Fun Theory
By Kevin
I guess I'm a little slow but Volkswagen had this really interesting initiative last year called 'The Fun Theory'. They did quite a couple of interesting things to change the behaviours of people by injecting fun into mundane activities. The idea probably stemmed from schools where fun element in injected into teaching and learning to make uptake of new information more comfortable for the kids and less boring. Yet even as we grow up, the desire for fun haven't quite diminished as much as our capacity for it.
The winning entry for their contest, which features a 'Speed Camera Lottery' appears pretty brilliant. The implication though, is that the rewards to abiding by the speed limit from the lottery is proportional (somewhat) to the number of those not abiding by it. Therefore, people's desire to win the lottery would only serve to drive down their rewards. An equilibrium will emerge at the point where there is sort of a market price for traveling slightly above the speed limit where some people won't mind paying and fine and care nothing about the lottery while others would be keen to earn the meagre sum that has been collected from that 'some people'.
Of course, to know what'll happen, you'd really have to test it out.
Problems of an Elite Education
By Wei Seng
Through the hallowed gates of Yale... to a poorer future?
My friend posted a link on Facebook to an article titled 'The Disadvantages of an Elite Education' by William Deresiewicz. I decided to click and take a look at the article and it certainly did not disappoint, perhaps justifying why my friend just had to share the very long article on Facebook. I found many of the ideas communicated in the article quite pertinent to me, given that I was technically in an 'elite' school for the last 6 years of my education.
"The first disadvantage of an elite education": you become unable to talk to people who are not quite like yourself. The writer starts with an anecdote about how he was unable to talk to the plumber in his kitchen, someone presumably with a background totally different from the writer's. I can empathise, because I have encountered this same problem in camp. However while in Singapore the gap between the elite and non-elite is not as wide, that in America is much wider given that elitism not just self-perpetuates in the hallowed campuses of Boston and Ivy League colleges, there is a sense of contempt that is bred by the elite system.
Intelligence, as the writer discovers, is not just about the booksmart kind or the academic or analytic kind that is recognised in the elite education system. Intelligence could be in the form of social intelligence and emotional intelligence, and excellent performance in sports and other non-academic aspects appear to be not as recognised in the elite system.
"The second disadvantage of an elite education": inculcating a false sense of self worth. All the excellent SAT scores and A-level grades only indicate the ability to take tests and perhaps a measure of knowledge, but that does not reflect very much on how far one can succeed in life. Sure, life is a series of tests, but not of the paper-and-pen kind that one can score highly at by mugging away. I take pride in what I know and my academic performance, which the writer acknowledges is something worth being proud of, but so what? Sometimes I lament that I do not know things that many people of my age who went through a mainstream education know, such as cooking (which secondary school students pick up in Home Economics) and fixing of basic electronic devices.
After that feeling of smugness and self-back-patting, there's the idea that "measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense". But humans are all equal, the worth of someone from an elite school is not more than that of someone who was not. As the writer illustrates, "Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more".
And there's the privileges of being in an elite school, that those not from an elite school might not get: exposure to "visiting power brokers" and "foreign dignitaries", scholarships and stipends, opportunities to travel overseas for various reasons ranging from community involvement to research symposiums. I have been very thankful for all the opportunities that my school gave me, and I often wonder what I would have become without all these opportunities. The uneven playing field becomes even less level.
The claims by the writer become more audacious, but echo horrifyingly. Those from elite schools are being pampered for the world they are poised to enter: plenty of opportunity to climb, freedom to pursue one's interests, high-flying careers and social lives. Those not from the elite schools then might be destined for a life of "few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines". All these apply to Singapore quite strongly. But the next few allegations may or may not apply as evidently to Singapore, where the writer suggests that while the system is meritocratic to the point of entry into the elite system, once one gets in it is almost impossible for him to be kicked out for any misdemeanour.
And from there on the allegations lobbed against the elite education system become a bit less applicable to Singapore, though not any less irrelevant or banal. Those who come out from the elite education system may out of 'face' (I use a very Asian concept though the American concept would be pride) not want to pursue anything less than a high-paying job in a comfortable office, though that may not be one's true calling or passion in life. There's the fear of failure, and an obsession with failure even in the banal context of a class test in school. At least in my opinion, there are those from the elite education system who have taken risks and trodded the road less travelled to success (albeit measured in very material manners such as wealth and influence): Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Microsoft and Facebook respectively who both came from Harvard. But regarding the obsession with failure I must claim to be the epitome of this idea because I am so afraid of failure or losing at anything that I tend to restrict myself to doing things that I do well or that I would win, which certainly is not good for my personal development.
The most damning disadvantage of an elite education, the writer accuses after all the disadvantages trickle through, is that "it is profoundly anti-intellectual". I think I shall leave you to go read the article yourself to find out why the writer says this, despite the fact that the elite education is supposed to nurture intellectuals to their fullest potential.
I welcome some rebuttals from all, not just those from the "elite" schools.
Hong Kong Experiment
By Kevin
The Economist viewed the introduction of a minimum wage law to the Hong Kong Economy as an end to its free market experiment that was touted to be 'Milton's Paradise'. The article traces the historical background that resulted in the Laissez-faire capitalism that Milton Friedman so love.
Cognitive Surplus
By Kevin
Extra Mindspace?
ERPZ has always been a result of the 'Cognitive Surplus' that Clay Shirky wrote about and spoke about on TED. There is no organization supporting us, we are not driven commercially; we just are keen to do some stuff and share with the rest of the world. I'm not sure if we are serving any social causes; perhaps LOLcats contribute more than us.
In many sense, we are propagating some ideas by Kevin and his friends that they've found useful and think could be shared. We believe in the importance of disciplining one's minds and to empower it appropriately through careful thinking and motivation. This helps us build positive habits that will do us great in long run. We too often do not realise how little we need to spend at a high frequency to achieve a lot in the end. That is actually the idea of cognitive surplus: watching an hour less TV and use it to do something meaningful would allow you to achieve a lot more in your life. It's also about maximizing your potential, to do what you want to do that will benefit someone else as well.
And here we are, motivating many others to do the same, for themselves as much as everyone else. I always encourage people to think of giving as contributing to personal development though it often don't work on calculative people. So write more, I tell myself occasionally, and change the world somehow - with that cognitive surplus.
Thinking Beliefs
By Kevin
The Skeptic
Michael Shermer speaks on TED about Beliefs, and how people are wired to want to believe in things. He explains 'The pattern behind self-deception' but it really is more about how the brain makes decision on what it pretends to be 'objective' based on extremely limited information. The decisions would therefore be a result of evolutionary experiences as well as learning.
It is really very true that you choose to believe in false patterns and become superstitious especially when you feel out of control, helpless in a specific matter. That is the reason why gamblers often believe in luck and we Chinese think that you should not touch a book ('shu', a homonym of 'losing' in Chinese) before entering a gambling den. One of the articles in The Economist's special report on Gambling discusses this. It quotes from David Sklansky:
[E]xpert players do not rely on luck. They are at war with luck. They use their skills to minimise luck as much as possible.
Therefore, it is the less skilled who'd think that they are 'victims' of fate or luck. The article's conclusion highlights a point from David that shifts your perspective of luck from winning to losing:
Imagine trying intentionally to lose at a game of pure chance, like roulette or baccarat. It would be impossible. At the beginning of a deal or a roll you have to bet on something. You can no more deliberately play badly than you can deliberately play well. The same is not true for poker, which offers multiple opportunities to make sure you lose.
That is to say that for something which you can deliberately play badly in, you'd have a good control of the outcome, and you need to make use of that control. It applies to life at large; when you choose to blame other things, events, people and circumstances for your situation, you're victimizing yourself and thinking that you've been toyed by chance. It makes you more likely to believe in false patterns and weakens you. That sets the basis for bad thinking and destructive self-deception.
Michael is also the founder of Skeptic Magazine. The magazine appears to be both humourous (at least from my point of view) and full of science tidbits that most people would really enjoy. For those who believes the world is ending in 2012, do check out a little interview they've done for you guys.
The takeaway? Understand your tendency towards beliefs and learn how to use them to your advantage; maintain a healthy skepticism and at times, accept false things so that you'd feel better. Most importantly, empower yourself with your beliefs.
Title Inflation
By Kevin
Cloud Computing Ninja?
The recent Schumpeter article about title inflation is really pretty hilarious, not so much because of the humour about the leader of North Korea but because it is really true. It's amusing how people try to inflate job titles and it's to their disadvantage because of how opaque it makes the job become.
Fluffing up titles isn't only happening in the corporate sector; there are plenty of clubs and societies at schools and Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) that does that. It looks good on your portfolio and more presentable when you try to apply for scholarships, internships, attachments or even try to participate in some seminars. The question is whether the title should be 'important-sounding' or that it should appear to bear loads of responsibilities. In any case, the whole affair is much like the classical signaling games in game theory where signaling grows to epic proportions and undermines the purpose itself. It's all part of evolution; much like how deers who may have grown huge anthers find it hard to escape in dense forests (they get caught between trunks) or peacocks with such big nice feathers it is really heavy for them to open them up.
When the titles that are exaggerated appear to be ineffective signaling device or would backfire, there would be movements to simplify them and scale down the intensity of use. Perhaps then someday, we'll know of our CEOs as 'boss'.
Thinking Economics
By Kevin
Mind Tricks?
People thinks I'm very rational when it comes to making decisions (especially personal ones), but it is really more about thinking economics than rationality. Economics was founded based on the assumption that all individuals are rational and acting on self-interest. Too often, however, we know little about what is really in our interest and worse of all, we have no idea how to put it into the equation. It'll then help to look at the market and what it is doing to decide.
It appears ironic that individuals may peer at the market to learn how to be rational when they are part of the market itself. Nevertheless, the fact remains that while individuals are capable of making good direct comparisons, complex patterns of choice emerge only through the market, which aggregates decision-making of an independent crowd (an important concept I briefly touched previously). The concept of opportunity cost proves invaluable at decision-making - when you can't decide what you want, think about what you are willing to forgo.
I was thinking about how capable kids around me often have parents who are not particularly educated and perhaps not with any outstanding careers. Of course there are exceptions but many smart capable people do have just plainly ordinary backgrounds much like mine. It dawned on me that the question is really how 'ordinary people' make such great parents. Parents who have a great career simply have to sacrifice much more in order to expend effort at raising their kids.
The high opportunity cost simply means that it might actually make sense for them to 'outsource' the work to someone who has less stake in their kids. In many sense, the same principles applies to a kid - for one who expects to be able to live life comfortably and have little expectations of themselves, slacking away poses a lower opportunity cost than one who knows that the alternative to working towards success is deprivation. Of course, I'm assuming that the kid has the level of maturity to consider this and understand the concept of opportunity cost, intellectually if not intuitively.
Eventually, what remains required besides economics thinking would be discipline; and discipline could also be explained by an intuitive grasp of economics and incentives. With the right way of positioning ideas in one's mind, one would be able to accentuate long term incentives while downplaying the benefits of instant gratification. That's what everyone in the west has to learn today.
Opening Up
By Kevin
Deal!
The recent Lexington on The Economist gave a pitch on the merits of openness, to migration and trade; and then analysed how far US has come. His analysis on America emphasize the inclination towards isolation and warned how dangerous it could be while urging support for greater openness. Singapore's openness to migration appeared particularly alarming to locals in the recent years and prompted our government to take steps to distinguish the privileges between Permanent Residents and Citizens as well as take more social action to aid the needy citizens. Personally, I think the over-embrace of foreigners here is often disturbing for those who cling to Singapore as home; ironically, that's actually the people whose support the government really needs.
Nevertheless, the arguments for openness were great, I particularly like the anecdote used in the first paragraph.
A LONG time ago, the rising seas turned Tasmania into an island. A few thousand inhabitants were cut off from contact with the Australian mainland. Their technology regressed. They forgot how to make bone tools, catch fish and sew skins into clothes. It was not that they grew less intelligent. Their problem was that they no longer had many people to trade with. It took a lot of effort to learn how to carve needles out of bone. So long as there were plenty of people with whom to swap needles for food, it made sense to acquire such skills. But in a tiny, isolated society, there may have been room only for one or two needle-makers. If they both fell off cliffs, the technology died with them. When the first Europeans reached Tasmania, they found natives whose only shields against the winter chill were seal-fat smeared on their skin and wallaby pelts over their shoulders.
Movie Screening – Addicted to Plastic (Young NTUC)
By Wei Seng
Are you addicted to plastic?
In a follow-up to my write-up on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, there is a movie screening of a documentary Addicted to Plastic by Young NTUC on Wednesday 19 May 2010, from 1930 - 2130 at NTUC Centre Room 701.
I received this invitation in my email as a subscriber to the Young NTUC mailing list. Young NTUC is the youth arm of Singapore's National Trade Union Congress (NTUC). I'd love to go for the movie but I'd be in camp that night, and I think this movie will be quite beneficial and eye-opening in helping to understand the context of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I hope I can find some way to catch it, like perhaps if I have a night out from camp.
Details here, booking of tickets can be done through the same link.
America in the race towards clean energy
By Wei Seng
Clean energy for you?
Thus far in America, it is mainly the Democrats, with the support of environmentalists, who are championing clean energy (renewable energy such as wind and solar energy) as the way forward for America's energy future. Given the current problems in terms of environmental degradation and national security, heading towards clean energy seems like a viable solution to deal with both problems, but getting the Republicans to support such measures is difficult because many either do not believe in climate change or are skeptical of the impact of climate change. Jim DiPeso, as The Green Conservative (resident Republican environmentalist) on The Daily Green, argues that America needs to take the lead in clean energy and cannot wait for China to act, because China is already working on renewable energy, leaving America behind.
His appeal to the conservative Republicans? That America, as self-purported global leader, cannot wait for China to take the lead in pursuing renewable energy: in his words, why should America "forsake global leadership on a critical issue and defer to the world's largest communist country"?
And the larger point is, it is not just about losing the race towards developing clean energy technology: it is also about forsaking the money that could potentially pour in as well as jobs. Which dovetails nicely with what President Obama has been saying about clean energy: that it can bring in the jobs, even if you are skeptical about whether climate change is really happening or not.
The thing now is, will the Republicans embrace bipartisanship once again to piece together a clean energy bill? Unfortunately, given the immigration reform brouhaha in America right now, the only Republican senator pledging support for such a bill might withdraw his support... and perhaps lead to the collapse of the bill.