the value prop in everything

So found out about this today and it reminded me of a conversation I was having with Felix a few weeks ago, about how everything does come back down to education - teaching people not what, but how to think, ultimately influencing their mindsets, the decisions they make and where their lives head. Education can and should happen anywhere, and should be a life-long process of learning. Where it can be quite important to people in formative stages of thinking, or at least where it is legal and compulsory, is in the area of formal education and schooling. This is why any news in the area particularly piques my interest.

Probably because I've just emerged from my mental cave of microeconomics from the past week and a half, it is easy to look at what is being suggested and note the economic efficiency. Supply of human capital being trained to equal demand of firms - restoring markets to equilibrium, maximising social welfare, blah blah blah (I am not very good at economics). Quoted from the article, Tony Abbott states that "So many young people get to the end of their time at school wondering what they are going to do for the rest of their lives, what job they are going to do the day after they leave."- and it is true. I am surrounded by friends who are going to graduate at the end of the year with no idea of what they want to do. Should this model be introduced to them, I'm sure many of them will agree in its benefits for the students/future entrants into the job market, thinking about their own painful uncertainties.

But maybe the problem of directionlessness, the anxiety of not knowing where to take their lives, started well beyond approaching the end of their degree - and if done incorrectly, the act of corporate-directed curriculum can perpetuate. What is the heart of the problem here? This is where the beauty of normative questions comes in (cheers again, third year micro), and evaluating the consequences of enforcing/not enforcing certain policies.

At its core, institutionalised education is something I've been invited to think about since my first semester at university, when in one of my subject tutorials, we were asked to look at the traditional objective of university - being a place to inquire and gain knowledge - to the vocationally-biased, degree-producing factories they're becoming today.

From a principle standpoint, having a self-interested third party dictate the direction of what should be an objective field sounds morally wrong. Let's rewind that for a moment - how 'objective' should education be? To avoid going on a tangent, I'll leave the debate of "dictating people's interests and careers vs. following their dreams" on the table in view, but deliberately to the side. Herein comes this idea of what the economy needs, and the proposed solution that we train up our students in these fields.

By no means, and as I believe I've mentioned on this very blog, do I believe that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is particularly useful. Indeed, as the world changes and new challenges arise, the ability to remain responsive to these needs is crucial, so that we may address them effectively.

There is, however, a difference between response and reaction.

What worries me about this plan is the way in which it could potentially be executed with the mindsets of the parties who would be implementing it. Therein lies the problematic nature of corporates shaping the curriculum; that the needs they see and what maximises profits for their company may be irrelevant, at least in how they do things, in the future. Very targeted and focused classes that fit into the package of"Skills a ___ Will Need 101", have the danger that lies in graduates attempting to enter the workforce after their very specific education, only to find that everything they've learnt is obsolete.

Instead, the kind of broad base in critical thinking and analysis, qualitative as well as quantitative skills is one I believe is best in schools. Teach fundamental courses which will help them build foundations - literacy, science, mathematics, philosophy - but always link it back to why they matter - not complete pictures, but just some possibilities, and their relevance might not always be as obvious as you think.

How many times has a student, whether someone else or even yourself, looked at their literature essay, their quadratic equations, molecular structures and asked, "what is even the point?" If I appreciated science the way I do now as a method for understanding the world and the objective truths it reveals, it would've made VCE Chemistry a hell of a lot easier to get through. It's lucky that I've always liked maths, but if someone passionate about resource allocation problems we face in the world and looked straight to economics for it, it would've been a lot more meaningful to know that every calculus class they sat through in school would help them understand the economic phenomena that surround them. Most importantly, beyond moving from the "What's the point of studying maths? I don't want to be a mathematician" type of attitude, it's not just about relating those disciplines to what you want to do later in life, but understanding that being trained to think so broadly will benefit you no matter what you do, to at the very least, know what's going on in the world around you, or have some clue as to how to interpret and analyse it.

If someone gave me those value propositions back in school, I know I could have made a lot more out of everything I studied, not just what I happened to be interested in. Maybe it's just because I thrive off knowing concrete examples, but in a society where we produce so many individuals with no idea of where to go, maybe it is something that we can benefit from as a whole.

What does give me a glimmer of hope in the model being proposed are that the future demands of the economy - big data, information technology, engineering and the like - are by nature more innovation-oriented, and therefore less attached to any traditional methods or mechanisms of doing things. Perhaps we could do with putting some faith into these corporates that they have a strong vision for how their field caters for society - instead of just hissing and bringing out the pitchforks at the first thought of "commercialisation". Maybe we'll see strong displays of leadership where the multidisciplinary approach to education is one endorsed by these technical fields.

Until we see some more concrete plans, however, my concerns remain.

en garde

"I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger.”

The smarter the people are, the more confident they'll sound talking about things they know jack shit about. Smart, not wise - if they are wise, you will hear admittance, humility and openness at every step of decision-making.

It is not (usually) the intent of the former to possess attitudes as dangerous as theirs, but those around them who care would do well to remind them of it.

on mothers (well, mine) and unconditional love

This afternoon, with my usually-relatively-empty house bustling with people for once, I awkwardly sat on a kitchen tool making dumplings as the only person present who had not gifted my mum with flowers or food of any kind. An impromptu massage earlier in the day had been declared sufficient and something that would stay with her for the rest of her life but I was definitely not convinced. Living my life subconsciously on Facebook, as a gesture of an accurate representation of what was going on in my life and mind, I posted this picture onto my profile:

... and once the caption was explained to her, she absolutely loved it. She took a picture with her iPhone, and made me email her a screenshot to distribute back to her friends in China.

It doesn't take a lot to make my mum happy, and I recognise that. The post was for everyone on my newsfeed to really understand how I'm feeling today, all bandwagon-jumping aside. Yet I knew that sharing it with Mum would further brighten a day that had already appeased her flora-lovin', crazy-plant-lady side.

A Chinese immigrant who gave up a comfortable life back home to struggle it out through language barriers, cultural differences and other pitfalls for her children in Western society. Her story isn't unique, nor is the most dramatic of its kind, but it's powerful and important to me because everything she does is for her children, making me the direct recipient of her actions.

Not too long ago, someone on my newsfeed (eugh social media-centric lyf) posted a status update condemning those who scream at their parents on the phone then tell their friends "I hate it when they call," upon hanging up. She wrote about how these people didn't know how lucky they are to have parents who care about them to call and the first step to succeeding in life is to respect your elders.

Unconditional, status-dependent respect does not fly well with me. I respect the people who deserve it - people who put integrity, work and effort into what they do, and when they don't - irregardless of whether they are teachers, parents, or simply old - then there is no reason to show them this kind of respect. I know friends whose parents don't make the slightest effort to know their children's very fundmental needs and desires, which only backfires when my friends build up life-long resentment against them.

Fortunately, in most cases, the respected generally do deserve the respect. In the above circumstances where the respect is due, it's again that much more powerful - receiving it because it's warranted, not because it's required.

My mother's unconditional love alone warrants my respect for her ten times over. When speculating upon which photo to upload, my mind immediately came to the one I ultimately decided on, but it wasn't until I pulled out the photo album that I properly studied Mum's face. Caught in the moment, the deepest care and affection is written all over her face, while protectiveness comes in the form of her slung arm around my waist, securing me gently but surely. Even at that age, I was ready to scramble away into the unknown, but rather than being seen as holding me back from taking this opportunities, Mum's words of caution (which these days have seemed increasingly unnecessary) only prompt me to stop and consider my options and the consequences to make better decisions. I love the authentic and spontaneous, but Mum's practical nature has influenced and guided me to a safer middle ground. She is probably the reason why people see me at two extremes of the spectrum - both a dreamer and hard realist. The photo sums up my lifelong relationship with her.

Yet this train of thought blurs and joins together with an impassioned speech I heard at an economics debate the other night. The impromptu topic was something along the lines of dating someone based on an average of our weighted preferences... as refuted by the speaker, who said that doing so would only lead you to a theoretical partner, not a real one, and living that experience of sacrificial love for your imperfect partner is the experience worth living for.

Side-stepping the heavily religious connotations, this in turn lead me back to the theory of selfish behaviour I've been presenting, believing only half-heartedly and improving constantly. My discussion of this with people usually starts with a question such as: if your partner was moving to another country, would you drop everything and go with them? The impulsive romantics and sacrificial lovers declare that they would do anything for the most important people in their lives. Two things to consider...

1. If things don't work out, even if you don't want to, you will subconsciously start blaming your partner. If you act in your own interests and maintain your life and career, and things don't work out, at least full responsibility of your circumstances fall to you. No-one should have the privilege or burden of being ultimately responsible for your life decisions.
2. Operate under the assumption that we all want what's best for the ones we love - and oftentimes, this means them acting in their own personal interest. Despite having you with them in the new country may be what they want for their own benefit, could they really ask it of you, loving you as much as they do, if they know that this won't lead to the best outcomes for you? Maybe the best way to serve the ones we love is to do what's best for us.

I am always quick to clarify that this does not legitimise all forms of selfish behaviour on every level. Altruism is a virtue and considerate people are amongst the best kind of people - I just don't think major life decisions should be made without your own interests as the primary consideration...

... which brings me in a nice circle back to the beginning of my post, and the love shown and sacrifices made by my mum every day. She shoots my first aforementioned point right in the foot, because I have never thought for a second that she ever blames anything that could be improved in her life on her daughters. This gives rise to emphasis on the latter point - that I receive the love from which nothing is asked in return, I remember all the low points so far and I wish that Mum would act to make herself happier, even if it goes against our interests. Especially if it goes against our interests. She's brought up two kids who thank her for everything, and have the strength and at least the willingness to acquire the knowledge needed to make it from hereon in. We thank her for bringing us to this stage and now I really, really want her to start looking out for number one.

Love ma mum.

wandering back

If you miss someone, do something about it.
... but if they can't be bothered meeting you halfway, fuck it. Opportunity costs of time, so don't accept the love you think you deserve. Never, ever, ever settle and implicitly concede that you should be discounting yourself.

You have to decide what you care more about and which one is more worth it.
Fragile social structures can disappear overnight and will almost certainly be gone by the the time everything matters and you realised that you didn't realise until it was too late.

What's sad now will only get better if you don't allow yourself to linger in that limbo zone, hesitantly not wanting to lose the old and trying to gain the new at the same time.

Forget your friends? No.
Leave everything that wasn't doing you the greatest service, live through the awkward transition where you're so tempted to run back, where you feel out of the loop when...

you realise you don't want to be in the loop anymore.
Be present, be polite, don't be dramatic but know what you're really there for.

----
Recognise the assumptions, understand why we have them so we can learn to question what we know. Bullshit-proof yourself!
Don't be the nice-sounding rhetoric... follow through.
More the blunt who would do anything for you than the sweet-talking one you'd run out on you like

Don't take anything at face value. "Tradition" is never a good enough reason if the harms outweigh the benefits.

Know what you know so well that the questioning of others only clarifies your purpose.
If someone comes up with a different way to do it, a better way, fantastic. Collective progress because you're not going to live forever to enjoy the fruits.

We are creative, curious and not alone.

Dat Christmas spirit.

The wild enthusiasm I displayed for Christmas as a child has slowly petered to a stage where I am awake on Christmas day at 2:22am, perusing various websites related to Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. A fervent atheist since her days at Catholic school, my sister said it best about what Christmas has to give to us secular folk when she came over today to watch carols, and that is the ability Christmas has to bring families together and spend time with each other. Of course, we shouldn't need a celebration borne from one particular religion in order to make time for our loved ones, but seeing as for the time being that Christian beliefs are so entrenched in Western society, the fact that Christmas is a public holiday does make gathering and reunions a lot easier. If you can't change the status quo overnight, use it to your full advantage.

So why the Dawkins and Sagan? I first came across Dawkins back in 2007 when I read The God Delusion, which he published a year earlier, and he did crop up a fair bit in my history of philosophy and reason subject earlier in the year, but I can't thank Zen Pencils enough (is this probably my... third plug? of the website on this blog) for making me aware of one Carl Sagan, who's enormous amounts of work I am yet to properly browse. Always mildly annoyed that I feel restricted from expressing secular thoughts (as previously written about here) I committed a rather non-confrontational, passive aggressive retaliation to the religious Christmas status updates occasionally peppering my Facebook newsfeed by liking the official Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science page an hour into Christmas. This in turn just got me into thinking about religion in general.

This article from the website is certainly controversial and I do not agree with the way it has been written - sexual abuse is not something I find easily comparable in the sense to say that it is more or less serious than other kinds of abuse. As one commenter rightly pointed out, different forms of abuse will have different effects on children. What stuck with me was the explored impact of what it is like for children to be introduced to concepts of heaven and hell, and that non-believers of their faith are condemned to the latter. This caused my mind to wander back to an msn conversation I had in primary school, with a friend who remains close to me to present day, who also happens to be a devout Christian and let's just say that this friend showed a very persistent... inclusive spirit when were younger, but thankfully has eased up some as we grew up. How ten year olds writing back and forth in pink and purple fonts with an array of emoticons got onto such topics as hell is beyond me, but given that I was not Christian, I remember posing the question to my friend, "So do you think I'm going to hell, then?", that was answered with something like "you're too gawjuz, I lub you" (ironic spelling intended) before the conversation went down another path, but it stuck that the reply I received was neither serious nor direct, so I assumed the answer had to be yes.

In the scope of things, it doesn't really matter to me either way, but what must it feel like going through life knowing that some of the closest people to you are eventually headed for eternal damnation? or is the case as mentioned in the Dawkins article, that they've eased up on the whole hell thing - reinterpreted, or softening the blow for a sticky spot? I'd Google, or better yet ask, but I should rest my mind and body for the yummy Christmas feast storm set to hit my belly in about sixteen hours' time.

Murry Chrustmas, y'all.

do what you wanna do

'I watched my peers, and my friends, and the ones who were older than me and... I watched how miserable some of them were. I'd listen to them telling me that they couldn't envisage a world where they did what they've always wanted to do anymore, because now they had to earn a certain amount every month just to keep where they were. They couldn't do the things that mattered and that they really wanted to do and... that seems as big a tragedy as any problem of failure.'

Neil Gaiman never went to university because it didn't interest him but luckily, possessed the freakish talent and brilliant mind required to succeed in the literary world. Man.

There's a lot I would like to elaborate upon but seeing as I'm two hours and thirty-four minutes away from my functional plan deadline I should hop to it. The real reason I'm posting this here is simply because I'm getting rid of it from my Facebook quotes and want to put it somewhere that I will remember, lul.

The after-thought prelude

Yesterday was the first time I have dialled an ambulance after hearing tyres screech on the bitumen three metres behind me, hearing that collision of metal on flesh and turning around to see a figure sliding off the bonnet of the taxi. A businessman and the driver in a bright turquoise turban stepping out, the latter repeating 'it was a green light? It was a green light!' nervously.

He was running across the road when his iPod fell and he became distracted. His point of contact with the windscreen was his head, at thirty kilometres an hour, but it was the lower back pain he was most concerned with. He was conscious and could feel all four limbs. I feel bad for the taxi driver, nit all should be clear from a legal side of things.

When remembering back to his first words as he rushed out of the vehicle, you can't help but marvel how people automatically do rush at their own defence as if from fear of retribution. Conditioned by society, and reminds me of the story of how so many passed the hit-and-run toddler in China out of the desire not to be implicated legally. Similar stories occur in Vietnam, apparently. It is the musings of how we as westernised Australians of Asian-heritage would fare raised under those circumstances that lead to the below topic, after a fashion... and the most likely outcome is that we wouldn't even know any different. That in itself is so scary. How much of ourselves would we still be and how much would we owe to the external environment? Hence below.

For Christine

When prompted on nature vs. nurture via Facebook chat, with terrible grammar and some attempt at paragraphing:

i think there's enough empirical evidence from an infinite variety of different cases
where growing up in a certain environment or having an event happen to someone has impacted them to act in a particular way. people are born with different levels of potential, but it's like this: http://zenpencils.com/comic/94-the-two-wolves/ as to how they are ultimately shaped.

the empirical evidence isn't what i would base my entire argument on, but i do think each person has their natural inclinations and, as discouraging as it sounds, limitations. However, no matter which is more or less correct at the end of the day, I still think living by the belief that environment can help you realise that potential is the most constructive way to live. person A might never have as high of an IQ as person B, but by always challenging themselves to be better and think differently, at least leads a fulfilling life.

I think that our environments really dominate in this way tweaking and bringing out whatever in our personalities it 'feeds' while other things we have a capacity to be lie dormant. doing my political ideologies subject this semester, especially the essay, made me realise that the very crux of an ideology depends upon what interpretation of human nature people are willing to employ. so for the sake of simplicity, when we limit it down to whether humans are naturally social beings or competitive i.e. collectivist vs. individualist, communism goes to one extreme and liberalism to the other and neither of them are really quite right... altruism can and does exist, as well as the ability to cooperate, but at the same time, competitive interests are equally there and can help spur on progress. it'd be too easy, for example, for a communist to take everything i've said so far and make a case for themselves that if both cooperative AND competitive spirits exist within a human being, then by nurture we can spur on the cooperative side and quash out the competitive... but I highly highly doubt that's possible. it's the attempt of doing so which has brought so many disasters to countries that have attempted to reach the true state of communism.

interpretation is paramount, and it helps keeps your line of argument consistent if you can always come back to what you think a human being is like, and capable of.

"An assertive reaction to bullshit"

I have no patience for people who publish these carefully constructed posts which painstakingly outline an inkling to a thought that they're trying to present as so original, something you couldn't have possibly thought of before. This sounds very mean and snobby, because who am I to scorn the attempts of people trying to be different? We've heard from countless sources in our lives (if we're lucky enough, that is) about how wonderful being creative and original are and these are definitely things I think we should strive to be. I go on and on about how much I love innovation and positive progress, and what do they even mean when people are too afraid to go beyond boundaries?

What I'm more specifically trying to condemn, I suppose, are those who have deep phobias of being the slightest bit 'unoriginal'. This, surely, is what gave rise to hipster, indie, alternative or whatever cultures that avoid 'mainstream' trends and activities at all costs. What are you really trying to achieve by automatic opposition of what is 'popular'?

Again, I don't think I'm quite getting to my point... what's the use of being so intensely fearful that something you think or say has possibly been thought or said before? I find it fascinating that two people from different eras, locations, cultures and circumstances can be linked by nothing whatsoever but their thoughts alone. It's somewhat comforting, these recurring ideas that bind us humannnssszzz. Do I sink into and hide behind ironic speak out of fear? Most likely.

At the very least, as long as you don't allow this attitude to degenerate into a need for validation, it's a more optimistic way to face that disheartenment when your perceived way of 'paving the way forward' has already been established before - marvel at the commonality and at the same time, question it. Find out what's different about yours. What's better of the lot. Swallow your pride and use it. Keep moving.

Two things I've learnt this year

We champion principles so much in debating, but it is the principally consistent arguments that are often most impractical... or at least, have the most harmful consequences. This was made clear to me during the Australs 2012 Grand Final where the aff won on the topic 'That there should be a good samaritan law' based on principles, despite the neg having demonstrated the devastating consequences of a well-meant yet ill-informed intervention. The emergence of this news story in the weeks following very aptly placed a (horribly disfigured) face to those concerns. I've more recently been neck-deep in readings and comparisons between political ideologies, and it's been particularly evident in looking at communism vs. anarchism, with the consistency of the latter - that all forms of organised authority are inherently oppressive - not quite withstanding the logic of the former in a transitional proletarian state eventually withering away into a classless society. I'm still confused as to exactly where I stand on these matters. I like the idea of self-sustainability. Education and empowerment over perpetual aid, always. I also appreciate that there are very real limits to these, and hopefully I'll figure it out for myself over the course of my degree...

However, I am pretty skeptical about the communist interpretation of human nature... and equally as skeptical of the supreme power of the individual, as interpreted by anarcho-capitalists.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.

Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power

Murray Rothbard does scare me, though. In Power and Market, his proposed arguments that restrictions upon market such as child labour and minimum wage laws create 'compulsory unemployment' and deadweight loss as a result of outrageously preventing children and certain workers from entering the labour market are the perfect example of homo economicus on crack.

This leads onto the second thing, which concerns the handful of models I've encountered in my studies of first year economics. From the very onset of supply-demand, we were told that assumptions always underly every neat mathematical or graphical representation of what are, at essence, rather complicated decisions made upon facts that are scarce and sometimes subject to bias. The assumptions are made so as not to cloud the general principles with unnecessary detail, but they can give us greater insight into how the world actually works than the models themselves. For most of my cohort, these assumptions were just a pain in the ass that you had to remember for assignments and exam questions, lest they take off marks, preventing you from completing a compulsory first commerce subject and moving onto bigger, better accounting and finance-related pursuits where keywords 'internships', 'grad positions', 'vac work', 'big 4' and for the more ambitious, 'IB' are thrown around. Was that tangent just a chance to throw in a casual bashing of my morally-bankrupt peers? Perhaps, but in harking back to my original point, all I mean is that introductory micro and macro are just subjects to be passed, so trust the arts kid to read more into things. I'm pretty pleased to see how the implications of what we learn are so interconnected with politics, philosophy, geography and society itself... John Nash, father of game theory and that famous equilibrium of his, was a mathematician. Keynes, who essentially gave rise to modern macroeconomics as we know it, studied philosophy at university, only dropping in on economics lectures every now and then. The problematic circumstances of currency pegging to West Germany that partially formed the basis for the creation of the EU were due to the social and political implications of East and West Germany forming one nation, one state.

Seeing how everything relates makes life so much more interesting, and dabbling in a bit of this and that all the more tempting. In order to keep my focus, I'll need to maintain the attitude of think broad, work small. Maybe stop procrastinating by writing this and get back to studying, too.

Drawing from your own reserves

How old is the average child when they first learn to tie their shoelaces? When the mother and I dnm, one of her favourite recurring stories to tell is that of when she bought me my first pair of lace-up shoes and told me to do them up on my own. After giving it a few goes, she says that I let the laces fall, looked up to her from my sitting position on the floor and stated simply in English, 'I can't do it.'

Now, this story always makes me a bit depressed, when I look at it from the societal lens where persistence is always admired and rewarded. The Little Train That Could? The generic protagonist from that movie you saw awhile ago on tv that no-one believed in, and yet made it in the end and showed everyone up? That one guy we all know who after more than a year's worth of courting, finally gets the girl? My own determination to do well in the face of my high school who told me not to do methods in year eleven... you get the general idea. Was toddler-me that much of a quitter? It really didn't sound like I tried at all!

My mum thinks otherwise. Particularly after my impassioned rants about what I want to do with my life in the future, she'd always preface the story with, 'I knew from when you were small, that you were different from other kids...' and to her, it was the clarity with which I acknowledged my limitations that she found surprisingly impressive. 

Most of my friends view me as a cynic so they find it strange that my family actually thinks the polar opposite of me. To them, I'm the driven idealist who's always got mass-scale change on the mind. What to do as the lone wolf with a future BA when your mother was a sensible teacher of Chinese medicine, your father a sensible engineer and your sister a sensible doctor? Apparently reassure them through the recollection of little anecdotes like this, I do know my limits.

All very well and good, but I'll just leave this here...

Kudos to Ouran High School Host Club - you continue to serve me well.

... and bide my time.

For too long, my excuse for not writing has been a lack of inspiration, of worthwhile stories and carefully crafted (or deliberately 'raw') characters. This beautifully simple idea which resounds with me now can't only be acknowledged, but put into practice - if you want someone to believe you, the best place to start is by telling the truth; your own truth.

"Writers are liars my dear, surely you know this by now?"

 --Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 3: Dream Country.

frantically pouring it

from my brain, onto this page (screen?) now.

• The old man in the striped polo intently learning how to place pictures into word documents and different text-wrap settings in the Apple store in Doncaster
• Maybe lack of originality should be thought of instead as the comforting view you share with other human beings
• How to deal with shitheads
• How to come to terms with be confident in sharing and defending (?) what I want to do
• Comparing myself from the start of the year till now (reflective fun).

I've been linking Rudyard Kipling's If to a lot of people these days. When I even think about the very first condition set... 'If you can keep your head when all about you/ Are losing theirs and blaming it on you', that's a very heavy ask of anyone. Particularly of myself. My exhaustion-induced sickness has made me fairly edgy the past few days and the ever-present injustices that face me have been getting to me, all at once. How do you keep calm and sane when no-one else around you makes any sense, and what's more, make you their scapegoat? If my current frustrations are enough to send me over the edge, how would I even respond to another stand-out challenge of the poem: 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken/ Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'?

The answer is very simple in principle but so hard to follow through with: suck it up.

This is just like (although very unlike) my problems with Chinese. I've identified the self-imposed barriers between myself as I currently stand and becoming really proficient in the language so that now it's even more unforgivable that I don't take the measures to really get over and humble myself, put my head down and just work towards my goals. It's just that, in the end. My fucking ego and sensitivity with a weird mixture of distain, reluctance and there's definitely a hint of fear somewhere in there.

I had to get my macbook hard drive replaced last week, and made several trips to the Genius Bar in order to transfer all my files and arrange the repair. During my second visit, I happened to be seated near the rest where Apple employees run workshops on how to use the Macs and certain programs. I pretty much described the guy in my above attempt to get all my thoughts down before they escaped me. I feel pretty bad because he glanced at me while I was staring at him and there were hints of defensiveness and insecurity in his gaze. What I really wanted to convey to him was how much I admired him though. Someone in his position, with my kind of attitude towards Chinese, would probably scoff technology, declare they didn't need it but secretly have some desire to become competent and always be hesitant to tried for fear of failing, being laughed at and ridiculed. I admired what it meant for him to be in the store, such a bustling, public place, openly receiving instructions on commands and operations that would come as naturally as breathing to Gen Y.

I love that kind of attitude. No matter how old we get, how many people tell us it's 'too late' or how many times we get laughed at and ridiculed whether with deliberate ill intentions or not, if we always maintain that thirst to learn and improve ourselves to the end... that's a life pretty damn worth living.

If I despised myself, it would be no compensation if everyone saluted me, and if I respect myself, it does not trouble me if others hold me lightly. ~Max Nordau

After running into troubles regarding people's ignorance and my perception of them lacking respect for me because of it, I saw this quote quite soon afterwards posted by AIESEC International, and thought, 'Perfect.' I really scare myself sometimes, when acts of moral irresponsibility leave no burden on my conscience, and yet on a very constant and conscious level, I attach so much importance to having a moral compass. I do believe that this defines a person, and this must make me not a very good one... but there are a few things about which I am sure. 

In the case of people like who live private lives which only go on parade before ourselves, we must establish an inner model to serve as touchstones of our actions, by which we at times savour ourselves or fog ourselves. I have my own laws and law courts to pass judgement upon me and I appeal to them rather than elsewhere. I restrain myself according to the standards of others, but enlarge them according to my own. No-one but you knows whether you are base and cruel, or loyal and dedicated. Others never see you; they surmise you from uncertain conjections; they do not see your nature so much as your artifice... your own conscience gives weighty judgement on your virtues and vices: remove that, and all lies sprawling.

Why should I give a damn about what others say? When my mum and sister were taken aback the other night by my outburst of distress, I identified one of the main sources as people, especially those widely considered 'intelligent' and excelled academically and maybe even socially, didn't have an inkling as to the way of thinking by which I live, where you don't automatically dismiss someone's ambition or choices based on your very narrow, limited world view on the matter. The kind of confidence they gain from the aforementioned success in scholastic pursuits (I was going to say 'school' but I miss being wanky) fills them and makes them so sure and flippant in their remarks. How can these people be so proud of themselves when they can't even practise tolerance and understanding, or even entertain the thought that everything they know can and should be exposed to a healthy level of doubt and skepticism?

I've been very harsh on myself too. In alignment with my interest in different techniques of effectively mass-communicating messages, I've also been giving thought to effective ways for communicating with the masses. You can't expect everyone to think in the same way as you do, and so long as that is kept in mind, along with the idea that you can learn something from everyone you talk to, that's when discussions are balanced and stimulated and 'progress' is made... but more on that topic another time. At its lowest common denominator, I just sound like a whiny teenager claiming, 'nobody understands me!' or maybe even worse, a pretentious arts student dramatically stating the very same thing. It's always useful to look at yourself through the lenses of others, even if you're absolutely certain it isn't true. 

In this case, it's not that I don't think anyone doesn't understand me. My friends and family, for the most part, I have been able to earnestly communicate my reasons for choices and they understand and accept it, so this is most of my mind reassured. The rest of me that still cares about what others say is partly oversensitive pettiness, and partly great distress that comes back to the fact that I can't believe some people don't want to learn, or are so quick to judge when in actual fact they don't know anything about what they're judging.

It's both comforting and productive to talk to those not necessarily the same as you, but open to ways of thinking other than their own, and are able to thoughtfully substantiate their own views. It's just as important, perhaps even more so, to speak to those who aren't as open. As frustrated and perhaps, at some points again, emotional I'll be at dealing with the latter, all in a day of trying to better understand how a wide array of people tick, and another part of my training is learning to suck it up, princess.

tumblr-esque

I want to go out and see more sights that don't even need photoshop to look good.

actually the full scope

how does that even...

Last night, my dad and family friend left for China after visiting for three weeks.

This was our family friend's first time out of the country.

Almost every night she was here, she would sit at the kitchen bench with glasses borrowed from Mum (because she lost all her pairs in Sydney and Queensland) with our tablet and read news websites banned in China. She asked to see pictures of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. She would sit motionless for a couple of hours at a time, only moving her hand occasionally to select other stories, only moving her mouth every now and then to utter a sigh.

It's not going to work forever, it's not even working properly now, and when it starts crumbling to a point when they should be worried, I wonder what they're going to do.

work small, think broad.

My problems are clear. First of all, everything becomes more interesting when there are exams to study for. I don't recall being as inspired or enthused to research so far and widely on everything I'm reading about now, because new things are presented to me all the time. Everything just wants to rush out in a messy stream of word-vomit but I'll try to go through everything slowly.

I'll start by scrambling for a connection between what I'm currently doing and what I'm supposed to be doing - my interests having some sort of uni-related foundation. Despite everyone's complaints about Reason, the ideas it has brought to me throughout the semester, some of which I've left but others - particularly ones mentioned only fleetingly, like George Price - I've taken upon myself to look into further.

What's been on my mind? This 1996 article on George Price from The Guardian Joey linked me this morning, where I pondered out in an extremely long reply where my fascination and confusion lay - a staunch atheist turning to organised religion when findings based in his own life work - cold, hard mathematical and scientific proof - render him desolate and depressed beyond any salvation but a Christian one. The mathematical equation of altruism implying that other traits - so sweepingly, forbiddingly referred to as the 'darker side of humanity' in all of this - can similarly be passed down, commanded by evolution. A man of science so shaken by the discovery that these traits we thought so unique to humankind can have biological limitations... perhaps, in some ways, it would've blurred the distinction between religion and science somewhat. Those who stand firmly on the side of the latter have often criticised destiny, fate and implied lack of free will religion presents. What a betrayal it must've felt to discover that no matter what avenue we choose to draw our beliefs from, scientific or religious, that even in the field of his choosing, it is not any divine commandment but genetics shaping us from the get-go as to who we are. Not necessarily... it would've comforted him to think more greatly about what the journalist continues to ponder. Our morality isn't dictated by evolution:

Evolutionary theory is a science of averages and mathematical abstractions, whereas we live our lives uniquely and unrepeatably. The altruistic or selfless acts that interest us as ethical beings are those that people choose freely, not those we cannot avoid.

So maybe in his charitable work with the poor in his life following this refinement of the altruism equation desperately sought to prove this to himself, daily.  This somewhat reminds me of my ever-shortening tether to exam preparation. Does morality come from reason or our will?

That should currently be my main focus, and yet I treat it as a tangent. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading first crossed my path during O-Week, when a volunteer wearing a 'TEDx' t-shirt presented me with a bookmark, asking if I was interested in bringing 'good ideas' to Melbourne Uni. The vagueness of it all made me apprehensive, so I accepted the bookmark but just moved on, not bothering to find out what he was actually talking about. Lo and behold, I link it back to my subjects again - throughout the semester, we watched plenty of population health-related TED talks in Famine, mostly by Hans Gosling (love that guy and his storage boxes to represent millions of people, and his massive pointing stick). Even more recently - i.e. when SWOTVAC started - I decided to take more initiative and see what other subjects were on offer. Thank god for newsfeed updates, because the videos present themselves to me in stalkfeed quite frequently. I just finished watching a talk given by the co-founder of Health Leads, an organisation striving to reform healthcare in America by empowering doctors to provide prescriptions for nutritious food, heating etc. just as they would medicine, to combat underlying socio-economic issues - which often lead to preventable medical presentations. The prevention over treatment principle has never rung out so strongly with me, and that is because I am getting impatient with all the good ideas that are bombarding me. Ideas - good, new, innovative ideas - are powerful instigators of motivation and inspiration, and necessary to wreak change. It's the manifestation of these ideas into action, however, that truly impresses me. I think what Health Leads envisions and that the work they carry out is not only important, but also clever in that their main source of labour is college student volunteers. Their mission is targeted, and specific, and that's the way it should be.

Work small while thinking broadly.

How do I personally want to contribute? This is where I really wanted to start the post, when I began typing 'My problems are clear' - there's so much I want to do, and I don't think that dabbling in a bit of this and then heading over for a bit of that will be neither effective nor satisfying. I believe in equipping myself with a set of solid skills I can use to analyse and solve problems. There are many innumerable skill sets that contribute to policy formation - economics, finance and politics being only a few of personal interest (although recently, thanks to famine, global health is on the agenda as well), as well as engineering and all areas of specific studies under the broad spheres of sciences, physical and social. Dabbling allows me to gain a grounding and appreciation of what others do, but in order to contribute meaningfully, I need to find out what I can do best. Work small but think broad.

Being able to get a message across, as I've mentioned before, is so crucial in actually seeing your plans come into fruition. Throughout history, there have been many instances where advocates lay their cards on the table. They bear their hearts and raw passion to the people, and the people lap it up. I just don't think you can only rely on the sincerity you personally feel towards your mission, or public exposure and awareness. These things must continue, of course, but you need better ways of presenting a reasonable case to the skeptics and, even more challengingly, the indifferent. The skeptics who actively oppose your stance will have a vested issue in the subject already, but the first step in reaching out to the indifferent is to engage them in the first place. You do not successfully do this by preaching. Finding out what matters to them and acknowledging that you know it's important is key. From this, a number of things can happen.

First is that they can find within their own value system some method of supporting yours. Commercials on TV which started cropping up maybe as early as last year or the year before do a perfect job of revamping the 'save-the-environment' message: 'This is ____. ____ is not a hippie, ____ is not looking to save the planet, ____ just wants to save on her electricity and gas bills.'

"Save the environment, save the planet."
People aren't convinced when you throw a big, hairy, audacious goal at them.
Sometimes when they try, the overwhelmingness of what you're asking them to achieve leaves them floundering and forgetting the simple measures they can take to help out.

"Turn off your appliances at the powerpoint and save a few on your bills."
Better, and tangibly helpful.

Second is that if their values are completely contrary, the very fact you have acknowledged them places them in clear comparison. They may learn from you, but most importantly - you might learn from them. You might have what you think are the clearest goals for the most benevolent outcome in the world, but there are going to be flaws in what you want to achieve.

Understand the people you are trying to connect with.

I have to get up in about three hours, but my last notable plug as of late has already been linked in the post below, but Zen Pencils is a bloody good website in general. See what you personally get out of it.

Work small, think broad, learn what makes the people around you tick.

LEMON OUT.
I wish I had a citrus fruit surname.

striking a balance

Children have this ridiculously sensitive radar when it comes to spotting hypocrisy. So when I tell off my tuition kids for eating in class when they shouldn't, that of course means I have to let my apple oxidise on the table for another hour while my stomach growls in protest.

It also means I need to yell at girls who eat in class just as much as the guys who eat in class or be accused of 'sexism' and lots of 'oOoOOOOoOoooOO-ing' from all over the room. Twelve year olds.

It's not about the eating though - it's the attitude. With it, I cannot deal. I had my many bratty moments as a kid/tween/teen/even now but finding myself increasingly hypocritical in the way I deal with those bursts of bad attitude.

Every time a child feels misunderstood by their parent or teacher or some form of adult, they should write down exactly how they feel and how they think it could've been dealt with. It should be a mandatory universal manual. Even now, all my past instances are becoming hazier and hazier as I revert to the traditional 'adult' method of dealing with my students which I hate. There's a quote I once read and I can't believe I haven't been able to google it on the internet, but it goes something like...

"Children live in a world surrounded by a ten-foot wall, and adults only have five-foot ladders."

Work on closing the gaps everywhere.

and it goes on and on and on

Amanda Palmer is quite amazing. Reading through her blog

Also, something my dad said to me on taking Reason, a subject that's essentially the history of philosophy, and doing arts in general:

I'm glad you're learning these skills because they'll be important no matter what career you have. Learning this will make you a cultured, more knowledgable person. You won't be one of those people who doesn't know anything and can only talk about their job... 我人为你学像reason这些最基本基础对你将来无论什么职业都会有好处。使你变成一个更有文化的人， 以后不是那种只会织讨论工作的人。那多无聊啊！这样也是一种没出息的人。

Which I think is one of the nicest things he's ever said to me. He can be very set upon and passionate about his own points of view, which is why we've always clashed so much... so when he says something anything, I know he means it, and it's nice to know he means this.

I still feel nagging paranoia and the need to justify myself, which makes me come off as quite defensive. Obviously it hasn't been completely reconciled within myself. My mind is swayed this way and that, and it's most annoying to be told by people that I have no sense of direction in life... when I think my idea of where I want it all to head is much clearer than most. Specific degrees sometimes indicate certainty, but for most people I know, they instead indicate fear and a need to know exactly where they're going to end up, and what kind of career is going to be bringing in the money to put food on the table. There's either a lack of confidence though or probably a typical parents-stopping-you-from-reaching-your-dreams.

Yet, what happens if someone you know wants to study art or music but you know that they're truly shit? Years of piano and music theory have confirmed to me personally that I'll never be great shakes as a well-rounded musician. It's these kinds of things that are intuitive and you're either born with the talent or not. You can work as hard as you can and raise yourself from below average to mediocre, mediocre to good, good to a little above average... or harder still, below average to above average, mediocre to pretty damn good, whatever names you choose to give the degrees, it's still not going to be the same as someone who is born and, well...

I know I'm a cynic and it would delight me to be proven wrong by the sort of people I have in mind. If it doesn't, what happens when something you've based your identity upon fails to meet you halfway?

As far as I can remember, my earliest ambition was to be an author. Tiff linked me to this which in turn led me to this and then, as Facebook is so wholly integrated into my life, I popped over just to make sure Neil Gaiman was indeed one of my 'Likes', forgetting momentarily that I occasionally see his updates in my newsfeed. His current profile picture is a Simpsons rendition of himself, which reinforces one of the key things I've drawn from the Simpsons - if you feature or are referenced in the Simpsons, you know you've made an impact on pop culture. For good reason too - the man is extraordinary in what he does and remains my favourite author. Even in that address I just linked, his imploration to make good art... that's something I firmly, passionately believe in, but too much of me is still cautious to completely agree with him - another one of those, what if you are just really not that good at what you want to do? - is it too much to ask for a chance to give it a wholehearted go but have another life at the same time? I don't want people to assume that writing is the very essence of my being either.

What have I really been passionate about?
Something that no-one has to tell me to do, that I forget about the other constraints of time when I'm doing it and capture my easily wandering attention instantly?
Madrigal... history... my ideas. I still thinking too much thinking and not enough doing, especially acting upon what you're thinking, is a vice, and I know it from personal experience.

Why the fuck am I scared to let my ideas known in certain groups and how much does their approval matter? I'm pretty sure I'm doing myself a greater disservice by being so goddamn careful about where I verbally tread. To be uninteresting is the worst.

I don't mind what takes up my time as long as I feel it's fulfilling in some way. So I've had less time to study this semester... but I've gone out and made myself realise what I can do and what I have yet to learn - it's a weird mixture of putting myself down, where I remind myself of what's yet to come but at the same time trying to bully myself into showing what I already do have.

Finally, sometimes when I reach that point and I think I know a lot of principles, gotten them securely under the belt, I need to ask myself if I'm  seeing them through and living by them. Practising what I preach. If I really want to help on a larger scale, I should start with supporting the people immediately around me.

worthwhile stress

"It's never been about who you are as a person because that's up to you, you gotta choose that stuff. It's about how people treat you - that's what race is about." --Donald Glover.


No, this isn't going to be some impassioned equality rant. However, a brief moment of admiration for this Community star, ex-30 Rock writer is definitely needed, - what better place to insert matter-of-fact truths than a twenty minute standup on Comedy Central? Ever since I joined AIESEC, I've thought a lot about effectively mass-communicating messages. If there's ever a way to make someone pay attention and realise the importance of your message, that it's not when you preach your morals and perspectives till they're suffocating and gasping for propaganda-free air... it's when it's relayed in amongst jokes about midgets and penises of course.


Extreme fallacies heard in the last couple of days:

#1 the case of J's friend

Success at the highest degree is measured by magnitude of the positive impact your contribution has on humanity.

Since the compass, print press, gunpowder and paper, Asians have not invented or innovated anything of note in the past 2000 years.

The lightbulb was invented by a white man, smarter than the smartest member of an Amazonian tribe.

The white man is smarter than that smartest Amazonian tribesman/woman because former invented the lightbulb and the latter did not.

Therefore, smart white people are smarter than the smartest Asians... or Amazonian tribe members.

Conveniently sweeping socio-economic factors under the rug?

Freely interchanging terms of success and intelligence?

Forgetting that some of the most useful innovations were just fluke discoveries.

Assuming that the most intelligent person who may figure out the logistics of getting us to Mars in the future when Earth dies, but may be so busy in doing so that they forget to have a family, will ask themselves at the end of their lonely lives, 'Have I really succeeded'?

According to who's standards?

Even if

IF

Everything above holds true

If we all lived with the exact same opportunities afforded to us

Ignoring nature and trigger of motivations i.e. do we all innately want to save the world, are we only successful 'at the highest level' if we contribute large?

#2 the case of humble arrogance

Society is structured like a pyramid with leaders on top.

Arguer is a 'middle man' who is not interested in the financial review, only the herald sun's thickass sports section

Goes on to talk about how the 'lower ranks' have not the interest because they don't have the intelligence.

People are not born equal but everyone deserves to be afforded equal opportunities, including respect, or at least the chance to earn it. Elitist attitudes, story-changing and double standards when you the self-proclaimed middle man are different from those without the mental capacity to comprehend what you merely find 'boring'.

I will be amazed if any of this makes sense to anyone.

A demons beanie so faded the red has become orange, and it stands out palely from the sea of defiant yellow and brown.

Carefully craft your stance into quiet knowledge and the most genuine convincing message of all.

I still hate that word. Just aim to be the opposite. Fakeasmile.