left for DEAD?

Probably one of the most amazing invention of the 20th century would have to be the Internet. According to the latest survey by Internetworldstats.com, 2,421,800 Internet users as of September/2005, 66.3% of the population in Singapore have access to the Internet! Hence, it’s to say one third of Singapore is wired with the world. The convience which the Internet brings is boundless – Emails, Stock Exchange, Word Processing, Movies, Games, just to name a few.

Sadly, with improving technology it also brings forth new dangers. For example, Gaming Addiction. Video game addiction, is excessive or compulsive use of computer and video games that interferes with daily life. Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from, or from other forms of, social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events. Hence, these people who are addicted to online gaming, spend most of their time at home and the community to them is no longer a physical structure of people, buidlings or anything which is physical.

A report cited a 2005 Entertainment Software Association survey of computer gaming players, and noted that players of MMORPGs were more likely to play for more than 2 hours per day than other gamers. In its report, this 2 hour per day limit to define “gaming overuse”, citing the general guideline of no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of “screen time”. More and more people are addicted to online gaming and the addiction is not only exclusive to children, but grown up adults alike!

This form of addiction has seriously consequences. From developing abnormal social etiquette to even health deterioration. There are many instances where children and adults died while playing online computer games. The reason of death is commonly cited as similiar as to the Economy Class Syndrome – where the lack of movement prohibits the flow of blood from normal circulation. This is as addicted online gamers usually will be glued to the screen for tens of hours to even days. Only recently, a man from china dies from online gaming.The man, who was only identified by his gaming alias “Zhang,” is what China has come to classify 2.6 million of its 20 million under-18 youth: gaming addicts. Though Zhang’s death was attributed to his 330 pound obesity, I think the cause of death might also be linked towards his perpetual online gaming addiction.

What are your thoughts for online communications?
Are online gaming addictions common in your friends too?

when love hurts.

Many of you might have known by now that singer Chris Brown, assaulted his girlfriend Rihanna. It was reported that the 19-year old pop singer attacked his 21-year old girlfriend after a Grammy party on February 8th. Afterwhich, Rihanna was so badly beaten up, till she cannot perform for the Grammy Awards the following day. Why is this happening to a couple who had been dating for the past 6 months? In my opinion, her boyfriend and her, did not clearly define their relational boundaries when they started off.

According to Knapp’s Model of Relational Development, there are 10 stages in defining a relationship. Five for building up a relationship and five for dissolving a relationship. Of which, those stages can be non linear and skip around, but they should be clearly defined within the boundaries. In the case of Rihanna and her boyfriend, they might have a very brief Initation stage, where the two person made contact. Prehaps by a surge of raging hormones, they skipped the a stage and went straight to the third, which is Intensifying. Then, probably with all the tabloids reporting, they might be forced together. Hence, rushing into the Integration stage. Then, it went on for a couple of months. However, even when trouble brews within themselves, they are to put up a front, as they are awarded tremendous attention by the paparazzi. With minimal fundations in the developing phase of the Coming Together Stage, it might be one of the factor that shortened their ‘Honeymoon’ period. When Chris Brown allegedly assaulted Rihanna that night, it might had been one of their first major disagreements. Brown, 19, might not have any awareness of anger managment and lashed on Rihanna. Hence, pulling their relational development from stage 4, down to near stage 10, which is Termiation. Rihanna made her stand, by going to the police and reported Brown for assault, thus signing the end of the relationship.

Rihanna made her stand, by reporting the assault to the police. This incident is just an amplified example of one such domestic violence case, as it happened to two celebrities in Hollywood. There are so many more unreported cases of domestic violence around the world, especially if the society favours male domimance. In Singapore, 61 per cent of women, if affected by domestic violence, claim they would confide in a friend, yet a much smaller proportion would turn to official authorities such as 30% to the police and 23% to a support group. Thus, the majority will carry on in the Stagnation phase, where their relationship with their spouses do not grow nor dissolves. Hence, many just carry on with their lives, citing different reasons, yet they might be consistently faced with the danger of domestic violence.

So my point is, will you carry a relationship in stagnation even you are being domestically abused for the fear of losing what you value?
Or, will you be like Rihanna, and take a stand against it?

group bullies

In Singapore, acorrding to a survey done, found that approximately 1 in 4 secondary school students surveyed was a victim of bullying, defined as any action apparently intended to victimise and repeated at least twice every single month over a span of one school year. Males and females were just as likely to be bullied. Why is this so?

This form of bullying can be clearly illustrated by the concept of GroupThink.

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.

During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.

In my opinion, thee bullies are in are the adolesent stage of their lives. Therefore, the need to form closure in terms of finding his or her self identity is very strong in them. Hence, the may experiment with many identities in the process of identity achieving. Some may eventually fall into a company of peers who they perceive thinks, and behaves the same way as them. Hence, the coalition of individuals into a group happens. Also, I think that bullies do not work alone. They need companions in bullying as well. Being in a group will then serve a bully well, as most likely than not, he or she will converge into group think, and the syntoms of can be seen in most bullying groups. One such prevalent idea will be the illusion of invulnerability. This is where a group of individuals no longer afraid of proper rules (be it, insitutionalised or not) whenever, they are in a group. Such is often seem in bullying – a group of normal students, behaving deviantly when they’re with their friends. Therefore, they feel that they can do anything within the group and often neglects to think of the consequences – stealing, fighting, rioting. Personally, I feel that those people will not break out of their illusion so long as the group stays, and if they are not taken into proper guidence (disciplinary or otherwise).

What are you opinions about bullying and groupthink?
Were you a victim of bullying as well? How did you cope with it?

victims of circumstance?

Japan, being in the forefront of a high context society, where people put tremendous emphasis on what’s not being said in an interaction. Subtle non spoken cues are important than what’s being said. Hence, the Japanese particularly offended when their finance minister chose to sip wine and doze off in a G7 (Group 7) Summit conference held in Rome, a few days back. In their clause, Mr. Shoichi Nakagawa, did not verbally demean or made any inappropriate remarks during the conference. However, it was the slurred speech and the apparent ‘drunkenness’ of him that displeased the nation.

Also, Japan is more of a collectivist nation. Meaning to say that the social norms and duty are defined by the group, rather than self comfort. Moreover, in an collectivist society, the social behavior is determined by the views and needs of the society rather than oneself. Therefore it is to say that most living in an collectivist society are more keen on self sacrifice (for the greater good of the society), and places key interest on face value.

Hence, from the above mentioned two characteristics of a collectivist society, the former finance minister is obviously on the wrong side of the society norm. Probably driven by an imposed self sacrificial duty, and an immense depletion of face value; Mr. Nakagawa offered his resignation from office quoting “I have decided that it would be better for the country if I quit.” .

However, this form of collectivist thinking is hardy popular in the Western societies. Instead of a collectivist route, a more individualist approach is adopted by the Westerners. Whereby the social behavior is largely determined by the goals and values of the individual. The individualist person values freedom over bondage in traditions.

Take the diabolical opening of the Heathrow Terminal 5 last year for an example. 72 flights were canceled in the opening day itself and another 54 flights were canceled the subsequent day, amidst of the peculiar mix of pomp and circumstance with chaos. But, Mr. Willie Walsh, boss the British Airways, refused to quit after the unprecedented screw up in the history of Britain Airports. He could have be waned off by the traditional approach if he was in a society where Mr. Nakagawa had been. Yet, Mr. Willie pressed on and there were record financial results. BA made an operating profit of £875 Million and achieved the long-held goal of a 10% operating margin. That silenced most of his critics.

Hence, based on two vivid examples of two person living across the world, each in a different society – collectivist and individual, affected how they chose to handle upsets.. Which left me two questions.

1) What kind of society do you think Singapore is in?
2) How would each of the person mentioned above handle the situation if they were Singaporeans?

What do you think?

coffee or cigs?

Coffee vs. Cigarettes.

Which is the lesser evil between those two? Well, suppose most people will choose coffee, as it can keep a person awake and probably wouldn’t kill him or her. Cigarettes, on the other hand, is deadly as it can become an addiction, and basically eats off a person. Well, in my opinion, both is just as bad, and one of the main reason is due to perception.

What forms one’s perception? Perception occurs, based on a person’s selection of information, how a person organise his or her information and how one interpret the information given. Hence, in the case of coffee and cigarettes, most will select the information that is lasting; consequently, ending up in a selection flaw called ‘Persistent First Impression’. Which is to say, what a person first experienced with smokers were generally negative (ie. education, government warnings);hence, less intense and memoriable when compared to coffee. Perhaps, the person found the smoke to be choking and replusive. Then, the negative impression of cigarettes and smokes stays in the person mind based singluarly on how the he or she first remembered; therefore, greatly contributing to his or her perception on the detest of cigarettes.

Also, organising the various information plays a part in the person too. In this case, on may have already built up a personal construct, bend on prototyping cigarettes. One may think that only social delinquients smokes (again, based of personal experiences), hence fitting them into prototypes. Thus, one may think that only those who fit in the prototype mentioned above smokes.

Following that, the interpretation of information is vital to forming one’s perception. With the rampant governemny campeigns on the adverse effects of smoking, and with the ban of smoking in many public venues (schools, 50m from public buildings, 10m from bus stops), it really does not take a geinus to interpret the meaning conveyed. However, there are virtually zero reports on the ill effects of consuming coffee in the past year. Hence, one may think that there are no negative effects of consuming coffee.

However, did you know that about over 80% of Singaporeans drink coffee each day? 50% of those who drink, will have an headache when coffee is taken away from them. Hence, it means that half of those who consume coffee are heavily addicted to caffiene, without even realising it!

Compare these figures to the percentage of Singaporeans who are smokers -12 percent according to the National Health Survey in 2007. Out of the 12%, only 40% considered themselves as addicted and need to have a puff to get through the day.

Just by comparing the two, centris paribus, one can see that perception plays a huge part in choosing, and how a person interacts with the environment. We can also tell how the government is trying to influence in one’s perception, in the case of cigarettes and coffee.

What do you think?
Which do you preceive as the lesser evil between these two?

milk.

Harvey milk was a the first openly gay homosexual (hmm is that a tautology?) elected to public office in the USA. His murder in 1978, while he was in public office, also made him into a martyr for gay activitism.

As such it will be difficult when talking about a movie about his political career to separate out the form from its content, but i will attempt to talk about its merits first on purely

Taken for themselves, the acting is masterly and the writing superb. Drawing us in right from the start into the tangled world of politics and on to its foreshadowed ultimate tragedy. Sean Penn overcomes his own fame to become harvey milk. James franco, slightly less successfully, becomes Scott Smith, while a very large team of supporters and antagonists are introduced one by one as they contribute to the rise of milk’s political career. There is a lot of detail but the tone is never didactic and the story richly rewards close attention. There is also much texture of the 70s woven into the look of the movie. I have to assume opera was a particular love of Harvey Milk but somehow the use of tosca to accompany some of the already emotionally charged scenes seemed to me to teeter dangerously over the top.

Some liberties were taken with regards to historical accuracy – but the movie never pretends to be a documentary and “streamlining” some details does make for a more compelling story. One particular liberty taken is the suggestion that milk’s murderer was a closeted homosexual. Whatever artistic merit this may or may not have, in the context of the movie this is an unavoidably politically charged choice.

Also, this film soars with the liberal use of non verbal cues, coupled with the seamless tight storyline. Making use of various forms of non verbal cues as such paralinguistics and haptics, it draws the story closer to the audience. Also, with the use of subtle music, the producers are able to exactly pin-point the climax of each emotionally charged scenes.

Who should watch it? This movie is not just made to please advocates, nor the Oscars. It is to inispire and to create awareness – not just about gays (in very broadly defined sense), but also on pluralism – reglious, cultural, political and value. These are ongoing everyday in the world, even in Singapore, pluralism is slowly taking it’s form. Hence, I would say so long you’re above 21(sadly) in Singapore, you should go watch the show. View it with a open heart and bring home some food for thoughts – a different democracy exhibited than in Singapore.

lock your door, ban your race.

Two promising young athletes are banned from competitions, reason being they locked themselves in a hotel room during overseas compeition last year. The Triathlon Association of Singapore alleged that the pair had infringed a rule, which forbides male and female athletes to share a room. Admist all that pomp and circumstance of Singapore hosting the first ever Youth Olympics in 2010, such absurd rules must be abolished.

In my opinion, there is no wrong in two opposite gender sharing a room during competition. Firstly, both the athletes are adults, hence any form interaction between them should be a mutual agreement. What they do or don’t in the room, is their privacy and who is the authority to question or forbid them?

After a search in the TAS website, there are no specific reference on the code of conduct. So I searched for a international reference of the triathlete code of conduct from the British Triahtlon Federation. Upon reading, there is no such ruling which “forbids male and female athletes to share a room and requires the door to be kept open when there is a visitor of the opposite gender” the as allegation against the two Singaporean athlete. All it is stated is that to “conduct themselves in a professional, decent, honest and legal manner”.

So which word did the two athletes infringed? Is it decent? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ”decent” means conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality. Hence, who is to say that the mutual agreement between two adults is indecent and illegal? Also, what if that the two athletes are spouses? Is the TAS going to forbid a married couple from sharing a room together and keeping an eye on what they do in the room?

Why is it that the TAS defines their code of the conduct in such a narrow aspect? Singapore is a global city. Some of our traditional and rigid mindsets should change, so that we can be more flexible in our dealings. Such should be the way in the sporting arena as well.

The International Olympics Committee (IOC) revises their athlete contracts and their code of conduct regularly to ensure fairness and promote sportsmanship, so should local clubs as well. The focus should be atuned to sniffing out athletes who abuse substances that defiles sportsmanship and not punishing athletes who lock their doors.