Constant Cognition

I've come to realize that I tend to operate somewhat differently from most people I know. That is, I have a tendency to think over a goodly number of my conscious decisions. That is, a controlled form of second guessing that aims to root out the underlying reasons for my decision making. It is a method I developed as a means of self control, and it seems effective enough in that I am no longer prone to actually losing self control, going into a blood haze and coming out of it wondering just what the heck I did (usually something violent).

Anyway the thing is that constant cognition in this form comes with a price. For one, it certainly slows down the decision making process, and can even make it seem to stall by normal peoples' standards. Or perhaps my own, come to think of it. Moreover, the disabling of cognitive shortcuts also means nothing comes easily without some rumination and I suppose it involves some degree of mental strain as well. At the very least, it does require the ability to detach from emotions or at least ignore them for some time in order to have a less noisy picture.

Regardless, I do think overall it's a good solution to deal with my own personal needs. Of course, the tight self control also means that I have to be careful about things that may reduce my self control below a certain maintenance level. The outcome may not be quite desirable.

Social Dissociation

I think it is useful to be able to socially dissociate oneself. That is, to induce upon oneself the mental attitude that one is not quite like the others in the group. If there's one thing I learned about group think, it's that the most powerful weapon against it just so happens to be to not feel socially integrated with that particular group.

When one regards oneself as separate, it becomes a lot easier to think outside the box that the well integrated build around themselves. This allows the sort of lateral thinking that can solve problems in ways that everyone in the focus group seem to become unable to.

I am no expert in the subject, but I guess this may be one of the reasons that artistic folk are viewed as "smarter" in some way when they seem to be able to think up stuff that nobody else would readily imagine. Perhaps they are, but perhaps they are also less of a part of the hive to the extent that they are capable of thinking for themselves for a change.

On Superstition

I'm pretty sure I've written on this topic previously. Anyway, the faulty thought processes underlying superstition irk me to no end. It is one thing to believe in something as far-fetched as black magick, especially if there's a specific definitive test case and a proof that consistently comes forth from this proof. It's another matter altogether to have a rather generic test case that can be "proven" by just about any outcome. An example is the attribution of any ill-fated event to the influence of black magick.

Now, what annoys me is how these vague test cases pretty much validate any scenario you might want to toss at it. It's similar when it comes to astrology, whereby a vague prediction 50 years ago just might come true, simply because a crap load of things do tend to happen in 50 years and there's an ever increasing chance of the prediction coming true. Those who are unable or unwilling to comprehend this will wind up being victimized by their own ignorance sooner or later.

Unfortunately, it seems it's not always easy to spot a faulty test case, so it's not really possible to avoid ignorance altogether. However, one must always be willing to re-examine one's methodology for comprehending life and to constantly update one's test cases to ensure that they at least make an effort to avoid being superstitious ignoramuses.

Puss In Boots

Funny Mexican movie, Antonio Banderas style. Puss In Boots manages to capture the typical Mexican narrative, featuring the classic wronged hero (with accompanying predictable storyline) and setting it in the middle of a humorous Fables'esque storyline featuring our (now) well known feline hero. Do I like the movie? Hell yeah!

Ok bad thing first: The storyline's predictable. Some people have panned it for that, and I think that's fair enough, but I think the refreshing take on the narrative and setting it in a novel setting have more than made up for that particular shortcoming. After all, it lets you forget about trying to understand the story and get on with appreciating the details in the movie.

On to the movie proper. I'd say the details are amazing and something that cat lovers and Mexican movie watchers would certainly appreciate. The show's got its own take on the fairytale characters, both making references to their iconic backstories and managing to fit them into the greater narrative. The movie even manages to balance between being outright goofy and quite poignant and serious. It's a fine tightrope, and I believe the team has managed to pull this one together rather neatly. They even managed to squeeze in an anti-cruelty message in the tale, which is downright commendable. Clearly, the folks have watched their movies (especially Mexican ones) and know about cats. The characters are human enough, yet catlike in all the right places. They're certainly not your average purely anthropomorphic animals you see in too many cartoons.

So how would I rate this feline tail of romance, betrayal and redemption? I'd say a clean 8/10. Yes I do recommend it, and I would watch it again just because. It won't beat How To Train Your Dragon, but it certainly is good on its own merits.

House Money

I was at the casino area with my folks today, and I noticed that most of the shops in the area were selling rather high end goods. Everything seemed to be something branded, and costing quite a bit even for basic clothing. At first glance, I thought, ok this is a rich peoples' area and catered to that. Makes sense, only that I wonder why I don't see a similar layout near the glitziest hotels in the vicinity. Just how are these stores paying their rent?

After some thought, I realized that the answer probably lay in the house money effect. True, gamblers near casinos can be high rollers and have the liquidity to purchase a $500 dress at a whim. However, not every gambler is a whale, and surely those coming to visit aren't all rich. That's when I realized that they didn't have to be rich in the net worth sense, but in the current liquidity sense: If they just had a windfall, the house money effect kicks in and they're more likely to purchase pricey goods that they would've normally avoided. That would help explain how the stores got their sales.

If a fairly middle class gambler happened to get say $10'000 from the poker table, it would seem to be a comparatively small expense to fork out $500 for the branded dress. The house money effect suggests that since the money isn't really regarded as the gambler's own anyway, the expense has minimal emotive impact. Odd, but that's how people work apparently. For me, whenever I receive a lump of money that I didn't earn, I'd simply spend as I usually do and then dump the rest in savings. I just see no logical reason to regard given money as any different from money I earned fair and square.

Bummer

Today is supposed to be the day I had a good time taking photos of birds and land critters at the zoos...for free. Special bday offer and all that rot. Ok let's cut to the chase: It was a bust. Rained all day, and since the places were basically open air, the animals would've been in hiding and not quite within camera's reach.

I wound up having to settle for a pale shadow of that, which was an outing to a new mall my folks hadn't visited just yet. I really hate it when stuff like this happens, but then again story of my life. Not really had all that many good bdays anyway. They're usually exams, spent being sick, having disappointments like these, whatever. Sometimes I wonder why I bother even trying to have a good time.

Anyway, after pondering what one of my friends said previously about a foiled outing not being ruined because she was out with people...well...no. I still feel majorly bummed out, and the fact that my folks were out there celebrating it with me just didn't help any. If anything, I've always regarded people as sort of furniture in outings, whereby the objective of the outing is key and people just sort of attach themselves to the outing. If people weren't there, the outing would feel just as great. Unfortunately, well...today happened, and I'd be very happy to hit the punching bags extra hard at the gym tomorrow to vent some.

The Autistic Advantage

In our current age of logic and modern technology, it seems to me that the being autistic to some extent is actually a benefit to the individual as opposed to being "neurotypical". In terms of the cognitive vulnerabilities that most people are subjected to (i.e. peer pressure, image issues, social norms, etc), autistic spectrum people are more able to overcome.

I was reading a book on how people use social rules of compliance to "persuade" people to their goals, whatever they may be. While I was reading the examples, I discovered that I'm actually quite resistant to the scenarios stated. The first thing I wondered was why? Why would it be that I can flat say no in a situation where others would feel compelled to say yes? The answer seems to lie in how I perceive people in general, which tends to be in logical terms rather than emotive. I do not think so much in terms of dude did me a favor, and therefore I am obligated (in a generalized emotive sense). It's more like dude did me a favor worth $10 or have it classified as a major intangible favor, and therefore I will return something of equal value at some future date.

The thought process helps shield me from the obligation trap, because I would know if I'm facing unfair demands when calling in a favor, and I would turn them down. Or for example worrying about social pressures (image management) when maintaining appearance of consistency in my conduct. The fact that I largely regard people as furniture helps some, because I will know for myself whether I am being internally consistent and am less affected by the thought of how others will perceive me if I happen to perform an action contrary to the image I am trying to project.

This is not to say that I am a complete social idiot and blow things up all the time because I piss on social norms (actually...that probably does happen a lot without my realizing) but that I wind up being less bound by them and become somewhat resistant to the sort of social-based coercion that would work pretty darned well on other better adjusted individuals. I believe in this case, the autistic advantage lies in the fact that being less socially integrated lets one stop and think over in logical terms what's going on out there, and acting in a more calculating way rather than having a knee jerk reaction that has become so natural to the average person that they are unable to perceive what they just did.

Immortals

The time now is 3.11am. I just came back from watching something that tried to pass itself off as a movie. First thing about the movie: It's supposed to be loosely based on Greek mythology, with an emphasis on the loose bit. My take is: Where is the Greek in all of this?!

Ok let's start with the good bit, 'coz that's really the only saving grace of the movie so far: Over the top fight scenes with plenty of gore. There. I've said it. Ok and maybe some cute girl butt. That's about it.

Moving on, the movie somehow manages to completely mangle Greek infantry tactics, mythology, aesthetics and politics in a single fell swoop, proceeding to wrap all that crap in a shallow narrative so fraught with plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities that they might as well toss out the entire Greek mythological premise and make a completely new fantasy much like what they had in Suckerpunch. Notice that I wrote that bit in a single sentence (and Suckerpunch was waaayyy better, btw). Oh, and they managed to throw third rate CGI into the mix, which really is quite reminiscent of 80's blue screen.

Right, I suppose it would be pretty obvious to the reader that I'm ranting at this point, but I stand by my evaluation of this excreable filth. Let it be said that I have experienced this pain, so that you shall not have to. I'd give it 3/10, if only for the blood, violence and a rather fine bit of girly ass. Take my word for it: Don't watch this movie. That is all.

Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn

Here's a fan movie if I've ever seen one. That is, this Tintin flick just so happens to be precisely what Tintin narratives are typically about, and can be reasonably expected to appeal to fans of the series. For everyone else...well...it depends.

Now, the whole idea is that Tintin stories are largely kid stories, with really predictable storylines. Tintin discovers something that mysterious people seem to want really badly, so he decides to take it upon himself to discover more about them. He gets into a great big life-threatening adventure, and really never seems to write about it, come to think of it. But hey, I like it all the same. Not quite so the people who watched it with me, however. The philistines just haven't had the chance to read the comics in the first place. Bah.

Anyway, there's really little I can say about the flick, seeing as how with Tintin writing just about anything about the story would count as a spoiler. I did like the animations, and the typical cartoon physics involved, along with a rather fine rendition of Cap'n Haddock...even though it seems Snowy was the star of the show for some of my dudes.

Overall I'd say the movie's good for Tintin fans, and it's probably something along the lines of 7/10. Good, but not great.

Oh, and I wrote this at...1.

Drive

Once in a while, I watch a movie that contrasts with itself. I'm not talking about a movie that has some serious unexpected twists, but more of a movie that takes on a totally different tone as it goes along. Drive is one such movie.

Now, it is something that starts off sedate and lovey dovey, involving a professional getaway driver. The intro alone should reassure you as to the driver's prowess. As the movie progresses, it is clear that darker, more violent elements are coming into the picture. It's always the gangsters, and they're always killing people in especially bloody ways. Well I am biased here, so when there's exquisite violence for show on the big screen, and that violence proves to be largely anatomically correct, I become quite happy.

Overall I'd say that Drive has captured the essence of an ultracool getaway driver who gets into some seriously hot soup, and I really liked the violence as the show progressed. Unfortunately, the lovey dovey scenes that formed the bulk of the first half felt a wee bit too drawn out. Really, it suffices to show a few scenes to demonstrate how close the couple is. For that, I'd say the movie's worth maybe 7.5/10. Simply put, its upgrade from the gratuitous bloodshed was easily overridden by the gratuitous use of love scenes.

Individuality

Individuality is something that I cherish and regard as highly important in any person. Yet, the concept of individuality is quite often interpreted significantly differently by different folk, so perhaps it is important that I define it for myself. I regard individuality as the ability and inclination to think and act for oneself.

What sparked this thought thread is the idea of individualistic people. That is, people who are inclined to not follow the crowd, and be themselves. Some express this through dressing oddly (or otherwise differently) while others act differently. My question here is: Is this indeed individuality? Can one be an individual simply by dressing or acting differently? In my opinion, that answer is no. It is insufficient.

If one decides to dress in the manner of a subculture, like say for instance the goth subculture, one isn't necessarily being an individual. While rebelling against the mainstream by simply adopting the ways of a subculture, one isn't necessarily thinking or acting for oneself. It's simply a facade one puts on just to seem like an individual. One can undoubtedly choose to subscribe to a subculture for personal reasons, and that's perfectly fine. However, one can also appear perfectly average yet maintain individuality through being willing to think for oneself and act the part.

An example of this is say following a subculture's dress sense. It is one thing to do so, but it is entirely another if one's doing that without understanding the origins of that subculture or making any effort to inject one's own preferences into the gig. I strongly believe each person is an individual subculture, population one. It is not a matter of aping something else just to feel like one's a part of something, but more like going in as a participant, and then budding off as a wholly realized person. Such is the journey of discovery of life.

Public Energies

Today, I was discussing the matter of peoples' energies. That is, the concept that when people are constrained/repressed, their energies will wind up diverted and may end up being quite destructive. Which caused me to wonder at how the Japanese do it, somehow managing to maintain a fairly creative environment even despite massive social constraints. It seems quite unlikely that such an environment could've arisen, and though I am no expert in Japanese culture, I have seen numerous creative works coming from Japan...and they seem to reflect a thought process that is quite alien to my own.

In contrast, similarly repressed societies elsewhere just tend to breed a certain sort of ill society, whereby people cease to care for one another. They simply become destructive instead. It puzzles me how such similar environments can result in such significantly different outcomes. The key here seems to be culture. That is, a culture that is more open to doing things in unusual ways.

Where Japan may well be quite straitlaced, they seem to be quite tolerant of experimentation when it comes to the youth, and they have a rather clean separation between the imaginative space and the socially proper space. This seems to have created a magic circle where people are free to explore and express themselves, without violating the equally stringent social mores that afflict repressed societies. This seems to be absent in the ones that turn destructive, whereby there is indeed no safe space at all, and the only outlet for these pent up public energies seems to be deviance. That is, rough behavior, anger and other destructive tendencies.

Perhaps it may be a good idea to delineate clear boundaries of what is safe (such as in kabuki theater) and what is socially proper (as is typical in strait laced societies) to provide safe channels for creative energies, such that they benefit the society as a whole while maintaining social order.

Intellectual Incest

I have come to understand my reluctance to extensively socialize with colleagues. Now, I often get invited to outings and chat with them a lot when I do turn up, but something has always bugged me about going out in this manner. Of course, there's the obvious implication that my going out has political undertones, in which cementing relationships that way does help cement one's position in an organization. That much always bugs me, but there's something else. That something else may well be what I call intellectual incest.

By intellectual incest I mean the very concept of going out with people you ordinarily spend a lot of time with, and by implication have been influenced by and are actively influencing you. The influences through social contact during working hours will invariably color discussions outside (apart from the obvious tendency of work talk) and basically wind up shrinking one's intellectual circle since one's exposure to outside disciplines is diminished as a result. In fact, it must be to one's advantage to engage social compatriots outside that work circle, to maximize one's overall exposure to reality in general.

I struggle with the incest thing, especially in an age where weak links abound and it really isn't as easy as it used to be to find people out there and spontaneously create links with them. Gone are the days of active random instant messaging and getting to know locals from different disciplines but similar interest. Most people may do that over Facebook interest groups, but in a sense that starts off on the wrong foot whereby the very presence of the Facebook (or other social media) accounts creates a greater intimacy than would be comfortable in comparison to a more anonymous medium like the IRC of old. I guess I will need to find my alternatives. Stagnation is certainly not a good thing at all.

In Time

Remember what I wrote a couple days back about the sequence of narrative creation, and how creating details before composing a proper narrative proves to be problematic? Well In Time is precisely that: A movie with an intriguing premise that winds up falling flat because it doesn't have a solid narrative to stand on.

Right, so here's the good stuff: In Time is about a world where time is both life and money. Run out of time/money, run out of life. You die. Ok that's the good part. It's an interesting concept, and something they could've taken quite far. After all, we're familiar with Blade Runner and how the replicants were so desperate to extend their lives.

The bad news? A sophisticated narrative never emerged. The movie turned from something that could've been a philosophical study in variable human mortality...into a flat Bonnie and Clyde heist fest where time turned out to be...money. Really they could've just made the movie about money and it'd be pretty much the same. The narrative itself is fraught with logical problems, and the attempts to create a convincing universe around the time/money/life concept fail simply because the explanations wind up looking rather implausible. In fact, they might've been better off not trying to explain the mechanics behind the whole system and focusing more on the narrative itself.

Much as it pains me to do so, I'd say the movie deserves 5.5/10. It'd be 4.5, but I liked the concept, and that's where the other point went to.

Detailing Narratives

I have come to realize that creating a narrative is a lot like creating a drawing: It is often less helpful to do the detailing first before having the grand structure planned out already. For example, it is often not very useful creating beautiful dragon scales before you're sure that you're actually drawing a dragon, nor is it useful to start writing about an intriguing mechanic by which the fictional society runs if the drama itself is not ready for action.

The thing I've found about detailing first is that first it crimps the narrative some. If the narrative didn't already exist, it'll start to be a process whereby the narrative becomes shaped and often distorted by the details. That's because the narrative is being forced to be consistent with the details. Worse yet, this tends to lead to the neglect of proper narrative design, which can result in stories that are logically plausible, yet are extremely flat in every other sense.

I think my view for now shall be that a narrative is best designed first, so that it flows and the grand structure is made known, after which the details can be dropped in so that they spice up what could have been an otherwise drab setting.

Childhood?

I was enroute to work today and as my lift passed one apartment, I saw a dad helping his kid to light a sparkler. It's a simple enough act, only that I'm seeing it while I'm going to work. On a morning that I wouldn't ordinarily see if I wasn't saddled with office hours. To be honest, that sucked.

Story time. First things first. I hate mornings. I do my best to deny their existence, and while I don't hate my work (I love it to pieces, in fact), I really hate having to get my butt to work before 5pm. And now on to childhoods. Well the thing is, I really don't remember all that much about my childhood. I do vaguely remember that sparklers are fun, and I did a lot of pyromaniacy things when I was a kid. The thing is, I feel like I miss the simpler days of my earlier childhood. That is, the not having a lot of weird things to worry about. Those who know about my problems also know that I only realized what was up a number of years back, and life's never really been the same since. Of course, it's improved a lot in the recent years, but it's certainly nowhere near as simple as it used to be.

Anyway, I guess the important thing is that I'll always remember the times back in university when I had months long holidays (that's how holidays oughtta be) and I'll never be comparing work leave to that. It just won't measure up. I find it funny that some people would point out that well...work just doesn't work that way. You don't get months off at a go. Well technically you can spam unpaid leave, but generally the company would want you to leave pretty soon if you did that. The fact remains that the comparison will be apples to oranges, but whenever someone tells me that wow that was a long weekend, I just tell them...my long weekends are 3 months long. And I haven't had a good long weekend in ages.

Changes

My life has changed significantly for the better lately, and so has that of one of my friends. Basically, she's been given the opportunity to work in game development as a designer, and it really isn't something that's commonly offered so readily to a newbie. After some persuasion, she decided to take up the offer. I cannot be sure if she's of the right temperament to pull it off, but hey at least it's an opportunity to try her hand at the industry and to see if it suits her.

Looking back at my life over the last 5 years, I really do wonder at how my other friends have been doing in all that time. Some people invariably drop out of touch for a long time, and stay in contact only via the internet. I think it's a good time to meet up where possible, and see how things have changed for them.

The Thing

It's funny how I've not actually watched all that many movies back in my day. It's a fairly recent development, my watching of movies, since my company does hand out movie tickets every month or so. Otherwise, I really wouldn't have bothered. That said, this is the second movie I've watched this week with my friend, mainly 'coz I really could've done with something to do at night after work.

Anyway, The Thing is your average monster stalking kind of movie. The sort where an alien picks humans off one by one till precious few survivors remain. It's no spoiler, because everyone who is going to watch this probably already know that.

I'd say I liked the movie, because it makes the viewer consider exactly what the Thing is, and how it propagates. There's something to having aliens that can perfectly mimic humans. I suppose the story's got its logical issues and whatnot typical of cinema, but I rather do appreciate the trip. Probably at least in part due to the Inquisition style approach of burning anything that's suspicious or contaminated. I'd say the movie's somewhere around a 7.5/10

On a related but non-review note, is it a bad thing if I thought the tentacle creatures were rather kinky?

Johnny English: Reborn

Agent Bean returns! Well, everyone knows that JE is pretty much a spoof of Bond, and pretty much everything you expect to find in a reasonably serious secret agent movie. I'd say there is very little to discuss about the movie itself, because the premise and gags will be familiar to those who've seen Bean's antics, and the previous movie.

Some would say that the movie is predictable and silly. Me, I think that's kind of the point of the movie, and really, there are only so many ways you can deliver slapstick comedy. All I can say is that the movie kept me laughing through its entire length, which says something about my sense of humor and perhaps how funny the show actually is. Evaluating it on its merits and the intent of the production, I'd say that the show deserves a hearty 8/10.

Faith And The Financial Market

I've been reading House Of Cards lately, and it's the same story of over-leveraging. One would think that it's pretty obvious when a company's sunk into risky assets as collateral and has precious little stuff in its reserves. The funny thing here is that well...if everyone knows it already and they're still going for it, it seems to me that they're really just running on faith. And hot air.

If an economy is indeed heavily reliant on credit, it is obvious how a credit crunch can utterly devastate the economy. Yet it seems that leverage is the steroid of choice amongst financial institutions. It's hard to think of a better way to create a heck of a lot of stuff out of a small pool of assets. Arguably, it's the only crazy effective way available in your average capitalist economy.

Yet, humans will be humans. If faith were to be maintained regardless, runs on banks would not occur as often, and everyone can happily live in Oz with the magickal flying dollar bills. Obviously, this doesn't happen. Someone invariably loses heart out there and realizes that things are going south in one part of the economy, and starts figuring that liquidity is beginning to look like a good idea. Seeing a big player do that, others will start to take their cues and so on. The house of cards comes tumbling down.