Gender Stereotypes

I was hearing a conversation amongst colleagues bout how a girl would react in particular situations, like say being cheated on. It's funny because there's basically a behavior template for "appropriate" responses to particular situations. Given how its internalized, I would not be surprised if the girl responded in that precise same way.

Of course, what I am thinking about is stereotyped behavior. Guys often talk about how girls would behave, and it irks me when they're right. Are they really all that predictable? Yet, it is true, and ultimately it's the social license that helps people behave in those specific ways. Then comes the inevitable spurious attribution when the people conclude that girls are just wired that way.

Same old nature vs nurture debate that I shall not belabor. Sadly, part of the problem of why gender stereotypes exist is that both sides just tacitly conspire to uphold them one way or another. I can see the social purpose of such predictable responses (heck it used to be fashionable to faint) in that it ultimately allowed people to get laid and fire off their useless spawn, but it just seems like a selling out of individuality in favor of something that I can only classify as animal behavior.

Those Lucky Scammers

When I read about the epic scams pulled off by the psychopathic lot, I start thinking about just how such schemes are hatched and how I would do one better. On hindsight, each of the schemes seems just so amazingly well crafted and could've only been the work of a genius mind. Yet, as one who does project development for a living and having a basic understanding of fundamental attribution error, I question that first impression.

Firstly, no idea is born out of nothing. Typically, someone starts off with a seed of the idea, and it is slowly built up layer by layer. Most ideas fail along the way and collapse, while others somehow manage to build up till they're mature. It's these mature ideas that come across as brilliant and it's easy to assume that it was designed that way from the start. I suspect it's simply that we only really hear about the brilliantly executed ones and miss the minor ones that simply result in police reports and arrests of small-time crooks.

And then there's the luck factor, where one simply manages to escape discovery for long enough that the scam can actually mature. Sometimes accounting fraud gets discovered early, and then its nipped in the bud. Other times it manages to turn into Enron. However, I have my doubts that Enron started off as a scam, but rather as an operation that was conducive to a profitable scam and it basically grew from there. It's very tempting to overestimate the skill involved, but like with any business I just think it's the matter of being in the right place at the right time.

The magic piece of the puzzle is actually the psychopathic impulsiveness. Lady Luck loves a gambler: If you don't even try, you'd never have a chance of striking the lottery. If the seed of a scam idea should show up, it takes a risk taker to even consider trying it out. Someone who's too honest or too hesitant would'nt even think of trying in the first place. It's the iterations that come after that make the idea really work. Basically, when all of the above come together at once, one has the makings of a scam of epic proportions.

The Seed Of An Idea

I've learned in the course of my work that every great idea comes from an acorn. An idea must first have a seed, which is then grown and developed upon until it works. That means multiple iterations and exploration of different implementations until a suitable solution is found. That is where the great idea comes from.

When I was younger, I was wondering how brilliant designers like Will Wright are somehow able to consistently deliver those wonderful games. They must've made these grand roadmap documents listing features A to Z and then masterfully weaving the lot together till a blockbuster title emerged. How wrong I was...

It's easy to forget where the oak came from. Basically, it's not all that uncommon for a game to turn out rather different from the initial vision that was set out. One of the magic ingredients is the willingness to try new things, such that the vision is allowed to grow and realize itself. Yet, it is equally easy to lose one's way and endlessly try random things until the project runs out of money. It seems to be the duty of the great designer to set the pace somewhere between the two such that the vision is allowed to develop, but is also pruned at appropriate times to allow for healthy growth.

The Croods

The Croods are a typical Stone Age family, very much like the Flintstones. Minus all the awesome Stone Age tech. They're cave-dwellers. Very timid cave-dwellers. Except for the spunky daughter. One day, they were forced to leave their cave because it was bashed in, and thus begins their adventure.

The film is basically a children's film (take it as you will) where there's a strong parable of carpe diem and the usual tale of change/redemption. It is a simple (possibly trite) concept executed in a parallel Stone Age world that superficially challenges our scant understanding of the time period.

There's not a lot to say about the film. It has its touching moments and is visually pleasing, yet it lacks the kind of sophistication that would've made the film grow from trite to truly memorable. There were many missed opportunities for unexpected endings, but the show just wound up going along the utterly predictable path that such kids movies tend to go. As such, it gets a 6.5/10. Not great, but at least it didn't suck.

Faking Works

I hate fakes. I'm talking about the two-faced Janus's that plague the general population. While they appear to present a particular front (usually cheerful, even gregarious), they're really just hollow inside. The smiles are wide and fake, and it's often rather obvious that they are. Yet, it seems that the faking actually works.

I've come to realize that the average human is actually a horrible detector of fakes. Someone with the ready smile just seems to disarm them, making them think that they're dealing with a really nice person. There's something to the niceness that puts people off their guard and even makes them feel the same sort of rapport that the other person is spoofing.

My take is that the average person is prone to projecting their feelings. That means that they are quite likely to read a fake smile as real, because it looks like a smile. This recognition of a smile leads to extrapolations of the smiling person's intentions and personality, which leads to an incorrect reading of the person's intentions. It leads to a premature evaluation of a person's character, which is notoriously difficult to read as a first impression.

Case in point: This is a trap that my dad is especially susceptible to. He clings to the belief that a person's character can be read at a single glance: A most dangerous fallacy indeed. (Conversely, my assumption is that a person can only be truly evaluated from approximately 6 months of close observation. It's a view that he despises as insensitive.) In his evaluation, seeing a gloomy person leads to the conclusion that the person's cold, aloof or just generally unhappy. Seeing a smiling person means friend, liking and other similar such. Yet, it simply led to him having a sadly mistaken assumption of the person's reliability and general disposition.

The side effects of this easy evaluation are interesting as well. The general unreliability and shallowness of the person are subsequently attributed to personal problems and family issues, typical of the sort of strange extrapolation that people are prone to doing when they feel that they like the person. The tendency to conflate feelings of friendship with the goodness of the person seems quite prevalent.

Overall, it's just interesting to note that faking works in general. I've seen it happen time and again, where people are taken in by a friendly face and take a painfully long time to figure out that they've been duped. Happens in the office, with family, with other acquaintances on the road and such. Faking works, and will probably continue to fool people for centuries hence.However, it's always good to be educated so that one knows how to see the signs of a fake and protect oneself accordingly.

Why Not?

I've been asked by friends about how I always seem to manage to find odd corners of the city where nobody ever goes. It's an interesting question. On my end I just wonder why they don't. Then I realize that they're ruled by the concept of "Why" rather than "Why not?"

There's always a decision to be made when going places. Should I visit that part of town which I've never been before? For my friends, the answer is a query: "Why would I? What could possibly be there?". My response is...well why not? I simply go where my urges take me, and there's usually something new/interesting to be experienced. Heck, without that, I'd probably have been bored to death ages ago.

I think the same concept can be applied to the execution of ideas and such. The great endeavors of humanity seem to be powered by Why Not's. Hey what's there on the Moon? Maybe we should go up there! Were it such that humans were curious about the moon but never thought it worth their while to actually go through the expense to visit it (Space race and Cold War reasons aside), it may well be that we're still philosophizing about it without having actually set foot on the lunar surface.

I've always subscribed to the view that one needs only try in order to see if something's feasible. It may be a great opportunity, or it may be a bust, but one just needs to be desensitized to failure and just get out there to Do Something. I find it strange that people can be held back by their fears and inhibitions, and just sitting around thinking up What If's. They have things they want to try, and if there's an opportunity to really go for it...just go with my first thought: "Why Not?"

The Christian Smile

There is one thing that constantly bothers me is what I dub the Christian smile. Perhaps something of an unfair title for a phenomenon not limited to Christians, but I have personally observed it most frequently on the faces of Christians. Hence the name.

The appearance of the Christian smile is quite distinct. It's a rather vapid blissful smile that appears out of nowhere. In fact it appears at the drop of a hat, making one very suspicious as to the provenance of such an expression. Now, I generally have nothing against people being genuinely happy. However, there is something very wrong with the way certain people smile, and I've been trying to figure out what that was.

After some thought, my conclusion is that the smile I see is simply too exaggerated and too readily available to be real. Ordinarily, a smile of pure enjoyment ramps up some, reaches maximum intensity for some short moments, and then settles down into a happy looking state that is not quite the sort of ecstatic looking bliss that was glimpsed when the smile was at its most intense. It's quite natural, really.

In contrast, the Christian smile goes off like a flash bulb, shooting straight to max intensity and staying there for an unnatural period of time. Now, that's not saying that it's fake. I can't read minds so it may well be real, and to all appearances it does look real. The whole smile reaches the eyes thing. But, the bothersome thing is that it just looks like a sustained exaggeration of what a smile really is. And of course, virtually everyone who has that particular smile is a Christian. Oddly enough. And not just a regular faithful, but the sort that's really quite involved in church activities.

I shall refrain from speculating as to the exact nature and/or provenance of the smile in question. However, I do maintain that at a personal level I find it unnatural and it does make me wonder as to the mindset that underpins the creation of this rather curious expression.

Django Unchained

Ordinarily, I'd watch a movie only once. Movies get me bored if I rewatch them only to know what's coming next. It's particularly painful. Also, ordinarily I'd write a review of a movie once I've watched it. Sadly, I was busy. But I did manage to watch Django Unchained. Twice. It really is that good. Now, this movie's quite the whopper. It's 3 hours long. These long movies seem to be making a comeback, which I find to be quite enjoyable. But back to the show.

Django's about this black slave in the Civil War period, who gets his freedom and becomes a bounty hunter. His adventures are guided by a daring veteran bounty hunter with ice water for blood, and a very distinct stylishness to his violence. More importantly, the film is a Tarantino, with all the gratuitous blood and gore that implies. This comes together in a magical mix that makes the 3 hours of movie feel just like a normal 1.5 hour flick. Unless you're cursed with a small bladder.

The acting is rather good, and Dr Schultz the veteran bounty hunter is quite the unforgettable performer. He's the kind of guy who is generally highly refined, but can easily take out any threats without so much as batting an eyelid. He never attacks without a casus belli, and that is quite the refreshing change from the slew of cheap violence that we see in movies nowadays. The pair proceed on a rather grimly humorous warpath where Django grows from the slave awkwardly testing his newfound freedom to mature into a full blown bounty hunter.

Overall I am highly pleased with the film, and it has just the right mix of that unmistakable Wild West film style (ok more like South, but you get the idea) together with stylish acting, making a rather palatable brew of Hero's Journey where hilarity is punctuated with intense moments of gratuitous violence. 9/10.

Inner Peace

Some things annoy me a lot. Those Buddhist "inner peace" types are amongst the sorts that truly peeve me. Now, I am not against things like finding one's inner peace. It is a worthy pursuit, and I am (in a manner of speaking) at peace with myself and what I am. It is when one externalizes one's "inner peace" in a way that shows it as false that I start foaming at the mouth.

Take for example the semi-smug "wise man" who acts like an enlightened Buddhist type who confidently preaches about one's true nature as if he knows how one will be in the future. Indeed it may be true for the general case, and I believe he means well, but ultimately one never does know what another's life path will be like. If anything, it is condescending to think that others would follow the same path that one has trodden and will come to the same conclusions. Worse yet, it implies that the path is in some way more correct than others.

Interestingly, I come out of these engagements feeling that the person was in fact more naive and rather unenlightened. It is ironic, considering what their views are. Of course, there will be some who view my seemingly warlike ways as a form of inner conflict that is created rather than natural, but those who can only comprehend conventional wisdom in these forms will never truly understand what it is like to have order in chaos.

Sense Of Belonging

I think people are only capable of understanding the world on their own terms. By that logic, it is condescending for someone to think they understand how other people feel just because they had similar experiences: There may be a normal, general case, but one's experiences are unique to oneself. No two snowflakes are identical, so to speak.

I had a conversation with a friend concerning the matter of a sense of belonging. He's been around, but ultimately came home because home was the only place he felt like he truly belonged. It is an intriguing idea, of course, that one has a place that one feels rooted to and wishes to return to. Of course, it irks me that he thinks I would feel the same if I were to do it as well.

Of course, I have not (though I plan to) and I intend to shortly. It will be a nice new experience, whatever the outcome. However, I am skeptical as to whether I would miss home, because I have no concept for home. For me, home is wherever I happen to be. In fact, oddly enough, I actually feel momentarily lost when I get "home" from overseas simply because I find that I have habituated to the new surroundings. Sadly, there is no way for me to definitively answer that assertion of his because I have not crossed the bridge and know not what lies on the other end. It will be an interesting note for posterity however.

Challenge Accepted

This will be yet another of those rants about the low-brow human who is easily impressed. This is the case of the challenge, and how to back off from one. Now, challenges are annoying things. It is exceedingly easy for one to issue a challenge, but rather difficult to back off from one without looking like a pansy.

Take for example a stupid challenge: I assert that I do not fear death. The challenger retorts that if that were true, I should prove it. Clearly, this is a nonsensical challenge and one should be able to deny it without consequence. It means nothing one way or another. Yet, how can one deny such a challenge at all? It questions one's resolve about a statement one has made about oneself, and to deny the challenge offhand might as well be a retraction of that statement. What a loss! It also creates an opening for the challenger to smugly declare the statement to be false (which would, of course, attract a punch to the face for good measure).

A double dare in this case would be overly glib and can be easily brushed off as an attempt at changing the subject as the challenger has nothing to defend. In fact, it is this position that is particularly galling, because it is possible to issue a challenge on such unequal terms. Of course, there will be those who say that it would have been better not to make the statement in the first place, or my father's belief that to win a fight is to lose one.

My take is that there is no graceful way out of it, and trying to worm one's way out is not only the action of a pansy but can attract jeering by the challenger's peers. The most efficient way I've found so far tends to involve a quick attack of some form, be it a sudden outburst, an assault that ends with the challenger's face ground into the dirt or a double dare and a very stern disposition against any further attempt at a reversal. Hostility and a nasty disposition have their own charm when it comes to diffusing such annoyances.

Mall Layouts

Shopping malls are particularly interesting business venues. They are seemingly illogical setups where competitors cheerfully clump together to compete for attention in a highly competitive situation. Of course, this store clustering makes things convenient for the consumers, who throng the venue in response.

One would think that with the sheer number of malls created, people would have made a science out of mall design. Well, from the looks of the malls around here, I think they're rather far from it. Mall shoppers are like sheep. They flock, and only go where they can see. Unless the mall specializes in the sort of cramped fire trap layout of the mini stall maze, they need to do more to draw traffic.

Showy facades are a part of the puzzle, but I've found that the biggest omission common to poorly trafficked malls tend to be deep dark recesses that none but the most determined explorers would miss. The stalls that succeed are largely limited to what the consumers can see, and that is where a well laid out atrium really shines: It allows customers to see the shops (and have an idea of where they're going) and for them to see where the crowds are going so that they can follow. Once that flow is achieved, the malls seem to largely self sustain. Yet, I routinely see really bad atria, which serve only to make people wonder what's out there...and then the consumers forget and wander off to the next most accessible mall...

Why Do You Like This?

I think it can be an exercise in futility to ask people why they are the way they are. Like asking questions about why you like steak and not lamb chops? I've tried asking such questions before, and the responses I get range from the inane to the outright evasive. It is not uncommon for me to get a variety of turn around like "but why do YOU like lamb chops but not steak?". (No, the steak vs lamb chops isn't a real discussion here). I just think it's a silly bit of rhetoric used by the unawakened humans who are disinclined to think more about what really drives them.

I especially hate the turnaround approach, because it's not just an evasion but it's pretty much a rhetorical question. The other person isn't actually interested in whatever response I may give, and it simply opens the opportunity for them to wiggle out of it by saying that they think the same. On my end, I am actually interested in a serious response, and all I get are these cheap responses.

It is this sort of response that only serves to cement my belief that the average human barely qualifies the title, and is hardly better than an animal. Once in a while, though, someone actually sits down and thinks seriously about the question. It is refreshing to see it happen, but frankly...I've never had much faith in humanity, and there are few things that I have encountered that convinced me otherwise. C'est la vie.

On The Psychopath

I think it is a funny thing that when someone mentions the "disorder", they think of the low functioning variety of psychopath. Of course it's a pathology if someone winds up like Ted Bundy, and is quite unable to operate properly in society. That's kinda the definition of a pathology in that sense. But today I am considering the matter of that and morality:

There seems to be a really big deal being made about psychopaths being immoral monsters who do as they please. But when I read the arguments out there, I often find that it simply boils down to people having some weird sort of emotive understanding of morality. In general, I take issue with the definition of a person as broken just because they think differently from the mainstream. Something like people limiting behaviors simply because someone else didn't like it done to them. Yet, we are quite aware that the golden rule can only be taken so far. In the matter of victimless crimes, I actually find the emotive take to be dangerous.

Of course, I have wound up somewhat conflating morality with legality, and then there's the separate matter of ethics. I don't think they are all equivalent (they aren't), but I do find that legality is often influenced by popular morality. And of course, it is annoying. If I were to break a law because I figure it's the right thing to do, I do not expect to be punished for it. That's pretty lame.

I disagree that there can be no morality without the emotive component. In fact, I think it would be improved if people can just be more logical about their means towards their ends. Sadly, of course, I know the average person is just incapable of shutting those emotions swimming about their heads, and the calls will be quite different from what is logically optimal.

Those Infantile Women

Some things annoy me. Women acting infantile is one of them. Now, it's not that I don't understand the applications of the behavior and the potential reward from adopting it. I'm just annoyed that the behavior's exploitative and does not serve to better the lot of women at all. It's also inconsistent with the general image that women wish to project, being more emotionally mature than equivalent men.

Now, I do not like it when people act submissive. Being infantile, acting childlike and especially like a spoilt child does work at getting what one wants. However, it reinforces the image of the submissive woman (who is unable to engage a man on adult to adult terms) and creates expectations of others to do the same. As a whole, it harms everyone. Men are being manipulated in this way, and whether they realize it and welcome it or despise it, they're going to have to put up with this nonsense as well.

Interestingly, I find this strange behavior more prevalent in societies where women are forced into a submissive position and cannot deal on fair terms. It's probably a way out, but I think it would be better if they set better examples and force the issue with the men instead. While some may point out the nature of power dynamics in a society, it is strange that there is such cowardice that people would rather stick with the status quo than to band together and create a revolution.

Lincoln

Arguably one of the finest of the American presidents, Abraham Lincoln is quite the iconic figure of the Civil War. And here I am, having sat through a movie about the great president. I guess I can only say that I have emerged thinking about the struggles behind the 13th Amendment, and with some skepticism as to the character as portrayed in the film.

Lincoln is set in the Civil War period, and focuses primarily on the struggle the President had to get enough support to pass the Amendment. Throughout the film, I was struck by the well read and considered intellect of Mr President, and his sharp tongued "sidekick" Thaddeus. Thaddeus's unrelenting delivery of sarcastic wit arguably stole the show whenever they showed up.

I guess the first thing that struck me as odd was how Lincoln seemed to lack his trademark Kentucky accent. His understanding and application of classical philosophy also seemed slightly strange considering his background. Of course, I have no doubt as to his well read though unschooled status, but I am somehow doubtful as to whether that was how usual mannerism. I also pondered if he really did spend the final stretch of the Civil War fighting for the Amendment.

That said, the movie was not bad in and of itself, and actually presented a perspective that focused more on the internal politics of getting a controversial Amendment passed, instead of the usual focus on the Civil War. I appreciated that. Overall I'd say the film deserves a 7/10.

Yes

Yes is a powerful word. It opens doors, and can open the door to one discovering new pleasures and enjoyment. I have a general guideline to try everything at least once. At least within reason. I do intend to try dying, tried it once, but I figure I'll try staying dead at least once somewhere near the end of my lifetime. That said, here are my thoughts.

I don't usually feel much. I just kind of float around in life, and it gets dull. Then comes along an opportunity featuring something I despise. A friend asks me to go clubbing with him/her. I know what clubbing involves, the loud music, the weird smells, the disgusting human mobs and such. It is a madhouse filled with animals. Of course I do not enjoy it. Yet, with the invitation, I asked myself thus: Why don't I try it at least once?

I went in, cut loose, drank a whole lot, learned some new footwork on the dance floor (they were fighting steps, but don't tell anyone I said that) and overall I had a rather good time. By the time I came out, some of my fellas were piss drunk and one of my friends was busy slurring her words. Impressive. That said, I would not have experienced the inside of a club, let alone enjoyed myself, had I chosen to stick to my guns and stayed out.

Saying yes to enjoyment reminds me of a practical application of the concept parodied in Yes Man. While I tend to think that people should refrain from mindlessly saying yes to everything, one should also make it a point to routinely lower ones inhibitions and try out things that one's invited to do. One never knows if one might turn out to like it. As for my little experiment those years back, I never did feel too enthusiastic about going at it again. Wasn't my scene. But at least I didn't miss out.

On Being Different

I guess there's a stereotype out there that weird folk are creative. Or was it that creative folk are weird. Regardless, I get the impression that being different seems to have a tendency to spur creativity.

I would think about the constraints one encounters when being different, and it is well established that constraints encourage creativity simply because you can't go through them so you need to find ways to go around. And of course, being different also tends to mean one doesn't find oneself entrenched in the in-groups where group think rules, so it becomes that bit easier to think for yourself. In fact, it often forces one to think about how group dynamics work in the first place, and that leads one to question a lot more. That questioning contributes to creativity as well.

When the difference is something that really forces one out of a group, be it a difference in psychology, sexual orientation or even culture, one either strikes out solo or finds oneself being quite miserable shoehorning oneself like a square peg in a round hole. Alternatively, one just finds a similar group and blends in instead.

On Emptiness

I've been giving my feelings of emptiness some thought. I've considered the things that made me truly feel, and others that I desperately try to repeatedly do in order to feel better about myself. I think the problem I have is related to living all my life in a single city.I believe I've previously written on the topic, where I feel like a small towner who's never seen a city. Now I think that the problem is endemic to the city.

Here's the context: I have seen pretty much all there is to see in this city, and I do go on trips overseas. The trips to the countries right next door may expose me to different cultures, but they are also born of the same climate. Going through the region does little more than show me more of the same albeit in a different, possibly slightly more dangerous cultural context.

To get the truly unique experiences that I've found to fuel my zest for life, I've found the need to go farther abroad. Unfortunately, the cost of doing so is quite prohibitive, and is hardly an option for a weekend getaway. While each of those away from home experiences impacts me greatly and I don't easily forget them, they are sufficiently few and far between that they may as well be fantasies that I can come back to from time to time.

I find myself hungering for different locales, and seek out what I can within the city itself. Granted, these do exist. I round a corner that nobody visits, and I see something that is so far from the norm that I am actually refreshed. I hung out with a friend there today, and she felt it too. It was a sense of liberation, and honestly neither of us wished to leave.

Sadly, I do realize that such places are limited, and it is only a matter of time before I find them all. At that point, I can truly say that I have explored the city. That is also when I find that I sicken more of the place that no longer holds mysteries for me. Perhaps I am simply jaded and need to take a break from here to satisfy my wanderlust.

Sometimes I wonder why I feel the way I do, and why others can settle down in contentment. I guess in a way I just don't fit in with the culture around here, and frankly I feel more like an anthropologist studying a foreign tribe than being a member of the tribe. On the other hand, I have been told by multiple people that I am different, alien. They can see it, and know that I am not like the others, but I guess the next logical question is why the others are the way they are. Then I ask myself the million dollar question: Where is home?

The Last Village

I live in a highly developed city, where everything is urban and forested areas are rare. Rarer yet are the relatively wild lands, where modern developments have yet to intrude. I visited one such place today. It is the last traditional village in the city.

Now, it is strange that I feel this fascination with a place similar to that which my parents have grown up in. I brought them along, and frankly they were bored. It's too familiar to them. Yet, for me, it is a new experience. The unpaved roads covered in mud and dotted with large puddles. The buildings built of makeshift materials very much like your average shanty. Despite that, there was something missing, I realized. It didn't smell.

I've been to slums and shanties. The thing they have in common is the smell. A place that is unwashed, rubbish everywhere and animal dung all over the place. There's a distinct aroma to such places. That very scent was missing, which I guess felt like a rather unusual omission. Visually it looked and felt like a traditional village, yet some of the sounds and the smells were missing.

Despite that, I felt a sense of achievement, however small that was. I found yet another place that told me that there was more to the image of my city than the postcard images. I find that I like hunting down such places, that there is something new that I can find each day. More importantly, I have managed to personally document yet another piece of the old country that will be washed away by the tides of progress shortly. Soon, all that remains of the past will be memories, and perhaps my images will serve to bolster those memories.

Selective Critical Thinking

Everyone is capable of critical thinking. So far I think nobody's capable of being critical of everything all the time. It's probably too tiring to be so. Yet, the inconsistencies do bother me. Take my parents for example: They're perfectly capable of critical thinking and routinely question the relationships between people they spot and are able to understand the implications of government policies. They think on a daily basis.

The problem is, they will not think about the things that they learned from young. The funny thing is that's the first thing I've started re-examining, because I've come to realize that I've been taught many incorrect "facts" as a kid, and my re-education is ongoing. Unfortunately for them, the superstitions learned from young remain firmly ingrained in their psyche. No attempt has been made to re-examine their lives.

That said, I think it is practically impossible to be critical about everything. There will always be things that one takes for granted, and indeed it seems to be impossible not to take anything for granted. Yet, when there is an opportunity to rethink one's stand, one should take the opportunity. to do so. That is probably the best way one can be assured that they will keep growing throughout their lives.

Zero Dark Thirty

Kill UBL. That is the mission. I was amused that some people thought UBL was a mistake, but it's really Usama Bin Laden (alternative spelling). Regardless, the movie was a fairly decent depiction of the struggles and intrigue involved in the hunt. That includes the enhanced interrogation techniques, Black Sites and the ultimate deployment of the SEAL team.

Overall the show's rather visceral, and avoids gratuitous violence in a way that makes the sporadic violence presented all the more poignant. I think the pacing is brilliant, and that makes for a satisfying movie experience. I'd recommend it with a healthy 7.5/10.

Make-Work

Humans are remarkably good at creating make-work especially when in a hurry. Ironically, this is tends to lead to reduced progress despite the massive expenditure of effort. I think it akin to splashing around when drowning. Not only does this not help one stay afloat, it also tends to lead to the sort of tiredness that ensures a swifter drowning.

A good example of make-work is company meetings. There are times when a meeting of minds is critical to agreeing upon a mutually beneficial course of action. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to turn a productive meeting into make-work by calling meetings at the slightest hint of disagreement. Meeting spam ultimately results in massive expenditure of effort to little effect: considering the time spent ruminating, one might well have simply made progress towards the intended solution. Something like a drowning person thrashing about.

Sadly, the make-work can look disturbingly real, and superstition sets in. That is, successes in implementation can be attributed to the presence of meetings while failures are attributed to the absence of them. As we know, that's actually a typical failure of empiricism and makes for rather poor decision making.

Perhaps a better way would be the analysis of a problem and breaking it down into its constituent parts, then assigning each part to the respective subject matter experts for further analysis. Discussions should never be limited to meetings, and should be free flowing instead.

Considering the general problem of make-work, a lot of the problems seem to be avoidable by careful analysis rather than the choice of blindly doing anything random instead. Doing so would result in the kinds of strange behavior I see on a regular basis.

On Talent

When I look around, I routinely see talented people who have their talents squandered. They're sadly neglected, and sometimes even undiscovered. Yet, I recognize the importance of skill and that skill can supersede talent. This fact makes some people neglect the importance of discovering and cultivating talents, and for others to think that talent is everything.

What is talent? By my book, talent is one's current propensity towards picking up a skill. To put things in gamer terms, that's something like having a one off XP boost and possibly XP gain buffs towards improving a skill.

Yet, I disagree with the view that talent is somehow innate to a person. I describe it as a propensity because talents can be cultivated by learning skills with synergy.This, I believe, is what people describe as "discovering" a talent. For example, I may be good with observing how people move. That can translate to a talent in learning the martial arts because they're in synergy with observational and mimicry abilities. In turn, the skill developed becomes an area of interest, and that links to other skills like say military tactics.

Unfortunately, I routinely see people being good at something and it seems to me that they are somehow talented at it. For example, some are very good at observing people. Yet, that talent goes uncultivated because they use it on a daily basis but make no effort to apply it elsewhere, like say a job with a spy agency or dance studio. As a result, the talent stays at whatever level it is that they originally had.

I think it is of vital importance that people recognize that they are good at certain things. When they discover what those might be, they also should not hesitate to find ways to improve what those talents might be. This is a good way to seek the sort of self improvement that maximizes one's abilities, and the constant stretching can only result in the development of a superior self.

A Great Weekend

I am writing this to commemorate a rather memorable and fulfilling weekend. Ordinarily, a weekend would be fairly routine, like going out to a movie, heading home and then having a gaming session into the wee hours before waking in the evening. That's usual and can get quite trite. This weekend was hardly like that.

10am wake. That's unusual in my weekend, because I'm a conscientious morning denier. So I pick up my camera from the repair shop and post some stuff. Sadly, these kinds of places close stupid early on the weekend, so I get roasted at midday. Then I have lunch and head home to nap till the evening.

Wake for dinner. Friend asks me out to watch Cloud Atlas at 11pm. This is fairly unusual since most of the time I get movies before that, but I don't turn down stuff at night. I watch it till 2am with my friend, then we stick around to chat till around 4am. It's funny that during that conversation there was a street procession with lots of shouting and cheering as people went to their temple festival, and that was delightful. It reminded me of the night festival I really liked last year. After that I get sent home.

I especially liked the conversation, considering that it's less than mundane. Frankly I'm rather bored by all the mundane conversations I keep getting. It's like I pretend to be engaged and can hold small talk as long as it takes, but frankly I gain little to nothing from that and go back feeling emptier than when I started off. It didn't happen this time.

After I got home I was doing some stuff on the computer and prepping for bed, then my parents wake and want to go to exercise. So I hump my kali sticks and go for a nice hour long stick swinging session. Tired, we head to breakfast and I pass out till the evening.

Overall this has been quite the fulfilling weekend. I may be a night critter, but staying up alone isn't necessarily fulfilling. I must have milestones and noteworthy moments to work with. Sitting at home playing games into the dawn is hardly that. Still, I am quite happy to have had this session, though I do wonder how I might get my weekends livelier.

Gangster Squad

I have a soft spot for the 50's and the years around it. Gangster shows of the era are hit that spot for me. This particular movie is about the struggles between gangs in the era, there remains something lacking in the movie that just prevents me from getting into it.

Cops going on a sting to help take down organized crime. That's the premise of the movie. Unfortunately, the writing, lack of character development and frankly lack of 1950's style just makes the whole gig feel like any ordinary cop vs organized crime film, albeit in fedoras, trenchcoats and Tommy guns. Even the gratuitous violence feels empty, lacking the style that one might come to expect in current films.

Overall a forgettable experience that makes the movie hardly worth the money put behind the popcorn to keep one going through it. There is little I can recommend it for, so I'm assigning a 4/10 for it.

Cloud Atlas

I'll start this off by saying that Cloud Atlas is not for everyone. If you prefer watching a movie where everything is clear and explanations are spoonfed, avoid this movie at all costs. For those seeking a mental challenge, this movie is a must watch.Preferably while you're wide awake and quite focused.

Cloud Atlas is basically an interconnected waffle of 6 storylines. The narratives are presented in a disjointed manner, zipping from one to the other without so much of a by your leave. Yet, each storyline is connected to the other by fine parallels to one another. "No matter where you are, everyone is always connected" comes to mind. The beauty of the movie's construction lies in the fine detail, from elements in a scene hinting at the future or other parallel events, to the appropriateness of garb to particular time periods. The devil's in the detail, and we have detail by the wheelbarrow.

Cloud Atlas seems to be a refinement of the Wachowskis' questioning of reality in The Matrix. It presents the audience with a take on interconnected realities, inviting them to interpret it as they will. This is probably where many will lose their way, focusing on the narratives instead. For those who see the waffle and those interconnecting pieces, there remains a single question (or many, perhaps): How would you like your waffles done?

It is fair to say that I am downright impressed by this film, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Brazil and Suckerpunch (I know many didn't like it, but it's just that kind of movie). 9/10.

Les Miserables

Ordinarily, I do not like musicals. I find it silly that people should have to resort to singing their lines instead of just having a normal conversation. Seriously. People just don't do that in modern life. Regardless, Les Miserables is a strange musical. I cannot decide if I love or hate it, but I'll write anyway.

I think most are familiar with the Les Miserables narrative, so I shall refrain from belaboring the topic. There have been some re-imaginings of the characters, and frankly I'm not overly fond of the conversation songs that didn't come from the musical. I feel they could've been better composed.

Yet, despite its less than stellar performance as a musical (as I understand musicals), it still is a performance that is rather good at tugging on the heart-strings of the audience, taking everyone from the heights of euphoria and crashing down in utter despair. In fact, there have been many red eyes after the movie ended, so I think it fair to conclude that it was a moving experience.

Apart from its relatively poor performance as a musical, I do think the movie was fairly well put together and did its part to provide an emotional experience. 7/10