My mathematics past a basic level of calculus has always never been great. It's a huge bane of my abilities, because I think it terribly limits what I can do. For instance, I LOVE the idea of physics and mathematics (somewhat philosophically), but I cannot dabble in it because I not only do not have the tools, but I seem to lack the inclinations to be able to pick those tools up.
I'm working on some research for a business professor now pertaining to market entry and cannibalization, and my job scope involves summarizing reports. While I'm doing great with the discussion and main takeaways of the papers I've read, whenever I glance past the methods and data sections and see stuff like this, I totally blank out. Nothing registers. It's almost as if I do not possess the mental capacity at all to process whatever it is that is there in my visual field.
Of course that's an exaggeration and if I bothered to labour through the text I'm sure I can figure something out. But the moment something like this slams itself into my view, all I see immediately is gibberish, akin to looking at a totally unfamiliar language.
Perhaps it's mathematical phobia, or maybe I'm just lazy. But either way, here's my personal cap on achievable greatness!
Hans Rosling is a really respectable statistician who has been through stuff before he talks. And I've never seen a data analysis so excitingly and elegantly presented as this, especially with the urgency that is symbolic of the need for those who can do something about world poverty to do it already.
This is not to say that every developed country should stick its nose into the business of LDCs, because I don't think anyone is in a position to say that poor people need our help. But in empowering people ranging from students to social helpers and policy makers to entrepreneurs who can provide innovative services and solutions, the poor can gain opportunities to improve their lives as they deem fit. I do believe that there are some things that are universally desired, such as the ability to live longer and experience less suffering, and there are economic improvements that can eradicate the factors that shut masses of people out from being able to lead less agonized lives characterized by a lack of resources such as food and water.
Hans Rosling demonstrates in his presentation that a major problem exists when we often lump people together into countries, regions and whole continents. With access to good data, which actually does exist, people who have the means to cater to individual groups even within small states can do what it takes to provide proper and better targeted aid such as HIV diagnostic and prevention measures. For example, this is highlighted when the social classes of Niger and South Africa are compared (2003 statistics). The bottom 20% of Niger's population rank among the lowest in terms of child survival (75.6%) and GDP per capita in the world ($102 GDP per capita), and the richest 20% of South Africa have a 97.5% child survival rate and fare almost equally with the richest in the world with $30400 per capita GDP. And yet people are constantly guilty of saying that Africans need help. But it is hard for most of us to comprehend or come to know of this because of the lack of open data available.
As Hans Rosling states, "we find that students get very excited when they can use this, and even more policy makers and the corporate sectors would like to see how the world is changing. Now, why doesn't this take place? Why are we not using the data we have? We have data in the United Nations, in the national statistical agencies and in universities and other non-governmental organizations. Because the data is hidden down in the databases. And the public is there, and the Internet is there, but we have still not used it effectively. All that information we saw changing in the world does not include publicly-funded statistics. There are some web pages like this, you know, but they take some nourishment down from the databases, but people put prices on them, stupid passwords and boring statistics."
Tell me about it. I've scoured the internet for information at times when doing term papers and assignments only to find a horde of knowledge tucked neatly into little packages with price tags on them.
Sure, when I publish a journal, I would definitely like to be credited for it. I wouldn't be someone who pursues business profits, but I'd still like a salary because I need to eat, and I do expect a certain degree of remuneration for the prestige I hold that has been grounded upon years of intellectual rigour, dedication and perfecting knowledge in a certain field of expertise, and because nothing would suck more than to study, do research and spend years mentally debating over issues of the world for the intellectual betterment of mankind and not get paid for it.
Because one can't say for sure how an academic should be paid, and who should do the paying, it is left to the free market system which dictates that I get paid by users of my work. That means no more open sharing of knowledge, because no one wants to be responsible for the education of the world. The utility of one's work is directly linked to the combined utility of those who desire it, transacted by money. And because, more disgustingly, some people see a market opportunity and profits in being middle men and agents for the dissemination of information.
I respect that scholars and academics desire credit and recognition for their work. But because of some reason that money is now the only practical means for acknowledgement, much of the world's intellectual journals, scholarly writings, statistics, data and wisdom are now largely inaccessible to the most convenient means of access - the internet - which is a huge pity. I suppose there are probably scholars and academics who are also guilty of being only motivated by money when they work, but I believe the system churns out certain types of people (coupled with the decline of philosophy in the 19th century and its collapse in the 20th century as the world moved towards capitalistic and economic practicality). Whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact of the matter that we have a glorious opportunity to be wiser from the exposure to such knowledge, but the knowledge is just not publicly available.
It would really be good to one day see greater information sharing and access so as to reduce uncertainty and ignorance especially with regards to dire decisions to be made and preconceived notions of the world.
I guess I would've woken up to it sooner or later. But you came along and ironed me out.
Really random crap post.
I'm really dying from this study break not because I'm mugging myself to death but because everyone else is. So the supply of people I can usually count on to do stuff with is at an all-time low that I'm starting to inflate the value of doing non-study stuff (ok econs got a little to me there but nothing wrong with a sense of irony in such crappy times). In SMU, you really can't count on anyone (or most people, if I were to give some huge benefit of doubt) to take the status quo a little less seriously.
Is there really so much to study that it has to expand to maximise every remaining bit of time in one's life? I hardly spend more than 4hrs a day max studying and I've already finished economics.
So I'm starting to count on non-SMU people for my non-academic endeavours, beginning with Ivan tonight for some long-overdue supper. Too bad it's hard to find people who share my principle of the best time to relax being when you don't have time for it.
Saipong couldn't have put it more astutely when he said that SMU openhouses shouldn't be anywhere else but the library, cos that's seriously where all the action is.
Steph asked me to teach her regression the other day, so I just told her that she'd be better off learning it from a turtle or any other inanimate object. Because at least a turtle won't tell her anything, while I'd probably teach her the wrong thing, and 0 > -1 so she should seek help for regression from a turtle instead.
The last 3 great No. 7s of Manchester United have all had 7 letters in their names: Cantona, Beckham and Ronaldo.
If anyone wishes so much as to 'go a little crazy' (so-called only because SMU people would see not studying during study break as a crazy thing to do) and have a good time doing something else other than mug - like supper, catching a movie, hanging out, whatever - during these 2 weeks of study break and exams, I'm as much as completely available.
If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.
We had our last BGS session on Friday by rounding up the 2nd half of the class presentations. And our usually somewhat slack prof showed us what he's made of when he attacked the statistical flaws of one of the groups' presentations. He then said that in statistics, especially when it's at our 'intro to stats' kinda level, either you forget everything from here on, or you continue and progress, because in particular for statistics, too little knowledge can be very dangerous.
Friday marked the last day of Früjch, which was accompanied by Starry Nite. EIC came down for a polished, vintage performance and Richard's band wrapped things up for the night. Pretty decent fun. But I thought the Indian band with their grunge metal music kinda stole the show, peaking with Metallica's Enter Sandman, especially when their extremely exuberant, charismatic and crazy frontman did his antics to work the crowd.
Justin and his friend Mike didn't win over any fans with their drunken displays though and had to be pulled off by some people I'd presume to be security. But they were really funny and added quite a bit of unexpected colour to the event.
Prata that night at the prata place near school, then supper again on Saturday night at Rachel's recommendation of 85 Bedok for bak chor mee. Before that, Angie and I tried to mug at the airport, but after coming up with a host of excuses not to, we ended up exploring T3. I saw this auntie carrying some flat box, so I was like, "ok cool, doughnuts." Then I saw the label and realised it read "PIE KIA". Genius.
Then we went to Simpang Bedok to catch the Arsenal vs Liverpool game, which ended 1-1 so goodbye to Arsenal's hopes of Premiership victory more or less.
Along the way, we passed by a company utility van which had the company name, SIR, on it, which had one of the stupidest slogans I've ever seen just under it: "we don't know the meaning of 'no'". Angie was like saying that we should then ask them, "so, do you know the meaning of 'no'?" Let's see what crap they'd hafta come up with.
Kok: "I'm Chang. Beer Chang." (referring to the Beer Chang Thai tshirt he's wearing) (turns around and crashes into chair.)
Some random frisbeeing and Xboxing at Rachel's place til 1+am, then home.
Sometimes, to preserve our personal status quos, we do things differently with different people. We bite our tongues with some on issues, ideas, topics and stuff we'd otherwise spill our guts out with others.
I've been having a decent amount of sleep but somehow it just never seems enough.
We're surrounded my statistics of deceit all around us. 99% fat free! $999 laptop! Mouse with a 99999 click warranty! Book in by 2359h! As we progress and the needs for responsibilty and accountability increase and invariably blend, we get a whole load of figures that are either promised to us, presented to us to attract us, or given to us to abide by. It's obvious that a statistic like 99% fat-free isn't true, but it strives to tell us that while they can try to make their products fat-free, they can't guarantee perfection. How many times we click a mouse is definitely an impractical statistic to keep track of, and nobody will ever know or bother to find out what happens if we do indeed click the mouse 100000 times or more. But with a figure like that, we are, either knowingly or unknowingly, reassured of the reliability of the mouse. And nobody's ever going to wait til 2359h just to book in to prove that it's within the boundaries of the regulations of the army.
Almost every expectation is met with a preset, designated statistic so that the same number can be reused over and over again within anticipated limits. Just so that something can be accounted for when the day comes where the need arises for the system to be verified, and that everyone's ass is covered (Bimbo screams, "I got fat eating your yoghurt!" Spokesman says, "honey, we never said it was entirely fat-free!"). Kinda makes the system for accountability quite a redundancy.
