Anything that Interests Me!

Anything that interests me: Reading Up Before University

2011-06-05T08:35:00.000-07:00

I was asked quite important questions, so here's a quick answer to them.

On economics at NUS, I am most familiar. For Chem Engin, I am not so sure. However I can tell you for sure that if you are a good student - like me - you would have long prepared for university already. I read up on the history of economics before even coming to the LSE, for instance, and you can see the link on the right hand sidebar under Backhouse's Penguin History.

The answer is yes, prepare for school. That separates good students from the average joes. Average people do what they are told only - good students go ahead and learn more, or read around the subject.

For NUS economics, I recommend - but this is only my opinion -

http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ecswong/wongweikang.htm

I also recommend

http://jc-economics-essays.blogspot.com/ (hahahaha an instance of "asymmetric information", of course I'd recommend it, since I created it :p :p)

However, those are quite varied. Mine is easier as it's A level revision (which is basic) and WWK is a professor. So one last site I'd recommend (other than my own of course):

Mankiv's site is really good... but for the generalist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

So in a nutshell to those who wrote on my tagboard recently,

yes, better start. Go look at the NUS syllabus. Go read around the subject. Revise your A level stuff.

All the best!

Anything that interests me!

Tongue in cheek : Now, may I retire in peace? Hahahaha I still get the same volume of fanmail even though I've retired from blogging!! But I am flattered. Thanks. I hope I help. But read my blogs. They've got everything.

Early Retirement! :)

2011-03-03T02:07:00.000-08:00

Dear readers, friends, fans, and passers-by,

This is my goodbye notice!

I have written on various topics here at my favourite blog, Anything that Interests Me! and it's time to say goodbye.

Two months ago, I gave an early warning of my early retirement from blogging, and now here it is. Initially I was thinking of retiring once I had completed my MSc, but now I figure I'll just end it earlier. I've had an interesting experience, from answering many queries about how to do well in exams, from fighting off trolls (see, I can use technical words!) such as a snobbish Snob and an NBA loving, inflammatory post-posting troll, and so on. I've written on far more topics than my initial "mandate", on economics, psychology, mentalism, magic, philosophy, and the like -and have written also about general topics, government, politics, my life, London, Manchester, the UK and so much more.

However, all good things come to an end. I will still check my emails for your comments, notices and questions. My inbox is open for my fans and dear readers. I will check back once every fortnight or so though, so if you do send me an email it's going to be a two week reply timeline. Well... well. Hope you don't mind! :)

Life is very precious and there is so much in life to be appreciative about. I always think of how lucky I am, and how blessed I've been. Occasionally I grumble and complain - like any good Singaporean - but mosttimes I do realise that I have been really lucky to live in a country without natural disasters, which rewards hard work (albeit in studies and CCA, which I happen to be good at), which has given me so many opportunities and chances to see the world.

I have been really lucky also at having such good friends, people who have helped me in my econometrics and my honours thesis, and also an excellent family that have been my support and help. I have been exceptionally fortunate.

I sometimes wonder why some kids in schools are so rebellious - their parents have given them life, given them all their material goods that they have, and so on. Do they really think that they deserved all that they got? Or that if they were born in Africa, as Buffett says, "losing" the Ovarian Lottery, they would have all the good things they have? They should be thanking their lucky stars and working hard in school! Instead, they bother their teachers and classmates, and are rude to their parents. Whenever my teacher friends tell me of those rude kids, I say: Incredible!

I also wonder why some people keep on complaining about our government. Sure, they have made mistakes, and they have some flaws. I agree. But constructive criticism is better. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that we were poor, backward, and a small colony in a large empire. That was barely 70 years ago; there are people who have lived through it.

Today we take for granted that we will live past 70, perhaps past 80. We take for granted that the government will maintain racial harmony. We take for granted the political stability that other countries have shown us is never easy to come by, such as Libya and Egypt. We take peace for granted, despite the millions killed in armed conflict worldwide. We take our safe environment for granted; just last week, someone robbed someone I know of an iphone in London, and I was told that this is common.

I know even I have taken for granted that my health and energy will last. But I am extremely aware of our inherent mortality, and of the fact that health can be taken away at any time, either by capricious fortune or God. Just a major sickness and life is irreparably ruined.

This isn't a negative message; it's a reminder to be happy, contented, and always appreciative of what we have already. We can aspire for more; but be alert that life consists of more than what we want. It doesn't always give us what we want. So the fact that we can have good things is cause for celebration.

On that note - be appreciative and don't take things for granted - thanks for reading and cheers!

Goodbye, and all the best to you and me!

Take care :)

Yours truly.

Anything that interests me!

PS The other blogs, on travel, finance, universities, German, etc. will most likely be taken over by other people. Thanks for reading and cheers!

Anything that interests me! Cost of Living via the CPI

2011-03-02T14:57:00.000-08:00

OK, this is going to be a quickie, because I've got lots of work to do; also, this is fairly simple, so let's get it over and done with.

I saw the following old post on someone's blog. (It's Mr Wang Says So. I also checked his site, apparently he's a poet, so he's not an economist.)

Yesterday, Mr Lim cautioned against 'interpreting a rise in the headline CPI as necessarily reflecting an increase in the cost of living'.

It depends on the individual household's spending. 'Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI,' he added.

But of course a rise in the CPI reflects an increase in the cost of living. After all, the CPI is meant to track the cost of living. If the CPI does not track the cost of living, then what would you want it for?

As for individual households switching to cheaper products, well, in fact, they have to. That’s the effect of inflation - your dollar has less purchasing power. Therefore with the same amount of dollars, you can only buy cheaper products.

Minister Lim must be confusing “cost of living” with “standard of living”. Cost of living means the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living. In turn, standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services generally available to a certain class of people (for example, average Singaporeans).

Instead of saying that “switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living”, Minister Lim would have been more accurate to say, “switching to cheaper products can lower the standard of living”. For example, instead of living in a 5-room HDB flat, you can live in a 1-room HDB flat (a cheaper product). Instead of having chicken rice and vegetables for lunch, you can just eat plain porridge (a cheaper product).

Living in a 1-room HDB flat and eating plain porridge constitutes a lower standard of living. So yes, by switching to cheaper products, you can lower your standard of living. And a lower standard of living does cost less to maintain.

Standard of living is not measured by CPI.

Although I am not a world-leading economist and only have an undergraduate degree, it puzzles me to think that some people criticised the Singapore government for mixing up the cost of living and the standard of living.

Standard of living is traditionally measured by real income, or real GDP, or real NNI. Fair enough; CPI comes in because we can use that to calculate real income or GDP or NNI. But where have all these people been, in the last few years?

Recently it's been fashionable in economics to measure standard of living by HDI (human development index) and other Amartya Sen-like capabilities. Thus, switching between goods DOES NOT lower your standards of living.

So, no CPI measures nothing of the sort.

However, the Minister happens to be right. The CPI might overstate true inflation because it does not account for the substitution effect, which means that people buy other things. Now, let's look carefully at it.

For example, instead of living in a 5-room HDB flat, you can live in a 1-room HDB flat (a cheaper product). Instead of having chicken rice and vegetables for lunch, you can just eat plain porridge (a cheaper product).

The substitution effect isn't generally about this, not all the time. Wang would be mentioning a fairly atypical case. (Trust me, I'm an economist.) Let's say for the CPI, you measure X, Y, and Z. Let's say that Z has a close substitute, Z1, which is also priced the same as Z. So in Wang's words, it's Hainanese chicken rice and well, chicken rice.

The CPI in my example thus only takes Hainanese chicken rice into account and ignores the other one. So it's X to Z.

If Z rises in price, it would appear that there is massive inflation. 1/3, come on!

But, what happens is that people generally will just eat chicken rice instead of the Hainanese version and this "inflation" in the cost of living never happens.

(You can think of one toilet roll vs another; one toothpick vs another. It's NOT a car compared to a football, or high class food to low class food as Wang suggests.)

Sorry - but it's true. Economics is economics: the Minister is right! The cost of living is overstated because of the substitution effect, which occurs naturally.

What then, is the use of the CPI?

It's a proxy, perhaps; it's an indicator perhaps; but it isn't a direct measure of any kind of standards of living and a conditional, indirect measurement of inflation.

PS I haven't included the complicated bits such as the different accounting methods, the index number problems, and so on. But the thing is I've only ever seen one person criticising the index number problem in an anti-PAP article. So I figure ... one economist among thousands. So that's why I wrote this - to teach basic economics.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! The Dilbert and Peter Principles

2011-02-23T14:00:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! The Dilbert and Peter Principles

I have been looking through my old blog posts and have discovered that I have written on quite a variety of subjects, far beyond my perimeters of "psychology, economics, history, mentalism, and yada yada". (I've also noted all sorts of tones and different nuances ranging from elation to anger, academic to non-academic, conversational tones, even.)

Well, in keeping with that I am going to mention two principles in management, which are NOT official or academic principles. They are just satirical observations and aren't based on any OLS estimation results or underlying deductive economic theories or any such stuff. They are, in other words, just for fun - although they appear very true!

The Dilbert Principle is basically Scott Adams' observation that organisations tend to promote incompetent people to higher management. (Anyone working under a bad boss or a "pointy headed boss" should know this one.)

The Peter Principle - formulated by Peter and Hull (1969) - is the observation that people who are very good at their jobs tend to be promoted to their level of incompetence because they are promoted to do things that they aren't very good at. The Generalised Peter Principle is that anything that works will be used in higher and more complicated applications until it just can't work any more.

Well, first of all, let's have a good laugh - YES, this is so true! (And you know it.)

I first came across these when I was working in the military (which all boys have to do in my country). My friend who happened to be a sergeant passed me a comic book by Adams and I was instantly hooked.

In any organisation - and the military is one example among many - there are several bosses who seem to know very little about what the organisation is about, and seem to be bumbling, fumbling, stumbling, mumbling morons. The question is - how did they get to be there?

I mean, the wonderful boss, the brave and strategic military commander, the elite manager, and the very smooth talking marketing genius can all get to be at the top because, wow, look at their talents - they are really capable. But there are some bosses who seem to come right from the depths of hell, and have fluff in place of brains. Explain that!

Mind you, to stress the point, we are not explaining those people who are at the top and are great leaders (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, my old colonel and many others come to mind). They either were incredibly talented and hardworking and smart from the very beginning and realised their talents, or they improved gradually, worked hard and improved along the way by learning rapidly or learning by doing, from rung to rung. No surprises there. We are instead trying to explain some inexplicable "anomaly".

Now, the Dilbert idea is that people are promoted because they are incompetent, so that they can move out of the way of the people doing the real work. That is one approach.

The Peter Principle is less cynical. It's that those guys weren't so bad at their jobs in the beginning! It's that as they went higher and higher in the job, their real skills and talents were left in the previous ladder.

As a German comedy (written about on Wikipedia, I kid you not!) said: one might make a very good sergeant, but not a good captain, and certainly a worse general.

Well, possibly.

But this is where I bring in my own views on this incredibly interesting and very odd subject. Perhaps it's got nothing to do with either the Dilbert or Peter Principle. Maybe it's got to do with schadenfreude or tall poppy syndrome? Maybe it's got to do with improper selection methods for management? But maybe... it's got to do with the so called Dunning Kruger Effect.

The thing why I guess DF and I are cleverer than average is partly due to this Dunning Kruger Effect. We know where we are deficient. Whenever I hear someone being described as a real polymath, I shudder, shake and quake, because of my economics training shouting out (loudly) "Opportunity Cost! Opportunity Cost!" I mean, I know we can all learn diverse subjects - I have wide interests too. But I acknowledge that for some of them I can never scale the full heights, especially since, even within fields I am proficient in, I can see that the mountains are nearly insurmountable.

What's this lack of cognitive dissonance got to do with incompetent people getting promoted?

Maybe the simple reason is that the people who are incompetent get promoted by people who simply are BAD at picking talent. Because they can't tell who is good, and who is bad, these gatekeepers or the next higher rank personnel pick those who appear confident, clever, smart, outspoken, and so on. No surprises there, I'd say - fairly uncontroversial. However, because these "gatekeepers" suffer from the Dunning Krueger Effect, they pick those people who suffer from the same overconfidence too!

Why don't they pick winners, in that case? Because the Dunning Krueger Effects predicts that people who are really competent tend to underestimate their true abilities whilst incompetent people tend to overlook genuine true ability. Thus, incompetent manager might pass over truly competent but humble worker in favour of falsely overconfident incompetent worker!

That's my tentative take on it. Plausible?

Nah, I give up. I've absolutely no idea why there are "pointy haired bosses".

Shouldn't evolutionary fitness or evolution or profit maximisation weed these guys out?

Your guess in this case is really as good as mine.

Anything that interests me!

Funny Lyrics from Stewie and Brian's song at the Emmy's

2011-02-09T15:32:00.000-08:00

(Sung to the tune of The Freaking FCC, by Seth MacFarlane)

Stewie:

You've got mega hits like Idol, West and Gower took his bow

Just a little boy from india who made us all say "wow".

With a voice that makes you wanna just go out and kill a cow

Here's the plain situation!

A simple declaration!

If you want it you can find it on TV!!!

You've got Scrubs on NBC in season seven and a half

With the antics of the lovable and talented Zach Braff

Who reminds us that a sitcom doesn't have to make you laugh

You can try to deny it

But we can certify it

If you want it you can find it on TV!!

And if you start to crave a brand new TV thrill...

They're always brewing up some brand new prime time swill...

Like the guy from "Cavemen"!

CBS was once a network that was reverent and clean

But today they've got some shows that are remarkably obscene...

Like the show about the little boy who lives with Charlie Sheen

Oh there ain't nothing to it!

You can kick it or you view it!

If you want it you can find it on TV!!

Brian: You know, I think I'm starting to get the idea, Stewie

Stewie: You see?

Brian: Absolutely! Hey, how about this...

ABC has got a lineup that's refreshing and alive

With it's hits like Desperate Housewives just continuing to thrive,

And those women look sensational for being sixty five..

No, we won't oversell ya!

We merely wanna tell ya,

If you want it you can find it on TV!!

Now the peacock's having trouble simply staying in the race,

So I hear they're bringing Seinfeld back to save a little face,

And I hear Isaiah Washington is taking Kramer's place?!

Oh you may not adore it,

But boy you can't ignore it,

If you want it you can find it on TV!!

Now the Sopranos is a show I'd recommend,

Because you never know just how it's gonna-

*sudden stop*

So to sum up the philosophy on which we're both agreed..

All the garbage on the airways is a vital thing indeed

'Cause without it then Americans would have to learn to read

And so up with the curtain!

It's absolutely certain!

If you want it you can find it on TV!!!

Wahahahahaha! :)

Anything that interests me

Anything that interests me! Wise Words From Akerlof

2011-02-09T13:00:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! Wise Words From Akerlof

George Akerlof once said to graduating Berkeley students:

"Our view of education then is two-fold. On the one hand we want this to be a humbling experience. We want you to know that the knowledge to be learned is vast. At best even the greatest genius among all of you can know only a tiny fraction of it. Think about how long it takes to read a single book. Then think about the Berkeley course catalogue. And think about the fact that for each course in that book-length catalogue there is a whole syllabus of articles and books. Think about the library. And also the checkout room, with its paneled ceiling that lists the greatest scholars. They include Shakespeare, Descartes, Dante, Newton, and Rousseau. Someone planned those names to be carved in those gold letters as a humbling experience. When you go into that library you are being told how little you know relative to how much there is to know, in a great University like ours, and in that great library of ours, how much there is to know.

But the purpose of the University is not just to leave you humbled. It is our real purpose also to teach you, like Frodo, how to operate in a world that is so potentially humbling."

I am not studying at Berkeley, and I heard these words many years ago in a macroeconomics course when I was still a wee third year undergraduate back at NUS. They made an impact on me, and then I promptly left them to the dark recesses of my multifarious (and very work conscious and then impatient) mind. I had so many things to learn that the wise words of a very clever man hardly made a dent in my then busy schedule.

But today when I was seated at the crammed, tiny room at the LSE listening to a lecture on Indian medieval technology, I realised once again that Akerlof was right.

I was totally humbled by the vast amount of knowledge that we can possibly know, from Mahayana Buddhism to Jainism to Hinduism, and to the various structural methods and designs of Indian bridges that used workmen instead of modern Western technology, and so on. I learnt about shipping technologies used by Islamic traders and heard various thoughts on language and religious diversity - as applied to useful and reliable, scientific knowledge.

"At best even the greatest genius among all of you can know only a tiny fraction of it."

That is spot on. University has proven to be once again a humbling experience.

Every time I climb to the top of a mountain, to paraphrase the words in a BBC documentary (Dangerous Knowledge), I find that in the end it was worth the climb and all the knowledge that I have learnt along the way was incredibly powerful and poignant. And then I stare into the mists and see that there are even higher, more daunting peaks than the one I have just overcome.

And the humility - and horror - is when I climb the next higher mountain and find that there are even higher and vaster mountains that stretch further and further away. Just like Cantor found bigger and bigger infinities, infinities of infinities, I find myself staring at larger and larger mountains each day.

I have struggled with agnosticism for many years already. Just when I managed to write an academic paper on the existence of a historical Jesus, which I would say was fairly monumental given my production possibilities frontier already, I still find that I am as perplexed as ever by the simplest of Christian doctrines. I find myself scaling mountains of religious ideas, each one more and more daunting. I am confused, sometimes.

And on a second, and a little bit unrelated note, Akerlof also said:

"Every one of the social sciences teaches us that we can understand the motives of other people. People may be very different from us. Their motives may be very different from ours. Their means of expressing those motives may be strange indeed. Our knowledge about other people's problems makes their motives comprehensible to us. That means that we can see other people and their motives in our terms.

The uneducated too often believe that a conflict of interest occurs because other people are evil. The educated believe that conflicts of interest naturally occur. Moreover, these conflicts occur especially because other people are basically so very much like ourselves.

So the University teaches us to see other people's views. We have mercy for them."

When I was looking for the quote, I found the whole speech and read this part. I have always felt a little bit angry at some people who commented negatively on my site, who never seem to read properly, and who seem to have their brains in the wrong part of their anatomies. I have to admit that I also feel a bit upset with some people who comment regularly on Singapore news by merely complaining about the government, railing against life, and who make inane comments which make me want to kill a cow (e.g. the people who criticise the PAP regardless of the news article's actual topic, be it the weather, childcare or football).

Good thing for me then, that I never thought they were evil. That would have made me uneducated :) Ignorant does not equal evil, to me.

As we say in Singlish, "Heng ah."

I have instead always thought, why are they so uneducated or ignorant? And then now I feel a bit ashamed, because I should be having mercy on them. Just like what Akerlof says, the Prophet Micah had a point.

Having studied economics and history (albeit Southeast Asian and European history), I should have more mercy and try to see things from others' perspectives. I think this is a good step in the right direction, although I'd hasten to add that once I am at work and stop blogging, then basically I'm just counting on Akerlof's good sense and good words to hit the right people.

The ignorant might think the government is evil, and might also perhaps think I am evil - so maybe that's why some read things that don't exist into what I write!! Haha. I should have mercy on those people. Conflict always exists and thus we should (a) try to find the underlying interests, (b) go for the win-win, and (c) use the techniques of reality testing and reframing issues to make them more positive.

But I know today that Akerlof's wise words will always be true, and resonate in my heart:

1. Be humble, and

2. Be merciful.

Maybe that way we can walk with our God.

Anything that interests me!

For Whom the Bell Tolls by John Donne

2011-02-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

I was thinking of John Donne's very famous words, "No man is an island/ Entire of itself". Then I realised I could put up this very inspirational poem for people to think about!

For Whom the Bell Tolls by John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

anything that interests me!

If you were looking for John Donne analyses and literary criticism, use this link: John Donne literary criticism from English Language Resources Online, which is partly written by me and some written by friends.

A Quick Note on How To Read Anything that Interests Me!

2011-01-22T04:37:00.000-08:00

A Quick Note on How To Read Anything that Interests Me!

I have had some comments sent to me via facebook, some via email, and some have tagged on my board, and for the next few months I encourage people to send me materials or stuff that I should read, and certainly people should feel free to tell me comments or their analyses, and so on.

However, I realise that there are a few problems that I have to highlight. This doesn't apply to all the emails I get; only some. (However, it's good general advice.)

Let's take an example. Recently, I wrote a normative analysis of certain government policies. Now, I got two main comments for that - the first comment was a rather simple comment that I should read more political economy (I do better than that, I am studying it at master's level) but seemed to mistake my simple analysis for quantitative economics, which it certainly wasn't; the second comment was an economics reply, which dealt with intertemporal allocative problems and commitment issues and evolutionary theories and a general analysis of Singapore's current issues ranging from - I kid you not - low birth rates to evolutionary fitness of Singaporeans.

Now, the thing is that I've read my J S Mill, and yes, people have freedom of speech and thought. However, having said that, here are some rules that should guide you in reading all articles, but including this one as well:

1. What is the context?
The two replies to my analysis have ignored the context - it's a Singaporean context; it's written in response to the fact that there are mostly one sided comments on many yahoo FTP articles; it's written in response to certain events, etc. Context is important.

2. What is written? What does the author say?
Now, the thing is that this is amazing. Despite my repeated exhortations, people can still read wrongly! E.g. "UBS' retirement age is 62!" I never said it wasn't. "We can still be reemployed after retirement, OK!" I never said you can't. "Why should economists decide our future?" I never said they did or should. And so on, and so forth. Please, please, read what is written, not what you think is written.

I shall say this again as it's so important: Read what is written, not what you think is written.

3. Try to think about the new information or ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand.
This site is meant to increase your views, not to narrow them. This site is meant to share my ideas on what interests me, not what necessarily interests you. So if you can't take new ideas, you shouldn't be here. If you don't like reading, go somewhere else.

On the other hand, if you're here - then think about what I've written and see if it applies to you; if it's logical; if it makes sense; if it doesn't, then does the issue lie with you or with me? [And bear in mind I don't usually write on issues I don't know.]

If I am wrong on the other hand, then make a mental note, or better yet, send me a correction! If it's an opinion you don't agree with, rather than something "positive" (factual), then think about what you don't like, why, and why your underlying assumptions are better than my underlying assumptions. Don't bother sending me an unsubstantiated opinion; opinions should have some basis.

4. Question, challenge and think through what you read.
I have said that before, so I shan't bother explaining. Question! Question! Question! I would like to thank my old teacher Ms M who taught me that when I was a young Humanities Scholar way back in '02/'03.

In any case, for some - odd - people who don't seem to like my writing, they shall be pleased to know that I will be stopping further posts on this blog in July 2011, in a few months' time. I shall be concentrating on other sites, and also spending more time on my postgraduate diploma. There are many things for me to do, rather than just contributing ideas to help university juniors or people asking for advice. Tschuess!

I've had a great run and made a lot of online friends (online enemies tend to make nasty comments then disappear permanently; online friends (who sometimes also happen to be my friends in real life) occasionally send me more tags or emails or write nice things about me, such as Accelerator and Defensedefumer).

As for those who like my writing, well, you've had my company on many occasions and some of you - well, a whole bunch of you - have been receiving nice emails and comments from me. It was a pleasure knowing you. Thank you very much to all my friends, nice readers and good passersby who gave me nice comments and some really funny, in terms of happy, comments too. So don't be surprised when in a few months' time, I send a goodbye notice! :) Thank you to all my loyal readers!

To end on a sad note: It has been great blogging; but as we say, all good things come to an end.

Anything that Interests Me!

Anything that interests me: Short Reflections on Acts of Insight

2011-01-18T14:03:00.000-08:00

I'm supposed to be gearing up to present my thoughts on the New Institutional Economics and reputation mechanisms (in historical institutional analysis) tomorrow to my thesis supervisor, but here I am with a quick reflection on Usher's acts of insight.

As such, I am going to coast along with my smarts ... nah, this part won't fool my friends. I read the relevant materials already and have presented that stuff twice. Please, Lord, let the results turn out in my favour.

By the way, as an additional apropos comment, when I was surverying the literature (that's the academic term for "surfing the net"), I came across blogs devoted to analysis of the cumulative model and other economics fields as well! Lovely! That is a "true contribution to knowledge" :)

In any case, let me get back to Usher's model.

The cumulative synthesis approach to invention states that inventions come about like this:

1. There is a perception of a problem.
2. The stage is set, where data related to the problem is assembled.
3. An act of insight occurs that goes beyond the act of skills committed by professionals (like myself, although as to what kind of professional I am, being trained in economics, history and economic history, is a completely different matter).
4. There is critical revision of the invention, and the process continues.

Now, it doesn't take a genius (like me) to figure out that the really hard bit is the act of insight. The way the problem is perceived or seen is also quite problematic, but it isn't that hard relative to the insight bit. (As the saying goes, fools may often ask more than the wisest can answer. I see quite a lot of that in some of my students, though! Asking questions is generally easier than finding the solutions, although asking the right questions can be hard sometimes.) Collecting the data and setting the stage seems to require a fair bit of work, but it is not that difficult given modern research settings. Critical revision? Long, gruelling work, true enough, but it can be done.

And so it came to pass that I was thinking quite hard about this act of insight. What is it?

Individual insights of a peculiar nature, perhaps? Or maybe merely just a small revision to the received wisdom. I couldn't get a handle around it.

I wonder what it is. What causes it? What helps it along?

As I attended the lecture on science and technology last week, Patrick O'Brien was really funny (making all sorts of derogatory remarks about himself, even). He claimed that some people were destined for heaven, unlike him! He also made a lot of jokes about the Irish, as he's Irish. OK, we had a lot of good laughs and it was after all an introduction to this difficult field with four LSE experts.

But the thing is that he didn't mention what the acts of insight were about, and rarely touched on them. Now that is puzzling because until we know what constitutes an insight, where it comes from, I think the cumulative synthesis model is as much a mysterious model as any other attempts to understanding innovation in science and technology.

I shall sleep on it.

Anything that interests me!

PS My friend Roastbird had an interesting article on his facebook site as well, called "The Truth Wears Off", which is basically "The Decline Effect and Scientific Method". It was about how it becomes hard over time to replicate certain findings and the more you do experiments, the less marked the effects become. Cool stuff; I'd recommend looking up the newyorker to search for Jonah Lehrer's "The Truth Wears Off".

PPS Even a moment's reflection should remind all of us engaged in research work that Lehrer's article is very, very important as a reminder for us. That's because if we are to earn the MSc (Masters of SCIENCE), be it social science or physical science or historical/evolutionary science, those publication implications do indeed impinge on us.

PPPS However, ooh la la, lucky me, if my research bombs out, I shall just consider myself a historian. It's good to have more than one subject to study, right? If the humanities bomb out due to postmodern critiques, well, I'm an economist. If social science bombs out due to declining effects, well, I'm a historian. Hopefully that works :p

Against Some Singaporeans' Comments - Normative Economics

2011-01-14T10:37:00.000-08:00

I can't take it anymore. So, I shall write about it on my blog.

I am in England right now, and so I depend upon Yahoo for my news. It amuses me most of the time to see some of the comments on the news, because (1) it reflects how uninformed some Singaporeans can be, and (2) it shows that some smart Singaporeans bother to reply. [My junior J S from Oxford commented once that it takes some kind of stupidity to make some of the remarks that occur frequently on forums and news. His opinion, not mine.] Of course, there are many smart Singaporeans. I would say smart Singaporeans form the majority of my beloved country (I am biased, yes). It's just that they don't seem represented on youtube or in internet forums, sometimes. The criticisms, allegations, gripes (and MISSPELLINGS!) that occur can be just amazing - but above all, they are dead wrong.

Let's take some recent Singapore news.

The Singapore government seems to be thinking of raising the retirement age to 68, up from the targeted 65 in 2012. (Don't get angry with me if this is wrong, just substitute it with the right numbers. I work with what I can get; I got the data from the Internet.)

Now, from a purely normative point of view from economics, this is great news. I will tell you why in a moment, but by rebutting the common erroneous views.

Some of the commentators seem to think that this means you cannot retire until you're 68 (or substitute this with favoured retirement age). No, this is not true. You may retire any time up to 68. It's not compulsory!

Some seem to think that this is bad news because the government wants you to work longer and for less pay. A quick look at the Retirement Act tells me that the employer can only cut a worker's pay by up to 10% (i.e. 10% is the maximum) upon reaching a certain age, as of now, 60. However, the employer cannot dismiss the worker unlawfully until the worker decides to retire, or reaches the retirement age! Therefore, this means that the government is protecting workers from unlawful dismissal for a longer period of time.

This means that one MAY work longer and MAY only get a slightly lower pay. This hardly amounts to serfdom or hard labour. Bear in mind that the employer is empowered to do that - it does not MEAN that the employer will definitely cut the pay of his employees, especially if the employee has an advantage related to that industry, or some work-related experience. Hence, no, the government isn't making people work longer for less pay. You can retire at 60 if you so wish. You may or may not get a pay cut either. You may even get a pay raise!

Some think that this will delay their CPF withdrawals. Now, while this is a valid concern, behavioural economics has already demonstrated that people don't seem to make rational decisions all the time, and that they are usually time inconsistent.

So, let's make this easy: since people are living longer, withdrawing your money later (when you're still having an income) will be better for you later rather than now. If, however, you may withdraw the money now, the urge will be to spend it. This is due to human nature, or time inconsistency, if you will. When you think of getting your money, you think that you will spend it carefully and prepare for your nice golden years. However, when you do get your money, the policy "spend it nicely for the golden years" will pale in comparison to the nice, useless things you don't need but want to buy. (Sorry dear Economics Professors, I simplified too much for the laymen.) Thus, think of the CPF as a commitment device to ensure that you won't waste and blow all your money away.

In fact, I quite like the government's Annuity scheme because it precisely solves a ex post commitment problem (yes, you can tell that it was designed by economists for economists and that's why it's full of economist-speak).

(In fact, normatively speaking, I also think - with an economics and history background - that people should be allowed to work for as long as they like for both economic and libertarian reasons. No limits on our economic liberty!)

The government recently rejected minimum wages.

Now, this reveals to me the lack of a general economics education in Singapore. MANY PEOPLE ON THE NET ARE AGAINST THIS?!?! We need to teach more people economics!!

From a normative point of view, minimum wages are not good for the economy and certainly not good for Singaporeans. (Especially those who call for it.)

From positive economics, a minimum wage is only effective if it is above the industry salary. Were it to be under the industry salary, then no one would bother about it - it would be ineffective. (In A level speak: if the price floor is set below the market clearing price, it has no effect on the price determination.) Thus, it has to be set above the market clearing level (the current industry wage).

However, once it is set above the market clearing level, real wage unemployment will be the result.

The reason is that people who were formerly voluntarily unemployed (grandmothers, housewives, Singaporean students, gangsters...) will now seek jobs because of the higher minimum wage that what they would have otherwise got. There will be an increase in quantity of labour supplied.

At the same time, employers cut back on hiring since they are assumed to be profit maximisers. Commonsense, right? Given that they are in business to make money, with a minimum wage, the logical thing for them to do is to cut back on less productive labour (I'd love to think that it's the guys who happen to write on Internet forums criticising rather than thinking of solutions) or to make the current staff work harder and longer. There would be a decrease in quantity of labour demanded.

Therefore, a minimum wage scheme that works is not practical for Singaporean livelihoods and will result in real wage unemployment, hence, it's normatively not a good idea. It can only be justified with other normative statements such as people feel good having high unemployment in Singapore with high pay, or there's enjoyment in being unemployed, etc.

[For that matter, normatively speaking, a maximum rental price will also distort the market and will cause huge socio-economic problems. "A" level students: prove that statement using supply and demand.]

I could go on all day, but I've got to go back to studying Mill's Utilitarianism and the history of technical change since Song China. I just had to write this because no one seems to be correcting the wrong views of some people. The people who know have already agreed to the policies, since they're good policies; those who know economics can't be bothered to write back to those comments because the marginal PRIVATE cost of writing is higher than the marginal SOCIAL benefit of public edification. As for me, think of this as a public good. This article doesn't mean that all the government's policies are good. It's just that some Singaporeans have criticised economic policies that are in their interests by thinking that the policies aren't in their interest, which is amazing - demonstrating a lack of a general economics education.

I really hope that more Singaporeans realise that it's about what they can contribute to our society, rather than criticising or complaining or railing or making snide remarks against economic policies - that are actually good for them and in their best interests.

* Opinions expressed are personal, normative statements and not to be regarded as positive statements, unless expressly stated. Furthermore, do please judiciously read the caveats on the righthand sidebar of this site, especially caveats pertaining to commenting and communications. Thank you for your kind understanding. *

Anything that interests me!

An Example from IPPT on How to Get First Class Honours in Economics

2011-01-08T05:23:00.000-08:00

An Example from IPPT on How to Get First Class Honours in Economics

Alright, today I am going to write about an example from IPPT, on how to get first class honours in economics, or for that matter, how to get first class honours in most majors at NUS in general anyways.

[This is in reference to the original, specific article I wrote a few months back which was the most popular article of all my writings: obviously, simply, and very aptly titled: How to Get First Class Honours at NUS. People apparently liked that more than religion, science, mentalism, magic, psychology, and other magical intellectual hobbies of mine.]

I've been receiving a lot of emails on that post, with people asking me about how to get first class and other related topics about academics, on how to study, how to do well in exams, and all that kind of thing. And so I've decided to "pander" to my readers and write a single illustrative story, which, when understood, will help you gain insights into performing better for tests and exams in general, and will definitely contribute to you getting first class. It's all in the moral.

It's a moral that we all know but need to reminded here and there, and now and then.

Most likely if you're a good friend of mine you've heard this story a million times, and I apologise in advance.

I was training for the IPPT some time back, and in any case had been passing it ever since I left full time National Service. However, for one reason or another, during that one particular period, I had a string of failures in a row, and my birthday was fast approaching.

This was weird - my training routine hadn't changed, and I was doing the same methods which had gotten me the "pass" incentives, so what was going on? (I ended up in RT for that year, by the way, so there's a poem I wrote on Eye Pee Pee Tee. Pity!)

I trained every day, and yet was going nowhere. I just "couldn't hit the cow's backside with a banjo".

One day, my brother happened to pass me by to take a phone call, when he saw me doing push ups. When he was done with his call, he told me what the problem was.

I'll try to recreate this, it was some time back: "Hey man, what are you doing?" he asked.

I said, "Pushups! To train for chin ups. I'm going to do 40, like when I passed the last round."

He said, "That's not how you do it! You're just going through the motions. You have to squeeze the back muscles, and use this part, and that part..." and he promptly jumped to the floor and did it, the "proper way".

"Doing 20 proper push ups is better than doing 40 rubbish ones," he intoned severely. "You didn't do it like that last time, when you were younger, anyways," he said, "You'd do all the exercises properly rather than as if they were chores and you had to rush through them."

That was it! Voila!

To cut a long story short, I passed my IPPT that year, after doing the first phase of RT. I got the point of the story, and it's stayed with me ever since. It's something we all know but we don't do.

It's the same with IPPT and it's the same with studying for Economics examinations.

The moral is this: when we train for IPPT with passing in mind, we don't just do the training half heartedly, or just do it for the sake of doing it. We will exert maximum effort. We will make sure the part of the muscles we are training get the full brunt of the effort. To put it one way, if you're doing the bicep-curl at the gym - you make sure it's the biceps that are doing the work and you're not swinging your arm up and down to make use of momentum.

Same goes for studying, and especially for Economics.

I am pretty sure that most of my classmates learnt the same things as I did in Economics class, but they didn't get the first class because they just couldn't score in the examinations. CAP was the main problem. Why?

[I'm generalising here. Not all were like that, of course.] They could do the tutorials because they copied them from their classmates. Some of them formed study groups, but didn't really, really study. They went through the motions in class, and only parroted what the lecture notes said. They sat in classes and daydreamed. Some of them read their materials and took it face value. Some of them dropped out of economics in their third year with a pass or merit degree. Some made it to honours year by smarts.

So when it came to answering thinking questions in the exams, or answering harder questions, they all got murdered.

Here's the attitude of the first class student:

How can I do the tutorial, by myself? What are the mistakes that I have made here? What are the different methods? If I don't know, who knows? Who can I ask? Let me try this again. What can I do?

Let's take a simple case, profit maximisation.

What are the different methods of solving this? The first is to use a graphical method. The second is to use the Lagrangian method. The third is to use the constrained to unconstrained method.

A good student will know this and apply this. An average kid will stick to one method and use it all the time. The poor student didn't even know about the various techniques. But what about the first class student?

The first class student will know the various assumptions behind why it is like that; what assumptions need to hold before the FOCs can be taken like that. He will also know which method is quicker for various questions, because he practised them already, over and over again. He can use the various methods at will - and understands the logic of the various methods. He might even know the preference ordering theory, WARP, the various mathematical conditions of monotonicity and continuously differentiable indifference curves, and all that kind of stuff behind the simple idea of profit maximisation. In other words, he doesn't take this for granted. He checks things out, he learns more than what lies on the surface, and he is interested in his studies.

So the moral of the story is, to get first class honours, it's all about the way you approach the subject.

It is not purely about raw hours you put in; in those hours did you really understand the subject and get the logic, memorise the steps, do the problems, try exam questions, look at textbook problems, and work them all out yourself, using various methods, and cross checking your solutions when using different methods or approaches?

Or did you spend those study hours talking with friends, chatting, doing only tutorial questions, and basically going through the motions of real, diligent, hard work? Or did most of the work, but when the hard questions came by, you ignored them or left them blank? I think the moral of the story is quite clear!

Hope you liked the moral of the story. Good luck with IPPT if you came by because of that; good luck with your studies and examinations if you came by thanks to the "Get First Class Honours in Economics" :) :) Thanks for reading and cheers.

PS Yeah, I pander to my readers sometimes. I admit! But here we call it demand-and-supply curves.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Infatuation with Handel (Haendel)

2011-01-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! - Infatuation with Handel (Haendel)

I'm supposed to be writing about the New Institutional Economics and thinking of various private-order institutions and stuff along those lines, but instead here I am blogging and writing about my new infatuation - Handel. Handel's music is fantastic.

I know I'm supposed to speak German and call it Haendel, but I am so used to calling him Handel that it's quite hard to switch to German. I can, though. But I won't. So alternatively, anytime you see Handel, it's actually Haendel. Linguistic problem solved!

A small quiz is quite apt here. You know the common saying (well, to me, it's common):

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, ..."

What's the answer?

Well, the answer isn't "teach", for those of you cynics out there. "Wrong" answer! Teaching is a good and noble profession - and certainly not all teachers are theory-oriented. Teachers can be good at what they do, and some teachers can practise. Hahaha! The answer, to me, is:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, cant!"

Before you point out a missing apostrophe, allow me to humbly refine your English: cant is defined as "to use pretentious language, barbarous jargon... to talk with an affectation". There are many other definitions, but this is the sense I'm using it here.

What's the point?

Well, although that's a joke, I think it's quite an apt quiz here, because I can't play Handel and I certainly know diddly squat about organ music and choral music. At least I'm honest! Yet I am writing about Handel, but I'll try not to use pretentious language because I really don't know much about Handel other than the fact that I like his music.

But what I do know is that Handel's music is extremely charming and somehow very pleasing to my ears. It really moves me.

There's a little story behind this.

Some time back, I attended a Protestant Church at Bishopsgate, London. Someone played Handel-Halvorsen's Passacaglia for Cello and Violin, substituting the violin for a viola, and I was very intrigued by this music. It made me feel very strange and, for want of a better word, tingly.

At the same event, another musician played the organ, and this time he showed how his feet moved. And I was suitably impressed. Wow. I never knew that feet could play instruments with that kind of dexterity - for a piano player like me, the only use of the feet are for pressing on the pedals, much like driving a car. [Driving a car, my foot! I couldn't resist that "lame" joke. OK, no more puns.]

In any case, since then, I've learnt how to appreciate Handel's music. That basically means that I listen to him in place of my former favourite, Mozart. Symphony No. 40 has been supplanted.

I've learnt that Handel was based, once upon a time, in London and composed music for operas at Covent Garden! I love Covent Garden! Handel even owned a company at Covent Garden. This is a really practical application of a microeconomics education.

(Apparently, the reason why he's called Handel rather than the German Haendel is because he lived so long in England that he became a naturalised Englishman.)

In any case, the music I like the best are: Organ Concerto Op. 7, No. 1; Harpsichord Suite in D minor; "O Be Joyful", Psalm 100; Organ Concerto Op. 4, No. 1; and Dettingen Te Deum, "Vouchsafe O Lord..."

Perhaps, I shall use Handel's music as background music for my thesis writing. After all, I've done that before:

I associate Joe 'Bean' Esposito - You're The Best Around with my honours thesis, having always played it to energise myself for the long hours of data collection, and computer lab work. I also associate Corrinne May not just with my ex-girlfriend, but also with Namazie's physics module. Maybe Handel shall be the "theme song" for my master's dissertation!

PS I shall be writing more about "how to get first class honours" since recently I've been flooded with lots of requests for advice on that area. No one really seems to care about psychology, mentalism, history, literature, and music. But they seem to really care a lot about Economics, Econometrics, First Class Honours and basically academic-related stuff. Hahaha! I read all my fan mail; don't worry.

Anything that interests me!

A Notice: Merry Belated Christmas and a Happy New Year! :)

2010-12-27T13:16:00.001-08:00

A Notice: Merry Belated Christmas and a Happy New Year! :)

Hello dear readers - this is a notice and a couple of annoucements (yes, I know, not the kind of thing you'd rather see here, but it's one of those necessary "evils").

Merry, Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you, my dear readers from all around the world but mainly from Singapore! :)

I have been receiving quite a lot of emails and queries recently, and of course that's got to do with the new semester opening up soon in universities and schools all around. I say schools advisedly; GSW (Accelerator) is now in junior college and that would make him a high potential future university graduate.

Now, I have been incredibly reluctant to release any contact details or personal stuff like that for several reasons. Everyone can remember (I can, at least) that soldier who got court martialled at 3rd Div, when I was doing my National Service there. Don't want that! Everyone can also remember, some time back, when there was an Intellectual Snob who wrote horrendous, horrific comments on my tagboard, despite my caveat, which clearly states:

Before you leave a nice comment, please note that I censor my tagboard (occasionally). This blog is about What Interests Me, and not What Interests You. So some friendly guidelines are: Don't write things that will make your granny blush :) Do leave your name and blog address :) I know that some people are glad to be flamed, but I'm not. Thank you for your kind understanding! If you don't like what you read, please just use the Google Search and travel to other sites. Thank you very much.

Most of my friends know the upshot - it turns out that she wasn't who she claimed to be. Now the thing is that I am indeed who I am, and have been kindly replying to emails and queries for modules, studying methods, economics, history and GP.

So this is the announcement, which generally should be good news for good readers (intelligent, lively, clever, perhaps normal, definitely healthy, or maybe just searching, seeking types):

I have put up a Yahoo email account so that I can be contacted! However, do drop me a tag on the tagboard before writing in to me :) This way, I won't delete the email or tag it as spam. Do also write in to me leaving either your contact or your blog (better to leave a blog address, so I can visit and learn how real blogs look like), and all that is quite self evident (I hope!) from the sidebar here on the right.

Do send your kind queries to the specially set-up s_enigmatique@yahoo.com :)

Hey, all of you have such cool emails, so I've set up a cool email account as well. Now, the usual rules apply: do write in to me if you've got honest, good comments, praises, questions, queries, or any enquiries you'd like to make about studies, economics, economic history, LSE, NUS, modules, GP, or some basic discussions about psychology, magic, mentalism, psychic phenomena and all that kind of stuff which interests me - and interests you, of course.

My close friends and several good, loyal readers would have noted that that is not my personal email. Yes, it is not; I have set it up separately, just for readers to get to me. Lovely, isn't it?

Also note that this makes it imperative for you to signal to me or inform me by tagging or writing something on the right hand side. If not, I'll blithely go by without knowing your question or ideas or comments.

Having said all that, special thanks to R, D, M and GSW who have sent me such lovely emails with interesting, proper questions and who have given me so many nice comments, discussions and questions that make me feel that I have at least helped some people in my journey in life. I feel happy when I have helped someone by giving advice or help or made some constructive comments or suggestions.

I never knew, when I first started, that this mere "writing project" could be that interesting and helpful for others. Do keep the nice comments coming - who ever likes bad, distasteful comments? We all love interested, curious, engaged and clever readers.

Once again, a merry x'mas and a wonderful new year to you, my dear friends, readers and passersby. Thank you so very much for making my writing a success and thanks for your kind comments.

May the road rise to meet you in 2011 and may all your new year resolutions come true - partially or completely. Stay happy always; senyum selalu.

More posts to come soon... after I finish writing about the Needham Paradox and gosh the California School.

Anything that interests me!

PS Don't get caught in a Tube strike in London, like I was on Boxing Day... it ain't fun! :)

A Critique of Paul Krugman's TFP Criticism of Singapore and The Public Information Problems

2010-11-18T13:02:00.001-08:00

A Critique of Paul Krugman's TFP Criticism of Singapore and The Public Information Problems

I never knew Krugman's TFP analysis of Singapore existed until I heard about it in the LSE lecture last week. This just goes to show how big a field economics is, and how much bigger a field economic history is.

And so it came to pass that when I was scouting around the internet for a dissertation topic today - oh, what I would give for a good a dissertation topic - I happened to bump into many articles and blog posts by Singaporeans on Krugman's analysis. Most of them accepted it uncritically and parroted Krugman's claims. Well, I've seen the article too, and here it is - the part that was most discussed :

***

The Myth of Asia’s Miracle (Krugman, 1994)

Even without going through the formal exercise of growth accounting, these numbers should make it obvious that Singapore's growth has been based largely on one-time changes in behavior that cannot be repeated. Over the past generation the percentage of people employed has almost doubled; it cannot double again. A half-educated work force has been replaced by one in which the bulk of workers has high school diplomas; it is unlikely that a generation from now most Singaporeans will have Ph.D.s. And an investment share of 40 percent is amazingly high by any standard; a share of 70 percent would be ridiculous. So one can immediately conclude that Singapore is unlikely to achieve future growth rates comparable to those of the past.

But it is only when one actually does the quantitative accounting that the astonishing result emerges: all of Singapore's growth can be explained by increases in measured inputs. There is no sign at all of increased efficiency.

***

Most PAP bashers, sceptical (sceptical should be spelt with a British "c" rather than an American "k", although I was guilty of this mix-up as well) Singaporeans and other writers have jumped right on and written on the topic, and basically parroted what Krugman said about that. Oh, there was no Singapore miracle! Oh, the PAP was not as good as they claimed! Oh, we've been lied to! Oh, technocrats didn't do much for us. Oh, we are not efficient! And so on. Many, many articles like that.

Well, it's time for a reexamination since I came late to this.

Now, first let me say that it may turn out that Krugman is right.

However, the main thing is that one has to be critical and to know the underlying literature.

In economics, as well as economic history, usually total factor productivity can be measured in terms of output. Using a standard Solow model, with assumed constant returns to scale, doubling inputs results in doubled outputs. So far no controversy. The thing is that in the real world output usually more than doubles, and that is what we attribute to TFP (I am summarising and simplifying, but the underlying reasoning is indeed this). In other words, the efficiency that Krugman is talking about is a residual - the TFP (Total Factor Productivity).

Now, in real research work, it is very difficult to measure TFP directly, as in the above method of looking at outputs. So usually researchers will look at input prices.

This works because of something called the dual (or the dual primal relationship). It can be thought of as the essential equivalence between profit maximisation and cost minimisation.

And now, that's the rub. It is said by my LSE professors (Ma, Strong) that Krugman most likely used the input prices method. I think he did, too, based on my reading of the actual paper.

The thing is that in economic theory "the dual and the primal" may be the same thing. But this assumes many underlying assumptions that one must be very circumspect about! The trouble is that most readers are not trained economists and will right away use the article to say all sorts of things, but I am very cautious to do so.

Here are the reasons that I give (but you can also find in Hayami, and other economics articles) why one shouldn't take Krugman's article literally:

1. Krugman has a ceteris paribus condition. He is holding education, institutional strength, etc constant. These can add to efficiency (there are positive externalities to education, which are not factored in here).

2. Singapore has invested in a lot of infrastructure, such as airports, roads, etc etc. These will tend to lower the TFP but raise supply in the long run, which can be thought of as long term potential growth.

3. Hayami et al point out that Asian economies depended upon exporting products that they produced for Western economies, which did the R&D (historically this is true). Therefore, is it any wonder that our labour and capital produce most of our income? It's not a problem of inefficiency or lack of efficiency as Krugman suggests. In fact, it's merely a reflection that we produced goods and services for the world.

4. Furthermore, Western countries at earlier stages of their industrialisation also had relatively low TFP. This means that economic growth along western lines seems to take this characteristic.

5. China and Japan are good examples here. They had a more labour intensive growth model - and are still considered the world's fastest developing country in the former case and one of the world's biggest economies in the latter case! Therefore, low TFP does not suggest any lack of real "proper" growth. It is an accounting issue - some articles call this a measurement issue.

6. There is no consensus on the "economic miracles" issue. So why are people taking Krugman so seriously, and on faith? He has in fact admitted that he is not an Asian expert and has no knowledge of how Singapore is actually like. The World Bank actually rebutted Krugman's article. So did Japan. Urban Lehner's 1995 article on this topic deals with this issue.

Hence, to sum:

the jury is still out on the topic, and in fact Krugman's "facts" of Singaporean sweat over productivity is based upon a "dual" TFP that may not even stand up to scrutiny! Detailed scholarship has revealed many problems with taking Krugman's stylised facts. So, it's hard to say if one can agree with Krugman, since there are many big problems and problematic issues with his article.

So there is a "public information problem".

That's when laypeople take positive economists too seriously without knowing what mathematical assumptions they're making in their models.

I have no idea how to resist this problem. Why?

Most economists won't even bother to correct others who write posts or blogs on this problem; normative economics would even say that having such contradictory articles is good for knowledge and debate; and most people are prone to believing something they see first, something called confirmation bias. That is to say, while I am studying this subject and can see the larger picture, those people who believe in the lack of a Singaporean growth miracle won't bother finding out about Lagrangian multipliers, duals, and primals. Why should they? They might believe what Krugman says; they don't actually believe in intellectual truth or searching for real ideas, but more of using what Krugman says to fit in with their preconceived - and non-economics or economic historically informed - notions.

I am further puzzled because those are the same people who take a questioning glance at government economic policies, which is good; then they believe Krugman blindly. One must know what the academic article is doing and how it's doing it. Questioning and challenging should apply for all arguments and all reasoning.

It's only intellectually fair.

Anything that interests me!

A Gem From Youtube

2010-11-15T14:28:00.001-08:00

Recently, I have taken to listening to more Classical and Romantic music pieces, rather than pursuing my apparently "one track listening habit" (Fong) of listening solely to Mozart's Symphony No. 40 in G minor.

OK, OK. that's a bad joke from an old friend of mine; I certainly don't only listen to Symphony No. 40. I listen to a couple more songs as well.

So, how did I get more songs to listen to, and what gem from youtube am I talking about?

Wait, this is a good one; allow me to build up my story first.

Well, I went to youtube and started watching University Challenge. University Challenge is one of my favourite shows although I am not British and not a fan of Jeremy Paxman. It's basically a general knowledge quiz where Paxman fires esoteric questions at university students; it makes people with a lot of general knowledge feel good, that our skills are actually relevant for esoteric quiz shows. Actually Jeremy Paxman is quite cool; must be great earning tonnes of money hosting general knowledge quizzes.

Well, one of the sections was classical music in general. I basically flunk that one everytime it comes up on the show, because I keep on shouting out Mozart!! Beethoven!! Brahms!! Erm... Mozart!!

Come on, you know what I am talking about - you most likely play along to "Who Wants to Be a Billionaire" too and "Wheel of Fortune". Unless you don't watch them, of course.

This time, I decided to get the names of the composers. I can learn more about composers, and can get ideas for classical pieces to listen to. Why not?

So, I waited, pen in hand, for the answers (Paxman reveals the composers when the students inevitably give up). And for that one particular show on one particular day, the answer of the day was Sibelius.

Now, call me the world's greatest psychic, but the vast majority of people won't know who Sibelius was, unless

(a) they are Finnish
(b) they are experts in University Challenge
(c) they somehow learnt that in music school.

Hey, I am psychic!

No sweat - hey, I am here to learn - I went to search for music by Sibelius on youtube so as to improve on my general music knowledge.

And then I saw this comment, right below some beautiful piece by Jean Sibelius (I think it was Finlandia, most likely the national anthem of Finland, a very beautiful piece for a very beautiful country. I have edited the English to make it flow more, but I am really not making this up. It's lovely for those who know their history and can take a really good story:

Comment on youtube

I am Finnish and I remember a story my grandfather - who was a war veteran - told me a long time ago:

He was on his way to a veterans' meeting in Helsinki back in the late 1980s and when he got there, Grandpa noticed that he didn't have any money on him.

He naturally thought: "What now? I don't have any money." It was getting embarrassing as it soon became clear to the taxi driver that he didn't have any money to pay for the fare.

The taxi driver turned around and said: "Don't worry, this one's on me."

Grandpa was taken aback, and said: "Excuse me?" and he looked at the driver. He was a bit confused.

The driver smiled at him and said: "Thanks to you guys, I can drive a Mercedes, not a Lada!"

First of all, hahahaha! Lovely!! Second of all, so many people got the story, they clicked on the thumbs up button. Third of all, it's very nice because there are kind, appreciative taxi drivers who realise that they can drive Mercedes taxis rather than Lada taxis if Stalin had won! One comment on that story was: Great taxi driver; great Grandpa!

***

On a secondary note, I attended a church concert in London, and there was a viola player. [I think that's what he's called. Violist?] Anyways, he was really funny because he related to us some viola jokes.

What is the range of a viola?
As far you can kick it.

How can you tell that a violist is playing out of tune?
If the bow is moving.

Why do people dislike viola players instantly?
It saves time!

And my favourite:

Define a perfect pitch.
That's when you throw a viola into a dustbin without hitting the rim!!!

Notice: No offence to viola players. I thought that professional viola player played well actually!! The jokes were from the musician himself.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! Some religious issue

2010-11-15T11:52:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! Some religious issue

"Dear Daddy God, You have shortchanged me in the first part of my life. You better pay me back 10 times more. Otherwise, You are not a good God." posted on Sunday

[Before I begin, to all my dear readers, fans, friends, passersby, and acquaintances, do read carefully. Also, there is the very useful sidebar by the side of my blog; if you like what you read, or find it intellectually stimulating, useful and all the rest of it, do please carry on reading- if not, you can travel to other sites and tour and see the world. I am struck quite often, metaphorically, how people latch on to words and phrases only, while missing the argument or the logic. I hope this doesn't happen again... but who am I kidding? If Kiyosaki can do it, others can too.]

A friend of mine wrote those bold words on her facebook page. I kept on thinking about those words so I definitely have to write a little about this before getting back to J S Mill and J N Keynes (not J M Keynes). Those bold words are worth repeating:

"Dear Daddy God, You have shortchanged me in the first part of my life. You better pay me back 10 times more. Otherwise, You are not a a [sic] good God."

Now, the thing is that I will first state that my friend is not representative of all Protestants, and certainly isn't representative of all of Christianity either. I would also say that this isn't the dominant view (well, I am a nominal Catholic and would love to think I know the general, dominant view). However, there are many things that strike me about some sections of Protestantism today, especially with regard to some famous charismatic, mega-like, modern churches in my home country.

They call God daddy, which is perfectly reasonable - after all, God is known as the Father according to Christianity. However, they don't take him as a disciplinarian father, or a father devoted to education, or a responsible father, or even just a fatherly figure - they seem to take God as a Santa-Claus figure or, to carry on with my metaphor, an all-loving, kid-spoiling, doting father.

The question that comes to my mind immediately is whether this is reflected in Biblical evidence, or even if this is an accurate view. And the answer has to be: God is not an all-loving, kid-spoiling, doting father. In the Bible, it has to be said, God deals out punishment for his kids for disobeying him - but punishment that teaches them valuable lessons. Let's not get into that; it's in the Bible.

Furthermore, I don't think God gives people everything they want; look at what Jesus is preaching - "take up your burdens and follow me". He tells rich men who ask him about the kingdom of heaven, and tells them: "Give up all your riches!" These aren't things that are nice to hear; but these are good, ethical, Christian virtues. In fact, the father analogy is very good here: fathers are not just loving people; they educate their children, they counsel them, they give them advice, they discipline them when they smoke, take drugs, fight in school, and so on!

Now, the second thing I really take issue with is "you better pay me back 10 times more"! I would say that God doesn't owe us anything; if He exists, in fact, we owe everything to him. This demand, forceful resounding request, or command, even, suggests that not only is God a doting, kid-spoiling father, He will listen to people if they shout, demand and act as petulant kids!

Now, it has been rightly pointed out by some irate readers that I have never seen God and wouldn't know what He would do. I agree. But what I do know for sure is that it is wrong to tell God what to do. Even if God is the Father, and fathers love their children, it is not right for us to demand things from him. Even worse, what this friend of mine has done is to specify how many times more she wants certain goods. God is no ATM machine that we can demand money from, and in a specified amount!

In fact, prayer is a very useful idea here. I recall once - see, I don't always sleep in church - Father Ignatius said that when we pray, we usually request things from God (gently, kindly requesting isn't the same as demanding) but we need to bear in mind that praying is also about asking for forgiveness for our sins; praying is also about thanking God for all the good things in our life; praying is about asking for spiritual food and nourishment. Asking for things is one minor part of prayer. And Father Ignatius had a good word for it: supplication (if I remember correctly).

The last part that I got upset with was: "otherwise, you're not a good God".

God isn't Santa Claus! His goodness can't possibly be defined by whether He gives in to whims and fancies. How can we impose our own interpretations on whether He is good or not? That would make us existentialists, rather than Christians. We shouldn't be defining God to fit our own ways. The fact of the matter is that we cannot demand things from God, and when He doesn't respond, therefore conclude - perforce - that God is not good. I don't think it works this way.

However, what saddens me is that there are many young people who think this way. On Facebook, someone can click "like" for a statement. And guess what? There was at least one person who "liked" that statement.

This is horrific.

It is horrific because this means that some sections of Christianity actually think that God can be held ransom, and that His goodness depends on whether He condescends to answer wild demands.

I think there is a world of difference between asking God for strength or for spiritual goods, such as rest, faith, and mental strength, and "you've shortchanged me", so "pay" me back! The word "pay" further suggests monetary, pecuniary, financial, or material connotations, which complicates the picture further.

My suggestion? Who would even listen to me, when I struggle with religious issues all the time?

I think those believers in the Santa-Claus, kind, all-demands allowed God should read the Bible. Don't let your pastors tell you their interpretation. Also, read the Bible closely and ask yourself, what exactly does Jesus say?

Well, this is the end of my post and I will be sure to be back with economic history the next time round....

After all, it's

Anything that interests me

Anything that interests me! Impressions of LSE

2010-10-25T11:41:00.000-07:00

I have been here in London for a month already, and several of my friends have asked: "Why don't you write about the LSE or London on your blog?" The fact of the matter is that I do write about London and the LSE, but just not on this site - I write mainly on another, separate site, and keep this blog full of materials that interest me, such as economics, economic history, movies, literature, psychology, and stuff like that. Also, studying and living in London - at least for me - are part of my private life, which I keep distinct from my writings, which for some have a life of their own, and for others, reflect my personality, interests and my mind, but not necessarily my own personal life.

However, I will break this silence just for one single post - my impressions of the LSE. I won't mince my words - trust me - as this blog is supposedly dedicated to sharp, accurate, no-holds-barred writing and analysis.

Here it is.

My impressions of LSE.

Studying in London has been a very interesting and intellectually stimulating time so far, and will most likely continue to do so. Generally, for me, studying at the LSE is fairly easy - the teachers seem to love me, the other classmates always want to borrow my notes and hear my views on things, and generally speaking the materials here are all in my favour. One example is a module that I am currently doing, EH477 - which is the History of Economics. The main thing about this course is that it actually deals with textual exegesis - the teacher will give us many sources to read, some primary (from J S Mill, for instance) and some secondary (Daniel Hausman or Abraham Hirsch, for instance). You can verify for your satisfaction that I am not making these up.

As English is my mother tongue, and I can read fast and accurately, these texts or passages pose no problem to me at all; in fact, in a single day I can go through the vast majority of the readings for a week. And the best part is? I love reading these articles and feel that I have learnt a lot, here in England. Just because something is easy doesn't mean that you can't learn from it; although it would, of course, be more true to say that if something is harder to come by, I'd most likely learn more.

I gave a presentation today along with my classmate. After the presentation, and after fielding questions, both the teacher and the other students gave frank appraisals... which basically means that they praised me and my colleague. Incredible! This is a very good feeling because people here recognise real work and good, scientific effort.

However, there is only one particular quibble I have with LSE - and that is with Lionel Robbins. His definition of economics in terms of scarcity and choice, the same stuff I teach and will continue to teach generations of students, has really changed the field of economics. To me, that's not a good thing. People should realise that the definition of economics is not fixed and that it has changed many times over the years; why should Robbins' word be the final word on the subject? We should be free to change the definition, or at the very least, refine it. Yet now the scarcity-definition is the prevailing paradigm, and economists who challenge it are, well, for want of a better word, condemned.

Other than that, it is nice to know that Popper, Coase, George Soros, Howard Davies, and even Singapore's very famous and towering Goh Keng Swee studied here, and that I am following in their footsteps, metaphorically. I feel humbled to see all the big brand names in education and academia, and am happy to be part of this tradition.

At the same time, on a non-intellectual front, I'd say that the LSE turned out to be smaller than what I'd expected. Smaller? Not in terms of academic stature, rankings, fame or stuff like that - the actual school is very small. One student told me that the LSE is the same size as Hwa Chong. I'd say that this isn't true at all. The LSE is smaller than VJC - I kid you not!

Also, the fact that there are a certain "path dependence", "network economies" and "sunk costs" involved, ha ha, leads to the interesting situation that the LSE is rather cramped as a campus. That's just a fancy way of saying that since the LSE was located right here along the Aldwych and Kingsway in a particular time in history, the space it has is really congested and constricted. Oh well.

Nonetheless, the fact that Fleet Street, Kingsway and The Strand are all a short distance away means that it is very accessible and convenient to get around. I usually get around via bus, but by Tube you can get always get to the LSE via Holborn Station. Fleet Street seems to be a congested, narrow area with quaint, old specialty shops alongside modern shops; the Strand is full of the usual "Orchard Road" type of shops; and Kingsway is just puzzling, confusing yet absolutely marvellous. I figured out in a few seconds that Pitcher and Piano has nothing to do with music. Heh heh. Call me a "mountain tortoise"!

Overall, life here is great - intellectually and socially, London is a great place to be. Though there are Tube jams, bus diversions, rude and arrogant salesladies, pollution, congestion, noises everywhere, dirty smells, chewing gum on the sidewalks and on the roads, bad weather which ranges from hot to cold all in the same day, and many other problems, all considered... London is lovely.

As Samuel Johnson said: "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford". I'd agree with the first part - when a man can be tired of such an interesting, diverse, and colossal place, he must be tired of life.

However, as to the second part, is there in London all that life can afford?

To paraphrase Edmond Dantes (acted by James Caviezel), the Count of Monte Cristo, "Dr Johnson, you need to get out more!"

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Dialogue from V for Vendetta :)

2010-10-14T10:29:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! - Dialogue from V for Vendetta :)

Evey Hammond: Who are you?

V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.

Evey Hammond: Well I can see that.

V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation. I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

Evey Hammond: Oh. Right.

V: But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me, then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona.

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.

And the brilliant reply:

Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! Family Guy Song "Journey's Don't Stop Believing"

2010-10-07T13:45:00.001-07:00

Anything that interests me! Family Guy Song from Journey

I have a passing interest in The Family Guy and the songs in the show. On a whim, I went to check out Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" lyrics. The reason is that I think that Peter Griffin's rendition of the song, along with his buddies, including Quagmire, is so FUNNY!!

So just to provide the lyrics for reference, here it is below.

Don't Stop Believin' lyrics (from Journey)

Just a small town girl
Livin' in a lonely world
She took the midnight train goin' anywhere

Just a city boy
Born and raised in south Detroit
He took the midnight train goin' anywhere

A singer in a smoky room
A smell of wine and cheap perfume
For a smile they can share the night
It goes on and on and on and on

Strangers waiting
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searching in the night
Streetlight people
Living just to find emotion
Hiding somewhere in the night

Working hard to get my fill
Everybody wants a thrill
Payin' anything to roll the dice just one more time

Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

Strangers waiting
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searching in the night
Streetlight people
Living just to find emotion
Hiding somewhere in the night

Don't stop believin'
Hold on to that feelin'
Streetlight people

By the way, I like the part:

"Woooah, I love this song! And I love it when amateurs sing the lyrics. But I hate baseball cards!" Hahaha it's totally incongruous.

I strongly recommend Family Guy. I am pretty sure I wrote about this before, but hey - I like this song. Especially when amateurs sing the lyrics!!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Gangs of New York

2010-10-06T14:15:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! - Gangs of New York

I was about to write this when someone posted a sarcastic comment on my blog on religion, when I specifically directed such comments to my money making blogs and not to this dedicated, personal, academic site. So, here I am again. I should put the poor ole St Dominic out of my thoughts for a while. Also, even a cursory reading of this site should show that I have social thoughts, societal concern and a social conscience, and a slight modicum of humanity. Sorry, I digress. But it's true, though it may not seem that way.

I was enjoying some free time by watching Gangs of New York, because I want to beat Mavis in the Scene It? Wii game.

It turned out to be a very interesting movie because it told of the story of an Irish gang (actually, more like some kind of community) against the "natives" in New York. Simultaneously, it was set in the backdrop of the Civil War as well as the very famous New York Draft Riots. I like that very much - in the last scene, the protagonists are fighting a blood feud whilst the Civil War is going on in the south and the New York Draft Riots are occurring simultaneously, amidst smoke, blood and noise.

Very artistic.

The thing that interested me most about Gangs of New York was that during the riots, inter alia, the rich were attacked by the working class. This is interesting. The rich could escape the draft by paying $300, which literally meant that only the rich could avoid going into the army to fight. When the working class mob/hordes/proletarians, take your pick, burst into the rich man's house on 5th Avenue and forced their way in, one could feel a real tension and horror in the air. It was a very good scene because it made me think.

Ignoring LSE's socialist slant for the time being, the fact that my brother is very socialist and that I am also mildly socialist, and putting aside for a few seconds the British system and Fabianism and all that, I thought a lot.

The increasing rich poor divide in many societies could indeed result in a revolt, or even worse, a revolution. What a scary thought. It was there, right there, happening on the screen.

Fabianism, if I may simplify here, is the idea that gradual socialist reform will stave off a revolution. However, Gangs of New York got me thinking. What if the reform is too little, too late? What if it didn't happen the way we thought it would? What if the reforms usher in something worse than the current system? And what if revolution and revolt came anyway, no matter what reforms?

(My St Pats students will butt in here to jokingly comment that their school motto is "Protest and Revolt", but that's an aside.)

The terrible feeling I got in my gut when I was watching that last part of Gangs of New York was similar to Michael Moore's comment in Fahrenheit 9-11. (Now, I must once again stress, for the minority reader, that this is my personal blog, and you're entitled to your opinion, but please comment only if it's a positive comment. Yes, my blog - my rules.)

"I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend that very system. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free... And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

To answer Moore: America hasn't changed much since the 1800s, I guess. It really does seem, and I agree with Moore, that the poorer Americans are upholding the American system for a minority of beneficiaries.

Ah, it just gets me. It just does. Right in the gut!

And I really swear that the socialist, Fabian attitudes of LSE haven't gotten to me! It's true :)

Anything that interests me

Anything that interests me! - Short Departure to Clarify a Challenge

2010-10-06T13:44:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! - Short Departure to Clarify a Challenge

"wow I stumbled upon this blog and I cannot believe I found a Singaporean justifying the mass slaughter and effective genocide of the Cathars. You ups sia."

I was about to write about Gangs of New York, when this came up.

Firstly, let's not get into the bad language. "You ups sia." It irks me. Secondly, don't some people read? Or read carefully? On my side bar I state quite clearly:

"Before you leave a nice comment, please note that I censor my tagboard (occasionally). This blog is about What Interests Me, and not What Interests You. So some friendly guidelines are: Don't write things that will make your granny blush :) Do leave your name and blog address :) I know that some people are glad to be flamed, but I'm not. Thank you for your kind understanding! If you don't like what you read, please just use the Google Search and travel to other sites. Thank you very much."

I went back to see what I had written to get such derision. This is the particular section that earned me such a sarcastic challenge. What does it say?

"There are indeed myths about the Knights Templar and the Cathar heresies. But the thing to note is this: they weren't hiding any secret. There was none. And the heresies had persisted for centuries and this was no new secret.

The Knights Templar were rich because of banking and the modern invention of cheques is sometimes attributed to them - so it was "banking" that made them rich.

The Cathars were indeed heretics, so claiming that they thought they knew a secret vis-a-vis the Catholic Church turns out to be a non sequitur. Let's put it this way: if you are a criminal, obviously you do criminal things, for if you don't do anything criminal, you're not a criminal.

The Albigensian Crusade was also explained in terms supporting the heretics. I think a personal departure is insightful here.

Warren Buffett once said that if you don't know jewellery, know the jeweller. And I happen to be a nominal Roman Catholic and I know who St Dominic is. It is on record that he even gave up his favourite manuscript, which he spent a lot of time copying, so that he could donate money to the poor. In fact, he was an educated and learned man, who declared that proper religious argument and proper reasoning, as well as faith in the Bible and in the Rosary, would win over the heretics. He also spent a lot of time trying to convert the heretics and to win them over by argument, even submitting to their own methods of determining truth. Now, with this kind of man, kind and reasonable, is it likely that he would be the kind of mad, fanatical extremist willing to kill thousands? The question answers itself.

Now, it is perfectly natural for a Catholic to say that St Dominic was a good man, and perfectly natural for Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln to say that St Dominic was a religious fanatic. It is only expected.

But given the knowledge of the man's character, it is not possible to agree with the authors' portrayal of the Crusades. Mind you, the heretics killed Pierre de Castelnau, the pope's representative, thus provoking the war. Mind you, the heretics were the ones attacking villages where innocents were, and not St Dominic and his band of priests attacking villages. St Dominic didn't attack anyone. It's a small point, but if the authors didn't even get this one right, but used their ideology and their flawed historical method to colour their writing, then it's not honest - and it's not good history. It's just their prejudiced opinion."

Good Jesus - I've been misquoted again. Why is it that after I invent the "Kiyosaki syndrome", where people quote things they want to see rather than things actually said, people still do it to me? I must have deleted the syndrome from my copious articles. Please read carefully and don't have the Kiyosaki syndrome.

Let's take the exact phrase that I have an issue with:

"I found a Singaporean justifying the mass slaughter and effective genocide of the Cathars."

I didn't justify mass slaughter.

I was defending St Dominic, who was criticised in the book. I am too lazy to take out the book again. I am willing to bet this fellow (I am guessing it's a fellow, because girls usually give nice comments, like bb my best friend, for instance) hasn't even read the book.

Secondly, I am Roman Catholic. Nominal, of course, but I am a Roman Catholic. If I don't see it from St Dominic's point of view, must I see it from yours? Of course that colours how I view things. When you watch TV, there's a viewpoint. When you read documents, there are ideologies embedded within. When you go to Church, there's a worldview. Duh.

Thirdly, even a cursory look at Wikipedia verifies that the heretics attacked St Dominic's chaps first.

Fourthly, I might be a nominal Roman Catholic, but this provocative comment by an unread reader really hurts St Dominic's memory. He was reputed to have copied books for study, and put his notes into the margins. One day, he was at the library and the other people asked him, with annoyance, where are your books? He said, I sold them. They said, but you love them! And we are wasting time here waiting for you. And he said, I can't look at dead animal skins while people are suffering (referring to the acts of the heretics). So I sold 'em!

You might be willing to say things to the effect that the Church, in those days, did many bad things. Maybe, they committed many immoral and amoral deeds. I would actually agree! But saying bad things about my article, and in particular, a section on St Dominic? Sad, sad... it's a sad world if people mix up Church politics with the actions of a saint.

I would be willing to say that while I am, in my honest opinion, a good person - I would never be able to do what St Dominic did.

Now, the comment might have referred to the part where I said the Cathars, by definition, were heretics. But that doesn't imply that I justify slaughter. Justifying slaugher would have meant sentences like, "Who cares about the dead Cathars?" "The killing of those SOBs was fully justified." Or something along those lines. Mind you, the Cathars themselves also saw themselves as heretics. So did Baigent et al. Also, it should be understood that heretics is a religious term implying, in the historical context of the time, that those people were against the Roman Church. So I frankly don't see what earned the ire, so to speak. As for the analogy, referring to criminals, it doesn't refer to the Cathars, for God's sake! I am saying:

Cathars = heretics, right?
Therefore, they said heretical things.

Just as,
Criminals = bad doers
Therefore, they do bad things.

I can't dumb it down any further.

Please, dear potential readers (this doesn't refer to my loyal readers, who always read with an open mind and who seek to understand rather than blindly criticise), READ CAREFULLY. I should be really pedantic here and go so far as to say: if you can't read properly, practise somewhere else, then come back here.

If I say X, you comment on X.

Yet, what happens is that I say X, and people comment on Y.

Also, if Y is a negative comment, please read the sidebar! :)

Thanks and cheers!

PS "Neutral" refers to the showing of both sides of an article rather than there being no underlying assumptions, thoughts, Weltanschauung or ideologies.

PPS "Neutral book review" means just that. It's the St Dominic section that is my personal opinion, which I clearly state.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Talent Is Overrated, by Geoffrey Colvin

2010-10-01T01:13:00.000-07:00

I happened to be waiting for someone a few weeks ago, when I was still in Singapore. It was a long wait (she was late) and so I decided to spend some time in the bookstore nearby (I think it was Kinokuniya, but I could very well be mistaken). I browsed through the books there aimlessly, in the hope that something would catch my eye - but all the good books were wrapped in shrink wrap and I just couldn't open them to sample the goodness inside.

Then I saw it - an unwrapped book lying in a forlorn stack at the corner of the bookstore, completely ignored and unwanted. The title was Talent is Overrated, by Geoff Colvin. This could be mildy interesting, I thought, and I picked it up. It wasn't mildly interesting. I would say that this is one of the most informative, interesting and important books for 2010.

I have read many books - and it is my personal belief - that personal excellence and genius are not born, but made. Naturally, in the nature vs nurture debate, both nature and nurture are needed. The question arises as to which of the two is more important and plays a larger role. Obviously one who can't speak from some congenital defect is never going to be a Winston Churchill, and certainly one who has no hands from birth is never going to be Tiger Woods (although there are perhaps possible exceptions to this, such as Terry Fox, who could run despite losing one leg).

The books, related to the nature vs nurture debate, I read in the past normally dealt with total lifetime practice, which is a term that means someone who trains longer in a lifetime than someone else tends to be better at something. I myself refined the concept to mean total effective, practical lifetime practice, because there are some people who train longer than others but don't get better at anything because they don't train "effectively" and "practically". I am certain that there are others who have written on this more effectively than I have, and besides this research is commonly available to others.

Talent is Overrated must be understood in this context. It is not groundbreaking work. It refines a core idea that has been present for a long time, and summarises research already done. Yet it is incredibly important:

It is the first book that brings together related strands of research and the latest in the literature, and above all, Colvin actually adds his own ideas of how the research can be applied. This "how can it be applied" part is very important and central to this book.

I will only say the big things here (the small things can be found in the book, but remember, the devil is in the details): it is deliberate practice that makes all the difference. Deliberate practice is not easy, as it requires one to focus on parts of performance that were not satisfactory, and to consistently remain in the learning zone by rehearsing to improve precisely those unsatisfactory moments.

This book is really important as it goes on to deal with applications, the presence of passion, where motivation comes from, personality, memory and other aspects of performance. My wonderful memory, for example, doesn't come from any innate physical/genetic/ God-given prowess - damn! - but arises from the fact that I have been immersed in a theoretical structure long enough to hang facts upon that structure in a way that makes sense to me.

I would say this is a must read for anyone interested in improving his memory and thinking skills, and also a must read for anyone who wants to know the secrets of superb performance. There's a difference between good and superb performance. This book, if I may paraphrase the title of another book, tells you how to go from Good to Great.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Thank You Note

2010-09-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! - Thank You Note

I have been meaning to write this for quite some time already, but I have been procrastinating. After all, I have so many things to do - I'm currently reading Economic History, revising English, and browsing through 20th century history and a lot of other related tasks and tactical activities. But I've to get down to it, so here I am - I've got to get this off my chest!

A Notice:

Thank you to all my clever and educated readers! You make my day.

I was told that my writing was interesting yet personal, provides an interesting perspective on things, handles "trolls" well (I've no bleeding idea what a troll specifically is, other than some kind of person who bugs others online, but let's just take this neologism for granted and appreciate the general positive comment), is considered and measured, and is extremely gratifying especially in a age when most blogs do not write in proper language nor in words that are fit for intellectual consumption.

One of my uncles even reads my blog, which is very interesting because I am pretty sure I hadn't even told him about it. Furthermore, his comments about the good quality of the writing are incredibly kind, and his insightful and perspicacious comments about some difficulties in my life and my varied twists and turns in grappling with philosophical thought are incredibly accurate. I am encouraged greatly. I now feel that I can really write well! I once knew it, but now I can feel it too. One most wonderful person even called for more posts, which is even better vindication to me.

To my dear readers: Thank you, why, thank you! (I really mean it.)

I am glad to announce that I will be constantly blogging (that means once a week or so - hey, he who controls the definitions controls the debate) when I am doing my masters, so you'll definitely be able to read my caustic, rebarbative yet incisive, introspective and intellectually witty writing if it so pleases you.

Furthermore, I will also seek to get better and better at my already impossibly perfect, amazingly addictive and wonderful writing. (This one is a joke. The "impossibly perfect... writing" part, I mean, and not the I will seek to get better part.)

Geoff Colvin of "Talent is Overrated" fame will help me in this - I think his suggestions for how to become even better at anything will some in handy. I address his research in my next few posts.

Special thanks to all my friends, loyal readers, and colleagues who have given me great comments and encouragements.

It feels great to receive your emails, praise, comments, ideas for improvement, and requests for help.

Thank you people.

Anything that interests me!

Are you in the USP? Do you study History or Economics at NUS?

2010-08-03T08:46:00.000-07:00

Are you in the USP? Do you study History or Economics at NUS? Are you a freshman/ freshie?

This post is for you :)

Q and A

I usually write to the people who ask me for advice or write on my comment tagboard. Mostly, I get all sorts of interesting comments, questions and ideas, and very nice ones, too! However, since I notice that recently most people have been asking me about USP, Economics and History, this post is dedicated to freshmen/ freshies/ new students at NUS or anyone who happens to pass by and indicates some passing interest. I also note that it's near CORS bidding time that they send me this very interesting deluge of emails. It's fine :)

[As an aside, I feel a "warm glow" or "impure altruism" or maybe even some kind of happiness when I help others by sharing my experiences or my knowledge, not just solely because of advice on this blog, but also when I share my travel experiences or German studies programme. I think it makes blogging such an interesting enterprise - you get to help people while you do your thing/ what you like. Beautiful, isn't it?]

Most Economics juniors of mine came to read this article "How to Get First Class Honours in Economics at NUS" or "How to Study Econometrics 1" or "How to Study Econometrics 2/ Rebuttals to some comments". Others just came to me because they know me already. I summarise those articles basically here, in a single post, as that might help you:

How to Get First Class Honours in Economics
for more details, see actual article

How does one get a first class honours in Economics at NUS? I wrote that I've absolutely no idea. But here are some things that I did, and those can maybe inspire you.

1. You have to be willing to work long and hard. I mean long hours and hard work. Long hours: I spent almost five to twelve hours in the Central Library every day - on top of lectures and tutorials. Hard work: for instance, for Econometrics - a bane of existence for most undergraduates unless they're math majors - I did the entire textbook... at least thrice.

2. You need to get help for mathematics and statistics. Unless you're a math major or a stats major, it is very likely that you're in my position - you know some math and some stats, but you can't seem to prove the Stolper-Samuelson theorem or Rybczynski theorem. I mean, even though I did the module and once knew how to do to the Rybczynski theorem by heart, it was thanks to getting good help from my trusty friend, Roastbird. He helped me out also for Econometrics 2 - a killer module. Get help from real mathematicians or real statisticians! We're economists.

3. You need to get friends. This is related to point 2, but point 2 is about the importance of mathematics and statistics and how your A level math or whatever isn't going to give you any advantage. Friends on the other hand... help you with tutorials, help you with lectures, lend you materials, give you heads-up... what else can I say? Get economics friends! Quod erat demonstrandum.

4. You need to get a good supervisor, and start working early on your thesis. This is because in NUS you need to get an A- or better for your thesis to get first class honours, on top of a sterling CAP. These are self evident arguments above, so I won't explain further. Finding a good supervisor and a good thesis topic are all topics that can take up entire posts or even entire blogs!

5. You need luck. I am entitled to hindsight bias, and thus can say my all time favourite (and many of my friends either hear this from my mouth or label me as such) "I'm a genius". Hahaha! How nice if that were true. However, I'll have to be really honest with you and say that luck plays a small but significant role.

How to Study Econometrics 1

1. No one actually knows how to study econometrics and do well at it. I've searched the whole Net and asked countless people. That's why I am attempting to answer the almighty question for students worldwide: "How the heck do I study Econometrics well and do well in Econometrics exams?"

2. But there are indeed things that you can do to study Econometrics and do well at it in examinations :)

3. The question fields/ sets are limited, so these are the fields that you need to know and master:

probability, statistics, matrices, linear regression and other regression models (e.g. log-log, log-linear, linear-log, quadratic, and know what the differences are, what the intepretations are, and what the similarities are)

4. You should do questions every day. The thing is that the field is limited, but the questions are vast in number.

5. Theoretically, you can learn the equations and formulae, then practise questions related to them. That is the best option, but the thing is: Your teacher didn't give you easy equations right? He also didn't give you questions related to those right?

I know, I was there. So the point 4, which is more general, holds. Do questions every day. You can actually learn the formulae and then apply them, but at higher levels, this method will not work. So just try to practise.

6. MATRICES turn out to be so important, but I didn't know that before. But now you do. To study Econometrics well, you definitely need more than a passing command of Matrices - you need to learn all the hard terms and methods immediately!

7. You need to learn a lot of important and hard words like heteroskedasticity, homoskedasticity, linear regression, multivariate normal distributions, variances, standard deviations, means, modes, medians, and more. Your command of esoteric language in the weird realm of Econometrics will improve. You have to know all that in order to do well, because questions routinely have those terms:

e.g. "According to the Gauss Markov theorems, with i.i.d., BLA BLA BLA?"

E.g. Do you know the law of iterated expectations?

8. Even though Econometrics is tough, you can study Econometrics if you have the motivation and persistence.

9. Mathematics will be your friend and your neighbour. The good thing is, that when we study Econometrics, we unlike Mathematicians, do not need to have formal rigid proofs, but we can do easier stuff than they do. I know, I know, it looks Greek to everyone (which it is - most of the symbols are Greek!) but trust me, when you study Econometrics you learn hard stuff that is easier than what pure mathematicians do. So there. We have it good, in that sense.

10. To get the highest marks, get into your teacher's good books and get a lot of practice.

How to Study Econometrics 2 (Quek DF 2008/2009)

1. Complete proofs.

2. Learn the individual parts and then bring them all together.

3. Practise the problem sets.

4. Understanding truly, and real learning is better than getting the form right - i.e. don't do my performance method; use Quek's real learning method.

5. Know your lecturer.

I also answer some other questions that were posed to me, via email or via the tagboard or via face to face interaction:

Should I go for the USP?

I strongly recommend the USP for good students. Good students are defined as those students who are already experts in at least one academic field, like to read, think through issues and are articulate or eloquent. The USP will teach you how to synthesise knowledge and how to write academic articles and academic, maybe even journal standard, papers. Basically you get very good academic training and you can learn cross subject, interdisciplinary subjects that are very interesting.

Warning: not all USP students are good students though, as some get eliminated halfway through the course. You will most likely require a CAP of above 3.5 just to stay in, and must be on an honours programme (3 years' degree = no USP certificate).

Should I do Economics?

Do you love maths? Do you know a lot of statistics? Believe in drawing graphs, running regressions on computer programmes, or writing esoteric materials? Then economics at university is your cup of tea, I kid you not.

On a more serious note, if you like Economics or did it successfully before or think that you can see a future career in it, such as in government or in the private sector, go right ahead. It is known as the queen of the social sciences because of its difficulty though!

Is behavioural economics mathematical?

All of economics is mathematical. But behavioural is largely empirical or experimental based, so it is more statistical in nature rather than mathematical. Basic statistics is needed.

Yet at the same time, behavioural is more qualitative and verbally argumentative rather than being like microeconomics or macroeconomics. If you like writing or arguing or reading academic papers, there's absolutely no problem! Should be very fun; I recommend it - well, I did it after all. You can read about behavioural on my blog - use the links on the right if you can!

Is Basant scary?

YES!!! Basant is very scary!!! I got a B for his module, EC4102 - GOD SAVE THOSE WHO DO HIS MODULE!!! God save you. You will need divine help!

I like him, by the way. He's quite an interesting chap! But he is very strict and - dare I say it - old school!!!

Should I do philo or economics?

YM, I told you already!

Development Economics?

Verbal based rather than mathematical - I should say do it only if you're good at reading and writing, and exploring various themes. A basic grounding of economic history or basic development economics should be useful in doing EC4371. I did it under Shin at NUS, and learnt verbal models of heteroeconomics that challenged monoeconomics.

Economic History?

Hard to do an ISM on Economic History at NUS, but easy to do at LSE, UOM and Cambridge. Reason is that - there aren't many economic historians at NUS! There are several, including a self-styled contemporary economic historian (Shin), but they are fewer than DGE model theorists and empirical, applied economists and econometricians.

Good luck, my juniors! All the best!

Anything that interests me!

Saying Goodbye Is Just So Hard to Do

2010-07-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

Saying Goodbye Is Just So Hard to Do

I am going to "retire" from full time footy after 14th August 2010.

Saying Goodbye is just so, so, so hard to do. I intended to retire on 28th June 2010 but had to extend my "retirement" to "save" my beloved park. I look at it and it seems like it is declining. Hopefully it isn't, of course. It wasn't always that way.

I really hope that people will continue to play at the park. I love that park very much. I even consider it "my park", sometimes "the" park, and certainly many kids even think that it's my park. I've heard from three people already that people only play at the park when I am there. When I am not there, there aren't people going there. This state of affairs cannot continue. I am going to leave Singapore for England to read Economic History! Who's going to take leadership or ownership of the park when I go? Clearly someone, or some groups of people, must continue to play when I am not at the park.

I've set up a facebook page so that I can always keep in contact with my livelong neighbours, friends, enemies and football buddies, for as long as we can. (Of course, there are enemies. Not all the people who go to the park are lovely, friendly, intelligent or sensible people. An extremely small minority are total morons/idiots that I've no time to explain myself to. Most, however, are great and wonderful people!) I've already sent emails and collected facebook addresses.

Most importantly: For as long as I have gone to the park, I have always brought the ball. Sometimes other people also bring the ball too, which is totally marvellous. Now, this initiative must pass to the younger players who must always bring the ball - for our park really comes alive only with football, and without the ball there can't be a game.

I've heard all sorts of opinions and ideas on what happened and what can be done to save the football games at the park. Currently, only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays are there many players like in the good ole (old) days. However, once upon a time, there were people playing in the park every single day from Monday to Sunday, and there was life, and there was real vitality. No amount of talk, whether of opinion or ideas, can solve this problem.

Friends - neighbours, friends, enemies and buddies! Please come to the park whenever you're free. Bring more friends to play football. Bring your girlfriends too. Surely VJ and I aren't the only ones who can do that.

Now, before I say goodbye, barely a fortnight before I "retire", I will have the customary reminder and memories of the good ole days. I used to go around 3 times a week - I still do - but from 14 August 2010 on, I'll only go about once a fortnight to once a month. (I will of course notify friends via SMS, email and facebook.) Here is a non-exhaustive list of the wonderful memories and the beautiful times I had at my beloved park - I played the Beautiful Game there for 15 long years:

1. Manish and I have known each other for about 16 years. We used to play pranks on each other a lot back then - I mean really back then - and when we discovered we had a common interest of football, we became good friends. We have remained good friends and neighbours still, till today.

2. My cousin Nic stayed at Joo Chiat and used to sneak out of his house to play football with us at the park. He often got into trouble with his mother for that! How many kids today would do that just to play football? We really loved the game that much.

3. Once, an old man invited us to play football (street soccer) at the Eunos CC competition - aka the Kampung Ubi Sports Carnival. Ronald was goalkeeper, and Shannon, John and myself played outfield.

Ronald - unbelieveably and very luckily - scored our first goal from a goal kick!!!! I scored the second goal for our team by rolling the ball left and then pumping it in from close range and ran to the stands, filled with many Malay kids, and shouted LOUD AND CLEAR: GOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLL right in their faces and they cheered me on!

We lost 5-2 in the end.

[Note: my records show that. However Shannon claims that, from memory, it was I who scored first and Ronald scored the second.]

4. There was a very enthusiastic Indian sailor called Santosh (I shit you not - I am not making these up) who used to rush down to play every Friday when I booked out from camp. He would kick and maul everybody wildly like a wild beast right out from the depths of hell! Hahahahahaha!

5. Wolverine once did a backflip when he was lying on the ground. He, from a reclining position on the ground, flipped up and with a whoooooosh landed on his feet, like a professional gymnast! Hahahaha I will always remember that for as long as I live.

6. My brother once got into a fight with Terence. I defended Shannon and fought Terence. And then, in the words of Manish, like a bull Ryan ran towards me and boxed me to the ground! Hahaha what a lovely brawl. Ryan's lovely brother broke up the fight! Lovely brawl.

7. Another time, one of the small kids said to Shannon: you won't always have your big brother to protect you. Today, Shannon is bigger than me.

8. I used to draw symbols and stick figures to record all my goals. For the record, I played in the St Stephen's School team for less than a year, when one day I got injured and removed from the bench (I was substitute). I then played on and off in secondary school and played for the arts team in VJC. I also played competitively for EDSM in the Catholeague for two years. Holy Cow!

By the way, I also once left an S paper History lesson because of football.

Chris K: Ms Menon, can Shawn play? We need him for the team as we're taking on the teachers now.

Ms Menon: NO! If Shawn leaves this room, he's going to be in big trouble.

Me: It's once in a lifetime, Ms Menon. Don't worry, I'll be back!

Ms Menon: Shawn!!! Come back this instant!!!

We lost (2-0) and I came back to the Humanities Room. She was STILL teaching the other 4 students. (If I remember correctly, we had 6 S paper students and 1 of them never turned up for classes.)

I sat at the back with my muddy boots.

Ms Menon: LOST HUH? Why do you guys even bother?

Other classmates: The bloody teacher's pet. She didn't even scold him. She was just swearing to throw him out of the classroom if he returned.

9. On 7th October 2005, Friday, it is recorded in this book I am holding that I scored 8 goals -

shot straight at keeper, shot a long shot, shot a low hard shot, Samuel bundled my shot in, I stole Shannon's goal, I ran right and shot left, I tapped in from behind the goalkeeper, I dribbled into the goal.

But I think my personal record was: on 3rd May 2006, Wednesday, well I told you we played on weekdays too, I scored ELEVEN GOALS! :) Lovely. Brendan, Joseph, and Wesley were among the opponents and are pictured inside my notebook! Admittedly they were young players way back then and I was still young, fast and agile. Today, if I score more than 5, it's a screaming fantastic miracle.

10. Some gangsters once threatened Johan at the park, trying to steal his bike, and I came over and threatened them back. When one of them held my collar and tried to pull me over, I even smiled and said very, very loudly: "You're gangsters, and pulling my collar - what would my brother and cousin say? Maybe you want to talk to them when they come round the corner. Moreover, I think the police would want to have a talk with you if I went to them!" Hahahahahaha I can't believe it they bought it.

Johan got his bicycle back. I went to bat for him over his stupid bicycle, but at least I am a good friend and got it back for him.

11. My brother and I once nearly cried when it rained and we couldn't go to the park to play football. Despite the torrential downpour, we disobeyed our parents and sneaked out to play football in the rain... two of us plus Eden and Samuel!!

12. I heard that Samuel, Eden and Jeremy fell into bad company? But the thing is that I remember them as being very young guys who loved to play football and were rather talented (except Eden, who played goalkeeper).

13. I have never headed the ball except once. We played in the field near the playground, with the big tree and the bench marking the goalposts. Manish passed a high ball to me, and I headed it into the goal. This was the first and last time I have ever headed the ball.

Actually, I didn't intend to head the ball. It hit my head and went in! [My brother says it was unintentional luck.]

14. In that very same game, I remember lobbing the ball over the keeper's head as well! Beautiful goal.

15. Who can remember Ah Hong, also known as Xiao Gua, the sepak takraw kid? Well, as the saying goes, "Who can do, do; those who can't do, teach". I am only an above average football player, but I thought Xiao Gua would make a talented player. I taught Xiao Gua how to play football with a generous dose of pushups, scolding, and watching... I kid you not - football videos from Champions of Brazil and the EPL. Once, he had no shoes, so I gave him an old pair of my football shoes. He improved rapidly after that!

In the end, he went over to the Dark Side... to play basketball.

16. The beautiful game had its beautiful characters, colourful chaps, with correspondingly amazing nicknames -

Wolverine, and his favourite jersey with long sleeves (and a whole host of other "memorables")
Xiao Gua, and his antics
Adriano (Johan), and his terrible skills
Nesta (I kid you not), and his defending
Zorro, and his speeding
Fofo, and his vulgarities along with his interesting parallel life as a PIANIST, for God's sake
Shannon, and his advanced cheating methods
CXJ, and his enthusiasm
Akmal, and his misses and near misses
Romario, and his small size
Da Ge, and his goalkeeping
Officer, whose real name I've only just learnt DAYS ago
Buddha, who's actually Edmund
Jimmy/ Jims, who's actually not called Jims
Razzle Dazzle, who's damn funny and always does his razzle dazzle
Frank Lampard, the small boy
Firhan, the small kid who was "professional"
Khairul, the nutcase... but a very sweet kid
Brendon and his little fat neighbour, who used to swear a lot
Zamorano/ Zamo, and his antics
Uncle, and his backheels and "Scorpion"
VJ's cousins: the "little spider" and Mascherano
Gordon, and his stepovers
No. 9, and his Burmese gang of footballers - did you know that No. 9 was a MONK?!
Thunderpants/ Thundershark, and his cute PANTS!

17. And the more normal, more human, less colourful folks, who were

Jay, Shang, Jia Yin, Lawrence, Jeremy, Gabriel, Ryan, Yiyang, Yaoyang, Joey, Louis, Anton, Amos, Cheng Wee, Ben, Alvin, Other Ben, Other Ben's Indian pal, Nic Lim, Tat, John, Kirit, Shoban, Shenal, Rasydan, Azik, Xian Bin, Ivy, Heng (Brian), Harry, Sid, Marcus, Joseph, Ahmad, Joel the Great, Chun Ming, Kaimin, Manish, Manish's relative, Terrance, Ryan, Ryan's brother, Samuel, Eden, Wesley, Wesley's bro, Hongyi, Lam, Kambeng, Brendon, Bryan from St Pats, Shawn, Keenan, Foxtrot Sergeant, and a couple more others whose names I've missed but whose faces remain firmly etched forever in my memory.

OK, maybe not all the folks above were perfectly normal, balanced people. Hahahaha!

There you have it. Some of my fondest memories and thoughts about the park that I love. Time just flies.

This has to be the longest blog post that I have ever written in my semi-"professional" blogging career (professional just means that you get paid to do your hobby), but it's been a lovely, long walk down memory lane. Thank you for walking down memory lane with me.

Goodbye, my park. I miss you already!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that Interests Me! Wakko's America Song

2010-07-15T22:06:00.000-07:00

Anything that Interests Me! Wakko's America Song

Oh, this is really fun. Wakko sings the America Song (I know, I know, it's old and maybe even ancient, but, hey, I liked it then and I like it now). I am clearing up space on my computer, so I am putting up the lyrics on Anything that Interests Me! You can learn all the capitals on the various US states using this very interesting song.

Have fun!

Wakko (singing):

Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Indianapolis, Indiana
And Columbus is the capital of Ohio
There's Montgomery, Alabama, south of Helena, Montana
Then there's Denver, Colorado, under Boise, Idaho.

Texas has Austin, then we go north
To Massachusetts' Boston, and Albany, New York
Tallahassee, Florida, and Washington, D.C.
Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Nashville, Tennessee.

[Elvis used to hang out there a lot, you know.]

Trenton's in New Jersey, north of Jefferson, Missouri
You've got Richmond in Virginia; South Dakota has Pierre
Harrisburg's in Pennsylvania and Augusta's up in Maine
And here is Providence, Rhode Island, next to Dover, Delaware.

Concord, New Hampshire, just a quick jaunt
To Montpelier, which is up in Vermont
Hartford's in Connecticut, so pretty in the fall
And Kansas has Topeka; Minnesota has St Paul.

Juneau's in Alaska and there's Lincoln in Nebraska
And it's Raleigh out in North Carolina and then
There's Madison, Wisconsin, and Olympia in Washington
Phoenix, Arizona, and Lansing, Michigan.

Here's Honolulu; Hawaii's a joy
Jackson, Mississippi, and Springfield, Illinois
South Carolina with Columbia down the way
And Annapolis in Maryland on Chesapeake Bay.

[They have wonderful clam chowder.]

Cheyenne is in Wyomin' and perhaps you’ll make your home in
Salt Lake City out in Utah, where the Buffalo roam
Atlanta's down in Georgia, and there's Bismarck, North Dakota
And you can live in Frankfort in your old Kentucky home.

Salem in Oregon; from there we join
Little Rock in Arkansas; Iowa's got Des Moines
Sacramento, California; Oklahoma and its city
Charleston, West Virginia, and Nevada, Carson City.

That's all the capitals there are!

Beautiful! Hahahahahaha! :) :)

Anything that interests me!

Roger Backhouse's Penguin History of Economics

2010-07-15T21:40:00.000-07:00

Roger Backhouse's The Penguin History of Economics

I have just finished reading this book, The Penguin History of Economics, and found that it was a very well written and interesting book on economic history. Necessarily brief, the author has convered most of the possible ground and has done it most wonderfully.

In short: Economics started as a nebulous and amorphous subject that spanned moral philosophy and law, and it evolved over time to become political economy, a practical application of economic ideas, and then finally became the mathematical monster that we view with fear and apprehension today. As Krugman once said, as an economist in good standing, he is perfectly capable of writing things that nobody can read.

Backhouse argues that with the increase in numbers of Russian, and some German, mathematicians going to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, economics slowly became more mathematical. Losing the historical and psychological components came about slowly not just because of the influx of what we Singaporeans would call "foreign talent", but also because of the wish of economists to make their subject more like the natural sciences, like physics.

However, and this isn't just my opinion, there have been arguments against the mathematisation of economics. One is that the mathematics require a vast simplification of economic ideas so that they are amenable to mathematical treatment. Another is the fact that General Equilibrium models, which are deductive and general in nature, are no more than mathematical edifices which have really little to do with empirical reality. In other words, while deductive reasoning aims to show that the conclusions really flow from the premisses, some DGE models are so general as to be useless in the real world. Yet another argument is the fact that institutions are largely ignored in mathematical models, and yet the structure and institutions of society are key features - historical and sociological features, I might add - that affect economies.

Overall, this is a very interesting book that appeals probably to those with plenty of time on their hands, or a MSc of Economic History to study for, or people like me who are boring - I mean, academically inclined. Roger Backhouse writes beautifully and the key examples are short, sharp and to the point. I've learnt that economics is actually a very diverse and colossal subject - and that as my thesis supervisor once said, even the greatest geniuses among you will never be able to learn everything there is to learn.

This is a humbling book which points out future areas of research and reading. A 8/10 for laymen and a 9.5/10 for people in this field, economic history.

Anything that interests me~

Conspiracy Theories About Aliens - True or False?

2010-07-15T08:25:00.000-07:00

Conspiracy Theories About Aliens - True or False?

Also known as: The Common Sense Article

I was having dinner with an army friend of mine, minding my own business, when he told me that he met a 85 year old man (whilst in the course of repairing computers) who told him about aliens. (I know that's a long sentence, so let me write that again.)

I was having dinner with a friend of mine. He told me he met an 85 year old man, while doing his job as a computer specialist. And this man told him about aliens.

I thought that I had heard it all, but when I heard this one AGAIN, I groaned.

Let me help all the alien conspiracy theorists out there settle the issue once and for all. There. Aren't. Any. Alien. Conspiracies.

First, instead of dealing with the whole story, let's just deal with logical arguments. I will write a "they say, and then I say" article.

1. They say: History is written by dominant powers, and if they wish to hide the presence of aliens, they can.

This argument is also sometimes phrased as: "you'll never know whether the history you learn is real".

I say: Two main flaws: history is not written linearly. There are interpretations that form the standard view, and then there are revisionists. And then over time, the arguments and the views change. So history is not static.

Secondly, it is quite true that we never really know whether what we read is real. BUT, that would apply equally true to the conspiracy theorists. They read something online and then think it's true. So I say, "you'll never know whether what you read is real, either!"

2. They say: Economics is a pseudo-science of dominance. The US Federal Reserve aims to subjugate other countries.

I say: Bullshit. Pseudo-science of dominance, your head. Economics is a social science, or if you will, some humanities/ moral philosophy/ historical/ sociological subject. It was not invented to keep humans in check; and it was not even invented by one man or a group of men. Economics is NOT a pseudo-science of dominance. Let's look at the evidence: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Malthus, David Marshall, Lionel Robbins, Keynes, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Lucas, Hirschman, and Dr Basant have just about nothing in common, in terms of beliefs, except for the fact that they're men. In fact, they all disagree fundamentally!

I also say: the Fed does not exist to subjugate other countries. It is a central bank that attempts to conduct monetary policy. Just read an economics textbook.

Of course, for the true believer of alien conspiracies, they will use argument 1. So I say again: refer to what I say to argument 1.

3. They say: The Illuminati want to rule the world.

I say: Any serious historian would tell you that the Illuminati did not survive their suppression and that they were no more than a sideshow in a larger history.

[However, being the good student, haha, confirming my sources, haha - I went to Wikipedia to read further. Come on! The section which describes the Illuminati taking over the world comes in a section called New World Order (Conspiracy Theory) [16 July 10, sic]. My goodness. The crap that some people believe in - it's incredible. Obama and Bush are members. Goodness gracious.]

4. They even say: Political conspiracies are linked to aliens.

I say: Bravo! This one takes the cake!

The fact that conspiracy theorists don't even agree on what the story is, other than a few broad outlines, suggests that they are crackpots bent on selling books and other paraphenalia. I will deal with this one: political conspiracies are linked to aliens, BENT ON SUBJUGATING HUMANITY.

Are there no bounds to stupidity? To believe this, one must either conclude that world leaders are human puppets or aliens. Is that the conclusion? Why would the aliens want to do that, when presumably they can take over the world directly? Well, if they went so far as to impersonate leaders or to have a cabal in high places without many of us noticing, then their technology should be enough to take over the world.

To conclude, I say: use common sense. I know that in a normal distribution there will be definitely some definitely stupid people (definitely people). Not everyone is clever. However, those fellows who believe in aliens and conspiracies should follow these simple, really simple, rules:

1. Does the statement accord with common sense?

2. Why should I take this person's word for it?

3. Can I believe everything I read on the Internet? This applies even to my article.

4. Use the 5Ws and 1H:where, why, what, when, who and how?

5. Challenge everything.

6. Is there a more parsimonious explanation (simpler solution)?

I am preaching to the converted: presumably, if you read this you're an educated, clever person who wants to read my take on literature, philosophy, economics, history, psychology and mentalism. So that's a selection bias.

(But, however, yet, if you believe in aliens and alien conspiracy theories... shame on you!)

Conspiracy theories about aliens... trying to take over the world. True or false?

Use your blain, use your blain, use your blain (Uncle Phua).

In English: Use common sense!

To read my article on "Did Aliens Build the Pyramids?" go here.

Anything that interests me!

Tyler Cowen's Make Him Fight Dragons Applied

2010-07-12T19:56:00.000-07:00

Tyler Cowen's Make Him Fight Dragons Applied

OK, I have been meaning to write (I mean "right") this for a long time. I had a talk with an acquaintance - I mean, friend - of mine and she had told me about her dream man. I say "dream man" advisedly; after all, a dream isn't real, and the man she was telling me about wasn't real at all.

Now I had put the conversation behind me (it was a fortnight ago!) and was going about my normal, everyday life when I read Tyler Cowen's "Discover Your Inner Economist". Well, of course, I read economics books - I have an Economics degree, remember? The thing is that you might wonder what a talk with a friend about her dream man and Tyler Cowen's book have in common. The key thing is signalling.

Although some may argue that economists have absolutely no right to go around poking their noses in affairs of the heart and relationships, Cowen rightly points out that it is all a matter of signalling. People are constantly signalling to each other and in the case of dating it is particularly and obviously, well, obvious.

Cowen calls the particular approach of advertising clearly and specifically the qualities that a woman wants in a man the "Make Him Fight Dragons" approach. This is a direct kind of signalling rather than the more indirect and surreptitious kind of signalling that we are used to in daily life. Basically, the woman tells her potential suitors all her requirements and then the men self-select. In other words, the men can see what kind of man she wants, and then they have to decide if they can take such a huge "dose" (I plagiarise here) of her.
Now, what's that got to do with my friend? She goes around telling everybody about her dream guy she wants to marry. I recorded down the qualities because I was flabbergasted - I mean wonderfully amazed - at her specificity. This is one girl who appears to know what she wants (although I am pretty sure she doesn't really know what she wants).

MLQH's dream man:

1. He must share her goals and beliefs.
2. He must be of the same religion (she is Pentecostalian/"rabid Protestantish"/ she's from New Creation Church).
3. He must be rich or have the potential to become incredibly wealthy.
4. He cannot have had girlfriends before.
5. He must be a virgin.
6. He cannot be shorter than her (and my friend in question is at least 1.64m)
7. He cannot criticise her.
8. He must be absolutely honest with her.
9. He must drive.
10. He cannot be younger but also cannot be more than 5 years older.
11. He doesn't smoke.
12. He must be self made (i.e. not reliant on parents or inheritance).
13. He isn't insecure or clingy.
14. He must be able to interact with her professors (and she is going to be a PhD holder in the nursing and medical care profession!!!).
15. He must be educated to at least a first degree level.
16. He must be of the same wavelength as her.
17. He must wine and dine her and pay for all dates.
18. Above all, he must pay for their matrimonial home and all their expenses when married.
19. All these he does willingly.

Now, I am a really sporting man and would like to wager on this one. The man here doesn't exist - my friend seems to have taken Cowen's idea of Making Him Fight Dragons to the extreme.

Let us assume as a simplifying assumption that in the general world population, each of the above conditions has a 50% probability, or 0.5. You'd agree with me that this is merely a simplifying condition as not half of all men smoke, and certainly less than 50% of the men in the world have at least a first degree, not 50% of all the men on earth are wealthy, and so on and so forth. Also, as a specific case, it is highly unrealistic that half the men in the world are between 0 and 5 years older than my friend. Thus, this simplifying assumption serves as a maximum, upper bound of how many men worldwide are likely to fulfil her conditions.

Let us also further assume that the dream man, the inamorato, the ideal man is willing to marry her with a 50% probability and that he is neither gay, nor bisexual, nor a celibate priest, nor married already, nor someone who does not want to marry. Two more conditions (he "wants her", and he is "eligible"), each with a 0.5 chance as per my earlier assumption.

OK, since these conditions must hold simultaneously, this means that the probability of finding this dream man (upper bound) is: 0.5 to the power of 21, which works out to be 0.000000476. The world population is currently about 6.6 billion, and let's just assume that half of them are men - so that makes 3.3 billion men (but bear in mind that some of them are still children and some of them are geriatrics). This makes her scope 1573 possible men! If the probability drops to 0.4 for each condition, her scope drops to 14 men. If it drops to 0.3 for each condition, there are 0 men. I really don't fancy her chances.

However, Cowen does suggest another method, called the Honey Trap method. Aha, this one seems more promising. The method goes something like this: attract as many men as possible and interview, review and select those that seem nice, fit your qualities, etc, etc. The problem with the Fighting Dragons method is that if the conditions are too stringent, it puts off possible eligible knights who conclude that it is too difficult to rescue the damsel; they'd rather go for the Honey Trap and take their chances against other guys instead. Maybe my friend should try that.

Interesting material. Anyways, finally - I've got it off my chest.

PS If you're interested in dating my friend, do be sure that you fulfil all her criteria and that you are either in palliative care, medicine or some nursing research field. And she is one rough, tough cookie!

Anything that interests me!

How to Get First Class Honours in Economics at NUS

2010-05-31T05:12:00.000-07:00

How to Get First Class Honours in Economics at NUS

I am so, so, so very glad that I got my first class honours and can finally graduate from NUS. It has been a very good experience in terms of meeting many interesting people, going on student exchange, and all the things that I have learnt there - German, economics, history, USP modules, and relationships. For those of you who happened to be passing by and were looking for the keywords "how to get first class honours at NUS", I tricked you into coming here. But since you're here, there are some words of wisdom... right after I do the thank yous.

There are so many people I want to thank for my good academic results and to name all of them would make this post both long and boring. So I will just focus on two of them. One of them trained me long and hard in writing, thinking, analysing and being an all rounded scholar, and I am eternally grateful. For it wasn't just about the content that I learnt - the discipline and tenacity that I absorbed were also instrumental qualities in my academic journey. If there are any pearls of wisdom I can pass on to my students and to future generations of NUS students, it is that discipline and tenacity are crucial traits, among others. Thank you, my discipline master - dad.

The other one doesn't know any economics or history - maybe a little bit of economics. She remembers vaguely doing the damn subject in JC. She can't recall even the most basic concepts of it, and as for history - she's a scientist and has no idea what history is about. Historical facts, argumentation, debate, reasons or verbal legerdermain are not her cup of tea. Yet she has been instrumental in my first class degree. She helped me check my datasets when I collected reams of data. She stood by my side when I had to spend long hours at the computers. Thank you, Bunny, for always being there for me when I needed encouragement and support. Moral support is as important as physical or direct or actual support.

How does one get a first class honours in Economics at NUS?

Hahahahaha! I've absolutely no idea. But here are some things that I did, and those can maybe inspire you.

1. You have to be willing to work long and hard. I mean long hours and hard work. Long hours: I spent almost five to twelve hours in the Central Library every day - on top of lectures and tutorials. Hard work: for instance, for Econometrics - a bane of existence for most undergraduates unless they're math majors - I did the entire textbook... at least thrice. I got an A+, did I mention?

2. You need to get help for mathematics and statistics. Unless you're a math major or a stats major, it is very likely that you're in my position - you know some math and some stats, but you can't seem to prove the Stolper-Samuelson theorem or Rybczynski theorem. I mean, even though I did the module and once knew how to do to the Rybczynski theorem by heart, it was thanks to getting good help from my trusty friend, Roastbird. He helped me out also for Econometrics 2 - a killer module. Get help from real mathematicians or real statisticians! We're economists.

I have to point out that before I entered university, I studied mathematical economics on my own and therefore am not a typical, average student to begin with. However, studying mathematical economics and learning to use the Lagrangian multiplier in constrained maximisation, etc..., only allows you to be the usual, standard, run-of-the-mill student at NUS. In other words, knowing mathematics makes you the average guy only. No first class. I kid you not.

3. You need to get friends. This is related to point 2, but point 2 is about the importance of mathematics and statistics and how your A level math or whatever isn't going to give you any advantage. Friends on the other hand... help you with tutorials, help you with lectures, lend you materials, give you heads-up... what else can I say? Get economics friends! Quod erat demonstrandum.

4. You need to get a good supervisor, and start working early on your thesis. This is because in NUS you need to get an A- or better for your thesis to get first class honours, on top of a sterling CAP. These are self evident arguments above, so I won't explain further. Finding a good supervisor and a good thesis topic are all topics that can take up entire posts or even entire blogs!

5. You need luck. I am entitled to hindsight bias, and thus can say platitudes that "see, I told you all along", "I'm an economics genius", "I'm a scholar", or my all time favourite (and many of my friends either hear this from my mouth or label me as such) "I'm a genius". Hahaha! How nice if that were true. However, if you're reading this post, I'll have to be really honest with you and say that luck plays a small but significant role.

It was luck that I found a substitute topic for my behavioural economics thesis on reference points.

It was luck that when I ran econometric models, they turned out well after all and I found loss aversion, the result that I was looking for.

It was also luck that despite me not being able to solve the mathematical problems inherent in my research methodology, I still got a first class as the examiners were willing to see beyond the mathematics. It was a challenging yet interesting topic, after all. It was a hard fought battle but luck was on my side.

I have to mention this: I can't find the site, but there was once a girl called Audrey (Lin? I believe) who wrote about her getting first class honours at NUS. She had a hard last semester, doing all sorts of hard modules on top of the thesis, and then eventually she got her degree. She seemed to have a harder time than me (I completed the USP in year 4 sem 1.) However, she attributed it to God helping her (in addition to thanking her family). I think that was humble and correct of her. She has her head on properly. When it comes to research, hard work is important but luck plays a significant role.

Anyways I've to conclude now. Dinner beckons. Thanks to all my friends and your kind support! However, if you're an undergraduate at NUS seeking for that elusive first class at NUS, good luck to you and do keep my advice in mind. We old birds know how hard it is, and respect you if you're willing to give your degree your best shot. Consider it a tournament. Consider the degree valuable. After all, I myself did enjoy my research before getting my honours. All the best!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Some quotes that interest me

2010-04-29T09:06:00.001-07:00

Some quotes that interest me

I rehashed the quotes and comments as I am reorganising my Anything that Interests Me blog, so please make do with these rehashed but very useful quotes! Heh. I finished my last paper today and have tasted the sweet taste of freedom - at least for the next few months, before I end up back in school. I spend my whole life in school - ironically or actually - and in multiple ways and in different positions. But for now: "ORD" loh :p

Good luck for my comrades who are still in school!

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

The heights by great men reached and kept,
Were not attained by sudden flight,
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upward in the night.

And one comment on love:

O lieb, so lang du lieben kannst!

O lieb, so lang du lieben kannst!
O lieb, so lang du lieben magst!
Die Stunde kommt, die Stunde kommt,
Wo du an Gräbern stehst und klagst!
Und sorge, daß dein Herze glüht
Und Liebe hegt und Liebe trägt,
So lang ihm noch ein ander Herz
In Liebe warm entgegenschlägt!
Und wer dir seine Brust erschließt,
O tu ihm, was du kannst, zulieb!
Und mach ihm jede Stunde froh,
Und mach ihm keine Stunde trüb!
Und hüte deine Zunge wohl,
Bald ist ein böses Wort gesagt!
O Gott, es war nicht bös gemeint -
Der Andre aber geht und klagt.
O lieb, so lang du lieben kannst!
O lieb, so lang du lieben magst!
Die Stunde kommt, die Stunde kommt,
Wo du an Gräbern stehst und klagst!
Dann kniest du nieder an der Gruft,
Und birgst die Augen, trüb und naß-
sie sehn den Andern nimmermehr -
In's lange, feuchte Kirchhofsgras.
Und sprichst: O schau auf mich herab
Der hier an deinem Grabe weint!
Vergib, daß ich gekränkt dich hab!
O Gott, es war nicht bös gemeint!
Er aber sieht und hört dich nicht,
Kommt nicht, daß du ihn froh umfängst;
Der Mund, der oft dich küßte, spricht
Nie wieder: ich vergab dir längst!
Er that's, vergab dir lange schon,
Doch manche heiße Träne fiel
Um dich und um dein herbes Wort -
Doch still - er ruht, er ist am Ziel!
O lieb, so lang du lieben kannst!
O lieb, so lang du lieben magst!
Die Stunde kommt, die Stunde kommt,
wo du an Gräbern stehst und klagst!

For the benefit of non German speaking loyal readers and to show off my erudition (and silliness), I am going to translate the first few lines without any reference to dictionaries or online translators (which are often unreliable anyway). Here goes:

O lieb, so lang du lieben kannst!
O lieb, so lang du lieben magst!
Die Stunde kommt, die Stunde kommt,
Wo du an Gräbern stehst und klagst!

O love, while you can love!
O love, while you wish to love!
The time will come, the time is almost here,
When you stand before the grave of your loved one and cry!

I feel like stealing Beethoven's phrase - nah, I shall:

Muss es sein?
Es muss sein.

Must it be?
It must be.

Good luck with exams all my friends, readers and hardworking students who happen to pass by here. Cheers!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Behavioural Economics

2010-04-21T19:58:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - Behavioural Economics

I am back! Technically, I am supposed to be studying for my last two papers, but I've decided (rationally) that I should not put in lots of effort and instead do the bare minimum (sorry teacher!). Well, as you know, the main thing that counts for me - at least - is getting my honours degree, and with the thesis submitted... I shudder to think about it. I hope I get first class; I really do.

It's been a long four years of education here and I'm about to graduate and leave this place. On Wednesday, I even went down to sign the contract with my employer about the date I shall start work. So it looks like for the moment my formal education is almost over, unless of course I manage to get the scholarship to LSE, in which case, my formal education will be over next year in 2011.

In any case, I decided to let this post be a reflection of what I've learnt in behavioural economics, one very interesting and controversial subfield in Economics.

Let's try a few isolated points. People don't integrate assets, but rather use different mental accounting rules to make decisions on gambles and money. Isn't that curious?

It's curious because most people would say "duh", but economists think that you shouldn't bother about various mental accounts, since it's the total sum of wealth (the whole thing) that you should be concerned with.

Also, most people think differently from economists about the topic of inflation. Isn't that curious?

It's curious because economists (especially Lucas, who came up with the Misperceptions Model) believe that people do know the models that economists use. However, in real life, people don't think the same as economists do.

Next, people have money illusion - they tend to, broadly, see nominal increases as very important when they should be bothering about real increases. Isn't that curious?

It's curious because the same people can work out that inflation reduces what they can actually buy with a given sum of money. However, the same people are overjoyed when their income rises less than inflation does. Consider this example:

Inflation 10%
Wage increase 10%
Real increase 0% (because the wage increase just offsets inflation)

Yet it turns out that people would be happier in the above case relative to the next case:

Inflation 2%
Wage increase 3%
Real increase 1% (because the wage increase is more than the inflation)

The list goes on and on. So bear with me for two more examples.

People procrastinate. Isn't that curious?

It's curious because it means that people are not time consistent and they are not maximising their utility... or is it? The thing is that the present moment has a saliency that traditional standard economics ignores. Self 1 of a person wishes to do his homework at period 2, but when period 2 comes, it now becomes the present. Again, he wishes to postpone doing the homework till period 3, and so on. (Interesting stuff - but simplified to fit inside this academic blog.)

I think the best part about the course that struck me was the part on happiness.

There's a hedonic treadmill, and there's a satisfaction treadmill. Treadmill effects are basically effects that wear off, much like a treadmill that keeps going backwards as you are running forwards. You keep on running, but you don't get anywhere - precisely because it's a treadmill.

A hedonic treadmill means that people don't seem to get any happier because they adapt to happiness levels. As they get richer, they don't get any happier because now it takes much more leisure or things or enjoyment to make them happier. That's a hedonic treadmill.

On the other hand, a satisfaction treadmill is that people don't seem to get any happier because of changing aspirations. That means that as people get richer, their aspirations change. What used to make them happy is not enough now. You can see that the reverse is also true. The satisfaction treadmill also suggests that as people break their limbs or become incredibly poor, their aspiration levels are lowered, and hence they don't need as much to make them happy when they're paralysed or poor. Some kind of aspiration change occurs.

Interesting stuff eh?

As interesting, and related, is that happiness is found in the moment, yet happiness can also be memory-based and remembered.

Here is where behavioural economics seems akin to philosophy.

Do we remember - mind the pun - to fully immerse ourselves in the moment and feel happy when we are on holiday, or do we keep on taking pictures to reminisce on our holiday later?

Are we busy enjoying the moment when we savour food, or are we constantly thinking of how happy we were eating that burger yesterday or how happy we are going to be eating that burger later?

Cool stuff. Now I get back to studying for my degree.

Anything that interests me! :)

Anything that interests me - Did Aliens Build Any Damn Thing?

2010-02-24T03:13:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me - Did Aliens Build Any Damn Thing?
I am supposed to be studying, but then again, I'm taking a break. The funny thing is that whenever I have breaks, I blog on this site and not on the others which generate far more income for me. What kinda economist am I? Oh well. Anyways, then again, this site interests me more.

I was visiting my granny's place (mind you, that was some time ago) when I met an uncle of mine, who told me this incredible tale of aliens and how they were in our midst. He also told me about a gigantic Illuminati plan to take over the world, and, among other things, how the Rothschilds really were aliens.

I took down copious notes; I thought I was going to be able to write that all into a conspiracy book or a conspiracy theory and make lots of money from it. However, I was sorely disappointed. It turns out that this conspiracy theory is old hat. I shall write more about conspiracy theories in another post - this one is dedicated to answering the more specific question that I came across on the Internet. What question, you might ask.

I was doing my thesis materials one day - fairly recently - when I decided to take a break, and click on the youtube video of the day or something like that. It was "Did Aliens Build the Pyramids?" It sounded interesting, and besides the conspiracy theorists might be right, and also perhaps I could listen to this bullshit/ horseshit for entertainment. Oh well, click.

The Great Pyramids are too huge and too big for humans to build; even our modern construction techniques are not as accurate as the pyramid builders' techniques; these pyramids were based on mathematical constructs not invented then. The UFOlogists proclaimed that therefore the Great Pyramids must have been constructed by aliens.

Well, that was great entertainment.

My answer is no, the Great Pyramids weren't built by aliens.

The first tiny little problem is that there already is a great dispute whether aliens and UFOs exist. In fact, there are other documentaries that have suggested that aliens and UFOs were basically symptoms of the Cold War, where spyplanes and other technologies could be misconstrued by the other side to be alien spacecraft. I intended to write an entire post on that, including the facts, but I'm too lazy. Suffice to say that as

the Cold War intensified,
the number of UFO sightings went up...

and most of the UFO sightings were primarily near military or air bases, and always in the belligerent countries. (There is only one known exception, perhaps - the two times when UFOs flew over Washington and the White House.)

So we aren't even sure whether UFOs exist in the first case or not.

But the real crux of the matter is: are there any other possible construction methods that do not involve aliens? That is, are there more rational and obvious explanations?

The problem that UFOlogists see is that the ancient people were simply too primitive for such projects, and that the Hebrew slaves weren't numerous in number to build the Great Pyramids. However, it turns out that if you think hard enough there are always easier ways of building things.

Ramps, for instance, don't simply have to be ramps.

One such theory is Jean-Pierre Houdin's internal ramp hypothesis. The problem that had baffled many for centuries is that any ramp to build the damn thing would have to be very high and long, and discarding it after the project would leave some obvious trace. Yet there have been little signs of any such gigantic ramps.

Yet, clearly some ramp was needed, or else "aliens would have done it" would appear much more convincing.

"Where's the big ramp?" the UFOlogists scream. "No ramp - must mean aliens did it."

Houdin's elegant solution - done with mathematical models and an architect's training, no less - was that the ramp was internal. The mistake is to assume that the ramp was on the outside. What if, the ramp was actually on the inside, and the builders built the pyramid, kind of like, from the inside? Basically, to borrow a documentary's point of view (when the host interviewed Houdin) : "It's like a wedding cake." This was proven when scientists scanned one of the Great Pyramids and validated what Houdin theorised.

Now, between :

Aliens did it. (They come from outer space and are more advanced. They used advanced technology. No humans can do this.)

and

The pyramids were built using internal ramps, much like a wedding cake, where all the slaves did was to go round and round the ramp with the materials, and when it was done, the ramp would disappear because it was inside.

Also, a bunch of people have also managed to build a pyramid for TV - turns out that when you try it, it ain't that difficult with enough people. Mind you, if you remember that the pharoah was the king of the entire country and was on a par with - dare I say it - God or the Sun himself, then the puzzle falls into place. The dictator forced the people to do it.

Rational explanations, rational explanations. Obvious ones too.

So we realise that humans can do it; there are more commonsensical things that have eluded UFOlogists; and the King was a dictator who would indeed build giant complexes for his afterlife.

I'm with Houdin on this.

Aliens?

Well, perhaps if you consider Hebrews aliens, which they are - legally or technically speaking - then aliens built the pyramids. But not the green little furry or nonfurry creatures you thought. Sorry UFOlogists!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Goedel... or Dangerous Thoughts

2010-02-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me - Goedel... or Dangerous Thoughts
There are so many things I want to write about, and there are so many topics that interest me, and then guess what - when I am at the Chinese New Year's dinner, people tell me how famous I am in the blogosphere (when all I really want is lots of nice, high paying advertisements, and lots of visitors who click and then leave). One of my family members even reported that her friends managed to work out the names, information and data of my brother, my mother and everyone, including my name, even though it's not explicitly mentioned on this site! Better still is the fact that the same family member informed me that "your writing is too cheeeeeem" and "it's very solid". Well, as I said, these things interest me - whether they interest you or not is another matter; and I have other sites too (so, it puzzles me as to why they read this one about my personal life and the myriad thoughts inside my head, but not the finance, economics, travel and whatnot other blogs that really make me the dough).

Anyways, after a long and unrelated front part, quite unlike the strict "THEME - TOPIC - SIGNIFICANCE - KBP - THESIS - ANTI-THESIS - SYNTHESIS" that I follow when writing academic materials or papers, I shall begin on Dangerous Thoughts.

I was watching a documentary on Kurt Goedel. This, mind you, was a long time ago, so do take note that I am not writing some encyclopedia entry or something. I also read a book about Time and Goedel universes, and indeed took notes about the documentary and the book. The only thing is - I can't find the notes anywhere, so my memory and my words are just going to have to do.

Basically, the documentary Dangerous Thoughts was about how certain ideas drove their authors mad. It dealt with Goedel, Boltzmann (of the Maxwell-Boltzmann fame), Alan Turing and Georg Cantor.

They all went mad because they tried, as per the Enlightenment and scientific rationality, to prove certainty in an uncertain world. The problem is, the higher they climbed, the more they realised that certainty was a sham.

So I take Goedel for example. The thing he's most famous for is - more accurately "are" - the incompleteness theorem.

It turns out, forgive my simple English, that there can never be a consistent and complete mathematical system; if a system is consistent, it can never be complete. I would phrase it, in my own words, as something like the following:

There are things that we can prove for sure.
There are things that we can know for sure.
Yet there are some things that we can know for sure yet cannot prove, within the system of reasoning or logic that we are using.

I am not a very technical person. For those of you more inclined towards technicality, I borrow freely from Wikipedia:

"...it is not possible for any proof that Peano Arithmetic is consistent to be carried out within Peano arithmetic itself" (Wiki).

To understand that, the way I did, you probably need to know that David Hilbert posed mathematical problems in 1900, one of which was: "Prove that arithmetic is consistent." Or put another way, prove that Peano arithmetic is consistent. Those by the way are axioms for the natural numbers. Goedel's main contribution is that he proves that it is not possible for any proof that Peano arithmetic is consistent to be carried out within the system itself.

Mind boggling!!

Turns out that the good old Kurt Goedel believed that we can have intuitions that tell us that things can be a certain way, yet we can never prove or know for sure. In simple terms - certainty is kaputt. I think Cantor comes in here too. Goedel's proof basically shows that the continuum hypothesis (of Cantor) cannot be proved or disproved, given that set theory is consistent. In other words, common sense is also kaputt. Good grief. Of course the only way out is intuition, since that how's good old Goedel thought about his contributions. He felt that he and Einstein were kindred spirits because of intuitions they had about the world.

Now bear me out with this extrapolation - which may or may not work - if human beings think and operate in the same way as computers do (as Turing suggested, often in fact), and computers all suffer from the incompleteness theorem...

Then humans all suffer from the incompleteness theorem.

There are things that we can never prove!

Anything that interests me!

PS Ohhhhh, I've lots to say about aliens - "the Great Pyramids: were they made by aliens or by plain old hard work?" "Do the Illuminati still exist and wish to take over the world?" "Do UFOs come from outer space (and other planets?)?" Stay tuned for the greatest conspiracies this side of the planet.

Anything that interests me: Can people ever stop being emotional?

2010-02-08T02:21:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me: Can people ever stop being emotional?

Do not read this if you're very emotional!

I was supposed to do the dataset for my thesis, and indeed I've been working hard at it. However, I have a question in my head, which interests me, and now I'm talking out loud:

Can people ever stop being emotional?

I study Economics, and have done so for close to 6 years now. I've A, S levels, and now I am heading towards a degree. Yet, I am still as emotional as ever. What happened to homo economicus?

Three studies: one is from The Pupil, a TV show; the other is Ella of SHE fame; and the last is from my previous girlfriend.

Now call me the world's foremost genius, but Adrian Pang's character Dennis Tang is quite arrogant, proud, rude, and probably your typical stereotypical lawyer destined for a bad afterlife - at first glance.

However, I think he's quite sympatisch! The reason is that when I watched the cases when he fought against MOE and when he helped the yong tau hu seller, I felt that he was actually deep down a very good man. The reason is as follows:

He had to stand up to his father's approbation, as well as a lot of flak for taking up such a case, but at the same time, one can see that he clearly wanted to help the little boy. He even felt bad when the principal collapsed, when he wasn't actually responsible. He struck me as a good guy! Sympatisch, latent and underlying as it may be, as I say.

When he helped the yong tau hu woman, he was really being kind at the expense of his billings - which are very important to him. I also liked how he bothered to listen to the little girl's (come on, anyone younger than me is little) story about how the rich treat the poor and downtrodden badly.

I almost fell in love with him! But I'm not gay.

What I mean to say, seriously, is that the championing of the underdog is what really makes me watch the show. (Apart from the pretty Rebecca Lim, but that's a different story.) I nearly cried when I heard the little girl's story. My heart went out to Dennis Tang when he tried to pretend that he wasn't affected by the collapse of the principal.

Wow. Bugger me; I'm very emotional.

Secondly, I happened to pass by the TV when my mother was watching some soppy love story with Ella in it. Normally, I turn off the TV whenever I see Ella, but now I can say that she has to be the best actress in the entire SHE outfit.

She got dumped by her boyfriend, and lost her job in the restaurant, all in the same day. I felt very very very sorry for her already, despite knowing that it's only a TV show.

Worse still, when her boyfriend threw the sweater she made away, I burst out in tears! My mother called this show a two-tissue show (the higher number of tissues, the more sad it is) but I would have given it a three-tissue rating.

I can't speak Mandarin all that well, so here's my translation:

"Do you know how long I took to make that sweater? Once, he saw it on the internet (or e bay) and remarked how he loved that. I had no money, so I went out to buy the same materials and sewed the sweater for him. Do you know how long it was to do that? Do you know how tough it was?"

Yours truly, who writes a blog devoted to rationality, the Enlightenment, reason, economics and social sciences, a trainee Economist with a capital E, bawled his lungs out. Embarrassingly, indeed, but true.

The last thing that broke the proverbial camel's back and made me write this, when I should be working, was that I recently wanted to take up poetry once again. So, the first place I looked was in my email to retrieve some of the poems I wrote for my ex-girlfriend.

Most of you probably reach the conclusion faster than I can write.

So let me preemtively do some drama and act as Ella's character:

"Do you know how long and hard it was, especially when I was so busy with many things, to write those sonnets? Those poems that have a fixed pattern and fixed iambic pentameter? Do you know how long it was to do that? Do you know how tough it was? Do you know how much love I put into those? How hard I tried to impress you, and how happy I was when you read them and loved them? And how I imbued them with meaning and thought that we would last forever, just like the words would?"

Roughly that came into my mind. Flooded and rushed in, would be more appropriate terms. As well as a whole myriad of thoughts and feelings on how we separated; how I tried to win her back; then how I thought she never wanted to see me again and so I said goodbye; how she then cried; how I then realised she still loved me; how we talked things through; how we tried to be friends for a while; how I badly wanted it to remain this way; then how she suddenly changed her stand and didn't want to see me ever again, leaving me confused.

I will never forget those in my entire life. My ex-girlfriend's own friend, Hil, told me that it takes a lifetime to forget someone you loved. It's very true; I'd say it's because we are very emotional creatures.

The same reason why I cry when watching a law drama. The same reason I cry when watching Ella on TV (and not because of how ugly she looks - OK, I'm sorry!). Despite 6 years of Economics, and a lifetime of theoretical constructs and knowledge about sunk costs, opportunity costs and whatnot, I can't stop being emotional.

I don't think anyone can stop being emotional.

PS Old hat. I probably talked about this theme before.

PPS I shall talk about Godel soon; when shall I have the time to blog?!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Invictus, The Man in the Arena by Teddy, and my thoughts

2010-01-17T03:11:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me - Invictus, The Man in the Arena by Teddy, and my thoughts

Warning - movie spoilers

I watched Invictus today and it inspired me. Basically, Invictus is about the 1995 South African rugby success and how Nelson Mandela reunited his divided country through sport. I think it's really incredible that men can forgive others who have done all sorts of terrible things to them.

Also, on a happier note I found some sayings very funny ... but nonetheless true:

"You've a tough job ahead of you..." - Mandela

"Not as tough as yours" - Captain of Rugby Team, Francois

"At least people don't want to chop my head off!" - Mandela

"Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans, and rugby is a hooligans' game played by gentleman." Security Man.

And above all, the most important thing is the poem "Invictus" itself:

Invictus
William E. H.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

I read that it turns out that Mandela did not give Francois Pienaar "Invictus" before the 1995 Rugby World Cup, but instead another poem called "The Man in the Arena".

The Man in the Arena
By Teddy Roosevelt

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

I think the poem and the nice speech by Teddy are very motivational and inspiring.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Oli P's songs are nice

2010-01-07T20:11:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me - Oli P's songs are nice

Well, the title says it all... almost. I was listening to Alizee on youtube and also to Clemence St Preux, but I figured that if I posted French lyrics on my personal blog, I'd have lots of emails and concerned letters from friends, such as "Why are you turning Frenchy?", or "I thought you spoke German, not French?" or "Is everything alright?!" (Yeah, but I tried to learn French too, you know.)

So what about a song that has both French and German lyrics? Here it is:

Das Erste Mal Tats Noch Weh - Oli P lyrics

Es war ein strahlend blauer Himmel,
wir lagen an der Seine,
ich dachte es hält für immer,
doch dann kam das Aufwidersehen.

Mit nem roten Lippenstift,
an den Spiegel rangeschmiert,
ich war am ende, man,
Was ist mit dem Mann passiert?

Der ich mal war, war immer oben auf,
einfach unnahbar!
Es war so wunderbar (si ne vie je)
Was ich sprach an der die Liebe zerbrach,
wir lebten damals nur im heute,
doch was kam danach?

Zeit kommt und geht,
wenn der Wind weht,
liebe kommt und geht,
wenn man sich nicht versteht!
Ich schlucke meine Schmerzen runter
wenn ich dich seh!
Doch jeder Gedanke an damals
tut noch immer weh!
Tut noch immer weh
und tut noch immer weh...

Das erste Mal tat`s noch weh,
beim zweiten Mal nicht mehr so sehr.
Und heut' weiß ich daran stirbt man nicht mehr.

Meme si ma vie je la joue a pile ou face, come l`amour.
Je ne peux pas avoir le talent tous les jours.

Wir wussten’s beide,
aber wir sprachen nicht darüber,
die Beziehung war schon längst hinüber - vorüber.

Worüber wir nie sprachen,
aber sprechen müssen,
wir sind keins mehr,
von den jungen Paaren die sich küssen

Zeit kommt und geht,
wenn der wind weht,
liebe kommt und geht,
und es tut trotzdem weh!
In Blutrote Lettern am Spiegel „au revoir“,
Kam der Schmerz so plötzlich
oder
war er immer da?

War er immer da,
war er immer da?

Das erste Mal tat`s noch weh,
beim zweiten Mal nicht mehr so sehr.
Und heut` weiß ich daran stirbt man nicht mehr.

Meme si ma vie je la joue a pile ou face, come l`amour.
Je ne peux pas avoir le talent tous les jours.

Mit wieviel Typen bist du diesen Weg gegangen?
Warum hast du’s nicht gesagt,
warum hast du mir das angetan?
Ich hab ein déjà-vue was deine Fehler betraf,
mit jedem Kuss auf deine Lippen hast du mich bestraft!!
Und es tut noch immer weh!!

Heut weiß ich stirbt man nicht mehr!
Meme si ma vie je la joue a pile ou face, come l`amour.
Je ne peux pas avoir le talent tous les jours.
Tous le jours.

Das erste Mal tat`s noch weh
beim zweiten Mal nicht mehr so sehr.
Und heut' weiß ich daran stirbt man nicht mehr....

It's pretty meaningful but a very sad song. At least for me!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Resolutions for this year and ... You're The Best Lyrics!

2010-01-06T06:49:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me - Resolutions for this year and ... You're The Best Lyrics!

I survived my examinations and it looks like another dean's list for me. But Macroeconomics under Basant was unforgiving and very, very difficult, I can tell you!

EC4101 Microeconomic Analysis III A
EC4102 Macroeconomic Analysis III B
HY2250 Introduction to Southeast Asian History A+
SE1101E Southeast Asia: A Changing Region A+
UIS3912 Independent Study Module A+
USP3506 Religions in the Contemporary World A+

But now I'm sweating blood over my thesis, it doesn't look like there's a nice clean road ahead of me but more blood, toil, tears and sweat.

Here are my resolutions and goals for this year, 2010! And as I've mentioned, on so many countless occasions, this is the site on "Anything that Interests Me!"

Yeah. Here they are:

1. The best that I can do for my Honours Thesis. Preferably an A or A-.

2. I shall be less arrogant! That's going to be difficult, but I'll try.

3. I shall earn $X (*censored*) for my investment fund. In May 2010, I shall invest in three counters. However, to avoid coat-tailing (basically, to avoid people from investing in the same stocks as I do, or riding on my financial or investment successes), I cannot tell you what they are at the moment. But they should be similar to these:

- 1 x REIT
- 1 x growth stock
- 1 x Peter Lynch's stalwart or slow growth counters.

Or then again, any stock I fancy.

Or then again, my dream stock... which I can't tell you about.

4. I shall be one of the best students at Y (*censored, again!!*).

5. I shall learn mathematics from my colleagues.

6. I shall also do my best at whatever duties I'm given.

7. I shall always:

(a) Say "Yes."
(b) Give regular reports.
(c) Ask for help.
(d) Get on well with others.

Happy New Year to all my readers, friends, colleagues, allies, lovers, buddies, passerbys and padawans,

May the road rise to greet you and may all your wishes and resolutions ring true this beautiful and blessed year. Happy Belated New Year!

And now, for the second part, a very motivational song (probably from the great movie Karate Kid, which I loved very much as a child):

Joe 'Bean' Esposito - You're The Best Lyrics

Try to be the best
'cause you're only a man
and a man's gotta learn to take it

try to believe when the going gets rough
that you gotta hang tough to make it

History repeats itself
try and you'll succeed

never doubt that you're the one
and you can have your dream

you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

Fight till the end
'Cause your life will depend
On the strength that you have inside you

Gotta be proud standing out in the crowd
when they odds of the game defy you

try your best to win them all
and one day time will tell
when you're the one that's standing there
you've reached the final bell

you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down
you're the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

Fight till you drop
Never stop
You can't give up
until you win sometime

(Fight!)
You're the best in town
(Fight!)

Listen to that sound
A little bit of all you've got
Will never bring you down!

I hope you love it :)

Anything that interests me! - my resolutions and goals for 2010, and You're The Best! (motivational song)

Exams are out! :)

2009-12-02T08:14:00.000-08:00

Exams are out! :) And here's a couple of announcements.

Exams are out! :) I survived!

The bad news is that I have to wait for the results and hope for the best. I did well in five modules and really, really bombed out the last one. My only hope is that the famous bell curve at NUS will save me, but it's not likely to happen, because let's face it -

the China students work harder than me, are older and more experienced than me, and their pain-absorbing abilities and abilities to avoid comics, pleasure, fun, pleasure, magic, pleasure, mentalism, pleasure, philosophy et al, ad infinitum, et cetera, blah blah blah are legendary and legion.

However, that's not the only development in my very curious life. As I said, this is an academic blog and you'd find multifarious academic interests here, but it's also my personal blog (yes, dual purpose), and I am going to make a few announcements.

The Ideas on How to Become Rich site and Self Improvement and NLP site, which were created to supplement my income, are now in the hands of S. Klaus. She has a basic degree in business, a diploma from South Korea and a masters from England, so she should have no problems writing on investment, business, entrepreneurship and money for one site and how to improve your self confidence in another.

Hey, outsourcing is a global phenomenon - so I'm no exception there, and I've outsourced two sites to my mother who has a lower opportunity cost of blogging.

It should be again reiterated, for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, I mean, self advertisement, that I have many sites on various subjects. This Anything That Interests Me! is basically about academic thoughts related to philosophy, psychology, history, magic, mentalism, economics, studies and other such things. If you thought that this is the site on money, finance and investment, you're sorely mistaken, and should be visiting it using the links provided gratituously on this post. Ditto, naturally, for the self improvement materials (which are dressed-up common sense masquerading as pseudo-science). Hey, I warned my loyal readers that this post is an advertisement, I mean, notice.

Next announcement is that I am going to be busy typing and conducting research on reference states in prospect theory. For those economist friends of mine, who were thinking that I was going to do economics of religion (since I am an agnostic who is nominally Roman Catholic and against prosperity religions and renegade, rebel Protestant pastors, and their pet poodles) - sorry! I am really interested in rational choice theory and the economics of religion, and surely Iannaccone and Becker have done a lot of good work, and Azzi and Ehrenberg must have put in lots of effort - but I've decided to stick to the foremost First-Class-producing-professor, my mentor, and idol at NUS. No prizes for guessing who :)

Now what was the point of that...? oh yes. I won't be writing much here, but then again do remember that two of my other sites will be producing materials that you can browse.

Now do kindly bear in mind that my mother tongue is English, but Klaus' mother tongue is Hokkien (and a perversion of Mandarin), and hence you can't expect the same quality of language.

Bombast and fustian prose, in grammatical English, you can expect here.

Bombast and fustian prose, you can expect in Klaus' writing. Writings, I mean.

In simple English, I summarise:

I hope I pass this semester. Surprise, surprise.

Klaus is writing my Ideas on How to Become Rich site, and also another one on NLP and self improvement.

I am going to be very busy with the thesis and if you want to hear my thoughts on the economy, magic, philosophy, psychology, and all the rest of that, you'll have to be really lucky when I have time to blog. If you want fustian prose, other blogs have got that. You'll love them, though grammatical they are not.

Good luck to all of us students at university. We're going to be graduates soon! How time flies...

Anything that interests me!

Inspiration

2009-11-22T06:28:00.000-08:00

Inspiration

On Greatness

Do we really want greatness and excellence,
Or do we really want mediocrity?

Are we aiming to be remembered as Maxwell was,
Or are we aiming to be ignored?

Do we have the fire burning within us to attain greatness,
So we can laugh and make merry
When we win the game,
Trifling and simple as it really is?

Do we really know what we really want,
How to get it,
And what to do with it?

We should always remind ourselves that
Others do not care about
"What could have been",
But they do indeed care about
What you are,
Who you are - now.

Who are you?

Who are you and what do you want to be?

"Greatness is easy; greatness is merely hard work and motivation."

PS Special thanks to my brother who inspired this. And me, as well.
PPS Wow, not bad. I can be a professional scriptwriter :p

Anything that interests me!

Some passages from Luke that some people might want to read... carefully!

2009-11-18T09:01:00.001-08:00

Some passages from Luke that some people might want to read... carefully!

From Luke (only, 'cause it's exam time).

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

The Rich Ruler

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.

Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
[Observe that it never says anywhere that when people write and blog against you... because of your pastor or Protestant denomination or whatever. It's when people persecute you because of Jesus only. The main focus is believing in Christ.]

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.

“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.

Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them.

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that.

And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest.”

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

He said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”

Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifeb? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

“Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!

And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

So I still ask, and ask again, the rhetorical question: when you say you are a Christian, do you really mean following Jesus' own words ...

or merely listening to the good things and all the nice stuff that "God will do for you", listening to the prosperity message of pastors and perhaps powerful people who manipulate Jesus' words?

Can you see for yourself the contexts in which the "rewards" of heaven are promised? They are, all of them, spiritual rewards and metaphysical rewards and rewards of some intangible and non-physical nature, and not material prosperity - which Jesus warns against. Check it out.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me will be on a break from now till 30th December - don't worry, I'll remove this post later :)

2009-11-05T21:25:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me will be on a break from now till 30th December - don't worry, I'll remove this post later :)

Notice and rambling post - which will be taken down later, after the examinations :)

Dear friends, computer addicts, surfers, lovers, relatives, neighbours, readers and enemies, I will be having examinations and will be away for a while! So here's my official notice of leave, as I'll be camping at school for the next few weeks, attempting to wrestle with all sorts of Neoclassical and Neokeynesian models (although I'd rather wrestle with supermodels, kind of like the guy in The Ugly Truth).

Finals comprise:

Microeconomics III
Macroeconomics III
Introduction to Southeast Asian History
Southeast Asia: A Changing Region.

Notice how I always cleverly use language to express myself - I mean, to insert keywords surreptitiously in to raise myself up in the search rankings - have you noticed that? I just wanted to say that because I've become known in some circles as "Anything that interests me", which is very interesting, because all I wanted to do was to make "Anything that interests me" the phrase by which I could be found, nothing more.

Of course, don't worry - I also use language to express myself as blatantly and bluntly as is brilliantly bossible. OK, I know, I couldn't complete that sentence with alliterations all the way. Bossible it is.

In any case, may the road rise up to meet you and may you have a pleasant month of November :)

See you in a bit!

PS And on a completely unrelated note, from my fave movie The Rock:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde.

So I must be pretty vicious.

Anything that interests me!

Religious Economy, and City Harvest?

2009-11-03T03:06:00.001-08:00

Religious Economy, and City Harvest?

I am supposed to be writing my religious economy essay and relating it to City Harvest, but I was shocked/amazed/critical to hear this from Ed Silvoso from City Harvest:

"The Lord told me to re-read the Bible, but to wear a different set of glasses. To wear the glasses of the marketplace" (podcast, The Transformation of Cities and Marketplace, City Harvest website - all citations are verbatim transcripts).

By marketplace, it is meant "business, education and government" (cited).

"I was blown away by how central the marketplace is to the work of God!" (cited).

"They are all marketplace miracles!" (cited).

"They always talk about earth, the problems on earth, and God met with that person to give him an annointing..." (cited).

"Jesus was born in the marketplace - in a hotel!" (cited).

and then after his long, long sermon...

"If you want such an annointing, jump to your feet right now!" (cited).

I am an agnostic, and I'm writing an academic paper on the theory of religious economy and City Harvest is my example. As I was conducting the standard research on it, I was already quite uncomfortable with "The Marketplace" icon, which smacked very much of rational choice theory - applied. Applied.

But then I had the misfortune of clicking on the podcasts, where I heard some standard, run-of-the-mill sermons (which Catholic priests do quite badly, sometimes), and then... Ed Silvoso's sermon.

Unfortunately for him, there are people who study secularisation theory, the sociology of religion and whatnot. Wait, isn't there a conflict between the market and religion? He's apparently saying that there's not. Yet, wait again - isn't the market a secular sphere, which is distinct from the religious sphere - and what about all that hoo-ha about commodification, which basically means that the market devalues and debases your beloved religion by making it dollars and cents (or for that matter, my beloved religion)? He's saying that commodification doesn't exist, or is he not? He's saying that secularisation doesn't exist, or is he not?

But I can't be bothered to write any more on such bad, ill-informed, biased and obviously money-oriented sermons. Apart from the beatitudes from none other than Jesus himself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

None of the above says: Blessed are the rich.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Peranakans

2009-10-08T21:59:00.000-07:00

Many times, I've people telling me that Peranakans are Chinese intermarried with Malays. I always have the problem of debunking them intellectually, and how am I to do that given my limited time resources and the many assumptions that go in talking about something that differs from their common understanding?

So I found this from Wikipedia, and was surprised that someone kind of did the talking for me. Peranakans are NOT Chinese intermarried with Malays. I am in fact, ethnic Chinese - being Peranakan for me is about the culture. And the English language (not the Malay language).

The parts that I am talking about:

Some sources claim that the early Peranakan inter-married with the local Malay/Indonesian population; this might derive from the fact that some of the servants who settled in Bukit Cina who traveled to Malacca with the Admiral from Yunnan were Muslim Chinese. Other experts, however, see a general lack of physical resemblance, leading them to believe that the Peranakan Chinese ethnicity has hardly been diluted. *Duh. I am not Malay.*

Some Peranakan distinguish between Peranakan-Baba (those Peranakan with part Malay ancestry) from Peranakan (those without any Malay ancestry).

By the middle of the twentieth century, most Peranakan were English or Dutch-educated, as a result of the Western colonization of Malaya and Indonesia, Peranakans readily embraced English culture and education as a means to advance economically thus administrative and civil service posts were often filled by prominent Straits Chinese. Many in the community to convert to Christianity due to its perceived prestige and proximity to the prefered company of British and Dutch.Because of their interaction with different cultures and languages, most Peranakans were (and still are) trilingual, being able to converse in Chinese, Malay, and English. Common vocations were as merchants, traders, and general intermediaries between China, Malaya and the West; the latter were especially valued by the British and Dutch.

Peranakan culture is disappearing in Malaysia and Singapore. Without colonial British support for their perceived racial neutrality, government policies in both countries following independence from the British have resulted in the assimilation of Peranakans back into mainstream Chinese culture. In Singapore, the Peranakans are classified as ethnically Chinese.

*By the way, it is true that in many academic sources people claim that Peranakans are Chinese intermarried with Malays, and are thus Straits Chinese with Malay blood. However, as I've mentioned, this is a prevalent and erroneous view. In addition, I also admit that some people did indeed intermarry with Malays. It is just that it is wrong to mistake those few people for the entire cultural group. In addition, even those that intermarried later on had descendants that married sinkeh that came from China. Just a clarification - in case one thinks that not a single Baba married a Malay - it's just not true. But it's not the general case either.*

Anything that interests me - Peranakans

Anything that interests me - Religion and my thoughts on Jesus

2009-09-17T09:46:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - Religion and my thoughts on Jesus
I can't sleep, so I shall write a bit before finally going to sleep. I've put up a notice on my travel site telling people that I won't be blogging for a while, because I am preparing for my thesis. I am busy. So why can't I sleep?

I was just thinking about religion. I was very inclined to email/ facebook Hilary and tell her that I have rethought her ideas on religion, and think that there might be some truth to that.

I was frankly quite surprised to see a Protestant pastor state: "Now you know why the Catholic Church didn't let simply anybody read the Bible!" He was referring to the fact that many fundamentalist Christians (read: Protestants) read the Bible out of context and discriminated against homosexuals.

Apparently, Catholics are far more liberal in this respect!

Anyways, the evangelical and fundamentalists state that homosexuality is an abomination because the Bible calls it so. I found that very sad. Because the thing is the Bible also says:

thou shalt not work on the sabbath day...
Do not store up treasures on earth...
women should wear a veil/tudung to church...

And yet conveniently these are ignored, or something. It turns out that there is a vital need to read the Bible in context.

The most ironic thing in life seems to be that I am an agnostic, who's turning into a kind of humanist-Christian, partly because of the Contemporary Religions module I am doing, and partly because of my emotions!

I was very angry and emotional when some people insisted that non-Catholics should not take holy communion. I know the rules. Yes, it's wrong. But rules have meaning, or have a purpose. What's the purpose? That's because, among other reasons, we don't want non-believers to abuse the Body of Christ.

Yet, what if the "non-believer" in question is an acculturalised catholic, who's been to Church in England and has been educated in a catholic school environment, who wants to be catholic, and who is in fact a "good" person?

I was also very turned off by my hero and idol, Derren Brown - when he insulted our collective intelligence by pretending about the lottery. I know it's supposed to be entertainment, but I am not stupid. If rational people who know a lot can trick/cheat/manipulate/bully others, then isn't it - emotionally speaking - up to other rational people to prevent that? Isn't there such a thing as a conscience? And wasn't the Enlightenment for some higher purpose?

I shall end with a song that has ideas from Jesus in it - see if you can identify what I mean (hints are there, of course):

What's wrong with the world, mama?
People living like ain’t got no mamas
I think the whole world’s addicted to the drama
Only attracted to the things that bring trauma
Overseas yeah we’re trying to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here living
In the USA the big CIA the Bloodz and the Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And if you’re hating you're bound to get irate
Yeah madness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
You gotta have love, just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love y'all

People killing, people dying
Children hurting, you hear them crying
Can you practice what you preach
Would you turn the other cheek?
Father Father Father help us
Send some guidance from above
Cause people got me got me questioning
Where is the love?

It just ain't the same all ways have changed
New days are strange is the world the insane?
If love and peace are so strong
Why are there pieces of love that don't belong
Nations dropping bombs
Chemical gases filling lungs of little ones
With ongoing suffering
As the youth die young
So ask yourself is the loving really strong?
So I can ask myself: really what is going wrong
With this world that we living in
People keep on giving in
Making wrong decisions
Only visions of them living and
Not respecting each other
Deny thy brother
The wars' going on but the reasons are undercover
The truth is kept secret
Swept under the rug
If you never know truth
Then you never know love
Where's the love y'all? (I don't know)
Where's the truth y'all? (I don't know)
Where's the love y'all?

People killing, people dying
Children hurting, you hear them crying
Can practice what you preach
Would you turn the other cheek?
Father father father help us
Send some guidance from above
Cause people got me got me questioning
Where is the love?

I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I'm getting older people get colder
Most of us only care about money making
Selfishness has got us following the wrong direction
Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting their young minds faster than bacteria
Kids wanna act like what the see in the cinema
Whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness and equality
Instead of spreading love, we're spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading us away from unity
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feeling under
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feeling down
It's no wonder why sometimes I'm feeling under
I’ve gotta keep my faith alive, until love is found

People killing, people dying
Children hurting, you hear them crying
Can you practice what you preach?
Would you turn the other cheek?
Father Father Father help us
Send some guidance from above
Cause people got me got me questioning
Where is the love?

I am very tired. And I am very down sometimes.

Is all there is just money making? Megachurches that make their pastors rich and their flock simple, dull and unquestioning?! Where's the love? Where's the money going to? And what's happening to the world while they sleep in comfortable beds and live comfortable lives and preach comfortable sermons when people die and go hungry and sell their lives and souls?

Where did Jesus go, for those Protestants who preach hate?

Where did Jesus go, for those Protestants who worship money?

Where did Jesus go, for those Catholics who enforce rules without thinking about embracing others?

Where did Jesus go?

I am very tired. And I am very down sometimes.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Cyril Takayama

2009-08-18T07:28:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - Cyril Takayama

Anybody who knows me well would probably know that I have an interest in magic, and in particular, mentalism. Normally that'd be absolutely true - as I do indeed have a great interest in mentalism. However, this time my post is going to be on street magic and stage magic, which are apparently the two things that Cyril Takayama does.

There are different genres of magic, and of course, some of them cross over, some of them are similar and some of them infringe on each other. For instance, right off the cuff, there are stage magicians, card magicians, illusionists, mentalists, sleight of hand artists, hypnotists, street magicians who do close up magic, and so on - but note that each category could potentially include other categories. Sleight of hand artists could be street magicians, and street magic could have an element of mentalism, and so on.

Normally, my interest is quite limited in this respect to merely mentalism, because that's the thing that really intrigues me. I already know how most of the stage magic is done and sleight of hand has already been exposed by my ex-favourites Penn and Teller. Even the sacred cups and balls trick has been exposed by Penn and Teller so that makes my scope of magical interests, so to speak, more limited. But Takayama is different - some of his tricks are, to say the least, bizarre.

I was in fact not going to write about Takayama but about Michael Vincent, who really amazed me (till Takayama came along).

Michael Vincent will get special mention here: he is indeed one of the best classical magicians I've seen so far. He does classical tricks, like the cups and balls, and also card tricks, sleight of hand, and the like. What I like about him most is that he is very traditional and classical, and the tricks that he does are quite immortal. Michael Vincent wears glasses too - that alone is worthy of mention because a la Nana Mouskouri, most celebrities do not show that they wear glasses. He's quite special, in a sense.

Then I chanced upon THEM.

THEM stands for totally hidden extreme magic, which was a short lived TV show, where magicians basically punked people, and everything was recorded by CCTVs. Now the acts that really interested me were:

pretty lady Lisa changing her clothes very quickly (change artist) in the changing room and puzzling the heck out of other women in the store, and

Cyril Takayama's head falling off trick.

Now, call me old fashioned, but that was a funny trick - come on, his head fell off! I didn't know it was Takayama at the time, but later on I chanced upon his other skills, and those hooked me.

Takayama's strengths: he's handsome, he's cool, he makes magic look easy, he switches easily and excellently between street magic and stage magic, and in both of them he aims to shock and stun people. Michael Vincent's magic is more cultured, slow, traditional, and in many ways more mature, but Takayama's hip magic in Japanese and English is quite refreshing. Come on, he's Criss Angel and David Blaine - in Japanese and English! If Criss and David could speak German or Japanese, they might give Cyril a run for his money. However, Takayama currently seems to be the next biggest thing (take it whatever way you will) in magic in Japan, going at least by google and youtube.

By the way, I am an Economist and Historian by training, and one thing is that we are frequently wrong when we predict things. At least I'm honest.

I wrote about Derren Brown, Sos, Angela Funovits, and Morta Deller before, and now Michael Vincent and of course, our great star, Cyril Takayama. Angela Funovits hasn't exploded since then. I sort of guessed wrongly. Perhaps the competition among magicians is too stiff? Perhaps she is now famous, but I didn't know - and neither did you? Perhaps youtube is the better medium to reach out to people? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. I don't know.

But what I do know is that these write ups on magicians and magic are all my own personal opinions. I also know that economists and historians make mistakes in prediction too. Hoho.

So, to end my long post on magicians and Cyril Takayama - watch him; he's interesting! And he's good.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - A Nonsense Poem "Eye Pee Pee Tee"

2009-08-05T09:39:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - A Nonsense Poem "Eye Pee Pee Tee"

Eye Pee Pee Tee part 1

Far far away in the South China Sea,
In a country with an Eye Pee Pee Tee test,
Some blokes failed their Eye Pee Pee Tee.
Oh no, they said, there goes our rest.

When one fails the Eye Pee Pee Tee,
He has to go back to an army camp.
This is not a fun thing, you see,
As an army camp is cold and damp!

There, Pee Tee Eyes train the blokes,
They do this with physical training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And empty threats of lots of caning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and they train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They also practise lots of jokes.

The blokes met their Pee Tee Eye
He was their trainer for the Eye Pee Pee Tee.
He wanted them to pass but not die,
Get out of the camp, with a pass, free!

"We're Spartans!" the Pee Tee Eye cried.
He thought they were so tough.
The men laughed so loudly, they nearly died.
"We're Spartans? What a laugh!"

"This is the gym," said the Pee Tee Eye
"Oh, we don't get to use it."
One of the men started to cry,
"We need the gym to get fit!"

The Pee Tee Eye had lots of plans
"No gym, let's go for a run," he quipped
The blokes all became his fans
Especially since he didn't use a whip.

Pee Tee Eyes train army blokes,
They do this with lots of training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And music when strength is waning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They practise lots of jokes!

End of part 1

Eye Pee Pee Tee part 2

We now look at the merry army men,
Some of them are so fat,
They need to be slapped with a ban.
(None of them brought their cat.)

One guy was huge and big,
He couldn’t hold on to the chin up bar,
He looked like a big fat pig,
But perhaps human from afar.

Another was thin and tall
He was bad at Eye Pee Pee Tee.
But he was so good at football,
He could charge a training fee.

The Pee Tee Eyes had various personalities
But, all in all, they were fit,
They were grand at civilities,
And none of them looked like a git.

One, the one we met before,
The one who talked about Spartans,
Caused a huge humungous furore,
When he talked about Spartans.

Another, a more senior trainer,
Was one muscular Pee Tee Eye,
Who was no fat gainer,
Had a full head of hair, full of dye.

Pee Tee Eyes train army blokes,
They do this with lots of training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And music when strength is waning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and they train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They practise lots of jokes!

End of part 2

Eye Pee Pee Tee part 3

The days went past very fast.
When the blokes practised running
There was a lot of dust,
For the “pass” they were gunning.

Round, round the track the blokes ran
Some slower and some faster,
The Pee Tee Eyes shouted, “Damn!
Better run faster, buster!”

Some of the blokes ran and talked,
Some joked and some swore,
Others, easily tired, walked.
Some traded shares, money and more.

For chin ups, a component of the test,
The Pee Tee Eyes trained them hard.
Some blokes were better than the rest.
Some just had lots of lard.

The Fat Guy fell off the chin up bar
He might have busted his gut.
But as he didn’t get very far,
He landed on his butt!

There was lots of training;
The blokes did it day and night.
Even when it was raining,
Even when there was no light!

Pee Tee Eyes train army blokes,
They do this with lots of training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And music when strength is waning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and they train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They practise lots of jokes!

End of part 3

Eye Pee Pee Tee part 4

The days went past very fast –
The Eye Pee Pee Test came round,
Some of the men couldn’t last,
Others disappeared into the ground.

When it came to the chin up bar,
Some bombed out right away.
Some, however, got very far,
And passing made their day.

When it came to the running part,
Some were prepared to run,
Some could only fart,
And some others had lots of fun.

The blokes ran, ran, ran, ran, ran
It was so warm, the sun beat down
To cool down, they needed a fan
Or the jokes from a cool clown.

The number one runner reached the end,
The end of the 2.4 km test;
The second guy came round the bend
And came in second best.

The number one runner knelt down,
He screamed, shouted and cheered!
He didn’t mind looking like a clown,
But the other slower runners jeered!

Some passed their Eye Pee Pee Tee test,
Others, for some reason or other,
Failed the rest of the test.
“What the heck, what a bother!”

Pee Tee Eyes train army blokes,
They do this with lots of training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And music when strength is waning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and they train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They practise lots of jokes!

End of part 4

Anything that interests me!

A Poem on Eye Pee Pee Tee - to rival Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark"

2009-07-29T08:24:00.000-07:00

A Poem on Eye Pee Pee Tee - to rival Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark"

Preface

Army Song No. 1

Purple light, in the valley,
That is where I want to be,
Infantry, best companion,
With my rifle, and my buddy and me!

SOC, si bei jia lat,
Ippt lagi worse,
Everyday - doing PT,
With my rifle, and my buddy and me!

Booking out, I saw my girlfriend.
Saw her with, another man!
Killed the man, and my girlfriend,
With my rifle, and my buddy and me!

ORD,
Back to study,
Got degree,
So happy,
Can't forget
My days in Army
With my rifle, and my buddy and me!

Purple light
At the warfront,
That is where my buddy died
If I die,
Would you bury me...
With my rifle, and my buddy and me!

Choi!!!

Army Song No. 2

Far, far away in the South China Sea,
I left, a girl, with tears in her eyes ...
For I must go where the brave men die.
A soldier must fight for his land because he loves his land.
A soldier has to fight, even if he has to die.
‘Cause we are the ones who fight the front,
‘Cause we are the ones who hold the guns,
We are the warriors of our land!

I just thought about Lewis Carroll's nonsensical poem, "The Hunting of the Snark". I shall try to rival Carroll by writing a similar nonsense poem about Eye Pee Pee Tee and my experiences in RT. I might have mentioned before that I used to write many Shakespearen sonnets, and limericks. In this case, I shall write my first nonsense poem - a la Edward Lear and "The Snark".

Eye Pee Pee Tee part 1

Far far away in the South China Sea,
In a country with an Eye Pee Pee Tee test,
Some blokes failed their Eye Pee Pee Tee.
Oh no, they said, there goes our rest.

When one fails the Eye Pee Pee Tee,
He has to go back to an army camp.
This is not a fun thing, you see,
As an army camp is cold and damp!

There, Pee Tee Eyes train the blokes,
They do this with physical training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And empty threats of lots of caning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and they train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They also practise lots of jokes.

The blokes met their Pee Tee Eye
He was their trainer for the Eye Pee Pee Tee.
He wanted them to pass but not die,
Get out of the camp, with a pass, free!

"We're Spartans!" the Pee Tee Eye cried.
He thought they were so tough.
The men laughed so loudly, they nearly died.
"We're Spartans? What a laugh!"

"This is the gym," said the Pee Tee Eye
"Oh, we don't get to use it."
One of the men started to cry,
"We need the gym to get fit!"

The Pee Tee Eye had lots of plans
"No gym, let's go for a run," he quipped
The blokes all became his fans
Especially since he didn't use a whip.

Pee Tee Eyes train army blokes,
They do this with lots of training,
With lots of wonderful jokes,
And music when strength is waning.

Pee Tee Eyes are great chaps,
They are fit and train blokes,
They like to run lots of laps.
They practise lots of jokes!

End of part 1

Wow. That was tough.

Anything that interests me!

I am irrational and so are you :)

2009-07-02T19:58:00.000-07:00

I am irrational and so are you :)

I happened to be at Times bookstore with my friend Calvin from A*Star, when a book caught my eye. Two books caught my eye, to be sure - one was about some very kinky topic, but the other one was about irrationality. I read the kinky one first, then diverted my attention to Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behaviour.

Armed with Sway, I suddenly became a mixture of Steven Levitt's Freakonomics-type economist and Ori and Rom's Sway-type psychologist and began to understand several things in a wholy different light. I mean, this wasn't my first brush with irrationality - I'd read the Life of the Brain, Derren Brown's treatise, social psychology textbooks and much more in England.

OK. Here goes: in Game Theory, during ultimatum games people are predicted to give very little money to their counterpart, and take the money for themselves. However, as any one who knows a bit of Economics will know, this is not true - the one dispensing the money will share. This is due to our socially ingrained norms of fairness. (I am simplifying here, because most behavioural economists will roar out: "Fear of backlash!" or "Cultural norms!" or "Experiments in remote tribes do not bear this out!" or "Experimental validity; econometric reasoning!" or "You MONOECONOMIST!!" But please bear with me to follow the reasoning.)

Now, the most incredible thing is that, in order to punish someone viewed as unfair, the one receiving the money will reject the proposer's offer if it were seen that the proposer was getting more. Most economists will agree with this one: it's irrational, because getting one dollar is better than getting nothing. For free, I must add. The fact is, people are willing to sacrifice money to punish others for being unfair.

Yet, if the proposer actually said: "I am unemployed. I need the money from this experiment, please let me have more," I am pretty sure that most of us would have no qualms giving him the money. In fact, this is what happens in experiments: when a computer deals money unfairly, we don't mind. This is because we don't expect much fairness from a computer. Similarly, we will let the money-grubber go if it turns out that he is NOT a money grubber.

Warning: long and emotional discussion about ex-princess going to come up

I began to understand why I felt so upset that my ex-princess left me. It's known as procedural justice.

The thing is, if she had come to me and we had a long talk before we split, it would have been amicable and we would still be friends - good friends, I must add, because she was very similar to me and we had the most complementary characters. However, she did not do that, and for a while, I was left guessing in the dark. (Later, I managed to find out bits and pieces of our "divorce".) She replied to my queries by email! What's worse, she "abandoned" me when I was in cold, dark, dreary, dank England!

Procedural justice suggests that people care more about the process than they do about the outcome. I don't necessarily agree, because I loved her very much and certainly wanted to be with her, but now I realise where the source of the anger came from. It was from the lack of procedural justice, the unfairness of being suddenly left alone, without any discussion.

Before I read Sway, I had completed Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. So I found that it was well corroborated that people fear losses more than they love gains.

Let's read that again: people fear losses more than they love gains.

Now I also know why my ex-girlfriend and I aren't friends, even though I so badly wanted to be her friend again! It's simple. "People fear losses more than they love gains" is best exemplified by stocks going down in price. I personally would sell the moment my stocks reach my threshold, but that's just me. Most people will chase the stock down, and not let go, hoping that it would just go up. They are afraid of losses. Similarly, when my ex-girlfriend left me, I should have let her go and then we would have become friends - but I didn't - I chased a loss, and what happened is that she got frightened of me. Her friends might even have misinterpreted what I was doing then (but they'll behave the exact same way once they get dumped, I can assure you). I'll explain this better in a while.

Ariely described it best: you want to sell your old VW. However, the moment you clean it and get it ready for sale, you remember all the old times you had with it. You were young then! It was a nice, brand new car then! Your first date, your first kiss, your first ... let's not go there. The car never gave you any problems, and in fact it always sent you to work on time! Suddenly, the fear of loss sets in immediately. You don't feel like selling your beloved car anymore, even though it's 10 years old. The fact that you can gain some money (the love of gain) now disappears from sight.

Perhaps Buddha was right... or for that matter, perhaps fictional Yoda was right!

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
-Yoda

I know for certain that Ariely was right - because that's how most of us think. The same thing happened to me. Xin Yi wrote me many beautiful songs (plural) and poems (plural) and wrote about me many, many times, in English and in German. When I was down and out, I read those over and over again. The fear of losing her set in very rapidly. The best part is that with the exception of Yoda and some Buddhist monks, the fear of loss is a very human experience.

The fear of loss was indeed what led my ex-princess to leave me in the first case. This one can be explained better by Dan Ariely, using his terms of "keeping options open". Why did my ex-princess leave me?

Now, everyone in a relationship ought to know this - but trust me, many don't - that the whole point of being in a relationship (in most cultures) is exclusitivity. Yet that's not what my young girlfriend thought, and neither did her classmates (then, and only then, I hope... because if they haven't grown up since then, this bodes doom for society as a whole).

An experiment done by Ariely proved that keeping options open was not only stressful (because one had to keep juggling many options simultaneously) but also uneconomical (the subjects earned less money). He did this by means of a computer game which he rigged in many ways, but I'm too lazy to detail it fully here.

What happens is that simply committing to one computer door and clicking on it would have yielded a far better sum of money, but the brightest minds in the world - hey, that's HIS opinion, not mine - clicked on all the doors. Why did they click on all the doors when they should have just stuck to one? (In relationship terms, why dump the best guy in the world who's good to you? And in my case, only you?)

Same reason that my ex-princess had:

"i think i'll regret but it's for the best
til I've seen the world, what's left and the rest"

By doing so, the subjects in the experiment - who were supposed to be highly intelligent - made the same mistake as the girl who used to write

"Everytime you love me
The light shines in my life
You take me through the tides..."

By keeping her options open, she ignored what she had written. The best part is that she was lucid and clear about what she was losing, in order to keep useless options open!

Well, to conclude a highly emotional post, because, after all, I had to revisit some of my fond, cherished and retentive memories of my lovely ex-princess: I am irrational and so are you. Xin Yi is definitely irrational, and to a larger degree than most of us. (However, the only completely rational person in the world would be one Indian student at Ariely's class.) However, being armed with a knowledge of what's going on will serve me better as I can avoid pitfalls in future, should I want to. We are "predictably irrational", but we don't have to be stupid. We can learn from our mistakes.

Hopefully.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Jesus Christ

2009-06-19T20:11:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - Jesus Christ

I just came back from IPPT and it has been a hard day for me. When I turned on my computer, I don't know why, but I clicked on an old song on youtube - "I am the Bread of Life", a Catholic song (in future, when I say "Catholic", it is synonymous with "Christian"; I call the other group Protestant, an umbrella term more accurate than Christian, because I don't consider some of them Christian at all).

The lyrics are:

I am the bread of life

I am the bread of life
He who comes to Me shall not hunger
He who believes in Me shall not thirst
No one can come to Me
Unless the Father draw him

And I will raise him up
And I will raise him up
And I will raise him up on the last day

The bread that I will give
Is My flesh for the life of the world
And he who eats of this bread
He shall live forever
He shall live forever

Unless you eat
Of the flesh of the Son of Man
And drink of His blood
And drink of His blood
You shall not have life within you

I am the resurrection
I am the life
He who believes in Me
Even if he die
He shall live for ever

The words might seem strange to anyone but Christians, because the song is based on biblical allusions and citations. But that was not what struck me - it was the images that accompanied the youtube video.

Anyone who knows me for about a day will rapidly gather that I am agnostic and very skeptical, and in fact, I might even be called a cynic with a tinge of idealism. Yet the images fascinated me, and made me feel very sad and very emotional, which is ... interesting. The youtube video had many portraits and many illustrations that struck me.

In one of the early still images, there is a crowd following Jesus as he stretches out his hand to heal a blind man, who is begging on the streets. This portrays Jesus' ministry.

In yet another, Jesus sits at the table and breaks the bread, and the apostles are surrounding him, looking very contemplative. This portrays the breaking of the bread and the Last Supper.

In one of the images, a still Jesus Christ stands half naked and beaten before a group of very well attired and fat Pharisees - a stark contrast. One of them is pointing a finger at Jesus and accusing him in a haughty manner, while the other members of the Sanhedrin sit with their arms folded. I almost cried because I pitied Jesus and how the fat buggers in their fancy dress were condemning him to death for ... practically, challenging their way of life.

In the next one, a very thoughtful Pontius Pilate sends Jesus to his cross, and the next scene is Jesus falling to the ground, unable to bear the weight of the cross.

The next scene is even more heart breaking. The newly recruited Simon, who is helping Jesus with the cross, gazes down upon Jesus who is on his knees and unable to move further. The Roman soldiers stand by the side, bearing weapons and whips, but not doing anything.

I suddenly recalled what I had read from John Cornwall's book, A Thief in the Night: something that the controversial Archbishop Paul Marcinkus (famous for financial scandals and famous also for being a major suspect in the murder of Pope John Paul I) had said. He said that, even if one didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus was such a great person with love and kindness that one could be a Christian, just emulating him! I suddenly felt that this was very true.

This reminded me a bit about Charles Templeton, the famous Protestant turned agnostic, who admitted to Lee Strobel in his book The Case for Faith that even though he had become an agnostic, he missed Jesus Christ!

Jesus was beyond doubt a historical figure. He is cross documented by both Christian historians and also Roman and pagan historians. The four gospels are major works of literature, it is true, but they are based on historical evidence that are considered core to Christianity. This post is NOT about the evidence for Christ, and it is not about my intellectual objections to God.

Instead, it's about Jesus, the great man.

In the Bible, a leper approaches Jesus and says, something to the effect of, "Please, kind sir, cure me if you will." Jesus replies, "Yes, of course I want to help you." He cures the man. Guess what? The man, upon being cured, tells the entire neighbourhood and soon, Jesus is chased away from the place!

Jesus helps the man, but he doesn't cooperate with Jesus and Jesus has to leave the place because there are many people who now want to see him!

In the Bible, Jesus cures a blind man, who was blind from birth. Guess what? The Pharisees bring the whole lot of them to court, and charge Jesus with curing people on the Sabbath day. Before that, they charge Jesus with lying and faking cures. Bringing in the parents and the blind man to the court, they attempt to "get" Jesus. The blind man comments/ quips/ notes: "I don't know if Jesus is a sinner/ Son of God/ whatever, man, I was really blind and now I can see!" His parents observe that their son is cured, testify that he was really blind before, and then, out of sheer fear of the Pharisees, say, "Go ask him lah."

Until today, I cannot even conceive of the stupidity of the Pharisees: Jesus has done the impossible, and they say, BUT it's the Sabbath day. Therefore, he must be the devil!

Enough examples; here are the conclusions.

Jesus is wise; he outwits the people out to get him; he possess great powers which he uses for good; he is kind to the poor, the destitute, the hungry, the prisoners, and the outcasts of society; he forgives his enemies; he loves his friends; he teaches great stuff and life lessons that have lasted two thousand years and counting; he has a great sense of justice and righteousness YET he doesn't mind that people betray him and sell him out for a couple of bucks; he dies for what he believes to be right and never deviates for a moment from hardship or trouble; and for what it's worth, if you believe in him: He did all this because He loves us and want to forgive us our sins.

I also don't know why I was motivated to write this post, long and tortuous as it may seem. I may be suffering from something that Mother Theresa herself had: doubts.

"Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labour for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."
(Theresa, Mother, cited in Brian Kolodiejchuk, 2007).

Wahey! Even the most faithful had problems with faith! Maybe I am not agnostic after all, and maybe reading all that philosophy and all the various books against religion and for religion weren't much of an issue after all.

Sometimes, I feel just like Templeton, though:

Jesus, where are you?

Please come back! We miss you.

You truly are the peace the world cannot give.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” John 14:27.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Babies' Guide to SEO

2009-06-18T23:40:00.001-07:00

Anything that interests me - A Babies' Guide to SEO

What is to follow is my own personal take on SEO and my own personal experience, and is not be taken as serious professional advice. If by any chance whatsoever your website/business loses money due to reading my article and the application of its principles, it is not due to any fault on my part, as this is merely my own personal experience in SEO. Thanks for your understanding.

A Babies' Guide to SEO

I really was going to write on religion or philosophy, or a combination of both. Yet instead I came to this topic because I found two very interesting and unconnected facts:

1. I've reached my 101st post for my travel blog, Tour and See the World.

2. Whenever I write controversial or interesting stuff on this site, for example, on religion and especially when I wrote a criticism of someone, my number of visitors soared, reaching about 101 visitors per day, at maximum and then tapering off to about 20 readers per day. Yet, the last post, which was a personal reminder to myself to work hard generated almost no interest apart from about 9/10 readers per day.

These two interesting facts made me think about writing a Babies' Guide to Search Engine Optimisation, because even though I am a new blogger, I seem to have stumbled on some interesting facts that I ought to share with people who want SEO but don't have the money to pay for it.

In other words: a Babies' Guide to SEO, because babies don't have money and don't need money.

But I digress.

Here it is:

1. Interesting articles that are controversial or unconventional send readers your way, but apparently they do not come from Search Engines. Therefore, writing interesting and unconventional articles is not a major SEO method.

2. However, if the unconventional article possesses a rare keyword, then it is indeed a major SEO method.

3. Online directories and online submissions to expose your articles and writing do not seem to help in the long run, although in the short run visitors do come to your site.

- If your link spreads because the online directory has a page rank higher than yours, then SEO works for you;

- You get direct traffic if visitors visit the online directory instead.

4. Traditionally, cheap methods of using Yahoo Answers and using blogs/ sites have worked; yet nowadays this does not seem to be the case. I have absolutely no empirical evidence for point 4; this comes about from my own personal experience.

5. You should write proper, interesting and evergreen articles. These will enable your site to move up the rankings because

- people link to you because of your good and proper writing

- people recommend others to your website by word of mouth, and then the above point occurs

- unconventional articles only generate interest for a short amount of time, and then die off; whereas "how to" articles, deemed uninteresting and boring by many people, have repeat customers, and customers who are willing to link!

6. Perhaps, you can run your own online article directory, in which case, people write for you for free.

7. In the very last resort, since I am a babies' guide writer - just pay google and pay yahoo or pay an SEO company. That works all the time, unless you pay the wrong company or the SEO company cannot make its promises come true.

Summary:

1. Controversial content does not help you in SEO...
2. Unless it has unique keywords and particular phraseology.
3. Online submission directories help, but not that much after all.
4. Yahoo Answers and other such websites do not help anymore - for some strange reason.
5. Write proper articles that are stable and long term.
6. Perhaps run your own article directory.
7. Give up and just pay the big boys money... and your site will rise and fly fast.

I am not a technical person, so I've used simplified and lay terms throughout.

Thanks for reading and cheers!

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - Against Holy Blood, Holy Grail

2009-06-05T01:44:00.001-07:00

Anything that interests me - Against Holy Blood, Holy Grail
and all that crap...

When I was in the military, we used to have some time off for ourselves known as "nights off". That meant that you could get out of camp for a bit, and then come back at midnight. It was called "nights off" for the simple fact that the sergeant major would delay your book out timing until it was about 7PM, hence "night" and not "evening" off - I am just kidding. Kidding about the part about the CSM of course, but not kidding about the part about the nights off.

Anyways, I happened to be at Popular Bookstore during one of the nights off, and this book caught my eye - Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

This looks mildly interesting, I thought. I read it and I was riveted. (Back then, I was.)

The book was absolutely badly written. The print was small, it was repetitious, and it was quite boring. But the conclusions that the writers drew were ground breaking. Bear in mind, back then I was grappling with both existentialist questions and also the fact that my reason was standing in the way of religious faith.

According to the book, Jesus Christ did not die on the cross but he lived on after the crucifixion. I know I am doing a hasty summary here, but please bear with me. The best is yet to be. That amazing claim was groundbreaking, at least to my mind in those days.

The authors went on to claim that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdelene and they had children, and the whole of the Holy Grail was nothing more than a bloodline of Jesus, which linked him to the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. Jesus Christ was the father of a race of leaders, or more accurately priestly kings, and they established Christianity in Europe. Even better is that this secret was preserved by the Priory of Sion - an allegedly ancient and powerful organisation holding the secret of the Holy Grail - despite the Roman Catholic Church's various and numerous attempts to silence them. The Knights Templar and the Cathars were all killed in the Catholic Church's attempt to keep the secret hidden, until of course, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln - as well as other researchers - found out the truth.

I went back to the bunk in total confusion. The incredible book was groundbreaking, and mind you, many say that it led on to the Da Vinci Code by church-basher and conspiracy-theorist Dan Brown.

Last week, I went to look for the book. Somehow I got it into my mind to acquire a religious collection. I bought the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, and even a book that attempted to square physics (as we know it) off with religion! I was very pleased with my collection, but yet was disappointed when many a bookstore told me that Baigent et al's book was out of print, and they had no more stock. I must say that I regreted not buying that book when it was prolific, and I must also say that a couple of bad words arose in my mind... never mind.

Finally, after looking high and low and spending a little fortune, I found it at MPH. It was the very last one in that particular MPH. Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Holy Cow, I got it!

This time I read it not for ideas, but read it slowly and carefully, measuring every syllable and every nuance. I also read it in the light of what I knew by now (2009), that Pierre Plantard had fabricated the Priory of Sion and that the whole she-bang he orchestrated was a hoax, and that Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had walked into a con. Was the latest understanding and information by Wikipedia, BBC documentaries, Google, and the best scholars from various fields around the world correct, or were the conclusions of Holy Blood, Holy Grail correct?

This is what I know and what I have come to realise:

1. The entire book was written in the form of a preconceived hypothesis. The authors found what they were looking for and did not follow the evidence. Most of the pages are rife with "perhaps", "maybe" and "it is our hypothesis". Therefore, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is not non-fiction and scholarly history, but speculation. Pierre Plantard himself, the man who fabricated the Priory of Sion and his own royal lineage, stated that he himself never put himself forward as a descendant of Jesus Christ.

2. The Priory of Sion was a hoax. Plantard admitted it. A reading into the text shows that the authors were initially suspicious but later gave in.

3. The Grnostic Gospels had long been in existence and Christianity had never been a place with a fixed and easy understanding. Yet, the particular Gnostic group that claimed that Jesus was human was one of a myriad other groups with various competing claims, some of which claimed that Jesus was a lesser God, and some of which gave Jesus incredible nebulous form and incredible pantheistic powers. In fact, Lee Strobel has demonstrated convincingly that most of the Gnostic gospels were not taken seriously by mainstream Christians because of their far fetched ideas, and in some cases, were nonsensical fabrications.

4. There are indeed myths about the Knights Templar and the Cathar heresies. But the thing to note is this: they weren't hiding any secret. There was none. And the heresies had persisted for centuries and this was no new secret.

The Knights Templar were rich because of banking and the modern invention of cheques is sometimes attributed to them - so it was "banking" that made them rich.

The Cathars were indeed heretics, so claiming that they thought they knew a secret vis-a-vis the Catholic Church turns out to be a non sequitur. Let's put it this way: if you are a criminal, obviously you do criminal things, for if you don't do anything criminal, you're not a criminal.

The Albigensian Crusade was also explained in terms supporting the heretics. I think a personal departure is insightful here.

Warren Buffett once said that if you don't know jewellery, know the jeweller. And I happen to be a nominal Roman Catholic and I know who St Dominic is. It is on record that he even gave up his favourite manuscript, which he spent a lot of time copying, so that he could donate money to the poor. In fact, he was an educated and learned man, who declared that proper religious argument and proper reasoning, as well as faith in the Bible and in the Rosary, would win over the heretics. He also spent a lot of time trying to convert the heretics and to win them over by argument, even submitting to their own methods of determining truth. Now, with this kind of man, kind and reasonable, is it likely that he would be the kind of mad, fanatical extremist willing to kill thousands? The question answers itself.

Now, it is perfectly natural for a Catholic to say that St Dominic was a good man, and perfectly natural for Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln to say that St Dominic was a religious fanatic. It is only expected.

But given the knowledge of the man's character, it is not possible to agree with the authors' portrayal of the Crusades. Mind you, the heretics killed Pierre de Castelnau, the pope's representative, thus provoking the war. Mind you, the heretics were the ones attacking villages where innocents were, and not St Dominic and his band of priests attacking villages. St Dominic didn't attack anyone. It's a small point, but if the authors didn't even get this one right, but used their ideology and their flawed historical method to colour their writing, then it's not honest - and it's not good history. It's just their prejudiced opinion.

5. The writing in Holy Blood, Holy Grail was still as bad, poor, and repetitive as I last remembered it. Redundancies, misspellings, and lots of minor mistakes abounded, that it is hard to remind myself that these are professional writers.

In conclusion, Dan Brown's work which was based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail is demonstrably false. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is also demonstrably false and the hypotheses advanced are nothing more than flights of fancy that have no true underlying basis. The Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic gospels do exist, it's true - but the thesis that Jesus did not die, had children, and his heirs are kings, is totally bogus and nothing more than speculation. This book, in other words, is speculation and guesswork disguised as history.

The above are my personal academic views on religion, Catholicism, and a neutral book review about a book that interests me.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me - How I am grateful and some poems I composed

2009-05-25T23:33:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me - How I am grateful and some poems I composed

I know that I have declared the parameters and scope of this site to be philosophy, psychology, mentalism, history and other esoteric or boring topics that interest me academically, but every now and then I have broken ranks/ left the track/ gone off target/ wandered off and written personal things that aren't by any chance related to academic subjects and thoughts of a cerebral nature. (I also incidentally realise that I write long sentences sometimes, but that's because I am good with conjunctions and can manage huge thoughts in my head, and nothing more.)

But today I am going to write about two mundane things that are not related to academia or knowledge or the interesting thoughts that float around my big head. I am going to write how I am grateful and some nonsensical poems I composed. Oh, yes, I copied my brother for one of them.

How I am grateful

I have life, I am privileged, and I just came back safe and sound from Osaka and Tokyo without having gotten SARS. I mean, H1N1 swine flu. Or is it Mexican Swine Flu? North American Swine Flu? Pig flu? H1N1? Anyways I mean to say that I am safe and sound from my holiday in Japan.

A little boy just died on TV. It was a doctor show. I am glad that he is just a little actor, but I am sad that there are real little boys dying all around the world. What's the use of all the ham ching pangs in the world if you're dead and can't eat them? I am happy and grateful that I have life and am privileged enough to enjoy it, with health and happiness (whatever that elusive concept actually means is an entire RESEARCH field itself, starting from the ancient Greeks).

I am glad also to have M. She has taught me how to love again and that I am still the caring person I used to be, and that no matter what negative experiences happen in life, I am still me. I looked forward to the glad trip and boy am I glad we took the glad trip despite the fake fears on H1N1 in Japan. For that I am happy and very grateful.

Now I am going to show off some ridiculous and fun poetry.

Those of you who know me very well know that I am excellent at poetry and well, mostly, write Shakespearean sonnets. These are different. These I composed in Japan.

If you happen to see
A big bumble bee,
Don't forget to say
Have a nice day!
- Shannon

If you happen to see
A big bumble bee,
Remember today -
To jump out of its way!

Popeye, the sailor man,
He eats from the rubbish can.
He thinks he's so brave,
He lives in a cave,
Popeye the sailor man!

There was a girl who went to the park
She always went there to eat.
Once, with her guy, she sat on a rock,
And sucked ferociously on his icecream!

(Oooooo this one is really kinky. Thanks to Mr Sayers for teaching me how to write such naughty poetry in JC. If you didn't get this poem, you're totally innocent; to see the nasty kinky point in the poem, you just don't expect the words in blue. Do you?)

Maybe I might one day write something to challenge Edward Lear? :)

OK, now I go on to post on my other blogs. Thanks and cheers!

Anything that interests me! Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything? part 2

2009-05-12T09:57:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything? part 2

Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything?

And now I write in prose.

I know, you're saying, THANK GOD! Finally that bugger got his genius brains back.

The question is whether superstrings are a theory of everything since they claim to unify both quantum mechanics and general relativity. And oh, did I mention, superstrings claim to be able to explain a singularity and the origins of the big bang. I recall DF's wise and sagely comment that this merely makes the explanation longer, because we can always ask: what came before THAT, then? So if branes caused the big bang, then what caused branes, smarty pants? But I am jumping a little ahead.

Don't laugh, but this is what the ideas are at the moment:

Everything is composed of little minute strings, which can be opened or closed in a loop.

It is the vibrations of the various strings that cause particles to have their properties - all are made of strings and are the same """THING""" but vibrating at different frequencies.

There are 10 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, making 11 dimensions - and there are possibly 26 dimensions.

Some of the dimensions are curled up and invisible to us.

What the heck. Forgive me, I meant: goodness gracious.

When it was mathematically shown that there were 5 different string theories, thus giving a tight slap to the people who had praised superstrings as the TOE (Theory of Everything), something else happened.

(OK, for those who missed the kernel of an idea, as some unfortunately are wont: how can there be 5 different theories for a TOE, when there should be only one unifying theory? That was the tight slap in the face for string theorists.)

M theory was invented. Magic, membrane, mystery... whatever.

Whatever.

M theory suggested that the 5 different theories were the same, much like an elephant viewed from various angles, or like a symphony viewed backstage and frontstage - these strings were all playing the same tune but viewed differently. The issue was that there were 11 dimensions and not 10 as had previously been thought. It also turns out that their theoretical enemy, supersymmetry and supergravity, had actually been correct all along, and these were all incorporated into M theory. The details are all so mathematical that it takes computers hours to even work out parts of any equation, and all the equations are necessarily approximations because of their technical difficulty (scientists have to learn the math to do the equations), and these following terms make the theory even more so complex, as if the subject was wizardry:

heterotic strings

bosonic strings

membranes or branes

worldsheet (spacetime, invented by Einstein and his teacher, brought up the idea of worldlines, and strings come up with the worldsheet, similar to that)

dualities (this one can be explained by even arts students, as it's commonly used in economics, but of course we get it much easier than the poor string theorists)

Calabi-Yau space (this is cute... and I like Calabi-Yau balls especially)

4 dimensional Standard Model (obviously, this is the thing that string theory is trying to displace - and the standard model is obviously in need of massive modification in the string theorists eyes)

and much much more.

M theory made the bold claim that the big bang was the result of two colliding membranes in higher dimensions, thus showing that the big bang did not come from a singularity. In addition, M theory suggested that there were alternative universes, or what is termed multiverses. I can go on all night, but I can assure you that this is a very complex topic and that anyone who can say that he understands all of M theory is either crazy or lying. This is complex!

The issue boils down further to one simple issue. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable, because they must be confirmed by experiment.

String theory has the incredible property of being a post hoc theory - it tells us what we already know, but the new predictions cannot be tested.

Now, that would be the same as saying a giant invisible monster did everything, but both theories (monsters and strings) cannot be falsified. Hence, is string theory even a theory of science, or is it religious in nature?

Also, clearly it is mainly mathematical, but can it be that string theory is merely mathematical where the calculations are exercises in logic and reasoning but have no one-to-one relation to the higher reality? Or what, for that matter, is the higher reality portrayed by string theory?

If you even think about it, it gives me a tremendous headache because...

... for example, if there are multiverses and man can even make a man made universe in the laboratory, as string theorists always like to say, then are we Gods? How does one imagine that there is a parallel universe right next to us but we cannot observe them and they cannot observe us? Wouldn't Occam's razor indicate that this is a silly thing to believe, and that the more parsimonious explanation is that there is no alternative universe?

... for example, the weak anthropic principle may contradict string theory - if we know all these because we are here to observe it, then is it possible that we are conditioned to find out this theory of reality because we are products of it?

... A related thought is - if strings are the TOE, then don't they condition us to find out the theory that they "want" us to find out?

I hereby conclude that string theory may be the TOE, but I don't know. Perhaps an agnostic position is a good one to take on this until the results are out. A big bang theory with a singularity is very much more favourable for God as a brane theory would fundamentally change our ideas of what God is like and his various powers. This issue is too big for me to handle and I leave it to the scientists. I mean, I leave it to the string theorists.

In the final analysis, I don't know if string theory is the TOE, but it may very well be the final step to end physics. This theory might very well be the end of physics.

(P.S. OK, for those of you not literary inclined - Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End of History"; that last statement was an academic allusion! And this is alliteration. Heh.)

For academic reference, if you are interested:

M Kaku
B Greene
R Feynman
E Witten
Lisa Randall (this one is unique - there is a suggestion that gravity is a leakage from another universe/ another brane)

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything? part 1

2009-05-12T09:29:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me! Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything? part 1

I am going to write basically a history of physics, and this is going to get a bit technical at parts and fluffy at other parts. So do bear with me. I am keeping my promise to write about superstring theory and M theory, and besides I have been "infected" with this thanks to

Professor Ali Namazie "Boss" (who taught me Physics, Special Relativity and General Relativity)

and

my naughty kid brother and his pals, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkin, Feynman, Einstein, Brian Greene and the whole lot of 'em.

Shame on you guys for changing me from a pure arts student to someone tainted with science... nah, just kidding. Thanks for all the knowledge and it was great learning some science.

I am writing using a historical approach as I am a history student and also because I am technically not a scientist. I am a "layperson" in the sacred hallowed halls of science and mathematics actually. My qualifications? A bad physics grade at O levels (A2) and level 2000 USP courses with Dr Ali Namazie, on relativity. Special thanks to BBC documentaries, "The Elegant Universe", my brother's "friends", and also to Bill Bryson (and technically also Myron Shekelle) who all sent me down this route.

Anyways, enough preliminaries. Here's the history of physics till today, as we know it.

Just to make things really jazzy and snappy wappy, whatever THAT meant, I will write the entire thing as if it were the Bible and poetry combined, whatever THAT meant.

Is String Theory Really a Theory of Everything?

In the beginning was philosophy
Philosophy became natural science
And for a while, was progressin' well and good.

The church believed the Sun went around the earth,
But Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler showed this was impossible;
Ptolemy bit the dust.

Then Newton came along, a giant of a man,
And he came up with a mathematical equation of gravity
That predicted the movements of the stars and planets

On the shoulders of giants,
Newton rewrote physics as it was then known
For many years, Newton was the New Orthodoxy

Galileo had come up with Galilean relativity
Coupled with Newton, these together had shown
There was no such thing as absolute rest

Yet the belief in absolute time still held
Then James Clerk Maxwell came along, another giant
And unified the electric and magnetic forces

Into the electromagnetic force
And light was found to be an electromagnetic force
That travelled at a high but finite speed.

Michelson and Morley were supposed to show
That this high but finite speed of electromagnetism
Was slower one way through the "ether"

And faster the other way through the ether.
Then they found to their horror, no matter what,
Light travelled at a constant speed!

Albert Einstein came along, yet another giant,
And pointed out that the ether did not exist
Then suggested Special Relativity.

Time was the suspect, and so was length,
Turns out that there is no absolute time;
Time dilation and length contraction instead.

Einstein then incorporated gravity into his theory
And the equivalence principle laid the way
For General Relativity.

Confirmed by the perihelion shift of Mercury
Confirmed by Einstein's lights
Confirmed time and time again.

Yet all these advances were incompatible
With Quantum mechanics
And all Planck's quantum weirdness.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle
Revealed at the subatomic level, for any electron
We can know its velocity or position but not both

Worse still was when Feynman suggested that
The electron traversed all paths
Wavelengths and whatnot - mind boggling!

Schrodinger and his cat,
Feynman, Planck, and the rest,
Wave particle duality was established.

Turns out that General Relativity was good for
Colossal distances and Quantum mechanics
Good only for small scale structures.

Supersymmetry and other theories came to the fore
To try to unite the two partial theories
Now, we turn to strings.

OK, it was hard writing the damn thing in a poetic form, and certainly there were many good moments of surrendipity but lots of bad words in the poem.

To be continued in the next post...

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me: exams are over and I am back!! :) Back to blogging, that is...

2009-05-09T07:50:00.000-07:00

Anything that interests me: exams are over and I am back!! :) Back to blogging, that is...

OK, OK,

I know I am supposed to be writing on string theory and M theory, which is what I promised, but then again, at least let me say...

Exams are over, thank goodness!!

EC3102 - most probably an A or A-
EC3341 - most probably an A
EC4371 - most probably an A or A- depending on the theory of relativity (bell curve at NUS you see...)
UIS3*** - most probably A- because even though my capital flows essay was quite bad.... never mind lah, I'll stick my neck out on this - A-

UQR2202 - most probably an A- unless I've got some bad luck and it's a B+ due to the "theory of relativity" (not again, yes, again...)
UBZ3001 - most probably an A as I did that one pretty okie.

So that means in the worst case scenario: A A A- A- A- B+

In the best case it might be something like this: A A A A A- A-

That's fine by me, I guess.

Here are some beautiful quotes from various football stars. I shall let them entertain you, and I will indeed write the little I know about strings and M theory tomorrow. I mean, in the next post. A metaphorical tomorrow.

The line between being a great player and a truly great player often comes down to determination more than technique.
-George Best

Football is simple, but it is difficult to play simple.
-Johan Cruyff

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is a habit, not an art.
-Socrates

"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."
-Nike football advert

Football's not just about scoring goals - it's about winning.
-Alan Shearer

And here's a funny one that interests me:

I used to go missing a lot - Miss Canada, Miss United Kingdom, Miss Germany.
-George Best (DAMN FUNNY!! But it's true, if you know who Best was.)

Anything that interests me

Superstrings, string theory, M theory

2009-03-29T07:08:00.000-07:00

Superstrings, string theory, M theory

That's what I will be writing about in the next few posts, all thanks to my brother. He influences me negatively! I mean, positively!

After reading a couple of books by Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins, and Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, he is now the house's leading expert on superstring theory and membrane theory, and instead of spending time working on my global capital flows essay, I learnt physics from him instead. Ruined a perfectly good weekend, but I was hooked.

I am going back to work now, to work on my capital flows paper, but before I do that, two wise things from Greene:

1. Saying that mathematics is physics, or physics is mathematics, is not that accurate a statement: actually it's more like trying to understand Huckleberry Finn in Greek. Math is like Greek, and physics like the story. Hence, one has to learn the mathematics before going into the real physics, but that does not mean that physics is math. In fact Greene explains things very well to the layman... and I am an Economist and Historian. So understanding physics is quite a penetrable task!

2. and dang. I have to go now and will come back to this in future posts.

Anything that interests me! :)

The Current GFC - Global Financial Crisis - and China

2009-02-22T22:18:00.000-08:00

The Current GFC - Global Financial Crisis - and China

I have to say something that has been on my chest for a little while. It's basically a little comment on the Economics of the article that I read some time back. Firstly, I need some resources to write about the financial crisis, so what better medium than looking into a newspaper? (A chinese one, that is.) Secondly, I am trying to do a project on the financial crisis, so here's my golden opportunity. And thirdly, I'll just make some quick comments.

Here's the article, and then I'll post the article again, with my comments.

Special Report: Global Financial Crisis
Commentary: "High savings helped inflate U.S. credit bubble" an untenable statement
Source: Xinhua
01-08-2009 10:22 (copied off the Internet by me)

BEIJING, Jan. 7 (Xinhua) -- A strange view has emerged recently from some U.S. government and economic circles, which says high savings in emerging markets such as China and oil exporting countries sowed the seeds of a global credit bubble, whose bursting led to the current global financial crisis.

The statement is both irresponsible and untenable.

The advocates of this view claim that different countries have different saving and investment tendencies, resulting in imbalances in the world economy.

They also say the emerging markets have exerted downward pressure on investment yields in recent years at a time of low inflation and booming trade and capital flows, driving investors in developed economies to turn to riskier investments.

First, the statement has an apparent logical shortcoming. High savings in emerging markets do not mean consumers and investors in developed economies can borrow money from them without misgivings.

More importantly, the high savings rate in emerging markets is not a reason for developed countries to loosen financial regulation and look on arms folded as financial institutions develop new derivatives and let financial bubbles balloon.

For the Chinese, the habit of saving originates from their long-time culture and tradition and the habit is also seen as part of their cherished virtues of diligence and thrift.

Furthermore, previous outbreaks of world and regional financial crises have proven that Chinese savings have no causal relationship with the crisis.

The reasons for the current financial crisis lie in excessive consumption, high indebtedness, improper macroeconomic policies and lack of financial regulation, analysts say.

The United States should have recognized that borrowing from abroad for consumption and deficit spending at home was not a formula for economic success, the New York Times cited economists as saying.

Although the problem is widely recognized, Americans are likely to become more addicted than ever to borrowing foreign money to finance record government spending to revive the broken economy, they warned.

Some experts have also referred to the lack of ethics in the financial system as they tried to find out the causes for the crisis.

"We don't just need a financial bailout; we need an ethical bailout," wrote columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.

"We need to re-establish the core balance between our markets, ethics and regulations. I don't want to kill the animal spirits that necessarily drive capitalism -- but I don't want to be eaten by them either," he said.

In a word, politicians and economists in the United States should stop trying to find reasons for the crisis outside U.S. borders. Some analysts say that the comment about high savings triggering the financial crisis is just an excuse for all the real reasons for the problem.

The urgent task for the United States, the world's biggest and most important economy, is not to shirk its responsibilities, but find solutions for the crisis and realize balanced economic growth.

To achieve these goals, it should accelerate domestic adjustment, reasonably enhance the level of saving, reduce trade and financial deficit and properly deal with the relationship between risks and profits as well as regulation and innovation.

In recent years, the International Monetary Fund has issued warnings on the imbalance of the global economy and the Group of Seven industrialized nations have often stated they are concerned over the imbalance, but the statements were not followed by any action.

The financial crisis has not yet hit its bottom and its impacts on the real economy are deepening. The international community needs to act together to curb the spread of the crisis and major economies should shoulder their responsibility by adopting proper economic policies and stabilizing their own and international financial markets instead of looking for someone outside to blame.

Editor: Qin Yongjing

++++ ++++ ++++

And now here's the article, the same article again, but, this time, with my comments. Firstly, I must really say that there can be absolutely no doubt that the USA had a major role to play in this crisis, and definitely, subprime in the USA, lax regulation, financial innovation, and failure of the US government to predict or see the outcome were all causes of the crisis. But there definitely was a role played by China also, although this is not to blame China, for all the blame is on the US actors. Here is why.

BEIJING, Jan. 7 (Xinhua) -- A strange view has emerged recently from some U.S. government and economic circles, which says high savings in emerging markets such as China and oil exporting countries sowed the seeds of a global credit bubble, whose bursting led to the current global financial crisis.

The statement is both irresponsible and untenable. It happens to be true, but whether it is responsible or not, I don't know.

The advocates of this view claim that different countries have different saving and investment tendencies, resulting in imbalances in the world economy. Yes, this is correct. China had and has a huge savings surplus as well as lack of suitable or sizeable domestic investments, whereas the USA wanted to borrow money. Their twin deficits, remember?

They also say the emerging markets have exerted downward pressure on investment yields in recent years at a time of low inflation and booming trade and capital flows, driving investors in developed economies to turn to riskier investments. Now this is very tricky. Yes, investment yields have fallen. This part is true. The reason is that increases in the money supply lower the nominal interest rate, which in turn lowers the real interest rate. This is, of course, simplified. To see it another way, for a $5oo bill that gives $50, you get (50/500*100), a 10% interest rate. The yield is 10%. But now, if you bid prices up, let's say, to $1000, for the same bill that gives $50 for the holder, you get (50/1000*100), a 5% interest rate. The yield has halved. For those of you who are pure mathematicians, forgive my notation - I'm just an economist.

Now for the second part, the sentence assumes that this CAUSED American investors to turn to more risky investments. No, this is not true. However, there is a correlation - at the same time that the Chinese did send their financial capital to the USA, the USA did indeed invest in riskier investments, but the two events were only correlated/ associated. It is difficult to say that it caused the other. Maybe, maybe not.

First, the statement has an apparent logical shortcoming. High savings in emerging markets do not mean consumers and investors in developed economies can borrow money from them without misgivings. What the heck does this mean? When we look at this carefully, it doesn't mean a thing. All investments give us 'misgivings', as we are afraid of losing money. What did the author actually mean? His obscure meaning is obfuscating the issue that the American economists got something right.

More importantly, the high savings rate in emerging markets is not a reason for developed countries to loosen financial regulation and look on arms folded as financial institutions develop new derivatives and let financial bubbles balloon. That is right. That's not a reason, and the US authorities should have known.

For the Chinese, the habit of saving originates from their long-time culture and tradition and the habit is also seen as part of their cherished virtues of diligence and thrift. Maybe, maybe not. I am myself Peranakan - Straits born Chinese. There are many types of Chinese. There are different regions, and some aren't even Han Chinese (the most common Chinese). This sentence is oversimplified.

Furthermore, previous outbreaks of world and regional financial crises have proven that Chinese savings have no causal relationship with the crisis. Correlation does not imply causation. Besides, other regional financial crises had somewhat different causes... but that's another complex issue.

The reasons for the current financial crisis lie in excessive consumption, high indebtedness, improper macroeconomic policies and lack of financial regulation, analysts say. Whose analysts? By the way, those unnamed analysts got it right. I mentioned this earlier: "I must really say that there can be absolutely no doubt that the USA had a major role to play in this crisis, and definitely, subprime in the USA, lax regulation, financial innovation, and failure of the US government to predict or see the outcome were all causes of the crisis. But there definitely was a role played by China also..." So this shows that at the fundamental level, there's no disagreement.

The United States should have recognized that borrowing from abroad for consumption and deficit spending at home was not a formula for economic success, the New York Times cited economists as saying. Yes.

Although the problem is widely recognized, Americans are likely to become more addicted than ever to borrowing foreign money to finance record government spending to revive the broken economy, they warned. Damn right.

Some experts have also referred to the lack of ethics in the financial system as they tried to find out the causes for the crisis. "We don't just need a financial bailout; we need an ethical bailout," wrote columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. "We need to re-establish the core balance between our markets, ethics and regulations. I don't want to kill the animal spirits that necessarily drive capitalism -- but I don't want to be eaten by them either," he said. Hmmm. Perhaps.

In a word, politicians and economists in the United States should stop trying to find reasons for the crisis outside U.S. borders. Some analysts say that the comment about high savings triggering the financial crisis is just an excuse for all the real reasons for the problem. Again, who says? This is not an excuse. Although it sounds like one, the truth is that in an interconnected, globalised world, we are all interdependent. It's true that emerging markets had a role to play. Where, for instance, do you think their surpluses come from?

The urgent task for the United States, the world's biggest and most important economy, is not to shirk its responsibilities, but find solutions for the crisis and realize balanced economic growth.

To achieve these goals, it should accelerate domestic adjustment, reasonably enhance the level of saving, reduce trade and financial deficit and properly deal with the relationship between risks and profits as well as regulation and innovation.

In recent years, the International Monetary Fund has issued warnings on the imbalance of the global economy and the Group of Seven industrialized nations have often stated they are concerned over the imbalance, but the statements were not followed by any action.

The financial crisis has not yet hit its bottom and its impacts on the real economy are deepening. The international community needs to act together to curb the spread of the crisis and major economies should shoulder their responsibility by adopting proper economic policies and stabilizing their own and international financial markets instead of looking for someone outside to blame. Qin probably misread his Economics. Or if he didn't, then the American economists probably sounded angsty. For the real thing is: no one is blaming China. It is clearly the USA's fault. However, China provided the rope on which the USA hung herself.

Editor: Qin Yongjing and comments by Shawn.

All opinions mentioned here are my own professional and personal opinions ,and ideas, concepts and methods are all taken from Economics and Econometrics. In no way am I copying or attacking or affronting anyone. If I have offended anyone, it's my fault and I offer my sincerest apologies. This article is merely an Economics expose on articles that pass for good journalism and is not to be taken academically or as proof. Do not cite me. This author has also many Chinese friends and resides in Singapore. Do read everything carefully and with an open but critical mind. Thank you and cheers!

Anything that interests me

Anything that interests me! - Random Musings and then, the financial crisis

2009-02-20T20:31:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me! - Random Musings and then, the financial crisis

First up, I have to mention some things that make me happy and some things that don't. First, I am happy that through my writing and blogging, I have helped some people and made some friends online, for example, Zara who reads my travel site and gives me comments and encouragement. Also, for instance, the people who ask me things about Research, NUS, and stuff like that also get some of my help and I must say that this gives me great pleasure. I think that perhaps Adam Smith was right when he said that there was something in the nature of man that feels happy when others are, or seem, happy.

But there are also some things that cheese me off. I was trying to help YL, my friend, see why she did not get into the dean's list whereas I did.

And so off I went to google.

And I couldn't find the justification nor the reason, but instead...

came upon a thread.

There was a thread which criticised arts students, wrote a lot about the dean's list and also on many other things, like manners, intelligence, arts subjects vs engine subjects and the like. Some of the people there even appeared intelligent, with big words and the like. But I wasn't impressed.

I was more disappointed and upset that some people spend time writing in forums and do not get good grades, and then spend yet more time condemning others who have done well. Also, while there were one or two smart people in the forums telling the others their logical fallacies or their mistakes in argument, these people were the minority. The majority in that thread were anti-arts people who said that such subjects were both useless and only people who could not get into science, could get into arts. This was written in 2008.

Well, DF and I are in Economics, and we are in FASS. Would those people like to have a word with us? My mathematics, and certainly DF's mathematics, would be much better and of higher standard than those critics. I would even venture to say that, absolutely, people like YL, DF and myself have higher standards academically and intellectually than such people. The fact that they spend time writing about things that they know not of is really mind boggling - if there is an impression that science is better than FASS subjects, bear in mind that in FASS there are Economists, Historians, Psychologists and many other social scientists who can and would be willing to tear this view down.

As well as the misconception that arts people cannot count. FASS students do statistics, and in the case of DF and other "outliers", we seem to do better than some of the so-called statisticians. Anyways, just to ramble.

The GFC

Systemic risk and the problems of financial deregulation and liberalisation are well known, relatively speaking, as the causes of the financial crisis.

Yet one underlooked point that I shall be researching on is the fact that this global financial crisis (GFC) was also caused by an imbalance in global capital flows. In a nutshell, and using an economist's terms, American interest rates were kept low simply because there was a flood of financial capital from the developing world, especially China and the Middle East, that helped fuel the subprime mortgage crisis. Contrary to what the Chinese may think, this is not to blame the crisis on China, of course.

The fact is that there are common causes of financial crises, and global capital flows is one of them.

OK, I should have written more but my hands are tired, and besides, I summarised my entire research already. Bloody heck.

Off I go back to study, and also to write my essay on Export Oriented Industrialisation and Global Capital Flows and the responses of emerging markets in the GFC. Cheers. You feel luckier now, don't you - I have to do all these things! :p :p

Kidding. :) :)

Anything that interests me

The Current GFC - Global Financial Crisis

2009-01-15T06:29:00.000-08:00

The Current GFC - Global Financial Crisis

No, I am not going to talk about the GFC to explain it to people. That's not the point of this post. The point of this post is about themes. And the difficulties of my incredibly difficult ISM and the conundrum that I've faced, and also a bit about philosophies.

On Bullshit and the GFC (Ponzi schemes)

Anyways, the GFC is also evidence of the lengths that people would go to just to bullshit others, in terms of the Madoff case and the lax regulations that led to renegade money managers. I was thinking of proposing:

"Is the liberal financial regime in the US and Europe one giant Ponzi scheme?"

Other proposals that I have in mind:

Does the GFC mark the end of the liberal financial model, or is it just an aberration?

Effects of ... on the GFC

... include:

rumours, economic liberalisation, economic integration... and much more. Just imagine that to be a Satzklammer, where you can fill in any nice word you want.

Effects of hamburgers on the GFC (that would get me kicked out!)

The problem is that this is an ISM, and with a very important and clever professor.

Why?

I cannot do a literature survey or a simple analysis in words, because that would not suffice for a major ISM. In economics there is now a pressing demand for models and empirical studies or econometric studies at the undergraduate level, even for level 3000.

This is not a fact but a kind of trend. I have a friend whose professor just said that a literature review and simple analysis would do - because we are not trained to make models or to innovate models or conduct econometric studies at year 3. On the other hand, there is my professor, who is wise and clever enough to inform me of the pitfalls of "traditional economics", which is under heavy attack by mathematics. I am using such strong words, but basically the mathematisation of economics is an ongoing and continuous trend that will not abate, and in fact has been established as part of this field for ages.

SO the problem is THIS:

Building a model, and then doing empirical testing.

Another possible way is to have the empirical evidence and then do a model based on that.

Needless to say there are debates.

I am going to graduate with an Economics First Class here, so no matter what it takes, I'll do it (yes, that's not economic thinking - did not weigh opportunity cost). So one possible strategy would be to bite bullets.

Biting bullets

Mankiw claimed that he is not good at math. Yet he bit the bullet and became an Economist. I have bitten the math bullet.

In addition, the other intellectual bullets that I have bitten are:

1. Physics - at the level of concepts and hypotheses - models of course

2. Biology and evolution

3. Increasing mathematisation in Economics including abstract statistical concepts

4. Additional modules - including International Economics (which is not compulsory for me) - i.e. doing more work, in effect

5. Dumping History, my beloved subject... because I have to get Economics First Class and USP. Sigh. I will miss her, but then again, I can always study history and read stuff on my own, whereas Economics and USP are paying and metaphorically paving me the metaphorical road to metaphorical success. You know, I really loved Economics and History at JC, but now, when I do Economics as a "professional" subject, it is a bit dry.

But there are more bullets to come.

Now I go back to writing proposals.

One good thing about blogging is that it is a form of catharsis. And what do you know, you may actually think of better ideas whilst formulating your own ideas into words.

One last thing is that for you non-economists, this current global financial crisis is colossal and has far reaching repercussions, the likes of which the world has never seen. This is really indeed some catastrophe and I am not alarmist (i.e. I'm not that kind of DOOMSSSSSDAY IS COMINGGGGG!!! person). Francis Fukuyama predicted the end of history. Many predicted the end of finance (i.e. that finance was fully developed). Well, they were right and wrong - it was no end to finance, but now it seems that it is an end to finance.

The world is ending!!!

PS You will be pleased to know that economists are spectacularly bad at predicting. We are not dentists (Harford, of Undercover Economist fame).

Anything that interests me

Anything that interests me: On Catholicism vs Protestantism

2009-01-06T00:33:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me: On Catholicism vs Protestantism...
What is the True Christian Church??

This is going to look like a very disjointed post, but it really isn't.

Na ja.

Some Singaporeans call themselves Christians but they have no idea what Christianity is; Christianity is a form of religion to them that they choose, and its tenets are either what they think it is, or whatever their pastor tells them. Many of them even ask me "What's your religion", and wanting to spare them the lapsed Catholic speech and my struggles with agnosticism and religion, I just say "Catholic", whereby the Protestant askers (I mean, Christian askers, since that's what they always call themselves) invariably say one of the following:

1. Catholics will go to hell for not believing in Jesus (I swear this is true, and that's what they say)

or

2. You should become Christian.

When I don't tell them Catholic, and I happen to tell them "Christian", because Christian = Catholic in almost every country in the world except Singapore, they are really puzzled when I call them Protestant.

I happen to have found a very beautiful article which I will share. Just to show how honest I am, because there is a need for honesty in this doubt filled world, I found it because one of my advertisers is a man with a mission and has been spreading the word of God. I am nominal Catholic and agnostic, currently, but his writing spares me the trouble of saying everything over and over again to people who have ears but cannot hear (or for that matter, refuse to hear).

Weinland, Ronald. 2006. 2008: God's Final Witness. Mimeo.
(Here's the citation so that Protestants who like to say, "Who says", can have a look at how scholarly I am, and how scholarly and detailed Ronald Weinland is. Actual Disclaimer: All the words that follow, in inverted commas, are the works of Weinland and his company, and are reproduced in part here for academic purposes, and not for profit.)

"The Catholic faith comprises a little over one-half ... of all that is called Christianity. Therefore, it is of primary importance that we consider this faith when we speak of Christianity.

...

"The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is a belief that some die with smaller faults, for which there has been no repentance, and upon death go to a place of purgatory rather than directly to heaven or hell. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the church “has from the Sacred Scriptures…that there is a purgatory.” However, the Methodist plainly state in their articles of belief that there is no scriptural evidence of purgatory:

'The Romish [speaking of the Catholic Church] doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XIV.—Of Purgatory)'

"The Methodist [sic] clearly teach that the doctrine of purgatory is “vainly invented” and “repugnant to the Word of God.” Most Protestant churches agree with this same stance of the Methodist faith.Obviously, these two faiths (beliefs) are diametrically opposite to each other. To be the true followers of God and “faithful” to His word, only one of these can possibly be true. Either one is true, or both are false; but both cannot be true. It is important that everyone consider some of the most basic doctrinal differences in a faith that calls itself “Christian.” Each faith (group) believes it is right, yet these faiths (groups) differ greatly from each other. Therefore, only one can possibly be considered true. Stated another way, either one is true and the others are false, or all must be false.

"The Catholic faith is one of the oldest known “Christian” faiths. None of the Protestant churches have the long history of the Catholic Church. The Lutheran Church, which is the oldest Protestant church, broke away from the Catholic Church. Many others eventually broke from the Catholic faith because they embraced a different faith—one never known before. The faith of the Lutheran Church didn’t exist until Martin Luther came on the scene and stated his “faith” about God. Today, we find that most “Christian” faiths came directly from the Catholic Church or from splinter groups of other “Christian” faiths during thelast two centuries. All the “Christian” churches that embrace Sunday worship, Easter and Christmas observance, and the Trinity doctrine received these doctrines through the Catholic Church; yet all these churches believe that many doctrines, which the Catholic Church embraces to be spiritually true, are false." {Emphasis added}

Or, to borrow the ideas from G K Chesterton, what is true in the Protestant faiths actually come from Christianity - The Catholic Church. Yet Protestants sometimes, routinely even, condemn Catholics, in Singapore.

I am myself unsure of the truth. But if Christianity is the truth and the way, then Catholicism stands a higher chance of being the truth than Protestantism, which is derived from it. The other elements of Protestantism are clearly man made and in many ways repugnant - rich and powerful pastors who have wives and girlfriends; a rewritten Bible (if one is a Mormon, one might find it hard to believe it, but it is factually true), and rewritten beliefs; and above all, the myriad other ways in which Protestants have either wittingly or unwittingly modified and changed Christian beliefs which they did not like.

What a mouthful.

Alright.

So, I shall refer all other people here to this post in future, if I am too lazy to bother explaining to City Harvest people the difference between Christians ( CATHOLICS ) and Protestants (in their case, they are Charismatic/ Evangelical Protestants, although Charismatics/ Evangelicals will protest and say NO THEY AREN'T!! very vehemently).

All ideas and opinions expressed here are my own except for those attributed and cited (to various authors, Weinland and Chesterton). No ill will or harm is intended apart from academic discussion or public edification.

Anything that interests me!

Nice stories I just want to share

2009-01-04T07:51:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me: Nice stories I just want to share

With the world in recession plus a whole host of negative things around us (fires in Thailand clubs, dead Singaporeans and live terrorists, Israel attacking Hamas yet again... et al), I think I would like to share some nice stories instead. Just for a change. For no apparent reason, psychology, philosophy, economics and history aren't in my head at the moment, although once school starts I will be studying all the philosophy, economics and history that I can lay my hands on, and memorising and learning and whatnot. I would like to share some nice stories.

By the way I realise that some people may want to contact me and to ask me things and talk to me. Do leave some means of contact, like a blog or an email, so that I can get back to you. I don't let people contact me easily on my Ideas on How To Become Rich and Get Your University Degree Online sites, but this is my personal academic blog and questions are always welcome. Thanks! The reason, of course, why I don't leave any means of contact around is that if you check things up, I have been flamed and attacked ad hominem by strange people whom I've never met (and in some cases, whom I've met for like 10 seconds). But for the rest of the world, just leave me some contact and I'll be glad to help you.

Anyways, stories, in my own words:

A rugby team was about to win the first championship in their lives. They were seconds away from victory and the crowd was already counting down. TEN! NINE! EIGHT! ... One of the quarterbacks, caught up in the excitement of the moment, threw up the ball, up into the air, just as the crowd counted THREE! TWO! ... He thought that the match was almost over and that he had won for the first time ever. At that moment, the other team's foremost player caught the ball and ran to the end and ... touch-down! The other team won.

Moral: it ain't over till the fat lady sings. That's my fave phrase!

During the Vietnam War, the Americans accidentally bombed a village and injured many young children. One little girl was especially hurt and needed a huge blood transfusion to save her life. She was rushed to hospital by her teacher, accompanied by friends and classmates. The Red Cross nurse who was tending to her asked everyone: "Will any one here in this hospital give her blood? She's dying!" However, none of the Vietnamese in the hospital responded, including the girl's friends. A little boy took a look at the dying girl, and then volunteered to give blood. The nurse took her syringe and started her work. As she did, the life started returning to the girl's face and she looked much better, and the Doctor said, "She's going to live, because of you. Well done, little boy." And the boy said, in a trembling voice: "Well, I am glad that she can live. When will I start dying? Am I going to die now?" It was then that the Red Cross realised that every one of the Vietnamese had misunderstood and that they thought they had to give their life to save the girl.

My thought: As Jesus says, there's no greater love than giving your life for your friends. I am touched every time I read this one.

A boss was hiring workers to sell telephone systems when a cowboy walked into his office. "Hire me, boss, I wanna become a success in beeness (business)," said the cowboy. The boss thought that he would never make it, but gave him a chance anyways because he thought that the cowboy would be out in a month. "Thanks sir, you won't regret it," said the cowboy, "how much do ya think I will make inna month?" The boss said, "Well, based on your lack of experience and your dressing, your accent, and your bad English, no more than 1000 bucks a month!" The cowboy said, "No problem; that's more than what I get back at the ranch anyways!" He got 400 bucks working as a cowboy.

He went on to make 6000 bucks on his first month and went from success to success. One day he even came into the office with bags of cash and said, "Hey Larry, I doing fine, no?" The boss was flabbergasted. He said, "I don't know if you take paper (a cheque - he didn't know what a cheque was), so I drove the lady to the bank and got her to give me the money in cash!" How did he sell the phones to her, to begin with? He said: "I just said to her, 'Ma'am, let's just say the phone does nothing but ring and you pick it up, my brand looks nicer than those that you already have!' "

The cowboy also wrote down his goals: "I wanna be a success in beeness." And he made hundreds of cold calls a day. He wrote his goals and went for it, and eventually did become a success in business.

"To Risk"
by William Arthur Ward/ Author unknown (I have found multiple attributions)

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental
To reach out to others is to risk involvement
To expose feelings is to risk exposing your true self
To place your ideas, your dreams before a crowd is to risk their loss
To love is to risk not being loved in return
To live is to risk dying
To hope is to risk despair
To try is to risk failure

But risks must be taken,
because the greatest hazard in life is to do nothing.

The person who risks nothing,
does nothing, has nothing, and is nothing.
They may avoid suffering and sorrow,
but they cannot learn, feel, change, grow, love, live.

Chained by their attitudes, they are a slave,
they forfeited their freedom.
Only the person who risks can be free.

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
And the realist adjusts the sails.

And another nice, well, advertisement, in this case, that I want to share is:

Impossible is just a big word
thrown around by small men
who find it easier to live
in the world they've been given
than to explore the power they have
to change it.

Impossible is not a fact.
It's an opinion.

Impossible is not a declaration.
It's a dare.

Impossible is potential.
Impossible is temporary.

Impossible is nothing.

I remember that most people said that David Beckham was just fluff and not a real footballer, only an advertisement or some kind of walking merchandise or something like that. He sells shirts and perfumes and whatnot, you see. When he went to Real Madrid, they said that too. He was real unpopular.

BUT, I also remember that on his first match, he scored his very first goal for Real from a freekick - scoring his debut goal for Real Madrid, on his first match, on his first freekick. He won them that game. David Beckham never looked back, and his detractors were all wrong anyways. Go BECKS! :) Hah. I'm ancient.

Anything that interests me!

And oh yes - How To Pass Your IPPT

2008-12-31T06:41:00.000-08:00

And oh yes - How To Pass Your IPPT

1. Let's say your birthday is in June, like mine. Your IPPT window starts then and ends one year later, on your birthday, and then your new window opens.

2. At least, that's what the rules are supposed to be, at least during my time.

3. Let's assume, like me, you dread IPPT and cannot pass it consistently with gold standard etc. If, for instance, you were very fit, you would not have been reading or looking for How to Pass Your IPPT, right? Perhaps, perhaps.

4. Let's also assume the obvious - that you need to take the test, you're male, you're from Singapore, you're a reservist, you know how to read English, you know what I am talking about, you want to pass your IPPT but don't know how.

5. Here's how I did it, and how I will do it. Legally, of course.

6. You will attempt to train for one month,
7. Then take the test one month before your window ends,
8. Then take the test one month after your window starts.

9. This frees up two years for you to enjoy life, and you suffer only for two and a half months. Here's the timeline that I mean:

late April - start training (unless you're kiasu)
May - training
June - take test 1
July - take test 2

10. I do only four activities. I think that any three will already make you get silver for IPPT, but doing all may improve your performance just marginally.

First: football (soccer, that's what it is) - I cycle 5km to the pitch and then play for two hours, then cycle home.

Second: calisthenics - pushups, crunches, tip-toes, side bending, Buddha claps, finger flicks, the works

Third: gym - I usually use the following: lateral pull down, bench press, knee extension (or leg raises, depending on what you like), bicep curl, and the crunches machine (I don't know the actual name of this machine) - the reason is that these machines are those that train you for IPPT

lateral pull down - chin ups
bench press - chin ups (but also helps you look good)
knee extension - SBJ or 2.4 or both
bicep curl - chin ups (mainly for underhang grip)
crunches machine - sit ups

Fourth: running - I run 5 km twice a week, or 8 km twice a week, depending on my time and schedule. This helps 2.4km and overall health, of course; but it also helps you in chin ups and sit ups because you are training those parts incidentally too (your arms move as you run, and you need stomach muscles to stabilise you as you run), and the fact that you do aerobic exercise also contributes to your shedding some fat and some weight, so it's easier for you to pull your body up (less weight because less fat on body), or so the theory goes.

11. Yup. That's it. Train, take the test, maintain your fitness, and do the test again! Then it's two years of freedom!

12. I hope you can pass your IPPT, just as I try to get the incentive $100 or $200.

All the best for your IPPT! Cheers and thanks for reading.

Anything that interests me

All the above are my own personal advice and not the professional advice of a PTI or a doctor or fitness instructor.

Anything that interests me - Happy New Year! 2009

2008-12-31T06:20:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me - Happy New Year! 2009

I have had many things going badly for me this year in 2008, as well as many things going well for me this year in 2009. This is going to be one of those posts where I ramble on and actually talk about personal things that interest me, instead of my trying to write SEO-oriented articles on diverse topics that are impersonal, and what have you. Sometimes I just feel like writing personal things on my personal blog. Besides, the best part about having a blog in which I write about anything that interests me is that I have the liberty of writing anything that I want. Na ja, well, I mean, almost everything that I want. So this post is not going to be about the various academic subjects and academic topics that occupy my brain, and also most of my life.

Anyways, where was I? I seem to have lost my train of thought, but then again, that's just an expression. I got it back.

I would like to thank DF aka Roastbird for helping me with Econometrics - my only poor subject this semester. I got 4.75 this semester and threw away my Econometrics prize with my terrific, terrible score. I am also aiming for top student, so this is going to be very difficult because I must have ruined my chances with that one and only B. Then again, talking to Roastbird diminishes my motivation to excel academically, because we talk about all sorts of interesting and diverse topics, far away from the practical, exam-oriented nature of NUS modules ... so perhaps I should talk less and work/study/mug more. Na ja, who cares? My resolution therefore is to work more efficiently next semester and complete 6 modules with CAP 5. Then again, as those who know me well will affirm, that seems to be my resolution every semester! So I didn't change there.

I have learnt and developed as a person, partly for the worst and partly for the better. I won't go into details but basically it was a tumultuous time for me and I must say that I have been thoroughly disillusioned. Although I bear my illusions in other areas just as well. Anyways, I resolve to be just like Cyrus in the Xenophon book - a virtuous leader.

OK, so my resolutions/ goals/ wants for the new year 2009 are

1. Work more efficiently and get CAP 5 (two times, in May and in December).

2. Be a virtuous leader just like Cyrus in that great book by Xenophon

3. Oh yeah, these too: no more bad words/ be more humble than I already am, and I am very humble / stop losing my temper/ pass my goddamn IPPT with silver standard

In 2009, there are a couple of things that I am looking forward to, potentially...

1. Glad trip to Japan (long story, long story, but I want to go to Japan with someone on holiday, and this time, I will destroy Universal Studios!)

2. The FASS Awards Ceremony, as I've booked my place there already (with my [shoot, startling sibilance!] sterling semester, sans Econometrics).

2.1 I hope to have won by then the top student for the entire Arts year 3. This will be my greatest achievement in NUS apart from my German certificate, and my CAP 5 semester, and my exchange in England.

Well, that's about it, I think. Happy New Year and all the best for 2009, and may the road rise up to meet you, and may all your wishes come true!

Shawn

Anything that interests me!

Anything that Interests Me! DPPS

2008-12-18T09:14:00.001-08:00

Anything that Interests Me! DPPS

I was busy with the DPPS for two days. DPPS is an acronym meaning Developments in Public Policy Seminar, and that is what we did, learning about developments in public policies and how we as civil servants can contribute to public policy formulation as well as public policy implementation.

There were many issues discussed and they all interested me deeply, intellectually and emotionally, and ranged from economics to social issues and whathaveyou. I had a great time because I was rather engaged and motivated and spoke up on almost anything that I had an interest in. I found it a bit sad that several fellow participants had closed minds on issues, and that they didn't challenge as much as they should have. It's not that challenging opinions is a good thing, but that if someone has an erroneous or dangerous opinion, that should be rigorously contested - if you got it wrong, the person will hammer you back in a powerful rebuttal and you can learn; if you got it right, the other person can learn something and you stand vindicated/ happy/ cheesed off at the general lack of intelligence among mankind/ I kid.

I won't go into details here, but it is clear that Ms Menon, my old history teacher, was absolutely right - one must think sharp and clear, and challenge questions and assumptions to be a true scholar.

One point I want to dwell on is that the term scholar in Singapore means that one earns money studying. However, the term scholar, according to Ms Menon is that a person engages in learning, challenging, developing one's intellect and developing one's own moral compass. The Singaporean version seems to stress money and economics, while the Ms Menon version stresses learning, academia and the search for an elusive but worthwhile truth.

Anyways, I have accepted a challenge - I've joined up for a Research project, where I am a Research Assistant as NUS! Shall try my very best and learn whatever I can. This is a great chance to engage in real scholarship.

The basic issue at hand is the traditional ultimatum game in economics expanded. I'll just discuss the ultimatum game a bit:

There are two players, and one is a proposer and the other is a receiver. If there is a sum of money to be divided, the proposer will keep some for himself and propose a sum of money for the other person. The other person, however, has no powers to propose money, except veto powers to reject the deal. If the receiver rejects the deal, then both get nothing.

The subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in this case is that the proposer will offer 0% to the receiver and take 100% for himself. This is because the receiver will definitely say yes to anything (100% - X%) of the money as it is always better than 0. In which case, when it is 100% for the proposer and 0% for the receiver, then the receiver is indifferent between accepting and rejecting, since in both, he will get 0 anyways. Thus, while there are infinite Nash equilibria in this one, the SPNE is 100 versus 0%.

However, this does not work out in practice as we find that people value justice and fairness, because people will NOT ACCEPT low amounts that they deem unfair! They would rather forgo money to "punish the son of a bitch" in the immortal words of my father, a London-school-trained economist.

Interesting stuff!

Good night, and tomorrow I shall begin working on my research project challenge, to go where no NUS student has gone before. Cheers!

Zzzz.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! - Champions League song and History exams

2008-11-27T20:39:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! - Champions League song and History exams
I just finished my world history paper and it was hard and challenging - but it was a great experience!

And now I am left with Econometrics, my final exam and the hardest hurdle in my life. Stock take: I think I can get A+ for the following: Virtue and Leadership; World History. I think I might be able to get A or A- for the following: Physics under Ali Namazie, Macroeconomics and Philosophy. Finally, for Econometrics... I won't speculate. I'll while my time away. I mean, I'll study after this, I swear! Haha. I am probably going loopy from the pain in my mouth and the pain in my heart.

Anyways, this song is one of my favourites, not because I love football (which I do) but because it was the song playing when I was dating my ex-girlfriend at the skating rink; because it is a motivational song and somehow brings unique feelings to me; and because this is the famous and powerful Champions League song!

(I somehow love football songs because they make me very happy.)

WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS

By Queen, 1977

I’ve paid my dues
Time after time
I’ve done my sentence
But committed no crime
And bad mistakes
I’ve made a few
I’ve had my share of sand kicked in my face
But I’ve come through

We are the champions my friends
And we'll keep on fighting till the end
We are the champions
We are the champions
No time for losers
'cause we are the champions, of the world

I’ve taken my bows
And my curtain calls
You brought me fame and fortune
And everything that goes with it
I thank you all
But its been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise
I consider it a challenge
Before the whole human race
And I aint gonna lose

We are the champions, my friends
And we'll keep on fighting till the end
We are the champions,
We are the champions,
No time for losers,
Because we are the champions, of the world!!

Haha I don't know how I came to that... it must be the shock of the history paper. Either that or I am trying desperately to psycho myself and make myself revved up to deal a fatal blow to econometrics before it deals me a fatal blow first and sends me to academic hell. Then again, if I just do anything for econometrics and somehow get B or better, I will be on the dean's list again, and for careerists like myself and proud overconfident people like me - that dean's list is everything, nicht wahr?

Anyways, it's a nice song. And with nice lyrics.

Anything that interests me!

Anything that interests me! Some excerpts from the Melian dialogue

2008-11-21T00:59:00.001-08:00

Anything that interests me! Some excerpts from the Melian dialogue

Well, I once read the Melian dialogue in a newspaper (and yes, it was the Straits Times) and it was very interesting. I promptly left it to the dark recesses of my memory and turned to other interesting subjects in philosophy, till I suddenly thought about the Melian dialogue suddenly, on the eve of the philosophy exam.

Here are some excerpts from the Melian dialogue that I like. Basically, this is from Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, in which he details the conversation, or more accurately, the debate, between the Athenians and the Melians - the Athenians want the Melians on their side in the war, and threaten to smash the poor buggers to the ground if they do not comply. However, the Melians argue about right and fairness, to which the Athenians say that "might is right" - the standard issue philosophical debate that we still have today. Sparta is involved as well, and that makes for an exciting story as well as a tragic end for the liberal, ethical Melians, who are eventually smashed to the ground by the Athenians (hey, who said that Greek history was all nice and fluffly and Plato-ish?).

excerpts from the Melian dialogue (philosophy)

Melians.
To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery.

Melians.
It is natural and excusable for men in our position to turn more ways than one both in thought and utterance. However, the question in this conference is, as you say, the safety of our country; and the discussion, if you please, can proceed in the way which you propose.

Athenians.
For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Melians.
As we think, at any rate, it is expedient- we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.

Athenians.
The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both.

Melians.
And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?

Athenians.
Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you.

Melians.
So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side.

Athenians.
No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.

Melians.
Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some conquered rebels?

Athenians.
As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of the sea.

Melians.
But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?

Athenians.
Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

Melians.
But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect.

Athenians.
Hope, danger's comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to put their all upon the venture see it in its true colours only when they are ruined; but so long as the discovery would enable them to guard against it, it is never found wanting. Let not this be the case with you, who are weak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in extremity, turn to invisible, to prophecies and oracles, and other such inventions that delude men with hopes to their destruction.

Melians.
You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equal. But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians, who are bound, if only for very shame, to come to the aid of their kindred. Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational.

Athenians.
When you speak of the favour of the gods, we may as fairly hope for that as yourselves; neither our pretensions nor our conduct being in any way contrary to what men believe of the gods, or practise among themselves. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. Thus, as far as the gods are concerned, we have no fear and no reason to fear that we shall be at a disadvantage. But when we come to your notion about the Lacedaemonians, which leads you to believe that shame will make them help you, here we bless your simplicity but do not envy your folly. The Lacedaemonians, when their own interests or their country's laws are in question, are the worthiest men alive; of their conduct towards others much might be said, but no clearer idea of it could be given than by shortly saying that of all the men we know they are most conspicuous in considering what is agreeable honourable, and what is expedient just. Such a way of thinking does not promise much for the safety which you now unreasonably count upon.

Athenians.
Some diversion of the kind you speak of you may one day experience, only to learn, as others have done, that the Athenians never once yet withdrew from a siege for fear of any. But we are struck by the fact that, after saying you would consult for the safety of your country, in all this discussion you have mentioned nothing which men might trust in and think to be saved by. Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious. You will therefore show great blindness of judgment, unless, after allowing us to retire, you can find some counsel more prudent than this. You will surely not be caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall wilfully into hopeless disaster, and incur disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of misfortune. This, if you are well advised, you will guard against; and you will not think it dishonourable to submit to the greatest city in Hellas, when it makes you the moderate offer of becoming its tributary ally, without ceasing to enjoy the country that belongs to you; nor when you have the choice given you between war and security, will you be so blinded as to choose the worse. And it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate towards their inferiors, on the whole succeed best. Think over the matter, therefore, after our withdrawal, and reflect once and again that it is for your country that you are consulting, that you have not more than one, and that upon this one deliberation depends its prosperity or ruin.

I don't suppose that I have to say that Realpolitik, realism and political reality all led to one single outcome - the defeat of the Melians. Something to think about!

Anything that interests me!

(Informal) Sources/ citation: 431 BC HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR by Thucydides
CHAPTER XVII. Sixteenth Year of the War - The Melian Conference - Fate of Melos

Anything that interests me! -What I Need at NUS

2008-11-18T04:11:00.000-08:00

Anything that interests me! -What I Need at NUS
Yes I know, this is supposedly an academic blog about philosophy, economics, history, psychology and other subjects that get my academic attention, but then again, this site serves also as my personal website. And besides, planning my academic future (or at least the next semester) is an academic exercise, isn't it? SEO can go out of the window for the moment as I plan my life, then it'll come back again when I post articles on the latest psychological fads. You'll see.

Anyways...

You know how the wise say,

In times of war, plan for peace. In times of peace, plan for war.

I just finished crafting my Maxwell paper, and have thus just knocked another subject out of the war. It looks like it's going to be an A-, but then again, I might get lucky and score another A this time.

I've currently A+ for one module, and an estimated A- for this other module. Two knocked out of the war; four more to go. Not a very promising prospect, I must say. And as I fight subject after subject, I now plan for peace. I mean, I plan for the next war. There's no end to it, is there?

My friend DF will try to convince me to put my intellect to better uses than economic signalling, but I've got really no choice since this is the line I've chosen. Then again, there're always compensations in life, if you get the drift... :)

And besides I can always watch German comedy and laugh my head off. While earning lots of money.

On to business:

NUS has given me the following modules:

[4] EC3371
[4] EC3392
[4] EC3701
[4] EC3702
[4] HY3701

Alright. According to plan.

This is what I need to get first class in Economics:

1. EC1101E
2. EC2101
3. EC3101
4. EC4101
5. EC2102
6. EC3102
7. EC4102
8. EC2303
9. EC3303
10. EC3304

11. UOM1
12. UOM2
13. UOM3
14. UOM4

15. UIS1
16. UIS2

17. 4K EC4660
18. 4K EC4***
19. 4K EC4***
20. 4K EC4***

21 and 22. Honours thesis (2 modules)

The good news: NUS awarded me the necessary credits, so that's according to plan. UOM 1,2,3,4 are completed.

The bad news: unable to get UIS1, so that literally means that UIS2 is going to pose some major problems too.

This means I have to do ONE more module. Dang!!!

I have to do ONE MORE!

No point crying over split milk, so I bite the bullet.

The modules I must do next semester:

1. EC3102 Macroeconomics 2
2. EC4371 Development Economics II
3. EC4394 Behavioural Economics (with Wong Wei Kang!)
4. Supposed to be UIS1
5. Supposed to be another economics module
6. Ops plan was to have LKY SPP

Things are looking quite bleak at the moment, so I'll leave the planning as such:

These three are confirmed:

1. EC3102 Macroeconomics 2
2. EC4371 Development Economics II (I need to apply for waiver of prerequisites)
3. EC4394 Behavioural Economics (with Wong Wei Kang!)

These three are tentative modules:

4. ONE OTHER ECONOMICS MODULE
5. UIS
6. LKY SPP (or SE1101E)

Things don't look too good now, but they will look better later.

Now I go back to studying.

And by the way, here's my favourite poem, which I share with my loved ones (as you all know I committed this to memory, just like some other poems that I love - although somehow, my little kid brother always seems to be able to memorise MORE poems than me although I'm the literature fella... gotta work on that Auguries of Innocence...).

Don't Quit

When things go wrong, as they sometimes will,
When the road you're trudging seems all up hill,
When the funds are low and the debts are high,
And you want to smile, but you have to sigh,
When care is pressing you down a bit,
Rest if you must; but don't you quit.

Life is queer with its twists and turns,
As everyone of us sometimes learns,
And many a failure turns about
When he might have won had he stuck it out;
Don't give up, though the pace seems slow;
You might succeed with another blow.

Often the goal is nearer than
It seems to a faint and faltering man,
Often the struggler has given up
When he might have captured the victor's cup.
And learnt too late, when the night slipped down,
How close he was to the golden crown.

Success is failure turned inside out;
The silver tint of clouds of doubt;
And you never can tell how close you are,
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit;
It's when things seem worst that you mustn't quit.

Anything that Interests Me! - How to learn Econometrics 2

2008-11-13T08:46:00.000-08:00

Anything that Interests Me! - How to learn Econometrics 2

My friend DF replied to my earlier post on How to Learn Econometrics, and he came up with very good arguments and analysis on how I did not do a good job. Well, as that was my first analysis on how to learn Econometrics I must admit that I was sloppy with my language and pandering to my readers somewhat. I will now take a more formal and more academic tone, and I shall try to give some of the dry wit and humour that accompanied his thinly veiled rebuttals, or more accurately, criticisms.

How to learn Econometrics, part 2

His article has two main premises -

1. I do not separate between performance and actual learning.

2. My list of the relevant fields in econometrics is wrong.

These two premises lead him to the conclusion that I morph into a statistic geek, and this leads one to the inexorable conclusion that the only way to be good at Econometrics is to basically be good at statistics, and in particular, for higher levels, matrix representation.

There are basically three counter criticisms that I will make, and if he is reasonable, he will no doubt agree with what I say. However, if he insists upon having his erroneous views, it has more to do with the fact that we are both intelligent people and differ on the approaches to learning. Have no doubt, dear reader, that I am challenging someone of a high intellectual standing.

1. I don't separate between performance and actual learning. This is true, and I acknowledge that what he says is true. However, is there a real difference between performance and actual learning?

Allow me to state categorically that "how to learn Econometrics" means different things to different people. My opponent is assuming that I mean learn in his own way, however, learning for the purposes of my career and education, and for the purposes for many other readers who want to learn econometrics, has nothing to do with understanding Euclidean spaces, or even mathematical proofs, or the like. It has to do with performance.

Why then is it called learning? I chose the word learning because it appears higher in the search engines. Having made that callous joking remark, I now go on to state:

the only way in which you can tell if someone has learnt something is by performance, even though it does not follow that someone who performs has learnt something.

That is, in other words, the behaviour is more important than the intention, because we can see performance and then infer that learning has taken place, although this might not be true at all. The key is that my opponent believes in real learning, whatever that might be - and I am not prepared to venture as to what he means by that. Can one read another's mind? As a mentalist I can say the answer is no, but we can infer that another person has a mind by the remarks that the person makes. This is a complex philosophical issue, so I will just leave it as that - performance matters more, so that's why I wrote that.

2. The list that I offer is wrong - and this I can categorically say, that remains to be seen. I can in fact suggest that all he says is similar to mine:

"probability, statistics, matrices, linear regression and other regression models"

"philosophy of statistical inference
validity and accuracy of statistical inference procedures, in this case linear regression
limits and tradeoffs of statistical inference, of each of the assumptions, in a few different situations
limits and tradeoffs of cost of information, e.g. sample size issues, experimental control issues
matrix representation of linear models, datasets, and procedures"

Being of an argumentative bent, and also since I could have very well been a lawyer, what he says is not actually excluded from the general terms that I use. Yes, a technical distinction - but is not philosophy of statistical inference inferred from "statistics", and so on? Matrix representation seems plausible for linear models, and in fact it is. I have used general terms; he hasn't.

In fact, I will go on to argue that he is wrong that my list has no common purpose. They are all part of econometrics. From the outset, econometrics is not a single subject where the field is clearly defined. There are no single definitions for this, and the history is quite complex. Econometrics is but a tool in the hands of economists; how you define the tool is another matter.

3. The greatest joke of all is that I am a statistics geek. In particular, an econometrics geek, where our statistics is different from others (e.g. Psychologists and their ANOVA). He is totally wrong. The problem is that I am unable to convert from the type of statistics that we have trained for into the matrix representation, whereas mathematicians and statisticians have an easier time.

Having said that, the post was not to strategise, although that was indeed a possibility. The post had its ultimate purpose in SEO and other fiduciary considerations that I shall not delve into for fear of ruffling feathers.

How to learn Econometrics / how to do well in EC3304, part 2
All these are learnt from my detractor who posted those comments...
1. Complete proofs.

2. Learn the individual parts and then bring them all together.

3. Practise the problem sets.

4. Understanding truly, and real learning is better than getting the form right - i.e. don't do my performance method; use his real learning method.

5. Know your lecturer. In this case, he got this one right.

The fact of the matter remains that mathematics has taken hold of the social sciences and will not let go, and that is something that we have to deal with. At the same time, I will not hesitate to point out that my other humanities and social sciences skills far surpass my opponents (and this particular opponent in particular).

In terms of studying, academics: I am an Economist.

I consider myself a historian as well, and in fact, an educated person in general.

And as a former arts person, and a student from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

LET ME REPEAT, ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

I feel a certain academic distaste when people outside my discipline attempt to reform it in ways that they see fit.

Economics always has the human factor. As Akerloff said, I believe and paraphrase: if in real life people are irrational, stupid and silly, then why do we stick to our assumptions that they are rational beings?

Because it makes the math easier. I say. Because we are slaves to the math as psychological and sociological answers are not mathematical enough, especially to my detractor DF.

I feel that it is far more productive in arts terms if we can consider Shakespeare's "neither a borrower or lender be" and ask why an economist would disagree.

Not what the stupid proof for some formulae is, when I can look that up in a book and besides I was among the best statisticians in NUS until that upstart, false economist, real mathematician, friend and good colleague DF popped along. And, also, until the mathematicians changed the rules beyond the scope of economics, for what is a Euclidean norm but a mathematical concept for distance, whereas linear regression regresses, as it were, to demand and supply and other beautiful academic things where I reside. That's the point.

Anything that interests me!