Life..

Watched Ratatouille today, a very nice show, funny, witty, inspirational, characters that come alive..yea, definitely worth the 5 stars that critics gave it. The inspirational part was about how anyone can cook, regardless of your class, or caste, not to less a rat. Of course, it means that anyone can do anything, as long as we put our heart into it. Be willing to take risks, come out of our comfort zone..etc. Its not always easy to say that one is willing to take risks, after the marginal costs could be devastating, but if we can spends millions gambling and playing on the stock market, I think we can surely take on abit of risk. There are also people who dun want to really move out of their comfort zone, like me, so its gonna take a hell lot of inspiration to move this massive-high-inertia stone...Being an entrepreneur therefore, is easier said than done. We can applaud their actions, but when it comes to ourselves, we are not so sure.

And another thing, the show also highlighted an interesting point about critics..is that it is very easy for us, anyone to criticise, and take pleasure from it, but we must not forget how difficult it was for people to sacrifice themselves to put up their work to be criticised, move out of their comfort zone just to endure a load of acidly written words. Constructive criticism then.

The class system thing, also made me think more about our economic system of capitalism. All the inequality created by free markets, well, its because life is never fair, there are always random and unexpected events. One must of course be prepared when luck finally does shine on you, the fact remains that, 2 persons, equally prepared, could have different luck. One guy make simply be at the right time, at the right place, with the right people. This guy then makes money by a stroke of fortune(pun intended), while the guy could be penniless because he is really unlucky. Now, we know that the capitalist system rewards people who invest and spends money. It takes money to make more money. Hence the lucky guy takes his money and invests, becomes really really rich, while the other guy, having no money, now becomes even poorer in comparison. This is how the capitalist system results in inequalities; it accentuates the small initial differences due to random events.

Bad system you think? Lets take a look at another system, the meritocratic system. We reward people under this system, base on their merit. Clearly, due to limitations such as exams, luck plays a certain hand in this arrangement. Luck could arrange one person to do well in a certain exam while causing another to not do as well. The merit based system then sieves out these 2 people, causing one to do even better, while the other one to become worse by comparison. Education is expensive, since no one teachers for free, so you cant take exams indefinitely to try catch up. Moreover, time is costly, the extra time that you spend to catch up could mean alot of difference, since in that time, the other person could improve, becoming out of your reach..So the meritocratic system accentuates the small initial differences caused by random processes, even though it is in no way a bad system.

Luck could throw a spanner in to the works, even for the most perfectly designed of works.

Power Play

Academic term is almost drawing to a close, with it, I think my term as ct rep ends with it too. Perhaps its time to reflect abit, the essence of leadership. Well, I have played different leader roles for different occasions, in different circumstances, and with different style. I have also observed how others lead, their style, the results, etc.

My classmates must think i'm a pretty useless ct rep; true true, i have little regard for adminstrative matters (unnecessary red tape in my opinion), but then again the essence of leadership is not whether you are good are dealing with paper work. Well, maybe leadership is how one leads. You definitely can see im not at all successful with that. I used to have that iniative, but i must have lost it somewhere along the way, because i quickly learnt that initiative in any situations does not earn you any bonus points. People quickly identify you as a smart aleck, analogous to the jealous neighbour syndrome that Singapore suffers from occasionally. Truly, for an initiative to work, it must be 2 way process. Someone proposes, and the rest agrees and acts on it. Even the most enthusiastic proposer would be dampened by repeated spurning of his advances, a kind of phenomena that im sure all of you all know as moral drift.

Leadership styles varies, must can be summarised into primarily 3 categories: Lead from the front, Lead from the side, and Lead from the back. Most NJcians would be familiar with the lead from the back. It encompasses the idea to lead, one must first serve. Everyone in the Council would talk about how they would want to serve in their rally speeches. Leading from the back in a good idea, but i find it becomes a kinda passive, if followed to the letter. Perhaps, spending an extended time leading from the back would lead to the general masses not even knowing who their leaders are. Leaders have in effect become servants.

Sure, to lead is to serve, but one should not forget first and foremost, the idea of leading, is to be at the forefront. So one starts leading by serving, and remembering to lead from the front as the situation demands. I wish the Council can understand this point.

Leading from the front is like the army general, giving orders at the head of the squad with uncomprising decisions. The good thing, is that leading from the front requires one to have respect, and the leading from the front earns it. However, more than often, to earn this respect, many leaders have used fear. Its the fastest way to gain respect, at the expense of the silent mutiny running through the general masses. Being uncomprising can make the leader appear inhumane, without apparent regard for the needs of the masses. So, maybe extended periods of leading from the front may result in loss of respect from the masses, even if they dont like to voice it openly.

Gaining respect is difficult, one that requires time to be build properly. And time is one thing that many governments do not have in this world. 2 years, is it time for proper building of respect and trust? And so we pass to the last, leading from the side. Working side by side, treating your subjects with equal measure of respect, and placing your trust in them. The mutual benefit is the best. The leader and the general masses lead together. However, this skill is tricky to achieve, one that requires the test of time. Sadly, time has no place in the politics, because the system is such as to eliminate incapable leaders. 1 year is definitely too short...

In all relationships, equal respect. Treat each other as equals, for surely neither being dominant nor submissive can result in an equal or effective relationship.

I just wish more people could understand how hard being a leader is. Alas, its always easy to criticise. Such is the imperfection of the system.

Motley mix of Econs and Physics

Recently, I have taken to following news from a certain econs blog, Cafe Hayek. Recieving feeds from that blog just today, I found something I believe is relevant to our latest chapter for econs, on International Trade. Here are are 2 posts:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/08/you-want-balanc.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/08/for-whose-benef.html

Following his second post, (i.e. the second link above) it is most odd that Americans complain that they cannot out compete 1.5 billion low paid workers, but yet they themselves also complain they cannot out compete billions of high-tech machinery used as capital during production. Surely if you cannot out compete machines because machines have more skill than you do, than being more skilled than the 1.5 billion low paid workers, you would be able to do much better relative to them. Which goes to show alot of people dont quite think when they complain.

On the physics side, I am most infuriated to see poorly asked physics question, compounded by the fact that this particular question came out in a RGS paper.

Which of the following shows an inaccurate process of energy transfer?
1. Heating a kettle of water on stove - Conduction
2. Heating up the interior of the car by Sun - Convection
3. Cooling a cup of coffee with a metal spoon - Conduction
4. Warming your hands by a fireplace - Convection

The answer is all of the above, except option 3. For option 1, what if the stove is one of those radiator coils? The option should have put gas stove. But maybe I am nitpicking for this option.

Option 2 is a really ambiguous one. Heating up the interior of the car can be argued to take place mainly by radiation. This is because of the sunlight that enters the car, the infra-red rays are trapped by the glass windows when the rest of light escapes from the windows. So, we can approximate this case to a black-body, and safely say that all the infra-red rays trapped inside the car are totally absorbed by the car. But we are forgetting the case of the air inside the car. Surely, air inside the car becomes heated by means of convection. Since by the interior of the car, we mean the interior of the car, then we must include the interior carbody, as well as the air inside the car. An ambiguous case.

Option 4 is another ambiguous one. We all know from experience in BBQ, that the you can warm your hands by the glowing charcoal. Because the glowing wood, is so hot that it is emitting infra-red rays. Thats why its called red-hot. The same thing occurs at the fireplace. However, the effect is made ambiguous because, the air surrounding the fireplace is hot. And the air in the room with the fireplace, is heated via convection. You can tell this effect, if you walk from one cool room to another room with hot air in it. So, you can just as well warm your hands/whole body, by just being surrounded by hot air. Another ambiguous case here.

Bad physics. Totally asking for the wrong concepts. Unbeknowst to the examiners, you can teach the wrong things by asking the wrong questions.

More decisions...

More thoughts about decisions?

It is a really tricky problem of who should decide this, how should we decide that. Should everyone take part in the decision process? If so, then how do we agree on a general guideline to follow when making decisions? Surely the very act of trying to come up with a general guidelines is a decision too. So we have a situation of deciding how to decide here. It does not take a lot of imagination that, similarly, you would then have to decide about deciding how to decide. And it certainly does not take a genius to realise we can take this to infinity, and we have an infinite regress. Which can be a headache when we think about it.

Maybe everyone shouldnt take part in the decision process. Just a select few? A kind of representative. Then the represenatative aka Government decide for us. Obviously, how do we decide that select few? Why should they be the particular ones be deciding? Since coming up with guidelines is so difficult, then maybe we should just rely of 'feel'. Isnt this a bit imprecise? Surely its a moral hazard to let the select few people to play with the entire nation in their hands based on just feel alone?

So we have come back to the problem of deciding again. Decisions are tied very much to knowledge-making, and therefore there is a need to justify it. But there is a trilemma(a three forked 'dilemma') about trying to justify anything. If we try to justify anything, we surely would need to justify that particular justification. And we would need to justify the justification about it. Take for example, the common deductive logic step that we all are familiar with.
1.Socarates wears skirts.
2.Everybody who wears skirts are females.
3.Therefore, Socrates is a female.

Ignoring the fact that the premises are wrong to start with, anyone who starts with true statements, would, by using this reasoning, lead to true conclusions. However, the assumption here is that everyone including the Sun and the stars, agree with you that step 3 must follow from steps 1 and 2. Whats to prevent me from simply refusing to accept statement 3 no matter how compelling statements 1 and 2 are? So then, we would need to set a justification, a justification that says, ok, given 1->2, 2->3, then we accept 1->3. But we now see that that this particular line of justification requires justification itself. So we ultimately get an infinite regress.

Well, that was just the first part of the trilemma. The second part says, ok maybe we dont reason out truths like, since they are fundamentally flawed. Surely we can accept God-given truths? Accept certain things on faith? But then, how can we just accept decisions/knowledge by an authority? Doing this will mean we are abandoning attempts to reason arbitrarily. So any attempt to try justifying this is a failure.

The last part of the trilemma, is a circular argument. Tautology. So its another failure.

Why choices? Why make decisions? Some say we cannot understand past the choices we are making. I do think we will not understand our choices even after way past making it. Why indeed?

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who guards the guards?

Decisions..decisions..

I bloody hell hate making decisions. Its even harder if those decisions are hard ones. Its all the more frustrating if you come up with a decision and everyone says your decision is lousy like shit, but when you get them to make the decision, they can't come up with a good one either. I sometimes sympathise with the government. They have had a hard time pleasing everyone.

NJ and RV was/is nice schools that make me feel almost like home. RV from the start promised a good school environment. A science niche school. Went there only to find a politically charged atmosphere, and lousy system for teaching. Undeniably, certain teachers were creative, good teachers. But they all left for other schools, when those schools gave them higher pay. And the incentive to leave was high too, who want to stay in such a pressurising atmosphere? The redeeming quality of those 4 years in RV was perhaps, the certain teachers who had been kind to me, the slacking hours in CLDDS with like-minded friends. "Always seen hanging outside the girls toilet..." And the sec3/sec4 times with a such a super high and spontaneous class. There're ppl with sharp brains(my type), there're ppl whom I could count on in times of need(what are friends for?), and there's ppl who bring sunshine and life to the class. Most of those ppl have moved on like me..those with sharp brains went to schools like RJ, HC. Those who brought color and life split to various schools, but mostly concentrated in NJ, in a particular class. And the nice Dota gang, that brings laughs and frustration simultaneuously. Laughs because they were times of great teamwork. Frustrations because most of time everyone works for themselves..so not so gd teamwork.

NJ has been kind, providing an excellent school atmosphere and opportunities, I never regretted my choice to pick that only school for DSA. My only regret was perhaps I never did much to return to the school, visibly in the form medals or competitions.. I'm still surprised why my application was even accepted in the first place, in light of my mediocre achievements(or close to none). Close to almost a home, except that my class has the worse atmosphere. Individually, none of my classmates are boring or bad or whatever. But as a group, the whole class just..like that lor. So sometimes I kinda pity those councillers who try to whip up the school spirit, even though I laugh at their efforts most of the time.

Making decisions are so hard, something I picked up early in my 4 years tenure as Prefect while in primary school. The totalitarian style fails, democracy doesnt work, and when i challenge people to show that they can do better, i dont see that either. Perhaps the differences are too great. Yet I dont see that great difference in goals leh...Ultimately, good results and a fun education is the goal yes? At least for the long years while in school.

Why choices..? Choice is the ultimate cause for inequality.

Why choices?

Everyone's moaning and griping about sch. nowadays, I suppose its normal, considering that prelims is in a month's time, a lvl's about 3 months away, and graduation's like 4 months away. And yea, ns's approximately 5 months away.

So, instead of moaning and griping, and adding to the already gloomy atmosphere, I think I will talk about something else, un-school related.

The situation of the Taleban kidnapping of the Korean hostages, is an example of a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont" kind of a dilemma. If they negotiate for the release of the hostages, then they are telling the whole world that if they want something, they can just kidnap a few Koreans and use them as exchange. If they dont refuse to submit in any situation to the kidnappers, then they are showing their own people that the Korean Government can be heartless. And the next thing you know, people are on the streets demonstrating, and then the government's popularity slides. This is a serious dilemma, one that frequently plays out on the political stage with devastating consequences. The Mexican crisis followed by the Asian Finanacial crisis is another good example.

According to Wikipedia on the subject of 'Dilemma', one can any of the 3 things below.
1. "Throw Sand into the eyes of the Bull" - That means, question the competence of the person who asked this Dilemma. Worst solution here. I dont think it will work with the Taleban kidnappers.

2. "Refuse to enter the Arena" - That means do not try to even answer the question by saying its answerable. Well, this is no applicable here, since this is equivalent to saying no thank you, we dont care about the hostages.

3. "Sing the Bull to sleep" - That is, state the question is beyong the one's humble means, and asks the questioner to look for another, preferably of higher authority. In this case, its what the S. Korean Government is doing, appealing the Bush adminstration to do something about it.

Sometimes, why choices?