Your bravery taunts uncertainty. Your self-awareness betrays depth, which you're prudently unhurried to reveal. Your will to live to the fullest within your means fascinates me. Your measured chuckles often give way to unbridled laughter. An enlightened wit underlies your banter. Your struggles capture my imagination.

Touché, Mademoiselle.

What the Kitty

If you're in Singapore and haven't been living under a rock the last few weeks, you would have been aware of the McDonald's Hello Kitty saga that has unfurled to such divided reaction from Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike.

In a nutshell, people are willing to queue long hours for limited Hello Kitty toys, with the risk of queueing for nothing when the stock runs out. This is usually done with the aim of trying to procure the entire set of Hello Kitty toys within the sale period. The toy retails for S$4.60.

As the weeks went by and each new Kitty emerged, people started to realize the resell value of these toys, and sell-out rates have increased with the onset of people buying them in order to deplete the supply, raise the value, and then sell them back to eager buyers who need the toys to complete their set.

Some ridiculous screenshots of eBay activity:

These are likely due to scam bids, but from what I've heard from friends, the toys have resold within the range of S$25-S$50 on average. That's still quite a handsome profit of about at least 600%. There has been some reactionary backlash to this for sure, and this one takes the cake for me (click to enlarge):

The question in most people's minds is why are people willing to put up with so much cost (in time, money, and effort) to get these Hello Kitty toys? This might be even more befuddling when, after I've indulged in some dumbfound probing, most people can't articulate why they want or need the toys, besides seemingly just desiring to have them.

I would speculate that the "experience" per se is sufficiently accountable for all this madness. Just like a dog that chases cars but doesn't know what to do once it catches up with the car, McDonald's knowingly or unknowingly has engaged this aspect of consumer (and arguably human) psychology.

People are willing to pay huge premiums for intangible aspects of a product or service once they feel it has value to them, and the tricky thing about such intangible value is that there is almost no rationalizable monetary price to it. Just like how people say that you can't put a price on love or experiences, which almost takes on a moral tinge because it sounds somewhat calculative to valuate intangible "goods" like your mum's good cooking or your friend coming over to help shift the furniture, the desire of owning the toys becomes the end in itself.

This experience comes first and foremost from some aspects of the toy that make it somewhat "hard to get", such as fact that it doesn't come around all the time, or that there is some difficulty and commitment involved in acquiring the entire set of toys, but this experience is further enhanced when everyone else seems to want it too, and scarcity of the toys is elevated by everyone jumping on the bandwagon, including resellers.

People who do not buy-in to the fad have no clue what on earth could induce such obsessive behavior, but as with all such desired experiences, we are willing to pay premiums to do seemingly irrational things. Take haunted houses or rollercoaster rides, for example. These are activities that deliberately induce objectively unpleasant emotional experiences in people. Yet, we will gladly pay to go through these "pains" once we see value in them. In this sense, there's a fine line between pleasure and pain.

This is underscored by the fact that although most people are well-aware that Taobao manufactures the Hello Kitty toys and it is much easier (and cheaper) to get the toys directly from them, they would still rather endure the "pain" of costly procurement of the Hello Kitty set, and through this they actually derive immense pleasure and satisfaction.

G

I'm quite racked with remorse right now. It's been a while.

Power and its Endorsement by the Masses

Thinkers begin with assumptions about human nature, and then proceed to rationalize behaviors and suggest improvements to order and efficiency based on those assumptions. I'm no different.

When it comes to my assumptions about human nature, I believe that power corrupts. Or at least, power leads to an increased tendency to take up the added opportunities and benefits associated with it. Where there's suddenly the opportunity to exploit, why wouldn't people take it up? We can't rely solely on the goodwill of human beings to do good and avoid being corrupt. I don't blame the powerful from taking advantage of their power. Why shouldn't they? In fact, considering one's payoffs (or capacity to get away with something) seems more predictive of one's behavior. It is naive to hope that those in power know the "right" thing to do. Even more so when the morality of our actions is a subjective matter, open to interpretation and debate.

The corollary to this assumption is that rather than devote time and effort to encourage those in power to behave, it is the masses who should be empowered. Power is a social construct and thus doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is nothing without the endorsement of followers and subservients. Thus, instead, I would hold responsibility of power abuse-prevention to the empowerment of followers, both potential and existing. Teach them to think for themselves and ask just one more question. Remove their ignorance. When the masses are critical, leaders cannot take advantage of their ignorance. That is a safer bet to the prevention of abuse of power than educating leaders on how they should behave and hoping that they will.

Men to Ah Boyz

Time to go for my first reservist! Haha hope I don't get into trouble and end up extending this military vacation. It's been a rollercoaster of a year since I began my PhD studies, and I've got ideas spilling out of my skull. More updates when I'm back after the 20th of May.

Tschüss!

Pompous Ass Words

LOL here's a site dedicated to pompous ass words, very useful.

http://www.pompousasswords.com/www/index.htm

For example, inchoate versus impartial, or coruscating versus brilliant.

For all the irritating, redundant, and difficult synonyms you've come across.

Leap

"Sometimes you have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down."
- Kobi Yamada


Kind of makes me think of how Bruce Wayne could only make the leap once he didn't have the harness on.

You Okay with That?

Maiden MMA Experience

Attended my first ever MMA fighting event at the One Fighting Championship 8 held at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on Friday. I think it'll be an experience I'll never forget, and the fact that I spent almost the entire day the next day watching MMA videos is testament to that.

There is something absolutely gripping about seeing two men take it out in physical combat. Aside from the practical requirement for rules and safety precautions (not quite the "first rule of Fight Club" sort of stuff haha), such battles are deeply rooted in our mammalian psyche. The same exciting, conflicting tension between the fear of vicarious pain and the anticipation of seeing a new victor emerge engulfs both those who have never seen a fight and those who have watched these fights for the 100th time alike. These combat scenarios are timeless - men (and some women) have been duking it out since time immemorial and there is always honour, either from earning it or defending it, from defeating your opponent while an audience devours the scene with hungry eyes. These fights are psychologically gripping also because deep in every man the question is asked, "when I'm head to head with another man for a fight and I'm stripped of my socially constructed but physically very useless accolades, can I hold my own?" In our society today, we (rightfully and thankfully) do not need to physically assert ourselves to the extent that men had to in the ancestral past, but when the time comes that might decides who's right, do we have what it takes?

There was an exciting line-up of fighters from all over the world and all sorts of different fighting styles, and it is in the differences that interesting observations can be made. These are cursory observations that are only anecdotally substantiated, but for instance I've noticed that Asian fighters are a lot more patient than Western fighters. For good reason, perhaps, because on the one hand, Asian fighters tend to have less mass and thus, on average, cannot go head on with a Western fighter on strength alone. On the other hand, there is a weakness to be exploited when up against aggressive Western fighters, who may leave themselves exposed while on the attack. There are exceptions, of course - Brock Larson was extremely patient in his fight against Melvin Manhoef (although one's from the US while the other is Dutch), and the Filipino Kevin Belingon is a hard-hitting little striker.

I found style match-ups to be extremely crucial. The most exciting fights involved a compatible match between either striking specialists (going for the knockouts) or grappling/take down specialists (going for floor work). Matches with different styles are interesting too, which usually involves the fighters trying to manoeuver their opponent into unfavourable positions. Such fights may become quite tactical.

Then, there are the heavyweight "mismatches". OK, there wasn't exactly a heavyweight category during this round of fights (or maybe One FC doesn't have them), but in the middle weight category between the grappling specialist Brock Larson and the striking specialist Melvin Manhoef, the fight went on for loooong stretches where nobody threw a punch or did anything (much to the displeasure of the fans, and the referee "booked" both fighters!). It was supposed to be an explosive fight between two very overpowered fighters, and yet nobody made a move. When somebody finally did, all hell broke loose for very brief periods.

This makes sense from a power balance perspective. When we think of war between two entities, the more powerful the arms, the less likely the individuals will make a move because it would be too decided and costly. Exciting head-on battles with lots of charging and fighting occurs when armies wield swords, but once you arm soldiers with powerful guns, everyone sits in trenches, not daring to make a move. Likewise for the Cold War - when the threat of total destruction is too costly, a tense peace prevails. Status hierarchies among individuals work the same way too - powerful men at the top seldom fight head to head; instead they trade politically correct back-and-forths that usually amount to nothing other than reminding the other party that they're still here, while low status men at the bottom are the ones who really slug it out.

Here's the colossal match-up between Melvin Manhoef and Brock Larson that for long stretches only served to bore, until the epic triggering of kicks and strikes from Manhoef led to a comical roundabout chase at 3:47.

INTP

Babel Fish, QED

Gonna repost a classic from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

The Light

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
- C. S. Lewis

Great quote, maybe, but only for its point on illumination rather than anything to do with Christianity in particular. Replace the word "Christianity" with "science" or "good theory" and it still makes sense to whoever has a different set of faiths and beliefs comprising of those (such as me).

The only people who fear death
are those with regrets.

I Never Saw a Wild Thing Sorry for Itself

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

- D. H. Lawrence, Self-pity


Saw the line in bold tattoo-ed on a chick's back the other day. It is one of those illuminating moments where a light goes on in my head. I just had to go discover the source.

I can't find an exact date for when the poem was written, but apparently D. H. Lawrence wrote this while the study of psychology was experiencing a breakthrough. Thought, ideas of emotions, human motives, intuition, reason, and behavior greatly interested him. Lawrence lived between 1885 to 1930, so one might expect the psychological philosophies of William James and Sigmund Freud to be revolutionary and prevalent at that time. His essays reflect this energy and sense of enlightenment. In Self-pity, Lawrence emphasizes that man, of all animals, has the greatest ability of and capacity for self-pity, and sadly can express the most self-loathing despite his longer lifespan and capacity of thought as opposed to other animals.

Indeed, this is true even among humans with their vast variations in dispositions. The people I know who are wild and free are the most fulfilled and unregretful. They make delightful company.

My Life so Far According to Songs

PRESENT

Medina - You and I
Sunlounger - Change Your Mind
Pendulum - The Island
Gareth Emery - Sanctuary
Dash Berlin - Man on the Run
Armin van Buuren - In and Out of Love
The Killers - Mr Brightside
Muse - Starlight
Eminem - Love the Way You Lie
Gym Class Heroes - Cookie Jar
Fall Out Boy - Hum Hallelujah
My Chemical Romance - Helena
Trivium - A Gunshot to the Head of Trepidation
Seether - Broken
Damien Rice - Amie
The Spill Canvas - 3685
Stars - Your Ex-lover is Dead
Belle and Sebastian - Another Sunny Day
Third Eye Blind - Motorcycle Drive By
Jimmy Eat World - If You Don't, Don't
Gregory and the Hawk - Birds and Boats
Nada Surf - If You Leave
Lifehouse - Blind
The Juliana Theory - Jewel to Sparkle
Cradle of Filth - Nymphetamine
In Flames - Cloud Connected
Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence
Bowling for Soup - Life After Lisa
Earshot - Wait
Metallica - Enter Sandman
Nightwish - Nemo
Anberlin - Paperthin Hymn
Saosin - Bury Your Head
Senses Fail - Bite to Break Skin
I Am Ghost - We are Always Searching
Kill Hannah - Kennedy
Thrice - Stare at the Sun
Taking Back Sunday - Number Five with a Bullet
Black Lab - Learn to Crawl
Yellowcard - Gifts and Curses
Sick Puppies - All the Same
MXPX - Wrecking Hotel Rooms
Spineshank - Smothered
Placebo - Every You/Me
Chevelle - The Red
Brand New - The Quiet Things that No One Ever Knows
Puddle of Mudd - Blurry
Papa Roach - Blood Brothers
System of a Down - Chop Suey
Limp Bizkit - Rollin'
Linkin Park - Papercut

PAST

"Marriage kills your life. Then kids kill your marriage. And in the end we're all dead."

You get no less from my supervisor himself.

Banter never felt better.

Every Experience is a Gift, be it Good or Bad

"For the man sound in body and serene of mind there is no such thing as bad weather; every sky has its beauty, and storms which whip the blood do but make it pulse more vigorously."
— George Gissing

I have lived by this quote for quite some time now. Every experience is a gift, be it good or bad. Every experience affords a chance to learn something, and that makes it valuable.

On one hand, this could mean that it all boils down to how we see the situations we're in. I could be criticized here for saying that I merely have very good rationalization skills, which makes me good at justifying anything that I've been through, minimizing my regrets.

On the other, I don't think it's as simple as that - being merely good at looking at the bright side of things is a diminished form of living; it is passive and rather uninspiring. Instead, what this importantly entails is having a frame of mind that embraces every opportunity one is thrown. Enter into novel situations with the perspective that one will come out stronger. We have no idea how much we can do until we do it. We are also more liable to regret the things we do not do more than the things we did (if it is the reversed, well to put it bluntly, that would be somewhat unfortunate). Every daunting challenge has its silver lining in the aftermath, and every emotion felt is beautifully intense inasmuch as it is fleeting. To have anything less (or worse, to want anything less), you're selling yourself short on life.

Every individual has potential. To waste it with negativity, hesitancy, fear, reluctance, sloth, and subsequently, regret, would be sin.

Bottom of a Bottle

'O Patience, how you tug and you push. Bestowing upon me your evil twin, impatience. I know this is a marriage I will never be able to divorce myself from, an attachment I will be doomed to be unable to wean off.

But I will straddle the two, because I must. It is the only way. And although the balance is an artful one, it is a fine line between pleasure and pain, and heaven and hell. Choices now revolve around choosing what is right, and what is easy.



Some advice to arrive at my doorstep; just four years quite late. It is fascinating how the world works so seemingly strange, but at the most abstract of perspectives this whole thing makes so much sense.

"We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two- valued, ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."

- Robert Heinlein, Assignment in Eternity (1953)