Angie Hobbs' Blog:

"It's an extraordinarily ill-informed view of what philosophy is, even if we leave to one side the vital work that philosophers like Zeno did in kicking off mathematics. What of the valuable work in, for example, ethics and political theory and aesthetics and philosophy of mind that philosophers do when they have studied the supposed 'facts' with which scientists present them?"

"... What of the fact that philosophers are often asking different kinds of questions from the ones that Hawking asks? Aristotle says that one can look for four different kinds of 'cause' or 'reason' (aitia) when examining any thing or fact or state of affairs: material, formal, efficient and final. I suspect that if Aristotle were to read The Grand Design he might suggest that Hawking has concentrated on the material and efficient explanations of the cosmos, and simply not fully understood the force of questions about possible formal and final explanations."

"To say that the law of gravity allows the universe to create itself from nothing won't do: is the law of gravity supposed to be 'nothing'? Why is there a law of gravity and not no law of gravity? Appeals to M-theory will not satisfy either. Quite apart from the fact that this theory is by no means polished or finalised [...] appeals to M-theory are only pushing the problem upstairs: even if all the maths eventually works out, we can still ask 'Why M-theory and not nothing?' This does not mean that the answer is necessarily a designer God [...] though again, there is space for such a view. It does not even mean that there has to be any answer at all to the search for a 'final' cause of the cosmos; but humans can and will still ask the question, and some of us will feel that Hawking has not understood what such questioners are asking."

By Wes Alwan from The Partially Examined Life:

"... We should really ask people what Hawking and his ilk think of literature and the humanities in general. “I am only interested in the hard sciences and everything else is squishy and impractical and insufficiently number-ish” is not an argument. It simply reflects an orientation toward activities that are as far away from social concerns as possible. It’s what we associate with being a nerd, and in a sense these sorts of pseudo-philosophical Papal Bulls by the popularizers of science are simply the ultimate revenge of the nerds.

Worse, they are a rejection of interiority, a rejection of the idea that reflection is a worthwhile endeavor. Our own thoughts and feelings cannot be “data”; me [sic] must concentrate only on empirical objects. It’s an attempt to kill off large areas of inquiry, because those areas of inquiry defy easy answers and point to the limits of scientific inquiry."

And personally, as a cheap jibe at "philosophy is dead" (Hawking, 2010), the statement is inherently self-defeating because it is a philosophical statement.

Returning back to Einstein's quote, if philosophy ever dies, so will humanity.

Great Philosophy

2011-03-09T11:57:00.002+08:00

Great philosophy is transcendental in the way that it is timeless, universal and requires little context. One can peer into the depths of a philosophy and know it speaks of truth without the cumbersome and lengthy explanations that science has to go through just to get close. Our automatic connection to great philosophy is instantaneous and revelatory because the unifying theme is humanity.

2011-03-09T11:44:00.003+08:00

I think existential awareness or consciousness, a term I will loosely use, can be a double-edged sword. A lot of human experience is rich because we just go through them spontaneously, without entirely knowing that we are. Well, maybe we can know we are experiencing such emotions and experiences - that will be far better than if we went through life not knowing anything - but I think the modern tendency to want to scientifically and rationally know everything can be extremely detrimental to savouring life's experiences.

Those who know, just know. It is like how, if I had to explain what love is to you, you will never know love. I think the myriad self-help books capitalizing on science to teach everyone how to do everything from love, relationships, leadership, to immortality, will eventually lead everyone to miss the point.

(Almost) Perfect Brains

2011-02-27T12:41:00.004+08:00

"Turing's original insight is as singular as Darwin's idea about natural selection, and like all great ideas, its simplicity hides its depth.

---------

It has been said about Darwin's theory of evolution that it's the ultimate tautology - the survivors survive. This faux complaint presents a powerful feature of evolution; whatever works to keep you alive and get your genes into the next generation is just fine, no matter how weird the reasons or the results. But there is another feature of survival that is often not emphasized so much - survival is hard, desperately hard. Darwin understood this clearly and emphasized it in his title to Chapter 3 in The Origin of Species - "The Struggle for Existence." Mere persistence from one moment to the next is a struggle. So the augmented tautology becomes "The survivors survive but their life is desperate."

... all early humans can be seen as quite desperate, living a hard life with the threat of starvation as a constant motivator. Hunting and gathering is simply not very efficient, and until agriculture was discovered, early humans were always just one major mistake away from starving to death. This point is hard to overemphasize. Life is unforgiving, and so life's mechanisms had a constant pressure to be efficient - to capture, store, and process energy efficiently. And when we look at the components of life, cells, they are literal wonders of efficient energy-handling.

Out of the pressure comes efficiency. We all know that we become much more efficient and creative when we are desperate - when circumstances dictate that we absolutely must find some solution to a problem even though and money have almost run out. Desperation is indeed the mother of invention. Plato called it necessity, but he really meant desperation. Life itself responds the same way: The tougher the times, the more crafty and efficient the solution; such is the power of evolution" [italics mine]

- Read Montague, computational neuroscientist, Your Brain is (Almost) Perfect

Cognitive neuroscience, computational theory of the mind and evolutionary understanding are indeed strange bedfellows that have come together to realize the potential of understanding human consciousness in the coming century.

And the italicized points are precisely, to me at least, why evolutionary thinking cannot be taken lightly. Detractors may dismiss it because of its tarnished past (brought on by determinists or extremist right-wingers with moral motives) or its whimsical present (pop books and magazines wielding evolutionary reasoning for sex and attraction and just-so stories), but its underlying logic still presents us a vital window to understanding why our brain is simply so efficient. And evolutionary psychology has still a lot more to offer insofar as the brain continues being a decision-making information processor. Computational theory of the mind (CTOM) combines to bridge the gap between 'machinery' and consciousness, and there we will find answers in the future as to how what we have always regarded as the mind - spiritual matter, consciousness, ideas, thoughts, etc - can be produced by a warm mass of tissue and neurons.

It really doesn't hurt at all that its not just the evolutionary psychologists who are touting or at least acknowledging the reasoning power of evolution with regards to studying the human mind. Read Montague is one such case. Regardless of whether we have to skirt the terminology of evolution which bears the baggage of misunderstanding and misinterpretation, we will continue to find the logic and terms of adaptation and functionality in future studies of the mind if we are to understand consciousness in a scientific manner at all.

Will be eagerly devouring the book in the next week or so. CTOM holds immense promise.

Live

2011-02-25T13:38:00.002+08:00

Yeah it's a TC Bank advert, but it's still a darn good video which strikes right at the heart of what it means to live.

Sometimes I play soccer on Sunday morning and we still see some uncles bringing a team down and taking on the young'uns. Some of them are in the 40s range, but they're still up and running, alive and kicking.

Maybe most of all, they're still bros who've got each other.

When we stop asking why, when we stop being awesome, when we stop dreaming, we die.

Whine and Dine

2011-02-17T23:35:00.004+08:00

Work-life balance is at an all-time poor at the moment. At the rate I'm going I'll probably lose all my hair, develop stomach ulcers, bust an artery or lose my soul like Natalie Portman in Black Swan (except not so glamourously).

There's always school work, of course. Presentations and assignments for four completely unrelated courses (Design Thinking, World Politics, Cultural Arts and Identities, and Spanish), each with its own research essay and examinations, and then the thesis. Throw in my supervisor's publication projects and the Stanford Undergraduate Conference project, and that's three more or so huge projects outside of standard curriculum time, concurrently. Add to that planning for grad trip from April to May, squeezing in the APS Conference in Washington DC at the end of May, and Hong Kong in June. And if I get Stanford, which is also at the end of May, then that's Washington + California in the span of one week (probably have to pass on it). Then there's the GRE retake on March 24th (haven't began preparing for, AGAIN), my friend's study to help run at the moment (as well as the eventual data entry of 100 participants' survey responses), teaching assistantship (thankfully and mercifully ends tomorrow evening) and lastly research assistantship. And a whole list of errands to run - reapply for driving license (which I lost last year), get contact lenses, set up bank joint-account, go for immunity jabs and stuff for the grad trip, etc etc. My list of things to do is hitting the goddamned roof.

Next week, my much-needed midterm break will be here and I have this nagging feeling that if I don't sort out at least half the stuff I have to do, I will flunk everything that I'm doing (or will have to do eventually) - failure to meet coursework deadlines, poorly written thesis, lack of preparation for GRE, failure to send in the submission for Stanford and, generally, messing up my entire life plan (so far) for graduate studies.

Interestingly, while this is an obviously absolutely shitty situation to be in, part of me relishes the challenge. And regardless of what happens, I'm gonna get my ass into graduate school.

But first things first, do or die next week.

Some Thoughts on Goodwill

2011-02-11T00:32:00.006+08:00

I woke up to one of the crappiest days I've had in recent times. The past week had been a mess - assignments that piled up, presentations due next week, the thesis to take care of, and other obligations I had to see to. The past three days saw me notching a total of about ten hours of sleep only, and when this happens I get an outbreak of sinus that usually lasts the whole day. The feeling of tiredness and a sneezy, leaky nose is one of the most miserable feelings ever, especially when there's a whole day ahead of you from 11am to 10.30pm consisting of studies to run/participate in, meetings and classes to attend, and teaching assistantships to conduct (of course this is nothing compared to enduring starvation or a lifetime of poverty, but... you get the drift).

I don't really know how to put this, but let me try. In my experience so far I think it is really rare to observe genuine goodwill in our modern day and age. Perhaps it is because our results-oriented societal character makes us think of efficiency all the time. Or maybe we are reluctant to help others because we are afraid, either of not getting immediate returns for our goodwill, or that we will be taken advantage of. People want bang for their buck, and are impatient to get it. People think of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" a lot more than "a little goodwill goes a long way."

I'm certainly not trying to impose or insist on any particular way of doing things here, but what I hope to do is to present a case where what goes around does comes around, even if we may not immediately see it. Goodness begets goodness, and so does evil, in the long run.

How so in my case? I think I've always done my quiet little part for the people who matter to me - nothing more and nothing less. I'm not saying this because I'm consciously doing this in some warped self-interested manner everyday; I'm simply reflecting on it as it happened. And "people who matter to me" are very loosely defined. When my help is asked for - explicitly or implicitly - I seldom see reason not to give it. When people see what I do in research as an undergraduate and perhaps garner some interest in the possibility of going to graduate school, I'm glad to help and give information and my personal heartfelt take on the matter. When I see an elderly person on the train, I give up my seat; absolutely no questions asked. I wouldn't dare entertain the possibly of contemplating my act (often resorted to when people start thinking of costs and benefits), not that I had to. When I do work for others, either because I'm commercially contracted to do so or because I just want to help, I do the work because I want to give them what I can offer. This spans from designing logos, drawing caricatures, running studies, editing a coursemate's essay, taking care of the administration of a class, whatever. It doesn't matter. Do it well, do it good, do it for the fact that you desire to give of yourself first, and then for its external benefits - such as remuneration - second. That's a personal philosophy of sorts to me.

So as I slogged through today with a leaking nose and uncomparable drowsiness from lack of sleep, I was relishing the close of the day at 10.30pm with my negotiation class, for which I was a teaching assistant in. It had been a hectic term, and finally the course was ending - today was the last class before the final examination. I was absolutely taken aback and very pleasantly surprised when the Professor summed up his lesson, changed tack and said, "and finally, we have a very important person to thank today - our TA." He invited me down to the front and handed me some envelopes which I later opened after the class to reveal $100 worth of book vouchers.

Cynics and skeptics may say whatever they wish (my parents took their potshots when I told them, saying, "Oh, maybe he got the vouchers for free, and he could've just afforded them easily anyway"), but at the end of the day those vouchers were of value to a poor student like me. However, more than that, it indicated that there was some degree of recognition of the work I had put in. Cynics can debate the degree of recognition all day long, but to me the fact that the recognition was there shows that the cycle was complete. What goes around comes around, goodwill begets goodwill.

It made a case that my Professor described in class more salient. He recalled a time back in the 1990s when he visited China with his wife. When he checked into his hotel, a street chauffeur approached him and offered him chauffeur services for $50, whereby the Professor and his wife would be brought anywhere they wanted to go the whole day for that price. It wasn't a bad proposition, so the Professor took it up.

The next day, the chauffeur showed up and abruptly changed the terms of their deal. He said it will now cost $60. The Professor was taken aback - how tactical was this move! The Professor had no alternative - in fact, the alternative would be to endure his wife's distress, as she hated to negotiate. So he agreed to the chauffeur's terms, and the chauffeur got the $60 he pushed for.

My Professor then said that the cruel joke here was that the Chinese chauffeur had no clue what he had lost out on. My Professor, being a typical American-Israeli, would have spent the day traveling with his wife for $50, and tipped the chauffeur with an additional $50 for a job well done. But because the calculative chauffeur chose to approach the relationship in such a competitive manner, all bets were off on generosity and giving.

Perhaps it's not the Chinese chauffeur's fault for trying to rip off a traveling Westerner. But the point is that how we choose to conduct our relations with others can and will go a long way. We can choose to either go at it with goodwill or be calculative. What do you lose when you give? I don't know about most others, but for me I think in most cases it's usually very little. I think it often takes a rather competitive and calculative nature to sweat the small losses and perceive some painful cost in every little thing he/she does for others, and in a society where such a nature dictates the norms of social interaction, we stand so much more to lose.

My Professor's little gesture of acknowledgement reinforces my firm belief that if we hold on to being genuine and sanguine about our dealings with others rather than ulterior motives, some day we will get our just desserts.

P.S. It always amazes me how tokens are so much more effective in demonstrating reciprocity than cold, hard cash. Already, gift vouchers are probably the least remote cash items - we certainly find it harder to think of a gift of fruits, a watch or a dress in monetary terms, than a $50 book voucher. Yet, simply because the $50 gift voucher isn't a $50 bill (which would ironically allow me more freedom to choose what I want to buy - Homo Economicus would prefer the $50 bill) I'm still able to perceive it as a gift rather than a payment. This would allow me to remain very much in the realm of social norms, marked by reciprocity and closeness, rather than market norms, marked by transactional relations and coldness.

Regret

2011-02-10T00:25:00.001+08:00

“Regret comes in all shapes and sizes. Some are small like when we do a bad thing for a good reason. Some are bigger like when you let down a friend. Some of us escape the pain of regret by making the right choice. Some of us have little time for regret because we're looking forward to the future. Sometimes we have to fight to come to terms with the past, and sometimes we bury our regret by promising to change your own ways. But, our biggest regrets are not for the things we did - but, for the things we didn't do. Things we didn't say that could've save someone that we care about. Especially when we can see the dark storm that's headed their way."

- Lucas Scott, One Tree Hill

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."

- Sidney J. Harris

The Perils of Denying/Rejecting Human Nature

2011-02-09T23:27:00.000+08:00

The solutions each of us proposes for problems of the world, if we took the time to think about it, depend very much on our intellectual and moral inclinations and starting assumptions.

I very much believe that there is a human nature which is innate to every human being that, at the crux, cannot be altered by socialization or some kind of mere hope, morality or ideology. This starting belief informs my intuitive interest in subjects like evolutionary psychology, Realism and Marxism, because such subjects are inspired by how so many aspects of our behaviour do not change despite the long span of human history. The patterns just inevitably keep repeating themselves, as evidenced by the vast literature of war, societal conflicts and love throughout the ages.

Despite numerous social movements that have seen humans living through the chastity of Victorian England, the oppression of Maoist China, the enlightenment of Renaissance Europe to the decadence of the Dark Ages (an obviously inexhaustive yet clearly diverse list), fundamental aspects of aggression, attraction, status hierarchies, coalition formation, kinship and reciprocity, just to name a few, still remain. Despite the promise of Liberalism and Idealism, which are all logically sound philosophies, wars still happen and states are still concerned with security. Exploitation still happens all over the world, at both global levels (the exploitation of third world nations by advanced capitalist states) and smaller levels (the exploitation of the poor by corporations).

I don't think I'm wrong in my judgment of the reality in this sense, even if it may appear rather bleak or, worse, nativist. It is clear that, with recurring travesties of war, discrimination, exploitation etc in the world today, the power of socialization (trumpeted by behaviourists, social constructivists and environmentalists amongst others who believe entirely in nurture/culture while refusing to acknowledge nature) and the power of cooperation (because man is good and rational) requires a serious raincheck. The worst thing to do, given where my intellectual concerns come from, is to deny that human nature exists and dictates a significant chunk of our motives and actions.

This is dangerous because denying our nature and our propensity for certain behaviours is to diagnose the problem wrongly and suggest the wrong cure. It is perhaps striking how so many people are surprised when others behave in a self-interested manner, or are upset in the sense that they get caught off guard when war and conflict happens. It reflects, perhaps, a certain kind of self-delusional belief that social theories of learning and positive reinforcement can eradicate 'bad' traits in humans. John B. Watson (1930), the founder of behaviourism, famously said, "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." Clifford Geertz, a firm believer of the culturally malleable human, also defined how many social scientists think today and therefore a large degree of the entire social sciences enterprise. Hence, to these theorists, "change society or culture and you change people... Intelligent, scientific socialization can make us whatever we want to be" (D. E. Brown, 1991).

The attempts to suppress 'bad' human nature have been huge fiascos. Suppression often results in a rebound effect, and large scale oppression of natural tendencies are bound to either fail (consider the Kibbutz movement, the Hippie movement or the feminist movement, just to name some) or will experience some 'leakage' - the secret societies that operate underneath a lawful society, the rich husband who cheats on his wife, the insecure friend who behaves competitively even though the friendship is tight. I guess with such high hopes for a better world, it should come as no surprise that many people are disappointed or jaded with the outcomes.

It should make more sense, then, to find ways to work with/around our human nature, instead of working against it. Monogamous marriage law is a great example to cite. If men are most aggressive when they have no mates, institutionalize monogamy. This solved the huge problem of a lack of females in society for men who weren't rich or powerful enough to get wives (although you get the problem of the cheating powerful husband because he is driven to seek extramarital affairs, but that's a small cost compared to the huge benefits of reduced societal violence). Realism provides the wisdom that states seek security, so find ways to induce balance of power. Zhuge Liang knew this so brilliantly when foresaw that stability will be achieved when the three kingdoms were balanced against each other. Marxism tells us that the rich elite will exploit the poor. So empower the poor - give them welfare and education - and offset the power differential between the bourgeosie and the proletariat. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge exploitation, or perhaps worse, calling it by another name (comparative advantage and mutual gains?) to hide its dark side, will not result in betterment for society.

Betterment will come slowly, as it often does. With my basic starting assumptions outlined above, I believe the creation of institutions that work with human nature are often the solutions that succeed and result in progressive change. A good sense of creativity and level-headedness, with a healthy dose of reality, will go much further than overzealous revolution or radicalism with the refusal to acknowledge that our human nature cannot be denied and won't go away.

2011-02-08T18:07:00.002+08:00

Norms are separate from just behaviour, or conduct that is right or virtuous. Just because something is a norm doesn't make it the right thing to do. Just because cold-hearted rationality and efficiency are trumpeted doesn't make it right to not help those in need when the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits.

Have some spine, make a stand, and take a closer look at what we've taken for granted as 'normal'. There are plenty of things we do today that seem right only because everyone follows suit. Human nature entails that we hate to stick as the odd one out. That's true and acceptable only if one has no purpose or place in this world.

Not everyone has the privilege of being able to make a difference. The poor have little choice but to do what they must just to survive, and that may mean taking up jobs that are hardly ideal. They are squeezed and are easy targets for exploitation. But people who lead decent lives without fear of hunger or danger must take a stand. If our leaders or the institutions we live in can't make things better, the collective effort of everyone else in the direction of virtue may stand a good chance. In the name of progress and betterment, more can and must be done, and it does not take a lot to nudge the boulder - all it requires is for every individual who can help it to take a stand, rather than blindly follow. Do something because it is right to you, not because you have been told this is how things are done.

Taboo of all Taboos

2011-02-07T00:50:00.008+08:00

I was hopping around some interesting reads when I happened upon the psychology of sexual fetishes, eventually leading on to sexual dominance and women's rape fantasies. Here's an interesting comment:

"I suspect the driving force being [sic] rape fantasy is vanity. It is the love of being desired, of being wanted so much that a man loses his reason in order to have possession of the rape fantasist.

Of course, I doubt the fantasist ever dreams of being raped by a skinny little nerd type. The figure she imagines will be a giant amongst men, a man desired by all other women. You only need to read Ayn Rand to get one woman’s account of the ideal rape."

First of all, it comes as no surprise that someone like Ayn Rand would paint as radical a picture as such - to quote another person, "Female sexual power – to be so desirable that the man literally cannot help himself." The starting premises and assumptions of this assertion are debatable (e.g. female power, desirability, etc), but what strikes me is that the logic is sound.

But aside from the deceased Miss Rand, secondly, rape is arguably a real fantasy that exists for either sex. It must of course be stated that having a fantasy does not certainly mean the fantasist desires the fantasy, but to reject the existence of the fantasy altogether may not be a wise move because it limits our understanding and makes us reduce holders of taboo fantasies to being psychopathic.

Discourse on the matter, which will certainly concern/shed light on some of the deepest aspects of human nature, are also painfully slow or limited because it is not easy to broach. I recall the topic coming up in evolutionary psychology class (probably one of the few, if not the only, psychology disciplines that cares to look at it as emotionally-detached as possible), only to be met with some halting comments, discomfort and awkwardness. In many articles written on the topic, writers also spend a great deal of effort self-censoring out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others.

At any rate, this website has a really good article on the issue:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/01/womens-rape-fantasies-the-deepest-taboo/

But just to pull out some statistics, Matthew Hutson, who raised the question "Why Do Women Have Erotic Rape Fantasies?” for Psychology Today, says: "A recent analysis of 20 studies over the last 30 years indicates that between 31% and 57% of women have rape fantasies, and these fantasies are frequent or preferred in 9% to 17% of women. Considering that many people are ashamed to report rape fantasies, these stats are most likely lowball figures."

Another one found that "in one survey of romance novels (which tend to be written by and for women), the lead female character was raped in 54%."

The article ends off well by saying "we have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend."

I will leave this post at that, because I think the articles above cover quite a decent bit of ground and the statistics raised here may be compelling enough for you to click and find out more.

A Brilliant Take on Hypocrisy of Corporations

2011-02-06T02:30:00.006+08:00

From Joel Bakan's The Corporation:

Friedman thinks that corporations are good for society (and that too much government is bad). He recoils, however, at the idea that corporations should try to do good for society. “A corporation is the property of its stockholders ... Its interests are the interests of its stockholders. Now, beyond that should it spend the stockholders’ money for purposes which it regards as socially responsible but which it cannot connect to its bottom line? The answer I would say is no.” There is but one “social responsibility” for corporate executives, Friedman believes: they must make as much money as possible for their shareholders. This is a moral imperative. Executives who choose social and environmental goals over profits — who try to act morally — are, in fact, immoral.

There is, however, one instance when corporate social responsibility can be tolerated, according to Friedman — when it is insincere. The executive who treats social and environmental values as means to maximize shareholders’ wealth — not as ends in themselves — commits no wrong. It’s like “putting a good-looking girl in front of an automobile to sell an automobile ... That’s not in order to promote pulchritude. That’s in order to sell cars.” Good intentions, like good-looking girls, can sell goods. It’s true, Friedman acknowledges, that this purely strategic view of social responsibility reduces lofty ideals to “hypocritical window dressing.” But hypocrisy is virtuous when it serves the bottom line. Moral virtue is immoral when it does not.

...

Corporations are created by law and imbued with purpose by law. ... at least in the United States and other industrialized countries, the corporation, as created by law, most closely resembles Milton Friedman’s ideal model of the institution: it compels executives to prioritize the interests of their companies and shareholders above all others and forbids them from being socially responsible — at least genuinely so.

...

[Adam] Smith, in his 1776 classic, The Wealth of Nations, said he was troubled by the fact that corporations' owners, their shareholders, did not run their own businesses but delegated that task to professional managers. The latter could not be trusted to apply the same "anxious vigilance" to manage "other people's money" as they would their own, he wrote, and "negligence and profusion therefore must prevail, more or less, in the management of such a company."

The "best interests of the corporation" principle, now a fixture in the corporate laws of most countries, addresses Smith's concern by compelling corporate decision makers always to act in the best interests of the corporation, and hence its owners. The law forbids any other motivation for their actions, whether to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money. They can do these things with their own money, as private citizens. As corporate officials, however, stewards of other people's money, they have no legal authority to pursue such goals as ends in themselves - only as means to serve the corporation's own interests, which generally means to maximize the wealth of its shareholders.

Corporate social responsibility is thus illegal - at least when it is genuine.

Now isn't that sweet.

Idolatry and the Power of Ideas, Beliefs and Group Spirit

2011-02-03T01:48:00.004+08:00

Paid my yearly visit to the neighbourhood temple with my dad an hour ago. My dad strictly adheres to some school of Buddhist tradition and, as such, has to usher in the lunar new year by praying.

I couldn't help but recall and contemplate Professor Margaret Chan's neat thesis on idol worship. Her argument asserts that idols are created so that people can harness the power of supernatural spirits to help people do earthly things. In order words, idols are gateways for the spiritual realm to enter ours, and do our bidding.

The legend of Nezha, as told by the Fengshen Yanyi, is significantly relevant to this idea. During the Shang Dynasty, Nezha was born in a military fortress at Chentang Pass. Nezha's mother, Lady Yin, gave birth to a ball of flesh after being pregnant with him for three years and six months. His father, Li Jing, a military commander, thought his wife had given birth to a demon and attacked the ball with his sword. The ball split open and Nezha jumped out as a fully developed boy who could speak and walk instead of an infant. He was later accepted by the immortal Taiyi Zhenren as a student.

One day, while playing near the sea, Nezha encountered Ao Bing, the third son of the East Sea Dragon King Ao Guang. Because of a dispute, Nezha killed Ao Bing. Ao Guang confronted Nezha and his family, threatening to flood Chentang Pass and report Nezha to the Jade Emperor. To save his family, Nezha flayed and disembowled himself to return his body to his parents. The Dragon Kings were moved by his filial piety and spared his family. Later, Taiyi Zhenren used lotus roots to construct a human body in Nezha's likeness, and Nezha managed to resurrect.

Knowing this, Lady Yin ordered for a statue of Nezha to be created. Through the statue and through the reverence of many people, Nezha was thus able to return to the earthly realm and help his people. The Fengshen Yanyi clearly portrays idol worship in this case.

What appears quite interesting is that, perhaps, it was already known back then that something magical happens when many people collectively believe in something. Sociologists call this "group effervescence". The spirit that is created because many people believe in something can be powerful enough to achieve great things that scattered individuals cannot, and it is possible that ancient scholars knew the power of this phenomenon and sought to express this in writing and mythology. They might even have thought that the spirit that grips and possesses a group of people through faith and belief was a supernatural being, and thus the personified portrayal of this spirit appears in ancient texts, such as the Fengshen Yanyi. Fables could have been a form of accessible knowledge to both leaders and ordinary folk.

Fast forward to centuries later, and we see how this plays out in our modern society. People pray to the God of Prosperity (Cai Shen) so that he will bring wealth to them. People give offerings to the Goddess of the Sea (Mazu) in hopes that their travels will be safe. People also idolize Confucius and often pray to him for better study performance. If the theory of idols as gateways is right, then indeed these are instances where we see statues as channels for spirits to come to us and provide divine assistance for our earthly pursuits, and we pray so as to unlock those gateways.

While this may seem specific to cultures with statue and idol worship, a common theme also finds its place among many other religions and, in fact, organizations, that have revered symbols as the 'idol' to worship and thus harness this spirit of the masses. In every following, there is a leaderly symbol or figure to be looked up to, and as long as people channel their faith and belief into this symbol or figure, their collective potential can and will be mobilized.

It could be because the natural psychology of humans makes us drawn in by abstract ideas. It is often the pursuit of abstract ideas that spurs us into action and motivates us go the extra mile. This is why working for the sake of a monthly wage can be a painful process, but when we believe, for example, that the work we put in for a company can save the lives of people in Sub-saharan Africa, we might be willing to work overtime for nothing. The moment we can connect our efforts to a relevant (and usually moral) cause, there will be sufficient justification we create for ourselves to reconcile any irrationalities in our behaviour. We would sacrifice our time, labour and well-being even against our own self-interest once the powerful connection between our existence and our purpose is made, and that purpose is often socially constructed. People are willing to give the most for ideas, which is why ideas can be both so powerful and so dangerous at the same time.

Leaders, or people who have the propensity to kickstart movements and have the capability to attract followers, have the fuel they need given this basic psychological set up of humans. As purpose can be socially constructed, a leader who has the charisma to convince people of the desirability of his or her purpose can have a following who are willing to forgo their self-interest for the collective. It has probably been this way ever since homo sapiens first discovered the advantages of banding together instead of remaining as disparate nomadic tribes, and in the process created agriculture, states, industry and other amazing large scale organizations and movements. Ideologies, religions, philosophies and causes have all managed to unlock massive human potential and will continue to do so, insofar as our human nature remains this way.

Art co-evolved alongside too, as huge cultural artefacts were constructed to symbolize, represent and motivate the movements of the day. By propelling these physically and objectively 'hollow' yet socially meaningful artefacts towards idol status, the hearts and minds of many were captured and channeled towards creating important moments in history.

Anyway while I was there I noticed a young Chinese man, probably the age of 18, praying alone by himself. Although I probably do not share his beliefs entirely, the intensity of his faith could be felt as he went from altar to altar in solemn prayer, eyes closed and on bended knee each time. It was somehow heartening to know that our faiths and traditions still carry on in their own personal and quiet little ways, without boasting fanfare and noisy proclamations. And somehow I would believe that this young man had heart and could not want anything more than goodness and well-being for the loved ones and friends around him, and perhaps for strength to overcome what is often left to uncaring luck.

Sometimes it's not so much the irrationality of the fear and insecurity that should drive how we think of religion, but the recognition that we are small pawns in the timeless cycle of life and the serenity of acknowledging something bigger than ourselves.

2011-02-02T00:15:00.005+08:00

Catchy, soulful and groovy. It is impossible to dislike this charming song!

I said, if I was richer, I'd still be with ya
Ha, now ain't that some shit? (ain't that some shit?)

LOL the siren song, the war cry, of the nice poor guy.

2011-02-02T00:00:00.001+08:00

I guess a hallmark of psychology is that it seeks to discover patterns of human thinking and behaviour in a neutral and scientific way, and as long as it remains that way I can't be satisfied with its answers because of my inclination/tendency towards normative and moral issues.

Two Hit Combo

2011-01-31T01:19:00.003+08:00

I was introduced to Robert Cox back then in my International Political Economy class and now I'm revisiting his work under the Marxism chapter in World Politics class.

Current Marxist schools of thought are difficult to define because there are so many branches, but most of them can logically lead to this 'supreme' conclusion that spectacularly takes out its intellectual rivals, Realism and Liberalism, at the same time.

"Global acceptance of neo-liberalism is very much in the interests of the developed world and has involved a large degree of coercion. That such policies seem 'natural' and 'commonsense' is an indication of the hegemonic power of the United States." Thus, Realists have become liberals when they advise the US government to push for the Washington Consensus on free trade and liberalization in order to sustain the US's power in the international political arena. On the other hand, Liberalism has simply been reduced to a tool as Realists seek to preserve the prevailing order.

Naise.

2011-01-26T23:35:00.002+08:00

If you're both rich and results-oriented, you will eventually pay off people to do work you're personally responsible for (if you haven't already done so).

Peace

2011-01-23T23:15:00.000+08:00

Peace isn't a natural state or order. It has to be constructed.

Habla Espanol

2011-01-22T02:12:00.002+08:00

iHola! Buenos tardes. Me llamo Jose, soy de Singapur.

I'm taking Spanish as an art elective in my final term, and it's turning out to be quite a handful! I think the mind is amazing in that it doesn't jumble up the various language syntaxes. So I don't end up messing up my English language knowledge as I begin to develop this entire new language structure.

That Is Not Dead Which Can Eternal Lie, And With Strange Aeons Even Death May Die

2011-01-12T00:00:00.007+08:00

I've always been terribly fascinated with the unfathomable. Anything that can potentially be unfathomable, such as comprehending infinity or something darker, like peering into a pit of endless sorrow, has never failed to captivate me.

This is why H. P. Lovecraft's work, particularly the Cthulhu mythos franchise, continues to grip my mind. From Wikipedia: "Lovecraft's guiding literary principle was what he termed "cosmicism" or "cosmic horror", the idea that life is incomprehensible to human minds and that the universe is fundamentally alien. Those who genuinely reason, like his protagonists, gamble with sanity. ... Lovecraft's protagonists usually achieve the antithesis of traditional gnosis and mysticism by momentarily glimpsing the horror of ultimate reality and the abyss."

I think one aspect of my fixation with the unfathomable is that perhaps unfathomable things are not meant to be clearly understood by humans. So this raises curious questions, like what if a person did catch a glimpse of something unfathomable? Is it rosy, like what some people will consider to be divine, such as Truth? Or will it be that because we are not meant to fathom the unfathomable, its sheer power will destroy those who come within its range? Is the unfathomable the indication of the existence of a realm that we might come to describe as Infinite, Perfect, Ideal, Omnipotent, Pure or Godly?

Absolute power also falls into this train of consideration, as does notions of eternity and infinite regress.

I felt that Inception explored this notion to an extent when it broached the issue of death during a dream. The story asserts that people wake up when they die in a dream because it is a means of escape back to 'reality' (in inverted commas here because the movie deliberately leaves us questioning reality itself). But if the dreamer is unable to wake up and dies in the dream, he will remain in limbo and lose his mind.

To me, that sounds like what it possibly means to experience infinite torment and anguish in a short span of time. Is that what it does - derail the mind?

Is insanity also likenable to a computer hanging up? A computer (or program) can hang because it encounters a programming paradox. In one kind of paradox which is relevant to what I'm talking about, the computer encounters a circular (or catch-22) instruction in which the question and answer loops infinitely. For a silly example, I execute a function which asks the computer to create a list of emails if the executable file A.exe is open. However, what if there is a catch, or programming flaw, such that A.exe can open only if the email list is already created and thus needs to create the list of emails prior to the execution of the function? But, as can be logically seen, the creation of the email list requires file A.exe to be open. It's a silly example and I'm not sure if this is really a programming problem, but it's one I've thought of off the top of my head to illustrate the point.

The computer thus gets trapped in an endless loop of contingent requests that can never be fulfilled within the programming instruction.

What happens when a person's mind gets trapped in a loop like that? Given that there are many important things in life that are inherently paradoxical because humans are unable to reconcile them, does the attempt to genuinely reason and reconcile lead to Lovecraft's belief that sanity will be compromised? Does this suggest that perhaps sanity is a specific human trait that is meant (or simply happens) to keep us from actually perceiving what is absolutely and objectively true? Is God the ultimate paradox, which is why we can only reconcile it via faith and not science and reason?

Also, what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? Is the question really moot, as many people often like to dismiss it since it is simply inconceivable? That precisely brings me back to the fact that this is an unfathomable idea, and I'm all the more fascinated by it.

As long as I feel like I'm not compromising on my sanity pursuing these mental obsessions, I guess I'll keep at it for a long while. And maybe only in death will I know the answer.

Rational Vices, Good Ol' Business Logic And Power

2011-01-10T11:39:00.007+08:00

I've just finished lapping up Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, an exploration of the systematic irrational behaviour of human beings.

The book is implicitly anti-corporate establishment, as it dishes out nugget after nugget of problems pertaining to the economic institutions of our global world. But perhaps it is not so implicit after all, because it attacks the most fundamental premise and stronghold of economics - that humans are completely rational beings. Yes, indeed humans are rational and thinking creatures, but dogmatic hardliner economists not only fail to account for the systematic irrationalities of humans (such as fear, anger, perceptual biases, etc, which time and again falsify economic theory) but, even worse, often deliberately omit these irrationalities to preserve the elegance of the theory (arbitrage, anyone?).

This completely flies in the face of science and knowledge, because while it is perfectly fine to encounter scenarios that oppose the logic of established theories, those inconsistencies must be addressed and put to good use to further refine what we already know. What's worse is that many of our global economic and financial institutions are designed around such narrow economic principles, and whole societies are expected to fit into those institutions. It comes as no surprise that we have economic failures, because the rationality of classical economics and humans are, to put it straightforwardly, incompatible at some important parts.

Dan Ariely gives some interesting case studies to support his argument. For instance, studies on salaries and bonuses show that huge paychecks do not guarantee better performance. So, on what grounds are bankers justifying their huge salaries? The commonplace argument is that high salaries are needed to ensure that the best men are retained for the job (or else they will move elsewhere), but this is precisely the standard free market logic that Dan Ariely strives to assert is highly flawed. So when the US$700 billion bailout package went straight back into the pockets of the people running and messing up the financial institutions, it is obviously offensive to millions of taxpayers, but what can they do against an economic logic of salary-performance that is virtually accepted as a natural law? (For more interesting findings, I strongly suggest reading the book.)

Reading The Corporation by Joel Bakan does little to placate any already-existing (and growing) sentiments I have about the state of our financially globalized world now. The corporation began in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in America and Britain as corporate entities ran by stockbrokers who sought to make money via speculation. Most of these corporate entities failed, leading to loss of livelihoods, and their respective governments were quick to persecute these stockbrokers. However, after Thomas Newcomen invented the steam engine and unwittingly kickstarted the industrial revolution (yes, Joel Bakan brilliantly uses the term 'unwittingly'), corporations were revived because they were the only organized entities that could generate the huge amounts of capital needed to drive industrialization and production.

In the span of 300 years, the power balance has switched in favour of the corporation today. What started out as a damned organization that could be shut down at the whisk of a commissioner's pen, corporations today pervade every aspect of our lives and significantly control society and politics.

I digress, but in some ways I see this as similar to how sociologists trace the rise of male dominance and female oppression - capital accumulation. Because there are sociological and biological conditions under which men end up driven to accrue resources (extrinsic value) in exchange for the intrinsic value of women (in a most basic sense, reproductive capability), women in general rely on the resources that men provide and, in most patriarchal societies, become structurally dependent on men's resources.

Joel Bakan's argument sounds quite similar in that the world today hugely depends on the immense capital that can be accrued by corporations, and we are as reliant on the provisions of corporations as corporations are pervasive. Joel Bakan's angst comes from how little check and balance there is against the power of a organizational entity that is fundamentally not concerned with the welfare of society as much as it is concerned with profits.

I will eventually hope to end up in academia and presumably become a psychology researcher given my interest in the behaviour and psychology of the individual (and belief that understanding the individual will provide much insight into the issues of our world). However, my interest in philosophical, moral and social aspects also suggests otherwise; that I can't be a psychologist purely. The tendency for psychological academia to think of moral constructs as beyond the scope of psychology cannot be satisfactory to my curiosities. It is a dream that I can one day do some work that crosses the disciplines of psychology, sociology, politics, philosophy and anthropology.

Also, all the reading I'm doing, and my interests and drives, clearly makes me a heretic in SMU. Thank goodness I'll be ending my undergraduate term (and irrelevant university core modules that have only served to mess up my GPA, under which my academic capability will be cruelly judged boohoo) in a few more months.

Learned Helplessness

2011-01-02T11:11:00.003+08:00

I was revisiting Seligman and Maier's famous/notorious 1967 experiment on learned helplessness this morning, and what struck me was how similar the symptoms of the 'yoked' dog were to human depression.

In brief, the experiment (which is potentially quite upsetting to dog/animal lovers) involved two dogs - the control dog and the yoked dog. In the first part of the test, both dogs were administered mild electric shocks (harmless though annoying) at random times. However, the control dog's room had a beeper that sounded before the shock came and a switch that allowed the dog to turn off the electric shock. On the other hand, the yoked dog did not have the beeper warning nor the switch. The control dog soon learned to use the switch to prevent the shocks from occurring, while the yoked dog could do nothing about the shocks.

After the first round of experimentation, the dogs were transferred to a shuttle box.

What happens is that the electric shocks now come from the ground on either side of the shuttle box (halved by a fence). Like in the first experiment, electric shocks came at random times, but this time both dogs could witness a warning light coming on which signified the onset of another shock.

Having acclimated to the environment of the first experiment, both dogs transferred their knowledge into the second study. It was found that the control dog soon learned to jump over the fence whenever the light came on. Although it was understandably anxious, it appeared relatively happy.

The fascinating and depressing case was of the yoked dog - it simply lay in the corner of its shuttle box whimpering. Although it now had the means to escape the shocks like the control dog, the experience from the first experiment taught it that it did not understand the relationships between cause and effect. Consequently, the yoked dog became helpless in its general approach to life.

Even more interestingly/troublingly, the dog later exhibited symptoms similar to people suffering from chronic depression, such as ulcers and a weakening of the immune system.

I'm revisiting this study also at a time when I've recently watched The Cove, a documentary about dolphin captivity and a man's effort to fight against the dolphin industry after he witnessed Flipper's depression and suicide, and after I went to the zoo on Boxing Day. Did Flipper experience the same learned helplessness? Are animals in zoo captivity experiencing the same problems? I'm not entirely sure, because it doesn't appear like the zoo is making a blatant attempt at mistreating the animals, but at the same time we do not really know exactly what these animals are feeling.

In addition, it makes me wonder how the roots of depression form in human development. Even very mild cases of depression, such as low self-esteem which we certainly won't classify as depression, have symptoms that are associated with pessimism, helplessness, failure to perceive alternatives/options, etc.

I'm pretty sure that at some point some degree of learning happens in a child's life which tells him that he is either more empowered or more helpless (understanding vs not understanding the relationships between cause and effect). I think that the natural curiosity of children helps them figure this out at a very young age, and I've always believed that parents have an important responsibility to satisfy that curiosity. Other seemingly mundane aspects of a toddler's life, such as being able to turn on or off the room light switches, can also go a long way if caregivers of the toddler empower it to take matters into its own little hands.

Also, what aspects of depression are biological? Why is it that females experience this more than males - is it because women are less empowered, or could it also be in the biological makeup of the sexes? How does the body break down with the onset of depression? It appears that when a person (or any living social creature) experiences learned helplessness, the body also takes on a character of futility, indicating that our bodies work in tandem with our mental health (consider placebo effects, or how we get better when we actually believe we will get better).

Perhaps it all really stems from the basis of a social being's understanding of cause and effect, because with this understanding, it can take control of its life. This is the nature of empowerment.

Intellectual Troughs

2011-01-02T01:15:00.003+08:00

I'm hitting an intellectual trough lately. I feel either like I'm out of ideas or there just aren't that many interesting thoughts swirling around in my head compared to my more prolific past. There were periods back then where I'd be churning out post after post of untested ideas, theories and concepts day in and day out, but at the moment I'm barely there.

But I'm not one to despair, because to the seasoned thinking mind this is an interesting issue in itself to be explored.

I think one reason for the recent slowdown is that I might be academically maturing. This means that I am less likely to present an idea until it has been well reasoned and thought out. Before I am satisfied that an idea is solid, I am unlikely (these days, at least) to put it forward. This will definitely result in far less presented ideas, but when they do come out they're already pretty weighty.

Part of the maturing process also leads to greater streamlining (or possibly cynicism) of thoughts and ideas. It could either mean that I am far more quick to dismiss new ideas that come to mind when I spot possible flaws in them (which is easier now that I know more), or that my fascination with things has slowed down. It's not that I am any less fascinated in general, but that as one gets more seasoned, the novelty of experiences in a purely quantitative sense decreases. For instance, I was far more horrified by depression back then when I first discovered it than now when I've come to understand it more. There is a settling down effect going on here.

Another aspect of my intellectual trough which I think is more manageable is that I've generally zen-ed out more over the past two years. This can be both a good and a bad thing.

The good thing is that, obviously with becoming more zen, I take far less issue with things, because I'm more at peace with things that normally shake us and we are less in control of. I am also more willing to forgive people for the stupid things they do and attribute it to the situation.

However, being zen means that I am less likely to question, judge and challenge ideas, people and situations. Being more forgiving means that I am quicker to reconcile any peeves or frustrations I have. I definitely remember that when I was less cautious (both about making mistakes and offending people) and more controversial with what I said or thought about, I pushed boundaries more and developed more ideas. I certainly ruffled some feathers along the way, but in terms of being in a constant state of thought and idea generation, I was right up there like a machine. Those were very prolific times which encouraged me greatly to believe that I had the productivity to be a good academic.

I'm not doubting my ambition of being an academic and publishing my own research work at all. But it would be great if I can get that fire back, and ensure that it remains consistent. Lulls may be good in some ways, such as to relax or zen out, but they can snowball into bigger intellectual sinkholes, and once they become extended they represent huge sunk cost. I think the key is to be able to snap out of intellectual troughs like these at will.

Perhaps this calls for some life or mind hacking techniques.

Another worry is that there were times that particular issues really bothered me. At one time, I was extremely concerned with understanding power balances between social entities (both between persons and between groups). At another time, I was very curious about self esteem. The burning desire to find out more about these issues at those times and the belief that I had solutions was so strong that I could write books off them.

But each phase in life brings forth new contentions, and at the moment I have other considerations to take care of. I can only hope that those curiosities that once existed remain strong until I've earned my qualifications to study them and publish material on them. I seriously can't wait for that moment where I've earned my PhD to come... Seems like it's taking forever to get even to the part where I can finally apply, and even then the journey there isn't a smooth one because my grades do not guarantee an easy entry.

The Tourist

2010-12-30T14:15:00.001+08:00

The Tourist is quite a lousy movie, to put it straightforwardly. Probably a unique case where spoilers won't make the movie any less spoilt than it already is. Still I won't spoiler it for ardent fans of the two superstar actors. There is, though, a twist in the plot, I'd reveal that. But it's the first time I've felt so strongly that the twist was more of a cop-out because of an inability to weave a convincing plot and conclusion together.

Luckily Angie and I got to watch it for free. But maybe it's precisely because it's free that there was little psychological dissonance created such that we had no need to justify our enjoyment for it.

Evolution Of Pure Things

2010-12-27T01:20:00.001+08:00

Recently I observed a discussion on friendship. Person E said that friendship is an involuntary reflex - it just happens and you can't help it. To this, person D, a budding introduction to evolutionary psychology student, responded that evolutionary psychology will say otherwise - that friendship is not involuntary.

There is a very subtle jump that people often either make or don't make, and that is to decide if something, once reduced into quantifiable packets, can still be regarded as pure (as in that thing's original form).

Take friendship, for instance. In order to study the psychology of friendship, we have to dissect it into parts, such as self-interest, reciprocation, wants, emotional closeness, need for cooperation, love and affection, etc (See, for instance, Karen Karbo's article Friendship: The Laws of Attraction on Psychology Today). The moment it becomes split into parts in a reductionary manner, the reduction can further continue - what environmental factors or evolutionary pressures led to the rise of each of these necessary constituent parts?

At this point, I think the tricky part arises. If we can divide a seemingly pure, ideal, honest and 'good' concept like friendship into parts, does that make it 'less' pure? Some people believe it still retains its original purity (like me), while others do not think so, and many people who dislike or have an aversion to reductionist thinking, technical science or evolution generally fall into this group.

I think that is entirely valid, because how you see this issue is dependent on how you see the world, how you want to lead your life, what is important to you, and whether beauty, perfection or purity can be allowed to fall apart whilst still retaining its original Form.

On the other hand, I tend to (rationally) stand on the side of reductionism because firstly that's the only way concepts and constructs can be studied in a scientifically meaningful manner, and secondly because I also strongly believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Each isolated element that comes from a bigger, more general concept, is certainly 'cheap'. But when everything comes together, such as a perfect combination of cheap and fluid elements like self-interest, the need for empathy, emotional bonding and cooperation (amongst many other factors), something as wonderful as friendship can arise.

(I stand on the reductionist side cautiously though, because I do know that studying big concepts wholistically, rather than broken down, also has immense value, particularly in art. This beauty element can very rarely be captured by science.)

So, going back at the original discussion between E and D, I chimed in by disagreeing with D, stating that evolutionary psychology doesn't actually say that friendship is not involuntary. The knee-jerk reaction from D, possibly coming from a perspective that says that 'things which are reducible are no longer pure', retorted by saying that evolutionary psychology asserts that friendship evolves under specific conditions, so therefore it is a non-altruistic choice. To which I replied, "I think the argument is more nuanced - it evolves under specific conditions to become an instinct, which is why friendship is indeed an involuntary reflex."

This goes for many other things that people often regard as pure and altruistic human behaviour, such as love, kindness and altruism. To think that these emotions arise out of a vacuum tells us very little about our place in the natural order of things, and such beliefs also do not account for why different people have these emotional capacities in varying degrees, or how come sometimes we demonstrate them and sometimes we don't. I certainly gain much less from "he's very unhelpful because he's a bad person" than "he's very unhelpful because he tends to shy away emotionally from people and does not trust that people will reciprocate." Evolutionary thinking will then provide the necessary precedent for why reciprocation is an important factor that gives rise to helpfulness and other prosocial behaviours.

Once these elements are in place, we have adapted possibly to serve some important need that the environment calls/called for. The adaptation becomes an instinct, which is why we feel as if friendship is involuntary and can't be helped. And indeed, it can't. When we feel drawn to people, the constituent parts that academics, researchers and scholars ponder about and tinker around with do not matter anymore - we hardly even think about them (which is the beauty of an instinct). Evolutionary pressures from constituent parts drove the stable formation of friendship psychology in humans, and then we experience it whether we know why or not, and the more we do not question it, the more efficiently it'll work. If A has the tendency to question/calculate his friendship with B, A probably isn't really friends with B.

On a slightly separate but relevant note, this TED talk by Dennis Dutton covers quite nicely how the appreciation of beauty is hardwired in our psychology, and clues to this exist in a universal appreciation of beauty across diverse cultures.

There's Not A Thing That I Would Change

2010-12-15T02:50:00.004+08:00

I love this song for personal reasons.

I also think that this song would make a great accompaniment to any advertisement or campaign to promote awareness about the issues behind plastic surgery. This is quite a testament to the power of song and music. Nothing says it quite like a good song, and I'm only starting to imagine what kind of impact can be achieved if every person grappling with self esteem problems, insecurity with looks and the contemplation of plastic surgery had their loved ones sing this song to them.

Le Baroque

2010-12-14T03:59:00.006+08:00

Very interesting Le Baroque night this was. At the end of the day, life is a game and even if you try your best to convince yourself that it's not and you want nothing to do with it, get real. It is.

At any rate, if you haven't discovered the joy of S$20 free flow drinks from 9pm to 11.30pm in Singapore yet, you're frackin' missing out. Go to Le Baroque at CHIJMES either Monday or Wednesday IMMEDIATELY to experience the other side.

These aren't even shots from just now (and I'm gonna dread the photographs from just now) - they were taken at my last two sessions before today there, but I guess nothing tells it like a picture does.

Urban Trekking

2010-12-13T00:08:00.003+08:00

This map isn't really clear, but it's a visual representation of my River Valley Road trek yesterday. In brief, I basically walked from Singapore Management Unversity towards Somerset MRT before turning left into Killiney Road and subsequently River Valley Road. I reached Great World City, had a look around, before heading back out to Paterson Hill Road and finally Orchard MRT (I didn't stop there though; continued my walk back towards Dhoby Ghaut MRT before taking the train home).

I absolutely love these urban treks, especially through areas less populated by the common crowd. There's so much to actually see and discover if we don't always choose the usual places to go to. And everytime I go to a new place on foot and figure out how that place links to other places that I'm familiar with, I always get this epiphanic sensation, like I'm suddenly struck with the pieces of the puzzle fitting together.

Along Killiney Road I found a whole range of eateries that included desserts, Thai food, Vietnamese food and some solid local fare with a more generous serve of Malay food (I love Malay food - pity it's a minority race dish, or we'd see more of it around the hawkers).

Before I rounded The Cosmopolitan estate towards Great World City, I was drenched by this incredible downpour which forced me to seek shelter at a miserable and tiny bus stop with many other stranded people. Luckily the rain didn't last long and I could continue on soon enough. From Great World City one could see that the journey could carry on in various interesting paths - Zouk was a straight road down from there, while Tiong Bahru was also another option across the river.

I headed back towards Orchard Road via Hoot Kiam Road and Paterson Road, but not before I checked out more shophouses near Great World City. I discovered another very nice food place called PappaRich serving very interesting variations of local food at great prices.

All in all, an excellent day of trekking. This is the kind of experience that makes me thankful at times that I've no inclination to be reliant on a personal car. The River Valley Road area had always fascinated me and I've always wanted to figure out 'that area behind Takashimaya'. Hopefully more to come if I can afford the time! I'd love to see how my trek gets me to perhaps the Botanic Gardens, Dempsey Road or maybe even Holland Village if I'm crazy enough.

The Corporation

2010-12-07T13:30:00.001+08:00

"Over the last 150 years the corporation has risen from relative obscurity to become the world's dominant economic institution. Today, corporations govern our lives. They determine what we eat, what we watch, what we wear, where we work, and what we do. We are inescapably surrounded by their culture, iconography, and ideology. And, like the church and the monarchy in other times, they posture as infallible and omnipotent, glorifying themselves in imposing buildings and elaborate displays. Increasingly, corporations dictate the decisions of their supposed overseers in government and control domains of society once firmly embedded within the public sphere. The corporation's dramatic rise to dominance is one of the remarkable events of modern history, not least because of the institution's inauspicious beginnings."

With such an epic, no holds-barred introduction, I think Joel Bakan's The Corporation will prove to be a delightful read.

Wikileaks

2010-12-05T16:09:00.005+08:00

One of the better commentaries I've read about Julian Assange and Wikileaks so far:

http://www.torontosun.com/blogs/al_parker/2010/12/03/16424376.html

If you're too lazy to click on that link / read the whole thing, I particularly like point 1:

1. I've seen a lot of stuff in the WikiLeaks document releases that makes sense, that shows American diplomats seem to have a fairly good real-politik handle on what's going on in their spheres of interest. I have seen nothing that surprised me. The only thing that shocks me is the disconnect between what the U.S. diplomatic despatches are saying and what the American establishment - and I guess the American people - want to pretend the various situations are. Fantasyland is a dangerous place to carry on legitimate discourse and make relevant, realistic decisions.

Indeed, I think Alan Parker hits the spot here (and sets a good stage for the rest of his article to follow). Was there anything really surprising about the statements revealed by Wikileaks? A seasoned political scientist following in the tradition of realism will in fact say that the discourse unearthed is predictable (and maybe even effective - would've scored an A+ in the tradition of state/sovereign self-preservation). What gets everyone, though, is either some feeling of hypocrisy or the refusal to believe that those things are actually being said. Hypocrisy because the US government keeps doing things like claiming that their involvement in the Middle East is driven by justice when quite obviously it's not, and a refusal to accept what has been said/found because people clearly have an inconsistent notion of what the US stands for (or should be doing) versus what the US actually is doing.

2010-12-05T15:59:00.004+08:00

Nex has opened for over a week already and I just went there for the second time yesterday to watch Harry Potter 7 with Angie (I've never watched a single episode before this - the funny things a girlfriend can make you finally do).

The show turned out quite entertaining despite my mostly clueless state of mind particularly at the beginning.

Anyway, Nex really gives me the impression that Serangooners have been a starved lot such that when it opened, it was like a feeding frenzy for the wolves. The mall is packed and has stayed consistently packed for more than a week. I've never seen so many people on escalators before. Nex claims that it's daily patronage stands at 70,000. That's quite crazy actually.

People have complained that Nex is so big it's confusing. On the other hand, I think thankfully Nex is that big, because I can't imagine it being any smaller already with the crowd capacity it is carrying right now.

Batam

2010-12-05T15:53:00.002+08:00

I've just returned from another solid trip to Batam, my third so far (though it's my first at the coast - not drastically different though). But although my personal takeaways aren't novel, it's still superb when you're with company that's soaking in the place for the first time and everyone's having a great time together.

As always, the food in Indonesia never fails my anticipation and the prices are so darn cheap you can get a movie for S$2.20. It always makes for a relaxing getaway.

No pictures to show for it right now 'cos I'm not a camera person, but if my friends get them up on Facebook or something soon I'll have some photographs here.

Time Machine Song

2010-11-24T11:51:00.004+08:00

I always get the chills when I hear this song. For some reason it's so deeply embedded in a particular part of my childhood that whenever this song comes on, either on my MP3 player or the radio or something, I get transported right back to the time when I was between 5-7 years old, and it's like I vividly experience everything that was memorable to me all at once.

I definitely remember those laser discs. My father used to rent or buy these huge karaoke laser discs to sing this song. I always looked forward to those trips either to our trusty little nearby shop at Serangoon Central or, for good prices and selection, Sim Lim Square, because it meant that I could sneak in a request for a favourite cartoon or movie.

So, whenever I hear Massachusetts, I think of Tom & Jerry, Godzilla and Ultraman shows, and McCauley Culkin's Home Alone series, because I used to watch those at that time. I also recall other songs that my dad loved to obsessively listen and sing along to back then, but for some reason none of them are as jolting as this song is. I also remember the TV show Taxi, because the vibe of Massachusetts definitely fits in with the grainy cinematography of Taxi so I associated the two together.

Return

2010-11-24T11:27:00.003+08:00

"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

- Tyler Durden, Fight Club

The more I recollect Fight Club (both the book and the movie), the more it reminds me of Taoism. In chinese philosophy class, one repeated theme that is taught to be associated with Taoism is the idea of the return to nature. This involves the renouncement of wants and responsibilities, because these are obligations and chains that are keeping humans held back in an unnatural state. The 'right' way is to follow the dao, 道, literally and loosely translated as 'the way', or the 'way of nature'.

According to Taoism, humans are a lost species because we have lost the way. To me that sounds exactly like what is espoused in Fight Club. We are lost chasing dreams that are fed to us through the tube, and we are lost filling jobs that don't mean a thing or serve no true purpose to the self other than serving the needs of the men right at the top of the corporate ladder (whose economic power translates into political power that can decide how society should fall in line).

Because of these modern 'obligations', how many of us know how to do simple yet important things, like find food when we have no supermarket to rely on, or understand our role in the world without modern employment systems, or even know what justice means, especially when our justice is always conveniently taken care of by some watchful government or private contract?

I think our ancestral forefathers knew these things (without actually knowing in a literate manner) - they had a purpose to find mates, they had a family to care for, they had to either grow or catch their food, and they had a vital participation in the natural order of things - essentially know thy self and the world well, or die. The more we divorce ourselves from those natural things, the more divorced we will be from what we were evolved, adapted or born to do, or be. I suppose the point that Fight Club tries to assert is that everyone is born with the potential to be great persons, but the world we are born into often stops us from realizing our natural potential and therein lies the great squander of potential.

But I suppose it wouldn't be fair either to fail to consider what is also at stake if we follow Fight Club's logic entirely. I had first noticed the similarities between Taoism and Fight Club when we were taught about the famous hardcore Taoist Zhuangzi. He proposed methods of finding back 'the way', such as renouncing responsibility, duty, ritual propriety and basically standing any logic that may be socially constructed on its head, such as laughing at a funeral. He said this should be done because social constructs are not considered 'natural' (i.e. social constructs are man-made, man-defined) and are socially accepted norms or things that will keep us from finding our true selves. A group was giving a presentation on Zhuangzi and during the Q&A it was asked, "what are some of the problems of following Zhuangzi's philosophy?" And I responded by citing Fight Club.

If we follow through with this, what will we be left with? The kind of anarchic chaos that Fight Club's Project Mayhem created - people will be increasingly alienated because while part of the noble aim is to find a path back to our natural roots, another part involves forgoing your relationships, because they also serve the same purpose of grounding us. In order for the theory of Fight Club or Taoism to be consistent, many important things that appear to be part of human nature have to be eliminated as well. In Fight Club, society's humans who were initially automatons because of the modern capitalist system ended up becoming automatons because of the Project Mayhem cause. And while perhaps it is true that we had more purpose and place in a 'state of nature', we also had to face mortal dangers, far lower standards of living, fear and uncertainty, and shorter lifespans.

Personally I have a fond liking for this idea of a return to nature, and emotionally I stand on the side of Fight Club and Taoism's philosophy (but rationally I always consider also the pitfalls of doing so). I emotionally think this because I feel like the world has stretched far too much to one end - the end that encompasses heavy reliance on technology, government and corporations to serve our needs (such as finding friends, communicating, justice, having a sense of purpose, etc) which, in the process, makes us lose sight of who we naturally are - and a balance needs to be struck. At the very least, I think everyone should have his or her own purpose in life which should not be defined entirely by what society thinks is the right thing to do, or is good or bad. In this regard, some healthy detachment, isolation, self-reliance, independence and introspection can go a long way. Thus some semblance of a return to nature has its appeal for me, and Fight Club's aim of empowering people to know that they are more than what society defines them to be is a powerful, worthwhile and noble cause.

2010-11-22T14:53:00.000+08:00

Because a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man.

- The Godfather

Labeling

2010-11-13T03:00:00.003+08:00

Why is it that people are averse towards being stereotyped, or stereotypes in general (although they probably commit it themselves)?

This is because the very act of labeling or defining something is a political act. The moment you have defined something, you have constrained it into something you want it to be. This is an expression of power over the object you have just defined.

Powerful people the world over have exerted their influence by labeling, defining and stereotyping groups of people they wish to subjugate, because this sets boundaries on who they are and what they can do. This is the kind of soft power that works more effectively than pure force itself, because the moment a label you have been given takes root and gains acceptance, the more legitimate your limited place in relation to others will be. Your label takes a life of its own and does the job of keeping you in check for the labeler.

This is also the reason why it is so liberating to be able to resist being labeled. You could either be comfortable as what you're defined to be, adopting it as an identity, or you can prove people's stereotypes wrong, surprising them and smashing their stereotypes of you to pieces.

2010-11-04T11:54:00.001+08:00

"When you are intoxicated with your admiration of a hero, you fail to see that it is only a projection of your own soul that you admire."

The Study

2010-11-01T12:59:00.003+08:00

I know I'm gonna make it some day. But if this works out, it'll make the starting part of the journey a whole lot rosier.

Forgone

2010-10-26T21:37:00.004+08:00

I was reading an article about the passing of Octopus Paul (http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/10/26/r-i-p-paul-the-psychic-octopus/) when I saw these gem comments about Octopus Paul's death:

entebbe:

What a waste!!! I was thinking of asking the Sentosa aquarium to borrow it to predict the results of our coming General Elections!!!

DarkMax, in reply to entebbe:

Now that would be a gigantic waste of a talent such as Paul

My Brain Just Imploded

2010-10-25T16:22:00.001+08:00

"Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something."

- Chuang Tzu

What the f....

2010-10-24T18:55:00.004+08:00

It's interesting to me to discover that there are some stable personality traits that can be found among first born / single childs, and find that I'm also demonstrating some predictably consistent characteristics.

For instance, first born / single children are:
1) more socially maladjusted
2) less responsible
3) more individualistic
4) more self-centered
5) more likely to be perfectionist
6) more likely to mature faster
7) have higher achievement motivation
8) less agreeable
9) less open to new ideas

Time for some self-psychoanalysis!

Travelin' Soldier

2010-10-23T16:32:00.003+08:00

Two days past eighteen
He was waiting for the bus in his army greens
Sat down in a booth in a cafe there
Gave his order to a girl with a bow in her hair
He's a little shy so she gives him a smile
And he said would you mind sittin' down for a while
And talking to me, I'm feeling a little low
She said I'm off in an hour and I know where we can go

So they went down and they sat on the pier
He said I bet you got a boyfriend but I don't care
I got no one to send a letter to
Would you mind if I sent one back here to you

Chorus:
I cried
Never gonna hold the hand of another guy
Too young for him they told her
Waitin' for the love of a travelin' soldier
Our love will never end
Waitin' for the soldier to come back again
Never more to be alone when the letter said
A soldier's coming home

So the letters came from an army camp
In California then Vietnam
And he told her of his heart
It might be love and all of the things he was so scared of
He said when it's getting kinda rough over here
I think of that day sittin' down at the pier
And I close my eyes and see your pretty smile
Don't worry but I won't be able to write for awhile

I cried
Never gonna hold the hand of another guy
Too young for him they told her
Waitin' for the love of a travelin' soldier
Our love will never end
Waitin' for the soldier to come back again
Never more to be alone when the letter said
A soldier's coming home

One Friday night at a football game
The Lord's prayer said and the Anthem sang
A man said folks would you bow your heads
For a list of local Vietnam dead
Crying all alone under the stands
Was a piccolo player in the marching band
And one name read and nobody really cared
But a pretty little girl with a bow in her hair

I cried
Never gonna hold the hand of another guy
Too young for him they told her
Waitin' for the love of a travelin' soldier
Our love will never end
Waitin' for the soldier to come back again
Never more to be alone when the letter says
A soldier's coming
I cried
Never gonna hold the hand of another guy
Too young for him they told her
Waitin' for the love of a travelin' soldier
Our love will never end
Waitin' for the soldier to come back again
Never more to be alone when the letter says
A soldier's coming home

War. Dying for country. Protecting loved ones. Coming home. I can never wrap my head enough around these issues.

I almost died reading the comments from soldiers and girlfriends of soldiers alike about this song.

The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living

2010-10-21T18:58:00.006+08:00

When my realist, healthily self deprecating and laidback as fuck Chinese Philosophy professor (who is Dutch) asserts with conviction for the first time about the value of choice and freedom, it just somehow makes me overwhelmingly optimistic that there is hope yet in a dreamy, 'justice' kind of way. And I guess that's when you know somebody means business with what he/she is saying.

As the class discussed and debated the merits of liberty against social stability, an issue that really hits home for our tiny city state, I finally heard my professor give his opinion for the first time (aside from his usual politically correct and well balanced responses that say a lot but say little about what he feels). When push comes to shove, he'd rather trade in social stability and have the freedom to choose the life he leads than be closed off to alternatives and options.

Against the assertion brought up by some students that sometimes we're better off when we're ignorant, he said, "I guess that's where I'm really like a philosopher, because to me the unexamined life is not worth living."

Lends credence to the wisdom that often the ones who say the least say the most.

Sheeple

2010-10-20T17:56:00.001+08:00

Cartesian Humility And Wisdom

2010-10-20T17:27:00.005+08:00

"After all, it is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a little copper and glass, perhaps, that I take for gold and diamonds. I know how very liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves, and also how much the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favour. But I shall endevour in this discourse to describe the paths I have followed, and to delineate my life as in a picture, in order that each one may be able to judge of them for himself, and that in the general opinion entertained of them, as gathered from current report, I myself may have a new help towards instruction to be added to those I have been in the habit of employing.

My present design, then, is not to teach the method which each ought to follow for the right conduct of his reason, but solely to describe the way in which I have endeavoured to conduct my own. They who set themselves to give precepts must of course regard themselves as possessed of greater skill than those to whom they presecribe; and if they err in the slightest particular, they subject themselves to censure. But as this tract is put forth merely as a history, or, if you will, as a tale, in which, amid some examples worthy of imitation, there will be found, perhaps, as many more which it were advisable not to follow, I hope it will prove useful to some without being hurtful to any, and that my openness will find some favour with all."

- René Descartes, Discourse on Method Part One

At a point in history when most philosophers were quite often elitist, moralistic and self-righteous, Descartes came as refreshingly humble.

This next quote where he describes his decision to alter his desires rather than change the world conveys profound wisdom that, in certain circumstances, would be a good/useful maxim to emulate, perhaps at least in the general search for happiness:

"My third maxim was ... in general to accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in respect of things external to us, all wherein we fail of succes is to be held, as regards us, absolutely impossible: and this single principle seemed to me sufficient to prevent my desiring for the future anything which I could not obtain, and thus render me content."

2010-10-19T18:56:00.003+08:00

The scientific way has been so successful that we are in danger of taking it to do more than it does do. To some extent, we have all come to think that the only knowledge worth having is arrived at in a scientific way. But what science does is tell you, in ever greater detail, how things work. It never tells you why they work like that. Why things work the way they do is a matter for religion. If you think there is no particular reason why, you are some sort of atheist. If you think there is a reason, you are (in the broadest possible sense of the term) a theist. The great weakness of our modern Western way of thinking is that we mistake how for why.

- Tom Griffith, Introduction to René Descartes.

Ineffable

2010-10-16T23:18:00.002+08:00

There are so many thoughts that swirl in my head that words simply cannot contain, or express. I struggle with this everyday.

Everyone has their fears of losing memories, experiences, the moment, life. Some write every detail of their lives down religiously. Every single information. Where they were at 12:45pm, what the weather was like, what they thought they felt at that exact moment, like a smiley footnote at the bottom of a blog indicating your mood for the day. Others take pictures. Of their lunch, of the funny looking car they rode in while exploring a new city, of themselves, as if some part of themselves would tragically disappear forever. Who would know or care? It doesn't matter. The fear is there, ominous to themselves. There is a consuming obsession with preserving the moment. For what? To avoid regret, or to have a taste of immortality?

Maybe.

This brings a Chuck Palahniuk concept to mind. "We do it every day. Kill the unborn to save the elderly. ... Every time we burn a gallon of gas or an acre of rain forest, aren’t we killing the future to preserve the present? The whole pyramid scheme of Social Security." Perhaps this is a parallel that is too cynical or dark to be drawn, but still.

For me, the lack of an effective medium allows my ideas to slip through the cracks. I'm not any different from everyone else. I fear losing the moment, and for me those are ideas, because ideas are pure and perfect. Some ideas last, but most don't. An idea at one point of time in your life is a unique idea in itself, and you either cement it or let it fade into oblivion. An effective capture is a snapshot of my state of existence at a point in time, like a contribution to my illusory immortality, or so my brain thinks whenever it happily rests knowing that moment was secured. Just like your lunch. Or the weather you experienced at 12:45pm. It's not easy to try and go back to a thought in its original form and retrieve all that power and force that faded away with it.

Memories can go right ahead and fade and get hazy, it doesn't matter to me; my brain can reconstruct them to be even more beautiful than they were. But ideas are my sacred haven and every time one slips through my grasp, a part of me I create dies away.

'Manly' Women - Hot Or Not?

2010-10-06T18:41:00.006+08:00

Why do some men find a woman who smokes a turn on, while other men are disgusted by the sight? Why do some men think that it's hot that a girl rides motorbikes, whereas others find it a little too weird for their liking? In short, why do some men think that females who engage in male activities are attractive, whereas some men think otherwise, preferring that women stick to more traditionally 'feminine' activities?

The answer might very well lie in the mating strategy of the male. Just ask the question: What would a male long term mating strategist want? What would a male short term mating strategist want? The answer appears soon enough.

Observing a girl engaging in all sorts of typically male habits or activities, such as smoking, watching football, drinking, swearing, or riding motorbikes, conjures up other male-related associations, and with every additional male-centric activity that she appears involved in, the easier it is for a male observer to think: well, she might think just like a guy does. And one very important male-centric kind of thought or behaviour is that sex is cheap and sex can come easy.

Man, wouldn't this simply drive males looking for short term mating - a one night stand, a fling, a casual relationship - crazy? Indeed it does, and their suspicions are confirmed by real life outcomes - women who display these traits tend to be more adventurous and, subsequently, more promiscuous.

And the reverse makes a lot of sense and is also true - men seeking a long term mate will find such behaviour in potential mates rather undesirable, and why not? Your prospects for keeping your partner will be rather bleak if she does indeed have the masculine signature of opportunistic mating.

Of course, not all girls who indulge in typically masculine activities are promiscuous. The point is that the more likely a girl is to exhibit masculine behaviour, the more likely she is to think like a man, and the more likely she is to adopt a masculine openness towards sex.

Also, of course none of this consciously happens in the brain of a male. A man either finds a woman roughing it out man-style interesting or not, very often without any rational thought-processing involved. But something underlies that instinctive attraction (or aversion), and it might just reside in what a woman's promiscuity, suggested by her male-ness, might mean to you.

P.S. The 'manliness' of the woman here must not be confused with her being just like a man. What probably works for short term mating men is that the woman is simply associated with male-like activities, but this doesn't mean she starts to become physically like a man. I'm pretty sure it doesn't quite cut it if she starts looking buffed or sporting a male voice. Then again, male short term maters have rather low requirements (i.e. they mind less) on the women they desire to bed, caring more about signals of easy sexual access.

Legends

2010-10-05T02:20:00.004+08:00

Holy shit... How many people were at this fucking gig?

A more recent performance featuring Robert Trujillo in place of the legendary Cliff Burton. This has to be my funeral song, if I ever bothered with one.

Back In The Day

2010-10-02T11:43:00.003+08:00

Sigh, call me backward, but I think Son of Citation Machine is going to chip away again at what it means to do good, honest research, part of which is knowing how to do your citations. Already with Scholar Google making it so much easier to get information from articles and journals without even really having to read anything, information is going to be a pretty darn cheap commodity.

It's hard to make such a complaint too, because I am part of a time where technology has made it exponentially easier compared to older generation academics to get an academic research paper done.

I really wonder what it was like when budding MA and PhD students had to embark on a mecca just to find some elusive book or article (sometimes even overseas!) and spend hours in the library getting the information and sources they needed, and then writing their entire thesis on pen and paper (or typewriter?). There would be unforgettable stories of how an unattainable book was acquired through some unlikely source, or by other means of cunning. Now, that's memorable. I think the process of getting there is just as important as the end-product itself.

It's a new information age where it's rather easy to do/achieve anything information-related. You can be relatively knowledgeable just staying on Wikipedia for hours. You can now own a blog without generating any of its content, through Tumblr. You can convince yourself that you're connected to good solid news by keeping away from the newspapers and reading twitter all day. In such times, information is vast indeed, but very, very cheap.

One wonders if this will undermine the respect that knowledge entails.

2010-09-30T13:05:00.004+08:00

I was thinking when I saw this advertisement - Great shot, superb expression, nice and apt clothing too. But... What's up with the sneakers??

The Münchhausen Trilemma And The Presupposition Of Faith

2010-09-27T00:09:00.008+08:00

I freaking love Big Bang Theory! No other show would've brought me to the summation of one of my most fundamental troubles with human truth and knowledge - the Münchhausen Trilemma.

I've pretty much always believed in the philosophical assertion that we can never prove anything. Science can only go as far as to increase the probability or confidence that a proposition is true by providing supporting evidence. Through repeated controlled experiments, we can establish a theory to be a 'true' law, but there is always the possibility that it can be falsified. But that's the limits of our human knowledge for you - this is as far as we can go to increase the confidence that a theory is probably right.

Science isn't the only way. We can also attempt to come to a conclusion of truth through logic. Rational reasons can replace statistical evidence to provide support for a proposition. Reductionism helps us break down a proposition into smaller subpropositions, which would strengthen the original proposition, in theory.

However, what makes up those subpropositions? Even smaller sub-subpropositions would have to be established, ad infinitum.

Hans Albert was the first to notice this and concretize the observation, and established three forms of dissatisfactory methods to prove any truth. Interestingly, the Münchhausen Trilemma is named after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself out of a swamp seizing himself by his hair. This trilemma rounds off the classical problem of justification in the theory of knowledge - that all attempts to get a certain justification must eventually fail when scrutinized fully.

The Münchhausen Trilemma essentially states that we have only three options when providing proof in any situation:

1) The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (e.g. we repeat ourselves at some point)
2) The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof (e.g. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
3) The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (e.g. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, represents the philosopher's difficulty in choosing among the three equally unsatisfying options.

I think this is yet another demonstration of our limits of human understanding and perception of truth. By virtue of the fact that we exist in a manifest world that is separate from the 'essential' source that we come from, we can only revolve in circles to try and hit a truth we somewhat perceive coming from a more fundamental and transcendental realm, but never come close enough. Only having five senses that perceive environmental input/stimuli within a limited scope (e.g. the light or sound frequencies that we are privvy to) is one good way of understanding this limit of ours. Some people (usually agnostics) see this as good reason to resign ourselves to not bothering because we can never get to the point or know what truth is, but on the contrary I think this disconnect is important and necessary because it will continue to drive us to seek the truth even against all odds. If we could see truth and easily recognize it then there would be no motivation for human endeavour, and truth wouldn't be all that valuable.

Which is why I think every method of truth-seeking is actually a leap of faith to be made, whether the skeptics or rationalists want to admit it or not. Beyond a certain point, science has to concede that something is there just because it is, even if the methods used to get at it still leave much to be desired. The gap can only be bridged by faith, both in terms of the presence of the truth and in terms of our methods of getting there.

Hot Damn

2010-09-18T16:08:00.005+08:00

Made an interesting observation today.

I was in my school office cubicle working on some assignment between 1pm to 3pm (on a miserable Saturday). For some reason, the air conditioning was turned way up high today, so the room was literally freezing. I froze my ass off the two hours I was there, glued to my seat.

At 3pm, I left the office and headed for home. It was a scorching hot afternoon, and I must have spent at least 20 minutes out in the open while on the way back (counting all the time I wasn't in the shelter or a bus or the train).

It is plausible that the freezing conditions in the office led to what appears to be a malfunctioning of my bodily sensation of heat, at least temporarily because, despite the killer heat, I went nowhere close to even feeling the sensation of perspiration (you know it when you feel it - that tingly feeling on your skin indicating that your sweat glands are working up). Which is very odd because I think I perspire reasonably easily and those same sunny conditions would've triggered my sweat glands any other day.

But this wasn't any other day. As a result, I traveled home with my sweat glands (or some other correlated organ) pretty much switched off.

What happened next? I had a terrible headache and body aches, as though I was having a fever.

What strikes me immediately is the advise that old folks often give: if you're in a cold place, don't suddenly go out into the hot sun.

The fever probably isn't caused by a virus, because there was no one else I interacted closely with and I have recovered rather quickly too in the comfort of my house.

What I think has happened is that the momentary inability to perspire caused the heat from the sun to be trapped in my body, upsetting our basic homeostasis. Regardless of whether I'm having a real fever or not, a rise in body temperature signals that there is potentially a bacterial or viral invasion, and subsequently fever-like symptoms (which actually functionally exist to protect you, not to make you feel miserable) emerge.

I might be wrong, but the observation is still fascinating. Regardless of whether one stands on the side of determinism or free will, it's still pretty cool to see how a human can survive off chain reactions triggered by the environment without conscious input.

How The Mind Works

2010-09-16T10:13:00.005+08:00

A few friends have indicated their interest for the book How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, so I took it along with me to school today.

As I was traveling on the train, I revisited some of the chapters in the book and, as always, I'm always continuously amazed and impressed by Pinker's sharpness of thought, wit and eloquence. He conveys the most difficult ideas with the simplest analogies.

Also, I first read the book as a student still muddling through psychology courses without a sound plan like I have right now, and reading it again as the person I am today felt a bit like the situation where you rewatch a movie classic a decade later as a grown man.

One of the really brilliant ideas I revisited was Pinker's computational model of the mind. Of course, he wasn't the only one to work on that concept or propose it, but he provides the most logical and insightful presentation by far.

Another more layman concept that Pinker nails down is the idea of intelligence. It is difficult to define intelligence, but we all know it when we see it. So Pinker strives to define it and says that it entails beliefs and desires.

Desires create the end-states (goals) that we wish to achieve, and beliefs determine how we will end up getting to those end states.

This makes a lot of sense if you consider how most people would feel if we saw "an alien who bumped into trees or walked off cliffs, or who went through all the motions of chopping a tree but in fact was hacking at a rock or at empty space".

Pinker says, "for all we know, the creature may have wanted to bump into a tree or bang an ax against a rock, and was brilliantly accomplishing what it wanted." But without a specification of a creature's goals, there is no meaningful basis for intelligence.

Yet more common sense brilliance: "A toadstool could be given a genius award for accomplishing, with pinpoint precision and unerring reliability, the feat of sitting exactly where it is sitting."

With beliefs and desires, "intelligence ... is the ability to attain goals in the face of obstacles by means of rational (truth-obeying) rules".

These are bits and pieces of the puzzle that have only just begun to take form to develop the foundations of a credible bedrock for psychology as a science of its own. Physics has had the luxury of many more years as well as physical objects to actually observe and measure. Psychology will have just as much to offer. I've always had this notion that there are two 'infinite' dimensions - one that extends outwards from our eyes towards the universe and beyond, and another that extends inwards from our senses to our mind and the subconscious and beyond. Perhaps Inception has helped many people visualize how much mind-boggling (aha!) depth our consciousness has.

Logos

2010-09-11T14:46:00.006+08:00

Some recent logo developments I've designed for my affiliations, Apolitical and Psychothalamus:

Made to reflect the conflicted nature of politics, the snake has a long history of duality. Snakes have been regarded as venomous, harmful and evil and they have also been regarded as medicinal and pure. The white snake thus represents all sorts of 'protagonistic' associations - left-wing, redistributive justice, idealism, social, welfare - while the black snake represents all sorts of 'antagonistic' associations - right-wing, competitive justice, realism, survival.

The sword has always been a symbol of power, so the dual snakes curling around it represent the battle between opposing forces (who take general sides based on the above mentioned points) over power throughout history.

Basically inspired by the idea of a brain in a vat, but instead of a vat I've used a bell jar so that all of its associated connotations - vacuums, science, and even Sylvia Plath - might be conjured.

2010-09-09T18:26:00.003+08:00

"I really wouldn't recommend doing evolutionary psychology. I mean, there is no money behind evolutionary psychology research," the female professor said.

At that moment there was quite an instinctive urge to shove a middle finger into her face, but of course I replied matter-of-factly, "but it's not because of money that I'm keen to pursue research in evolutionary psychology."

"Oh, er, yes of course," she stammered as she attempted to salvage what was the deteriorating impression I had of her in my mind, "we shouldn't be pursuing academics and research because of the money, and I wasn't trying to say that either. It should really be about our interests. But I'm just saying that there's no demand for something like evolutionary psychology out there."

My stand on evolutionary psychology is defensible, but I didn't bother because that wasn't the point (evolutionary psychology is just one out of the many academic means to my own ultimate interests in knowledge and academia). Further, based on my experiences with people, there really isn't a point in arguing with people when they come from very opposing points of view and are emotional or dogmatic (or even ignorant) about their stand.

I also recall another case where the supervisor for my stint in entrepreneurial journalism had a rather prejudiced view against research/academic careers. When I told her that I love to write, which was why I'd signed up for the job, she said, "Yes, an interest in writing is one thing... But wouldn't you also want to learn something from these great entrepreneurs? Like perhaps business skills?" To which I replied, maybe, and one day I may become an entrepreneur, who knows? But at the moment I have my sights set on postgraduate studies and hopefully I'll get to write my own books, linking things back to my writing interests. She then gave me a look and said, "But... Why would you want to do something like that?"

Or maybe she wasn't prejudiced but puzzled because it's rare to hear of such an ambition around here that is, well, so unambitious and unrealistic.

There's just something about the general perception of holding down an important, secure and useful finance or business job in Singaporean pragmatism and culture. But I guess I'm being too harsh on them, particularly the lady prof. She comes from the Business School of the World afterall.

Insect Wars

2010-09-06T23:51:00.005+08:00

I'd just come out of watching an amazingly-shot documentary titled Insect Wars, which basically documents how empires of insects attack and defend against other empires of insects. These wars have been waged throughout the history of the animal kingdom, and the rise and fall of these empires are mere flecks in the canvas of time.

It is quite amazing how this parallels the human world so much at parts. I saw how almost every insect colony, be it winged or terrestrial, had universally common defence strategies, such as understanding that the power of an attacking threat can be reduced if you force them to invade only through small channels. I saw how ant or hornet scouts are a commonly employed tactic, and these scouts are specially designed for stealth. I saw how slavery appears to be a very common theme, as is class divides, in ensuring that a powerful kingdom runs efficiently.

And in the last segment, I saw how a 'pretender' ant infiltrated the royal chamber and killed the queen ant, covering herself in the dying queen's bodily fluids, and then emerging from the chamber flaunting her new majestic scent. The rest of the colony, unable to tell her apart from the dying queen, treated her as the queen herself, licking her feet as they prepared to receive her eggs.

Sometimes, it feels as if believing that humans are a higher order of species is getting a little too full of ourselves. We could be anthropomorphizing animals, or we could very well be behaving just like animals. History levels all its earthly subjects, as the patterns turn us into puppets and dictate the rise and fall of empires.

Geek Crack

2010-09-06T16:49:00.006+08:00

As recommended by my evolutionary psychology professor,

1. You Can't See Me
2. Hypothesis 1 (Creationism)
3. No Bugs On Me
4. David Buss Message
5. Hypothesis 2 (Spiritualism)
6. The Planter's Dilemma
7. Hypothesis 3 (Social Constructivism)
8. She's Ovulating
9. Short-Term Mating Dance
10. Parental Investment
11. The Evolution of Gayness
12. Olivia Judson Message
13. Hypothesis 4 (Biological Determinism)
14. Twin Studies
15. GOCASE
16. Wannabe G's
17. Hypothesis 5 (Evolutionism)
18. David Sloan Wilson Message
19. Fame in the Brain

http://bababrinkman.bandcamp.com/track/you-cant-see-me

Pretty much in the mould of Big Bang Theory-esque entertainment.