Girls and short hair

I've heard many girls ask why guys like girls with long hair more. Here is my explanation:

Traditionally guys wear their hair short and girls wear their hair long. Think of it, how many guys you know would look better with long hair? I think the answer is: not many. Sure, some handsome or artistic-looking fellows may look great with a lengthy hairstyle, but these guys are definitely in the minority.

Hence, we can extrapolate from this that the percentage of girls who look good with short hair are also in the minority.

Good deeds

Many people express the sentiment that one should not expect returns for one's good deeds; the act of doing good should be ample reward in itself. Though I admire the nobility of this sentiment, I cannot agree with it in the larger picture.

Let me relate a story. A long time ago in China, when it was split into several countries, the master sage Confucius had a disciple who was traveling outside his own nation. This disciple came upon a fellow countryman who had been sold as a slave, so he took out his purse and paid the required amount of money necessary to free the man, who was naturally very thankful.

When the disciple returned to his own country, he told Confucius of this. Confucius commended his act and told him to claim the amount of money he had spent with the government. At that time, in their nation there was a law saying that if money was spent to save a fellow citizen from slavery in a foreign country, the government would reimburse the giver.

Confucius' disciple declined, saying that he was willing to perform this good deed using his own funds. Upon hearing this, Confucius insisted that he reclaim the money from the government. The disciple was puzzled: why would Confucius prevent him from doing a good deed?

The sage then explained: "If you spend your own money to save this man, all our country will admire you. However in the future, if other men see our fellows being enslaved overseas, how will they act? Will they save them then come and claim the expense? That would make them look petty next to your example. Yet if they do not claim the expense the cost to themselves would be significant."

"The logical outcome is that they pretend not to notice when they see our people being sold into slavery," Confucius concluded.

Therefore, is it wise for us to expect people to do good purely out of the nobility of their hearts? Such nobility does exist, but we should never count on it from day to day, as it could be worn out by constant use.

Much better to promote a culture where goodness is seen and recognized, and rewarded by praise and respect. The recipient of kindness should constantly think how to repay it. For we all act in our self-interest, and if such self-interest can be aligned with the interest of society, the motivation for helping others will be significantly stronger than solely altruism.

(Fiction) The Princess and the Dragon

In a land far far away, and a time long long ago, there lived a young prince. He was the last of a proud and noble family; both his elder brothers had perished on quests to rescue the most beautiful princess in the world, locked up in a crystal tower guarded by a fearsome dragon. His eldest brother had been the greatest warrior in the land, but he never rode back from single combat with the dread creature. As the second brother rode to avenge him he charged with a hundred fierce knights, yet all was naught before the deluge of flame.

The young prince decided that his brothers should not die in vain. He was ready to face the dragon. Although his mother pleaded with him not to go, that he was her only son left, he stood resolute. Only a few knights went with him as he rode to that crystal tower, other attendants trailing behind reluctantly.

After some riding, they reached a vast plain over which the tower loomed. Above it flew a mighty dragon, scales black as night, eyes red as blood. It was large enough to cover small towns in its shadow. His attendants trembled in their boots.

But instead of pulling out a sword, the prince pulled out a horn and blew it loud enough to wake the dead. The dragon stared downwards. Was this challenger foolish enough to fight it bare-handed? Alone? It would make him regret. Steadily it flew down towards him.

Yet as it got near, it paused. The prince's attendants had laid out pigs and cows on the ground, all without hair and cooked to a crispy perfection. The smell was heavenly. The dragon landed before the small party and their offerings.

"You do realize we dragons are immune to poison, don't you," the dragon smirked.

"Of course, Mighty One," the prince smiled. "These animals have been cooked with spices by the best chefs in my kingdom. Please enjoy".

The dragon chomped down. It was truly a feast fit for a dragon. It tore through the tender flesh with teeth as sharp as daggers. When it had finished, it let out a mighty burp.

"That was pretty good. Thanks. Now let's fight and get it over with". The dragon said, thinking it would finish it quickly and mercifully in thanks for the food.

"Wait. If you kill me, you aren't going to get any more of this food." That made the dragon pause. The lunch it had just taken was much much better than any of the tough, stringy knights it had eaten before. Indeed that was all the food it got, and fewer and fewer of them came nowadays.

"You suggest we not fight?" This was somewhat out of the norm.

"How about you follow me back to my kingdom? Help me burn some enemies occasionally and I will make sure you dine like this forever. My servants will help you clean your scales too"

The dragon considered the offer for a moment. It sounded much better than guarding a silly tower and killing knights once in awhile.

"But I am bound by a magical contract to guard this tower."

"What does the contract state?" The prince asked.

"I must not harm the princess, and I must kill anyone who attempts to rescue her." The dragon replied.

"We can get around that easy. Let me in the tower."

"That would be against the terms"

"I'll go in and kill the princess. That way you can let me in because I'm not trying to rescue her. After she's dead you are free from the silly contract and can follow me back home."

The dragon scratched its head, then looked at the prince.

"Deal."

Thus House Targaryen was born.

Beginner's Luck

We often hear the saying that beginners tend to have good luck in things, especially in gambling. This phenomenon is known as beginner's luck.

This always struck me as rather ridiculous; if anything one would expect beginners to do worse. If beginners really had better luck, why not just follow them around in a casino and bet on whatever they bet on? Obviously this claim is not scientific.

However after some consideration, I have hit on a possible explanation for the claim of beginner's luck.

Statistically speaking, half of the beginners who start a luck-based game will have better luck than average, while half will have worse luck than average. More of those who experience above-average luck will elect to continue playing the game, as they have had a lovely time at the start, while those who started with bad luck will have a greater tendency to drop out.

Over time, this makes it so that among the population of gamblers, a larger percentage have experienced good luck when starting, thus causing them to feel that beginners tend to have better luck.

A reminder to myself

As I write this I have not slept at all. I've been grinding out some code for the whole night; now my hands are kinda shaky too from lack of sleep.

My arms and legs are pretty painful too from riding a rodeo bull the day before. I suppose to win prizes you have to pay a price in life.

Having said that, I managed to stay on the bull and win. I managed to stay awake and finish my programming.

Never give up in life.

Chinese educated people taking English names

Being Chinese educated myself, I naturally mix with many people for whom English is not their first language. Due to this they have not had an English name since birth, instead having to take one for themselves later in life. Some of them have wisely consulted me before picking an English name and so got something lovely. Unfortunately, many have not had such good sense, causing them to pick rather... unorthodox names such as "Apple", "Fish" and "Flower". My personal favorite was when one girl told me her name was "Kinky" (Kinki? could not ascertain spelling), upon which it took all my willpower to keep from laughing to her face.

Though we may laugh now at such naming choices, it is in a way not surprising. The plain fact is at the beginning of a language being developed, its users tend to pick rather literal names for themselves - for example Native American names such as Howling Wolf or Spirit Eagle. Suddenly "Fish" doesn't sound so outlandish any more right?

In fact most "modern" English names have literal meanings. "Bernard" means "bear", while "Calvin" means "bald". Smith and Archer, both common surnames, are self-explanatory. Avril Lavigne's Avril means "April" in French. Judging by this, I would say taking names such as "Apple" or "Flower" aren't so strange at all, especially considering that there are people named "Flora", which is simply flower in Latin.

However "Kinky" is still unacceptable no matter how you cut it.

Dota and Corporate Life

Over the years of playing Dota, I have never made it into any competitions. I prefer to yell and laugh with friends in cybercafes than do harsh training for the competitive scene, hence I have never made any money out of Dota. Nevertheless, I have learned several valuable lessons from it that can be used in the corporate world.

1. Mind your own lane well: Some people never take care of their own lane; leaving the enemy to farm up and their teammate to get owned while they go gallivanting around the map trying to gang other heroes or doing god-knows what. This is usually not the sensible thing to do. One should take care of one's own lane properly before going off to others. It is the same in the office; do your work well before you help other people, for the potential gain in helping out others is not as great as the potential loss if your own work is subpar. Help only if you really have the free capacity. I know some of you are going to tell me that you use Vengeful Spirit and roam around - but think back now, how much gold does VS have at the end of the game?

2. Show up when it counts: If you play the whole game beautifully, slaying heroes and farming creeps right and left, but fail to show up when your teammates push causing your team to lose the game, everyone will forget your stellar performance earlier and revile you. It is the same with work, if you do wonderfully usually but let everyone down when a big project comes your name will go bad. Avoid this at all costs.

3. Don't neglect the small stuff: Many new players eschew small items such as Ironwood Branches or Ancient Tangoes in favor of larger, shinier items. This is obviously a mistake. In the same vein, small things like weekly status reports and technical bug fixes can bolster up your image as a conscientious worker to the bosses.

4. Establish intelligence: Pro teams always ward crucial spots to prevent opponents coming from the dark forest and whooping their asses. You never want to be surprised, whether it be in the cybercafe or in the office. How to establish wards in your company? Make friends and cultivate good relationships so that you stay in the gossip vine, this lessens the chances of people backstabbing you, and helps you catch wind of things like a new big project you can stick your fingers in, or who will get promoted soon so that you can butter her up. If you stay out of conversation, or "in the dark" metaphorically, people tend to be less fond of you, which hinders your ability to move up the ladder.

5. Always have a nice attitude: I am always polite and friendly in games, making me welcome on most teams in pubs despite my mediocre skills. Often when I lose and join the next pub game, my gracious compliments upon losing earlier causes my former opponents to tell me to join their side, unless all five are friends dammit. So if you are nice to coworkers and others you meet in the workplace or outside, including people from other companies, it is more likely that if you leave your company they can introduce new job opportunities to you.

May money and first blood flow abundantly towards you my friend.

The horror of Coding

Recently I have had to start doing some programming work in the line of duty. Before this I had prepared myself by watching a set of Youtube videos and doing a few exercises. It is my firm belief that everything in the world can be learned from Youtube, as I know someone who has learned swimming from it. However that is a story for another day.

After waltzing through my Youtube lessons and exercises with decent ease, my project began and I had to do programming work for real.

While I was doing the exercises, programming felt to me like talking to a slave and getting him to do work step by step. However once the real thing started, it seemed like getting a highly stubborn donkey to tap dance. Things which the guide says can be done sometimes cannot be done, and the wretched computer finds every possible loophole in my code, and stuffs errors in it. Truly an ordeal indeed.

I wish people working on Artificial Intelligence could hurry up and progress more. Then if my program doesn't work I can threaten the computer with destruction.

Why I hate Direct Sales

I was talking with a friend of my mother who hailed from China, and he said something about Malaysia being "heaven for direct sales". So I paused to contemplate, and I did recollect countless attempts from friends and acquaintances to drag me into the scene, which I dislike greatly.

One huge reason I dislike direct sales, also known as multilevel marketing (MLM) is, for one, the sheer hypocrisy that it instills into the minds of our youngsters. I have heard the following ridiculous statements over the years:

"It doesn't matter how good our product is, we are selling a business opportunity"

"If you don't have enough money now, you can borrow RM50 from each of your friends, small amount like that no need to return"

"We are not doing direct sales, instead we are doing multilevel marketing"

The last statement makes me want to faint.

An even larger reason why I dislike direct sales is that the entire business idea ABUSES the normal structure of friendship in society to push itself. I suspect the inventors of direct sales had the following brainwave:

1. Usually if a friend asks you out for tea we tend to oblige.
2. This is a good opportunity for pushing the marketing plan.
3. We find it hard to refuse friends, especially close ones.

Voila!

The logical result of this is that we are now all very wary when a friend we do not normally see asks us out. Indirectly this affects the dating structure too - if a guy asks you out it may not be an indication of interest. This applies even more if a girl asks you out.

Therefore, I conclude that the idea of direct sales is indirectly damaging the very foundation of friendship in society. It is akin to driving 20-ton vehicles on roads not meant to sustain such weights. Sooner or later the road system gets damaged.

How to Motivate Yourself

Today I will share with you my three-step procedure of self-motivation. I use it when I have a ton of work to do or face other annoying stuff that I know I have to do but am reluctant too, or when I am generally not feeling too happy.

1. Take a large swig of vodka (or other suitable alcoholic beverage).

2. Put your headphones on and set the volume to max.

3. Press play on the video below and close your eyes.

I guarantee you after you listen to this song you will feel like you can take on a thousand demons.

And win.

Comparison

It's pretty hard to deny that most of us nowadays are pretty materialistic. We are hung up on how much we earn, what car we drive, what handphone we use, where we dine, what we wear, etc etc etc.

Now people often speak words of wisdom against this materialism, e.g.

"In the old days we didn't have much, we wore old clothes handed down from our elder siblings and played with sticks and stones. Nowadays kids want expensive electronic toys. So greedy!"

Or

"Primitive tribes in Africa have nothing and yet are happy! Why can't we be happy with less?"

The answer to this is that if everyone of us suddenly had less material goods, for instance if we all suddenly reverted to using the venerable Nokia 3310, also affectionately know as "The Brick", that would not make much impact to the general level of happiness. But if YOU were forced to use it, and everyone laughed at you because of it, that would affect YOUR level of happiness.

In other words, what affects our level of happiness is not the absolute level of our material enjoyment, but that in respect to others around us.

So our parents were happy with sticks and stones in the kampung when they were kids, but if I were to open a space-time portal and give one kid a PS3, I bet all the other kids would instantly feel dissatisfied with their sticks and stones.

And although our expensive cars may make no impact to the happiness of African tribespeople in the wild, I bet their warriors are concerned whether they have less ostrich feathers in their headdress than their peers or not.

Therefore, if you ask me "would you mind making do with less," I would say:

"Sure, but everyone else has to make do with less as well."

Decadence

I came back today to notice that the switch for hot water outside my room was on. This triggered the sudden horrified realization within me that it is on all the time.

When I was younger, I scoffed at people who were soft enough to actually use the hot water machine in this tropical climate. Having ambitions of being a great polar explorer in the footsteps of Amundsen and Scott at the time, I insisted on using cold water at all times, even in Genting.

Unfortunately as the years pile on, I have cowardly sneaked away from my original dream, and the pride that once burned brightly within me has waved the white flag to the tempting hot water machine.

Perhaps a wheelchair will be next.

Gay Marriage

Recently the subject of gay and lesbian marriage has been in the public eye to a significant extent. Firstly, I would like to clarify that I have no personal dislike whatsoever towards homosexuality, neither do I think it is sinful.

Yet, is the standpoint of "being gay is not a sin" naturally equivalent to "gay marriage should be accepted as just the same as normal marriage"? In my humble opinion, I think the two standpoints do have some difference.

I'm sure most of us would agree that it would be morally repugnant to allow gays to be persecuted legally, or called names in streets, or to suffer any kind of discrimination against in society or professionally. As individuals, they should enjoy each and every rights that other members of society do.

However when it comes to the institution of marriage, when we look at it from a more pragmatic viewpoint, what is the purpose of marriage? Obviously it is to raise kids in a stable family setting, with certain economic advantages given for said kids (tax breaks). If it was just to find a soulmate, that could be done without signing the contract.

So since the legal and societal function of marriage is to raise kids, if gay couple cannot have kids, wouldn't such tax breaks be inapplicable to them?

My personal opinion is that all marriages should not have tax breaks - as even straight marriages may not have kids. But after they have a kid, the amount deducted should be larger than present to even things up.

If that is done, then yes I support gay marriage.

Promiscuity

Many people associate promiscuity with the onset of modern, "Western" culture and the decline of traditional morals. The shocking truth though is that cultures which many may regard as primitive can be far more promiscuous.

In the Dyak communities in Sarawak, everyone stays together in the longhouse, which can contain many families. Now if a girl sleeps with some young fellow it is really no big deal, since everyone stays together as one big family anyway, the babies are just cared for by the old women who really don't have much else to do anyway. So everything is fine and dandy.

According to what I have heard, if outside visitors go and visit the longhouses, after the proper ceremonies have been performed and the chief satisfied they become formal visitors of the longhouse and are treated warmly. During this warmth and cheer some hanky panky may occur. As each family within the longhouse has its own room, it might seem hard to accomplish such behavior. Yet the defense of family members is not foolproof; the room is not sealed tight as there is an airspace between the wall and the ceilings. Ardent young men can then climb over the wall and achieve consummation with the young unmarried daughters, if they do not resist the other members of the family treat it as a normal occurrence.

Of course if you decide to try this experience after reading my blog I would refrain from taking any responsibility for your wellbeing, as there may well still be headhunters in the region.

Even this liberality pales before that of the traditional Tibetan society though.

In Tibet, out on the plains, the old custom is that once girls reach a marriageable age of 15 or so, they move out from the main tent in which the family resides into a smaller white tent some yards away. This is an open invitation for every young man in the vicinity to come and make love to her. Once she is pregnant, she is prime marriageable material for she has proven her fertility, thus marriage invitations come flying in like spam mail. Due to the poor hygiene and healthcare in the area, getting pregnant is not easy at all!

The result of this is nobody knows who their father is, at least for firstborn kids. Lest you imagine many Darth Vader moments, the fathers don't know who their kid is too. I think the most that could be done is a rough guess.

Therefore we can see that promiscuity is not copyrighted by modern society at all. Not by far.

Gap

Yesterday night I was sitting outside a club, waiting to gather up enough soberness to be capable of driving home. As I was sitting there, this girl next to me glanced over to my side just as I glanced over to hers. So I smiled at her, she smiled back, and we started chatting.

We talked about all kinds of funny things, such as how people vomited in the club, how guys in my gang was fighting over girls, how her group was going crazy, etc etc. And everything just felt so normal. When her friends came out she smiled and said goodbye to me, and all her friends waved and smiled to me as well.

So the gap between people, normally so far and gaping, was narrowed just for that moment. And I hope we could all do that normally as well, to strangers who need a ride, to old people in the park, to passer-bys on the road, and everyone else.

The gap that day was bridged partially by alcohol I suppose. I do hope one day we will all be able to bridge the chasm between souls without it.

Or I will have to pass out vodka in the park.

A Sample of Society

Recently there was a news piece that shocked the nation, or at least some sections of it. A old lady was accosted by robbers and was lying on the street, and five people passed by without extending a helping hand. When the sixth person called the police and help came it was too late to save her life already.

Now there is a lot of talk about prosecuting, or at least humiliating the five people who did not help.

To me this is ridiculous. Firstly, there is no law saying that anyone must help another. If there was, think what dreadful circumstances it could lead to - people might be sued on the grounds of not giving money to beggars, thus leading to their death from starvation. So the most that can be done is public naming.

Would this be fair to them. I think not. They could be worried that it was a scam, or that she was a drug addict, or something of the sort. Were they model citizens? Certainly not. Was their behavior somewhat normal. Certainly yes. All we can say is that in our society, 5 out of 6 people did not help, which reflects on our society as a whole, not those 5 people.

They are just a random sample.

To me, any form of humiliation of them would be a sort of guilt transfer: "we would never behave like that! I WOULD NEVER BEHAVE LIKE THAT! PUNISH THESE PEOPLE!"

But a random sample of society shows us that most of us act like that. So I say let our actions be to promote a better society, not to punish the sample that showed us how we are.

The Price of Perfection

I just read an article about a Japanese postal worker who was honored as Employee of the Year in Japan. He was so honored for the fact that throughout his career, he had never missed a day of work due to leave or sickness, nor had he been late to work or left early. In other words, he had a perfect record.

I also hear that some companies pass out awards for such perfection. However, let us examine the other side of the coin. What does it take to achieve such perfection?

Lets think about it. Say a drive to the office in the morning takes 45 minutes under normal traffic conditions. If we left exactly 45 minutes before work, we might be late 20 percent of the time due to unusually heavy traffic, road conditions or other such things beyond our control. Obviously this is not acceptable.

So lets leave 55 minutes early, giving ourselves a buffer of 10 minutes. This may cut the lateness percentage down to 10 percent. If we leave 65 minutes early the percentage may go down to 5 percent; 75 minutes may cut it to 1 percent, 85 minutes to 0.1 percent.

0.1 percent of lateness is pretty good I would say, that would mean an employee is only late once in 1000 days, close to 3 years. That would be good enough for me already.

But to not be late in one's whole career? Say one works from the age of 25 to 60, 35 years. One would have to be late less than 0.01 percent to achieve that. This may mean that one has to leave 115 minutes early. All that extra time wasted in the office.


As for not taking leave, if everyone had that as an aim, wouldn't that induce them to come to work when sick? It's pretty hard to expect people to not get a flu over the course of thirty-odd years. Coming to work when sick would be worse for the workplace I think, germs would be spread and productivity would be low anyway. Might spread an epidemic too.

In short, I feel that never being late or taking leave is not a good thing for us to aim towards, as the hidden costs of trying to achieve it far outweigh its benefits.

The speed of life

As you get older and older, time passes faster and faster. I find this to be definitely true for myself. When I was a kid, waiting in a queue for something was pure torture, if I was caught in a supermarket line or stuck waiting in a government office I would feel like digging my eyes out with a spoon.

But now if you ask me to wait in line, I can actually close my eyes and relax for awhile. For some reason it doesn't seem as much like hell as before. Perhaps time really does slow down. But why should time slow down as we get older? Some say that we measure time by how much we have lived; a one year-old measures a year as his whole life, practically an eternity, a ten-year old measures it as one-tenth of his life, still a long time, while for a fifty year old it passes in the blink of an eye as it is merely a fiftieth.


Now I know why my dad is fine with boring television shows, they go by much faster for him than for me.

The thought of life running by faster and faster does comfort me when I'm standing in line or doing boring documentation work... yet when I think of being pushed to the grave faster and faster the thought does seem a little disturbing. Doesn't that mean that I won't have much time with my grandkids from my perspective?

So now I know why my dad is asking me when am I going to find a girl, he's worrying about time spent with his grandkids too.

However perhaps the accelerating passage of time for us humans may be a good thing. If we think of life as a movie, wouldn't the fact that the last 5 minutes pass faster than the first 5 mean that the movie was, generally speaking, an interesting one? If the last 5 minutes passed slower than the first 5, that would indicate a pretty boring movie.

So in this brief flight of time between cradle and heaven, we all enjoy a decent ride at least.

And maybe that is all that matters.

An analysis of Polygamy

Polygamy has often been pointed to as a sign of male domination over women in past times. However after careful analysis, I personally feel that polygamy is actually more disadvantageous for men than for women.

Say we have a population where the numbers of men and women are roughly equal, which is usually the case.

If one man has four wives, the logical result is that three other guys are left without a wife, as three extra women have been removed from the dating market. In my opinion, the marginal benefit that the first guy receives from gaining three extra wives is less than the marginal benefit the other three fellows lose from going from one wife to zero.

From this example, we can see that in a polygamous society, the distribution of "wive share" among men is more uneven than the distribution of "husband share" among women.

E.g. a society of 10 men and 10 women. 1 guy has 4 wives, another 2 have 2 wives each, and there are two more couples of 1 to 1.

So the first guy has 4 points, another 2 have 2 points each, another 2 have 1 point each, another 5 have 0.

The 4 women have 1/4 points, another 4 have 1/2 points each, another 2 have 1 point each.

So we can see that the distribution for women is more even. This leads to greater happiness for women compared to men. To draw an analogy from economics, the higher the Gini coefficient of a nation is, the worse off it is supposed to be as opposed to be a country which has similar income levels but a lower Gini coefficient.

*A higher Gini coefficient shows that the inequality in income is higher.

Therefore, I conclude that polygamy hurts men more than it hurts women. It is actually a system where men oppress other men.

Mcdonalds

Many people have the false impression that I am inordinately fond of Mcdonalds. This is a patent untruth. I like Chinese food much more than Mcdonalds.

The reason people feel I like Mcdonalds more than other types of food is that I eat it once or twice a week. I also talk about it to some extent. The question to ask is then:

How come other people eat Chinese food (or Malay or Indian or whatever) 7 days a week and discuss its fine points constantly yet nobody says "wow you really like Chinese food (or Malay or Indian or whatever)?"

I think the answer is that we expect people to predominantly eat food from their own culture, or food that is somehow identified with local culture. Since their liking for such food compared with their liking for say, McDonalds is on the order of 9:1, while mine may be on the order of 8:2, it appears that I am very fond of McDonalds, when in fact I am not. I am just a little more fond than you.

I like Chinese food way more than I like Mcdonalds. If you were to dump me on a desert island and present me with the choice of eating Chinese food for the rest of my life or Mcdonalds for the rest of my life, I would definitely choose Chinese food. However considering I eat Chinese food for probably 10 of my 14 meals a week (lunch + dinner 7 days), and Mcdonalds for probably just one, it seems rather peculiar to say that I am very fond of McD.

So before telling me how much I love burgers, please consider how often you eat rice. As we are all citizens of the world now, all food should be equal to us. For as we are all children of God, is not all food too equal before His eyes?

Equality!

Reincarnation

I once read this Buddhist pamphlet saying that if we eat chickens, in the next life we will be reincarnated as a chicken, while if we eat pork or beef, we will be reincarnated as pigs or cows.

In that case, it really doesn't make much sense to eat vegetables right... the only sensible thing to do would be to eat humans. But I'm sure Buddha's followers didn't mean it that way - they probably mean that if we cause suffering we will be reborn into that object to experience the same suffering.

Judging by the number of documents I print out, I think I will be reborn as a tree.

Prometheus - from the viewpoint of Greek mythology

 

Please do not continue reading unless you have watched the movie. Spoilers ahead!

 After watching the much-hyped prequel to the Alien series, Prometheus, I will attempt to explain its storyline by drawing parallels to the original Greek myth of Prometheus.

(Elementary Greek mythology - please skip if you know it)

In the original Greek myth, humans once lived in a time where there was no fire, so were forced to eat cold food and shiver in darkness. The demigod Prometheus took pity on them, so he stole fire from the flame of Olympus and gave it to mankind, improving our lives greatly.

When Zeus found out about this he was infuriated. To punish Prometheus he chained him to a rock and had an eagle tear his liver out every day, being immortal, Prometheus' liver would regenerate at night, thus he would suffer eternally. In the end he was freed by Hercules (or killed by Kratos in God of War 2).

To punish mankind for receiving fire, Zeus sent the first woman to mankind, Pandora. Together with her was the famous Pandora's box, which contained all kinds of evil and pestilence. One day she opened it out of curiosity and all these calamities were unleashed on humanity, which has been suffering ever since. Only hope was left in the box in the end, which has provided the strength for mankind to live on.

(end of Elementary Greek mythology)

 In the movie, the gods were the Engineers, who started the evolution process on Earth culminating in humanity. Initially they guided us, as can be seen from the cave murals around the world showing us worshiping them.

Perhaps along the way a rogue Engineer gave us something we were not supposed to have, perhaps the spark of intellect necessary to proceed on our current path of development. This displeased the other Engineers, who then got ready to give us a gift of death - the vases containing the black liquid of doom.

Incidentally, the original shape of Pandora's box was actually not a box, but an urn as shown below:

Doesn't it look like the vases which contained the black liquid?

The vases never reached Earth for the Engineers themselves were overrun by some kind of outbreak, possibly some of them got infected and Aliens emerged. So when the last Engineer was awakened and he saw humans standing around him, he must have realized that we were not destroyed as per their plans, thus he instantly reacted to complete the original plan and wipe us out.

The question remaining is: what was the trigger for them to decide to extinguish humanity? My personal theory is that an Engineer came alone to uplift us from an ape-like state; the figure shown in the cave murals is a single Engineer, our teacher. The gift of fire is actually an intellectual spark which we were not supposed to get, hence the preparation to wipe us out once our progress was discovered by the other Engineers around 2000 years ago.

Another theory I have seen online is that around 2000 years ago, during the time of the Roman Empire, an Engineer patrol came by and observed us fighting among ourselves fiercely, so they decided to send down another teacher to guide us back to peace.

Unfortunately, we crucified him...

How to set up a system (1)

No I'm not going to talk about my job here, neither am I going to discuss information technology in general.

The system I refer to is the rules of society itself, written and unwritten, forming a system which encourages certain behavior.

Many people say that city people are worse than those from the village - less friendly, less helpful, and less polite. Yes this is true. But what is the reason for that? Is it because people who move from the village to the city magically get a reduction in moral values? Of course not; the reason is that in a small village, everyone knows each other, so good and bad deeds have direct repercussions. In a small village, help someone lift a heavy load back to his home, the next day when you need help that guy may appear and give you a hand. In the big city, you help someone and most likely you will never meet that person again. In a small village, you never give way for others to cross that narrow bridge and people will pin you down as an inconsiderate person, while in the big city you cut someone off on the road and most likely you will never meet that person again.

So we can see that in an anonymous setting where reputation does not matter, people tend to be more selfish. This effect is even more pronounced on the Internet.

Looking at the corporate world today, we can see that a huge amount of speculation and other such risky acts are going on. Why this shift towards instability? The answer is that in the past most businesses were family-controlled, so leaders would look at the long run, while now corporations on the stock market hire CEOs who do not have a stake in the long-term performance. So the logical choice for these CEOs is to take huge risks, since if these gambles pay off they get huge bonuses, while if they fail and the company goes bankrupt, they can always move on to another job.

In the same vein, if within a company the boss proclaims that the salesman who gets the most sales will get a holiday to Hawaii, I wouldn't be surprised if salespeople are not very keen on helping each other. On the other hand if he says that if the sales team hits target everyone will get a holiday trip, the level of cooperation would probably rise instantly.

And it is no surprise that in Communist countries productivity is low, for if everyone is paid the same no matter what the result of their work is, human nature causes everyone to slack. Communism would be perfect if we were angels; unfortunately we are not.

If life is a game, the rules under which we play it determine our playstyle. In my next post, I will discuss how to tweak rules to achieve certain effects in how people play the game of life.

Equilibrium and competition

Equilibrium, by definition is a state of affairs in which things are balanced. However, things can be balanced in a state which is nice for everyone or bad for everyone.

Unfortunately, in life the state which we all end up balanced in is often an unfavorable one. And we settle in that state via competition. For example, it would be good for everyone if there were no nuclear missiles in the world. But it would be even better for a specific nation if they had nuclear missiles but no one else had - everyone would have to kow-tow to that country. So one country starts building nukes and everyone else must follow suit or bow down.

Another example closer to home is high heels. Girls tell me that wearing high heels are pretty tiring and require more care when walking, and I can see that for myself. So if no girl in the world wore high heels, the net effect would be fresher feet and more carefree walking for women, obviously a good thing. But the first girl to wear high heels would enjoy a halo effect "wow her legs are so long and sexy!". So everyone has to follow suit.

The common effect we observe here is that there is a state in which things are better for everyone, but the first person/entity (or first few) to break that state will enjoy a significant benefit over others, leading everyone else to have to imitate or lose in the competition. Once everyone is doing it then there is no net benefit anymore, only burden.

In my humble opinion the only way to stop this terrible scenario is for all humanity to merge into a single entity mentally... but that is a topic for another day.

Stress

Many people say that the current era is the most stressful of all time. I am inclined to agree.

Yet that does not mean that our lives are worse than before. This is the richest age in human history in economic terms, and never before have we enjoyed more comforts of life, freedom or access to education and opportunity. Hundreds of millions in the developing world have been lifted out of poverty and hunger, while the developed world is largely at peace, with few gunshots being fired.

But all of us are stressed. Why? Do we work harder than ever before? I doubt it, as workers of old were exploited for longer hours than today, with far less pay. Farmers of the past did backbreaking labor for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to eke out a living from the meager soil. Slaves were whipped to death if they worked too slowly.

Looking closer to home, now the 5 day week is becoming increasingly the norm over the 6 day week, while living standards are steadily rising.

So why are we so stressed compared to the past? The answer is, because all of us now have a chance.

In the past if we were born in a poor village, the chances of making it were astronomically low. Born a peasant, stay a peasant. Born a noble, stay a noble. Both the haves and the haves not were stable in their position, hence those born in the lap of luxury could laze in glory, while those born to a harsh life were resigned to it.

Today things are different. A son of a poor family can grow up to shake the world, while the richest dynasties can fall from grace. Opportunity is everywhere, but we have to climb our way up. That generates the stress. So if you ask me would I want to go back to the old "relaxed" life where your destiny was largely set, my answer would be:

HELL NO.

Upwards

Today I was rock climbing for the first time in my life. After practicing on some easy beginner routes, I couldn't resist trying a slightly tougher one.

When I reached the halfway mark, I just couldn't find a nice place to place my left foot. My position felt strained, causing me to wobble a little. And there was no rock on my wall to put a foot on! Feeling frustrated, I started trying to pull myself up with my hands alone, but it seemed that I did not have any of Spiderman's powers.

As I was stuck in this conundrum, my friend shouted from below:

"JUST USE THE OTHER WALL".

I was actually climbing up a corner, so once I turned to my left the solution became apparent; I should just brace myself on a rock on the other side of the corner. So I did, and went up to reach the top.

After some reflection, I think in life I tend to keep bashing my head against the same door, either going through or giving up. But maybe, just maybe, if I turn and look in another direction, there might be another and less painful way of ascending.

But it's so hard to see it when you are trying your best to go up. So sometimes, I suppose one has to trust others - or you miss what is staring you in the eyes.

Why I hate photography

I don't normally dislike photography, on the contrary I have a great appreciation for the scenic pictures which appear in National Geographic, as well as a decent liking for photos of Jessica Alba, preferably in a bikini.

What I dislike are constant photography sessions during normal gatherings with friends. The incessant snapping of photos makes any sort of civilized discourse simply impossible to carry out. This situation has been made worse in normal life due to the presence of a camera in the phones of most people nowadays.

Say we have a gathering of 8 people, 4 of which are girls. I will calculate the total amount of pictures that will be taken:

Each girl will take out her camera phone and start snapping. First, they will take a picture of everyone else, which is 7 other people. Multiply that with 4 phones and 28 pictures will be taken. Add some variance here for "yerr, my pic not nice!' after demanding to see the photo, and perhaps another 10 will have to be taken, bringing it to a total of 38 photos.

After this, or perhaps before, some self-photography will take place. As the feat of holding the camera to take a photo of oneself is not an easy one to master, most girls will need 5 tries or so to get some decent pictures. Some girls have mastered this dark art, however such mastery often comes with an increased desire to take photos of oneself, so it ends up pretty much the same anyway. So 5 multiplied with 4 is 20 photos.

58 shots now.

However taking single pictures is not alone. Photos which involve a combination of people have to be taken in order to immortalize the gathering! (yea right) Therefore say pictures of 2 people together have to be taken, the total number of permutations of 2 among 8 people is 8 times 7, so 56. Now not all of them will take together, so maybe half of this number will be taken - 28.

28 plus 58 shots equal 86 shots, and counting.

Now, we must not forget combinations of 3 and 4 people. From my observation fewer of such shots are taken, perhaps 10 or so. The trouble here is that if one person in the shot feels that she does not look nice the shot has to be retaken, which is a very high probability occurrence. Moreover when several girls are facing the same camera a battle for position starts, which I call the "war of the small head". Basically everyone tries to lean back to make their face look smaller, which is not easy to do as everyone is doing the same. In the end an uneasy equilibrium is reached.

96 shots now, 10 of which took a rather long time.

One would now think that one could enjoy food at peace, but! They even take shots while you are eating. So for some people they have to stop and smile, wasting even more time.

So in one meal, including the final group shot, which is the only one I can tolerate, I estimate over a hundred photographs are taken. This is for a gathering of 8; if the number of attendees of the female gender are more the count can be even more frightful.

Lest anyone say I single out the girls for ire, I dislike another breed even more - the wannabe professional photographer, which is usually a guy. He carries an enormous DSLR and snaps photos of everyone in a vaguely stalkerish manner. The flash is incredibly annoying when one is trying to eat and make polite conversation but does he bother? No! I remember it was once considered rude to snap a photo of someone without asking first, but I suppose that piece of etiquette has died out with the dodos.

I wish he would go to Africa and snap lions feasting. If he flashes them enough the outcome might be very pleasant (for me at least).

Really with the double attack of the camera and the smartphone, the art of conversation is tottering out on its last legs. I rue the day when nobody remembers that people used to TALK at dinner, and the skill of chatting goes the same way as the skill of striking two pieces of flint together to make fire.

Friend Zone (and stock markets)

Most guys know about the dreaded "friendzone". It's a slowly sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you have just poured out your heart and soul to the girl of your dreams then she stares back at you with eyes wide not due to happiness but due to incredulity: "I thought of you like a friend... never felt that way for you" or worse "you are like a brother to me". The feeling is worse than when you got your exam paper back with a zero on it, worse than when you reached the airport and suddenly realized you forgot your passport, worse than when you are standing under the hoop and Shaquille O. Neal is bearing down on you.

Of course, to be rational it is no big deal, since you lose nothing, although the feeling is terrible. What you should remember is that being in the friendzone is somewhat like owning a stock which has dropped drastically and you know it will never go back up again.

Many traders go bankrupt because they hold on to a stock on its way down. "Oh but I paid RM10 per share for it, it has to go back up!" they think. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way - sunken costs should not be a consideration to base decisions on. The same applies to the friendzone; just because you have spent thousands of dollars buying a girl presents doesn't mean you shouldn't let go when it is clear that there is no chance.

As in trading, you should cut your losses and buy a new stock.

One concept in trading that is useful in terms of avoiding the friendzone is the "stoploss". Traders set a limit of say, 10 percent of the stock's original value, and if it falls by that much it has to be sold, no matter what they feel about it. So if you chase a girl you need to set a deadline, say after one year you haven't got her yet, it's time to pull out!

Direction

When I was a kid, my father hoped I would be a great scientist who would do much good for humanity.

Unfortunately that has not came true at all. Sorry, Dad.

One thing with society is everyone keeps telling you: "To achieve something, you need to have a direction in life. A purpose, an aim." The idea is everyone should know what they want to do since they are a kid, and stick with that all the way till the grave. Of course, parents hope that their kids aim at being a lawyer or doctor.

The trouble is I have never really knew what I want to do with my life, and I suspect many other people do not as well. Most of us just settle into the most comfortable position that we happen to stumble upon, and remain there for our entire lives, with varying degrees of happiness.

And this is not necessarily a bad thing - if everyone had an undying passion that could never be quenched by the passage of time for what they wanted to do, the world would be scary indeed. Tons of people would be killing themselves for not being able to make it into law or medical school, even more people with zero talent would keep trying to become singers and actors, and when the structure of the economy changes all those whose jobs no longer exist would be doomed.

Flexibility, which in a way is linked to the lack of extreme passion, is key for our society's resilience.

I never had much of an idea as to what I wanted to do. When I was younger, I entertained the idea of becoming a writer, but after taking a look at the number of people who actually earn big money from writing, I decided it was not going to be my full-time job. I then briefly thought of acting, but after being a spare in a certain drama production, the idea of endless reruns scared me off.

Later in college I did Finance with the idea of being an investment banker, which sounded pretty cool at the time. I did actually secure an offer with the Malaysian Stock Exchange; unfortunately the pay was really low. So when my current company offered me a much better package, I immediately said goodbye to my dreams of high finance.

When that happened, I realized that I was never really that keen on finance anyway. I just wanted the money.

And so I suppose many people are like me. We are not absolutely sure what we want to do in life, and a number of things are fine as long as they pay enough and we don't hate our lives while doing them. So yes, we have no direction if you speak of direction as a career path, which is what society has always drilled into me.

But if you speak of direction as a purpose, then I suppose my purpose is to be good in whatever field I am in, to deliver high quality work to people who rely on me, to be honest and trustworthy to others. It may not sound as poignant as "I want to be a doctor and help people", but I suppose it is something I can truly follow.

And I hope I never forget it as long as I live.

The future of Gender Relations

I've met many girls who say they want to date a guy who is "superior" to them. This sentiment seems to have been prevalent throughout history; it is ascribed to girls wanting to feel protected. Understandable.

The question is then: how do we define superiority? Long long ago it was probably physical strength and fighting prowess, as in the man must be able to fight against saber toothed tigers or hunt antelopes better than his woman. As most men are much stronger than most women, this criteria doesn't pose much of a problem for men.

As society progresses, the criteria of superiority slowly switched from physical power and courage to intellect, and earning capacity. This wasn't hard to do seeing as higher education and the job market was mostly male-dominated.

However as we move into the modern age, it's getting harder and harder for men to claim superiority in intellect, as we can see in Malaysia more girls go to university than guys. Same for earning power as women draw closer in terms of equality.

So now society faces two choices in terms of finding a partner. One of the two choices must be made or else things will go haywire:

A. Girls (and guys too) accept that the man doesn't have to be "superior".
B. A new criteria of "superiority" has to be set.

If neither of these two choices are made and we continue on our present path of increasing equality, the necessary outcome is that fewer and fewer girls can find a guy who matches up to their expectations. So either the number of unhappy marriages increase, or the total number of marriages decrease.

Perhaps this is humanity's way of combating overpopulation.

Popularity and Uniqueness

We often hear the sentiment repeated to "be yourself" and not "try to blend in for the sake of being popular". The image of a solitary thinker alienated by the masses of sheep-like people is often invoked, and in a way being popular is seen as a foolish thing - demeaning to intellect and creativity. Real outstanding thinkers are supposed to stand out from the crowd.

Rubbish.

The days when Galileo was persecuted by the Church for maintaining that the earth revolved around the sun are long gone. Nowadays people who stand out are celebrated - Steve Jobs is practically deified, scientists like Einstein and Hawking garner immense respect, and people who dress weirdly like Lady Gaga have a cult following.

Being outstanding or unique in no way makes one disliked in today's world. People of today are definitely more open minded than any time in history, sometimes too open minded, as we can see from UFO cults.

The attractiveness of the idea "being great means being unpopular" is that if one is unpopular one can use that statement to comfort oneself. Which is totally stupid.

Most unlikeable people are unlikeable not because they are unconventional, but because they are unpleasant. Or unsociable. So instead of brooding on their greatness, I would suggest fixing what is wrong.

Imagine the reverse

In life we lament many things. Yet if we pause for a moment to ponder what would happen if the reverse of what we lamented was true, we will often find that such a situation would make us far more sad.

Let us investigate a few statements, and their implied reverse:

1. "How come those pretty girls always have an ugly bf? (or handsome guys have an ugly gf)"

If this was never the case, the world would be hard-coded into the state of "beautiful people date each other" and "ugly people date each other". Over centuries, the human gene pool would diverge into two races, a beautiful one and a ogre like one. The two races would then wage war on each other.

A very dreadful thought right?

2. "How come rich kids tend to be useless?"

If rich kids were always extremely capable, the rich would grow richer and richer over time, and us poor people would never have a chance at all. In time the wealth of the world would be in the hands of only a few families.

A very dreadful thought right?

3. "How come girls never appreciate guys who treat them well?"

Say girls all based their choice of boyfriend on the sole criteria of how much the guy pampered her.

That would be the most horrifying thought in existence... all the guys in the world would have to be engaged in a race of "who can pamper the girl more". Soon only 24/7 slave service would qualify you to date a girl.

(the same applies for girls who ask the same question in reverse)

In a nutshell:

Be careful for what you wish for.

How I got my scholarship

I just collected my college diploma not long ago so let me reminisce a little...

A few years back I was applying for a scholarship at the college I was about to transfer to. After submitting my written application, I got called for the interview session. My job was to convince the person in charge that I was worthy of it.

So I came to the hall where my fate was to be decided, and entered the cubicle when my turn was up. A young lady was waiting inside, only a few years older than me. Seeing that she had a rather friendly smile I relaxed a bit.

After asking me some questions about myself and my family background, she leveled a very direct statement at me:

"Your results are not bad, but not that great also. In view of that, why should we give you this scholarship?"

Suddenly a flash of inspiration hit me. I took a deep breath, then told her:

"My lady, your point about my results are absolutely correct. I wish I had done better as well. However, I would like to elaborate on something. May I proceed?"

She nodded assent.

"The ancient Greeks felt that education should be all-encompassing, including not only the instilling of knowledge and the refinement of intellect, but also athletics to train the physique and social activities to shape one into a citizen who can relate to others and be a pillar of our society."

She kept nodding, so I went on.

"Although my grades may not be at the very top, and I swear to make sure that from today onwards they are, I believe I can contribute to the college in other aspects. In my old college (I was a transfer student), I used to organize various activities (here I elaborated a bit more), which I viewed as an integral part of college life for all of us. If you would consider accepting me into the college with this scholarship, I'm sure I could do the same thing here for my fellow students. In line with what the Ancient Greeks expected from their best and brightest, of course."

One week later I received a letter saying I had got the full scholarship. Ancient Greeks FTW!

In the corporate world

In the corporate world you often have to work very very hard at things which do not really seem to be of much use: e.g. spend hours and hours late at night on Powerpoint to make things look absolutely stunning and perfect, or looking for tiny errors in Excel calculations.

One may then ask: "aren't these things adding very little value to your work?" The answer, from an objective standpoint, is yes. Your work would be 90% fine after the first 50% of time, then the remaining 50% of time is fine-tuning, checking for errors, perfecting things and so on.

So yes, working harder and harder does definitely lead to diminishing returns. Why work so damn hard then, you may ask.

The answer is that in our society today, it is more and more often winner-takes-all. Say five companies bid for a project. Only one will get it, and all the associated revenue. Or five people go for a elite job offer - only one will get it too. So every little bit that could POSSIBLY put you on top, you must do it. In the old times if you were a farmer, you harvested a little slower than your neighbors, no big deal, you got a little less crops. Now you execute a little slower than your competitors, sorry, no project for you. The revenue is zero. Same with establishing a brand, the winner in the market battle reaps gigantic gains.

Do these little things like, say, Powerpoint font size count? The real answer is we don't know. However they may, so we have to make sure everything is perfect since lots of money is riding on the line.

The outcome of a deal may well be decided not by Powerpoint font size but by the relationships the senior management has with the clients, maybe he hit the client while drunk. Or maybe we bribed the wrong guy.

But no one likes to talk about such things affecting outcomes, so in the corporate world we all pretend that it's perfection that counts and if you get a small detail wrong, sorry!

The fault is on you, even though it's probably not your fault the deal is gone.

That's why we have to spend that 50% of time getting the last 10% right.

What's in a name?

Shakespeare once wrote "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" in his immortal work Romeo and Juliet. The sentiment that line evokes is wondrous, however it is often untrue in real life. Names do matter a lot.

We see this all the time in the press; businessmen that are considered praise-worthy are called "entrepreneurs", while those whom are less well regarded are referred to as "moguls" or "barons". In the abortion debate, those who feel it should be illegal do not call themselves "pro-no-choice", they call themselves "pro-life", while those who support it being legal do not call themselves "pro-death", it's "pro-choice".

The same applies in the corporate world. Clerks are no more clerks, they are "admin professionals". Salesmen are "sales executives", repairmen are "maintenance engineers", and the list goes on. Prostitutes are now "sex workers", as I once read in a newspaper to my great delight.

Yet such use of names can lead to unforeseen and undesirable consequences too. One of my clients in a prominent company once told me that the company made a decision to convert all administrative staff to management roles, even though actual pay and powers remained the same. Once that was done, they were no longer eligible for claiming overtime. Quite an insidious move I thought. Another example is that in certain countries, electricians and other technicians are referred to as engineers, leading young people to believe that engineering is a rather "unglamorous profession". This causes fewer students to enter the engineering field, thus perhaps having a negative impact on the scientific development of the nation.

So we must be very careful when considering names and terms. I would hate to wake up one day and see beggars titled as "monetary collection specialists".

Don't ask for so much pay?

When we go for interviews, the most pressing question in our mind is probably "How much are they going to pay me?" This leads to the next question "How much should I ask for?"

Personally I would ask for as much as I can get. However sometimes I hear people making the statement "you should not ask for too much, because the more pay you get the more people expect from you".

From a general point of view, I agree with this statement. A lot more is expected from a manager making ten thousand a month compared to a fresh grad making two thousand. The trouble is, this expectation is not directly linked to pay - it is linked to position.

So you really have three variables instead of two: pay, position and expectation.

Expectation and pay are both linked to position.

Coming back to our example of the interview situation, say I am interviewing for a position, and I ask for two thousand a month, while candidate B asks for two thousand five hundred for the same position. Both of us get it together with the salary we ask for.

Is my supervisor going to expect less of me compared to B because he is getting more pay?

I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.

So I think it is wiser to ask for the maximum you can get for that position.

Negative Signalling

Have you seen a peahen? Peahens are female peacocks, though they bear no resemblance to their famous mate whatsoever, being small, shorttailed and a drab brown color. It's the male of the species that is far more gaudy.

One may wonder why would the peacock have such a large, colorful and cumbersome tail?. Wouldn't it make him far more vulnerable to predators? The answer is that it does! And it is precisely that fact that attracts the peahen; he can still survive in the jungle despite this handicap, so he must be a strong yet agile fellow and thus a worthy mate.

The emperor's crown serves the same purpose: he shows his status by proclaiming "Look! I can wear such a large, heavy and useless object because everyone else is here to protect me," thereby he is obviously the most important person around.

If we observe carefully, we can see this principle of "negative signalling" all around us. Look at girls who write blogs or post online. Many girls like to proclaim "I have bad temper/I'm a princess/I'm not easy to take care of." One would expect people to tend to hide their weaknesses online, yet they do not. The reason for this is simple - it is in fact a form of bragging that "despite my bad temper there is still a man (or many men) ready to take care of me and love me. I must be very desirable!"

Of course, the female of the species is not the only one using this tactic. Many men strut around proclaiming "I'm a bad boy" or "I'm a heartbreaker". This is meant to show that "despite my playboy tendencies I'm charming enough to make tons of girls fall for me". Personally I find this even more hilarious than the female version due to its lack of subtlety.

No one would ever self-proclaim a real weakness on the dating market, eg:

Men:
I'm not very smart and have zero ambition
I'm a big coward
My dick is less than two inches in length

Women:
My boobs are padded with multiple layers and I need a ton of makeup every morning to look presentable
(other variations on the same theme)

So when someone proclaims a weakness in public, it is very often negative signalling.

The value of Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is defined as saying one thing but doing another, in which the thing that is done is worse than the thing being said. An example is a man professing to love all humanity in public but telling his little son in private to "stay away from those dirty niggas/chinks".

We generally regard hypocrisy as bad.

However, hypocrisy does serve a necessary function in society. Before I elaborate, let me pose a thought question - you are a parent of three young daughters. There is currently a pop singer who is extremely popular and your daughters worship her as an idol. You happen to find out from private sources that this pop singer has been to bed with more than a hundred men and loves to do drugs.

Would you rather the pop singer be honest about her lifestyle and promote it on TV, or to hide it and assume an air of innocence?

I'm pretty sure most parents would choose the latter.

The fact is that all of us exert some influence on the general moral standards around us. Our circle of influence may be big or small, strong or weak, depending on our position vis-a-vis others and our standing in society. Nevertheless the influence is there.

Now the effect of our influence is partly caused by what we say, and partly by what we do. Over an extended period of time, with people who know us well, I have no doubt that the "what we do" part has a stronger influence on their moral standards. However if the period of time is short and the acquaintenceship is not that deep, what we say would probably have a stronger influence, assuming we are half-decent in covering things up, which most people are.

The crux of the matter is that, say on the general moral scale most people behave at a 5, but talk at a 7 or 8. The "accepted general moral standards" of society would then be roughly at a 6, but since we all cut ourselves some slack quietly we still behave at a 5.

Say we behaved at a 5 and talked at a 5 as well. The accepted moral standard would then fall to 5, then we would actually behave at a 4. This would obviously be detrimental to society as a whole.

Now, some people may say that our dislike for hypocrisy, despite its social necessity, springs from a distaste of people who maintain hypocritical standards in public and succeed because of this. I do agree that this distaste is deserved. However I also feel that the majority of successful people in society succeed not because of their sterling moral character, but instead other elements such as charisma, looks, intelligence, etc. I am not maintaining that successful people tend to be bad, just that whether a person is successful or not has not much connection to whether he is good or bad.

When a person is successful, the chance to be selfish is increased. Rich people can spend more money on immoral acts, attractive people have more chances to cheat on their partners, powerful people have a greater capacity to bully others, smart people have more chances to cheat people in general. The resulted hypocrisy in covering up these acts is then not due to a lower moral character than the average person, merely due to a greater opportunity to be selfish.

So when we criticize such people for being hypocritical, we are in a way being hypocritical ourselves.

I don't want to be a tough watermelon

Some scientists once did an experiment: they got hold of a young, growing watermelon and placed heavy weights on it while it was growing. Every day they would gradually add to the weights.

In the end when the watermelon had finished growing they tried to cut it open. Knives just bounced off, so in the end they had to use a chainsaw. The fibers inside were tough as hell. The scientists involved estimated that the final form of the watermelon could support up to 500 kilos of weight. Very impressive.

This story is often used as an allegory to show that people who have taken more pressure in life tend to be tougher and more successful, like the watermelon.

So, for society to progress should we work harder and put more pressure on people, starting with giving little kids a ton of schoolbooks?

Personally I disagree.

I do admit that people who have taken more stress and pressure do tend to be able to withstand hardship better and work harder than others. No doubt there.

But is the purpose of humanity to withstand hardship and work hard? I would say that although those qualities are necessary to some degree, they are not the final aim of humanity. Our purpose in creation is to create and find beauty and truth, through advancing art and science, and by our words and deeds.

If a man is fighting hard every day just to stay alive, where would he have the time to create beauty in this world? I find this juxtaposition of values to be disturbing to some extent; hard work should be so that we and our future generations have more time to do this great work, rather than an end goal in itself.

In the end, I would rather see a society in which people work normal hours, then spend their other time with family and friends, on arts and sciences and hobbies, rather than a society in which everyone has no life aside from work. The value of hard work has been over-exalted in a way to me.

Yes, the watermelon under pressure became very tough. But a watermelon's purpose is not to be tough, it is to taste sweet and juicy. Our purpose as human beings is not just to work hard, but to be human.

And that is what this analogy misses.

Chinese Valentine's Day

Yesterday was the last day of the Lunar new year, also know as the Chinese version of Valentine's day. There are two main activities for the day:

1. Sending up a flying lantern - Groups of people, or couples, write their wishes for the new year on the lantern which is somewhat like a hot air balloon, then let it fly into the night sky, probably so that the deities can recieve it.

2. Throwing oranges - Basically girls will write their phone numbers on oranges then throw them into a lake or river, where guys will then fish them out.

So yesterday I went to experience the festivities for the first time in my life, as before this I was always too lazy to go. I called up a gang of friends and we went to a large park, which was a designated area for these activities.

We started by writing wishes on a lantern. My good friend, a girl, asked me to write her wish for her, upon which I promptly wrote that she would get married this year, ignoring her loud protests. We observed many people's lanterns crashing into a wall of trees due to improper calculation of angle and wind strength, so by standing furthur from the trees and holding the lantern for a longer time before letting go, we avoided our wishes from being 'stuck' metaphorically. Holding the lantern longer lets the air inside it get hotter so it rises faster.

After that we proceeded to the orange throwing session. Many girls were throwing oranges into the lake, while some guys brought extendable poles with nets, which I found very professional.

My aforementioned good friend was too shy to throw, so I wrote her number on an orange then aimed at the lake. However at the last moment I turned and chucked it straight into the densest part of the crowd, to her great dismay.

After that multiple guys have been calling her, to my great delight. I always felt that throwing into the lake was less effective than throwing it directly at people, and the subsequent events have vindicated my opinion on this.

Good luck to her

I was coming back from work today in a rather dejected mood. When I reached the train station at which I had parked my car it was already 11 pm and all I could think of was how tiring my work was and how empty my stomach was.

Then this girl lugging heavy bags at the train station asked me how to get inside. The ticket counter was closed and the last train had departed, so I told her that, since it was quite obvious. She looked more dejected than me, which I would not have thought possible a moment ago. Feeling rather sorry for her, I asked her where she was going. She said she had to meet a friend to arrange accommodations as she had no place to stay.

As the train station I was at was rather far from everything, I offered her a lift to another LRT station. She accepted, unsurprisingly.

On the way I chatted with her a bit, and it turned out that she had been working near my place, but had quit today as she was going to enter college. She was going to meet a friend to look for temporary accommodation in KL before the semester started. I asked her why not go back to her hometown to stay the week, then she informed me that she was an orphan.

I dropped her at the station and she offered to pay me, which I declined of course. I wished her all the best in life.

If a young girl with no parents, who has to work at part time jobs and search for a place to stay or face being homeless can remain cheerful and fight on in life, I really don't see how I can complain just because I have to work hard and take some annoyances once in a while.

Perhaps God sent her to me just to remind me how lucky I am.

My heart is filled with love for my fellow human beings.