I remember reading an article sometime back about beauty, and how the symmetry of a face is positively correlated with beauty. In short, the more symmetrical a person's face, the more beautiful it is.
I've been thinking about reflections lately, and how different asymmetrical people can look in a mirror as opposed to how they do in person. It made me wonder if there were some implications to this disconnect. For one, people rarely see themselves the way others do them on a regular basis. I doubt the average person takes a photo of themselves or uses a video screen as a mirror. So basically, they're routinely seeing the laterally inverted image of themselves as opposed to their right side images. What might this do to how they dress, do their makeup, their hair...and basically everything else about themselves?
People are basically regularly going about without having really seen themselves. Even photographs can be outright amusing when viewed through a mirror. Take a poster and look at its reflected image: The otherwise handsome/pretty movie star on the right side image can look comical in the inverted. I wonder if anyone truly realizes how silly they really look in real life...
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Safe House
Operative on operative action, betrayal and intrigue. Think of Safe House as the Bourne movie that lacks truly stylish action scenes and fails to truly hold a gripping tale together. Being the sort of creature that's largely incapable of observing human expressions and such, I have difficulty independently confirming the claims that the lead actors' performances were good. All I see is a plot that could've been better done. Oh, and they need a better fight choreographer.
So what's good about the whole thing? They created the premise of a genius manipulator agent who apparently went rogue and then resurfaced with some precious cargo. Unfortunately, apart from depicting him as a rather competent killer in fairly improbable scenarios, his intentions remain hazy at best. While this may have been an attempt at inspiring some intellectual considerations on the matter, it does seem to be rather poorly delivered.
Overall I'd say the movie has failed at its premise, and is probably somewhere close to a 3.5/10. I might've given higher scores were I more capable of understanding human expressions and all that, but unfortunately I'm not so I can't really give it a better rating.
So what's good about the whole thing? They created the premise of a genius manipulator agent who apparently went rogue and then resurfaced with some precious cargo. Unfortunately, apart from depicting him as a rather competent killer in fairly improbable scenarios, his intentions remain hazy at best. While this may have been an attempt at inspiring some intellectual considerations on the matter, it does seem to be rather poorly delivered.
Overall I'd say the movie has failed at its premise, and is probably somewhere close to a 3.5/10. I might've given higher scores were I more capable of understanding human expressions and all that, but unfortunately I'm not so I can't really give it a better rating.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Underworld: Awakening
This movie is a shining example of a sequel dragged out too long and plagued by a budgetary shortage worse than a vampire coven's blood shortage. I'd give it a 9/10 for successfully creating more plot holes than I care to mention.
Some say that sequels experience diminishing returns the farther they go. I'm inclined to believe this is the case for Underworld. The first installment had something of an intriguing story going. From then on, it's been a downward spiral into something that's scarcely better than another episode in a tv drama series.
What's good about Underworld? I guess it's that it's a bag of laughs from the implausible acting, bad green screening and a storyline that's swiss cheese after a firing squad had target practice. It manages to play to every stereotype in a narrative where the protagonists are hunted to extinction, and to play it badly.
There's frankly little to recommend this, and I'm inclined to give it a nice 4/10. Sorry, guys. I tried to like it, but I really couldn't.
Some say that sequels experience diminishing returns the farther they go. I'm inclined to believe this is the case for Underworld. The first installment had something of an intriguing story going. From then on, it's been a downward spiral into something that's scarcely better than another episode in a tv drama series.
What's good about Underworld? I guess it's that it's a bag of laughs from the implausible acting, bad green screening and a storyline that's swiss cheese after a firing squad had target practice. It manages to play to every stereotype in a narrative where the protagonists are hunted to extinction, and to play it badly.
There's frankly little to recommend this, and I'm inclined to give it a nice 4/10. Sorry, guys. I tried to like it, but I really couldn't.
Monday, February 13, 2012
People Manipulation
A masterful manipulator of people would be good at simplifying and reframing statements, which can routinely appeal to the widest possible audience. They understand common peoples' thought patterns and the thoughts that naturally follow. This, I think, is what makes it so hard for other non-manipulators to get their ideas across.
I've been wondering at how it is that clearly smart people find such difficulty getting their ideas across to less intellectually but more socially brilliant folk. I find that, when dealing with humans, the more abstract the idea the harder it seems for the average human to grasp. In short, someone who doesn't understand how to get an idea across will be easily outmatched by a social person of mediocre intellect since the idea will fly clean over other peoples' heads. Sad, but true.
Conversely, even mediocre ideas can be made palatable (and especially digestible) to most people (especially non-experts in the area) given sufficient social skill. This may well be the reason why mediocre or even poor managers can still rise to the top on their social skills while other more intelligent folk wallow at the bottom: If nobody can understand their otherwise brilliant but abstract notions, nobody can really appreciate their brilliance for what it is. Correctness be damned.
I've been wondering at how it is that clearly smart people find such difficulty getting their ideas across to less intellectually but more socially brilliant folk. I find that, when dealing with humans, the more abstract the idea the harder it seems for the average human to grasp. In short, someone who doesn't understand how to get an idea across will be easily outmatched by a social person of mediocre intellect since the idea will fly clean over other peoples' heads. Sad, but true.
Conversely, even mediocre ideas can be made palatable (and especially digestible) to most people (especially non-experts in the area) given sufficient social skill. This may well be the reason why mediocre or even poor managers can still rise to the top on their social skills while other more intelligent folk wallow at the bottom: If nobody can understand their otherwise brilliant but abstract notions, nobody can really appreciate their brilliance for what it is. Correctness be damned.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Chronicle
Teenagers with superpowers. That's what Chronicle is about. That said, the story of Chronicle is what can be expected when teenagers lacking creative ideas decide to use their powers to their maximum potential. Ultimately, it's an interesting premise that degenerates towards the end.
The plot itself is sufficiently predictable that I cannot see how I might elaborate without injecting some major spoilers. Suffice to say that the film does a somewhat decent job of the first person point of view (Blair Witch, perhaps) camera work that is rarely backed up by the narrative. Frankly, the narrative itself lacks depth, and fails to truly build the sort of emotional attachment to the characters that it does seem to try to do.
Overall I would say that the movie is a mediocre attempt at portraying teenage life turning sour when complicated by growing superpowers. It is somewhat refreshing to show it from a shaky first person perspective, but it misses the magic touch that would make it truly memorable. I'd give the movie a 7/10, with maybe 8/10 if you're into the camera work.
The plot itself is sufficiently predictable that I cannot see how I might elaborate without injecting some major spoilers. Suffice to say that the film does a somewhat decent job of the first person point of view (Blair Witch, perhaps) camera work that is rarely backed up by the narrative. Frankly, the narrative itself lacks depth, and fails to truly build the sort of emotional attachment to the characters that it does seem to try to do.
Overall I would say that the movie is a mediocre attempt at portraying teenage life turning sour when complicated by growing superpowers. It is somewhat refreshing to show it from a shaky first person perspective, but it misses the magic touch that would make it truly memorable. I'd give the movie a 7/10, with maybe 8/10 if you're into the camera work.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Thoughts Are Only Skin Deep
I saw a most interesting product just now. Basically, it was a snail slime based moisturizer, that is touted to be 70% pure snail slime. For those who don't already know, most girls I know wouldn't want to be a snail, let alone slather its slime on her own face. How surprising. Can it really be that there's a good way to sell disgusting stuff to females at exorbitant prices?
Beauty itself appears to be priceless. The very thought of the possibility of becoming more beautiful seems to suffice in selling a product, efficacy and grossness be damned. And for a high price, to boot. Clearly, it is entirely possible to get a female to pay dearly for the privilege to slather disgusting stuff on her own face. Intriguing.
The thought process is interesting. In the absence of a reframing method, most people have established ideas of what is gross and what isn't. Yet, the concept of a beauty product sweeps all of that aside, reframing everything in the context of a beauty product, whereby its "objective" attributes are enhanced. Truly, thoughts are only skin deep, and just need a little nudge in the right direction to completely transform them.
Beauty itself appears to be priceless. The very thought of the possibility of becoming more beautiful seems to suffice in selling a product, efficacy and grossness be damned. And for a high price, to boot. Clearly, it is entirely possible to get a female to pay dearly for the privilege to slather disgusting stuff on her own face. Intriguing.
The thought process is interesting. In the absence of a reframing method, most people have established ideas of what is gross and what isn't. Yet, the concept of a beauty product sweeps all of that aside, reframing everything in the context of a beauty product, whereby its "objective" attributes are enhanced. Truly, thoughts are only skin deep, and just need a little nudge in the right direction to completely transform them.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
The Kravist Mindset
When I was discussing techniques with a friend today, he basically managed to "shank" me while in conversation. Now, I was thinking that I was holding back because we were in conversation and he was a friend. In fact, it would probably be inappropriate to do a full drill to avert the strike as well. Yet, it opened the possibility to me, that someone could indeed attempt that in real life for no apparent reason. Simply put, the strike would succeed regardless.
Now, the next question is, what would an appropriate kravist response be to such a situation? Clearly the first strike has landed and a serious injury has probably occurred. Yet, if one's still capable of soldiering on after the initial injury, one's survivability remains higher than if one simply gave up at that point. Failing the opportunity to stop the first move, one then needs to react quickly to prevent the next ones from happening. Hence the react, adapt and move on. The next move, should the assailant(s) be taken down, would be to seek medical attention and emergency first aid on oneself if at all possible.
I guess that would be the kind of injury that even a master would sustain, simply because there was no warning at all. However fast one's reactions may be or how sharp one's instincts are, sometimes it's possible to be taken by surprise regardless. Granted, this is exceedingly rare and just about any normal street situation wouldn't play out this way (completely without warning, that is), it remains a possibility especially if one has become a high value target for reasons unknown to oneself.
Now, the next question is, what would an appropriate kravist response be to such a situation? Clearly the first strike has landed and a serious injury has probably occurred. Yet, if one's still capable of soldiering on after the initial injury, one's survivability remains higher than if one simply gave up at that point. Failing the opportunity to stop the first move, one then needs to react quickly to prevent the next ones from happening. Hence the react, adapt and move on. The next move, should the assailant(s) be taken down, would be to seek medical attention and emergency first aid on oneself if at all possible.
I guess that would be the kind of injury that even a master would sustain, simply because there was no warning at all. However fast one's reactions may be or how sharp one's instincts are, sometimes it's possible to be taken by surprise regardless. Granted, this is exceedingly rare and just about any normal street situation wouldn't play out this way (completely without warning, that is), it remains a possibility especially if one has become a high value target for reasons unknown to oneself.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Leading From The Front
I was thinking about leadership, and what makes a great leader. While there may be a great number of solid thinkers making it into leadership positions, people of otherwise rather similar intellect have an incredible knack for being right horrible leaders. It isn't always a matter of poor intellect, and is often more of a propensity not to observe the front. Failing to do so tends to have a rather nasty knock on effect on decision making integrity.
When I think of a great leader, I'm thinking of someone like Alexander or Rommel. The sorts of leaders who put their own necks on the line and are acutely aware of action on the battlefront, which enables them to make accurate and appropriate decisions on the fly. It is one thing to lead from a podium far from the action, based on assumptions and analyses that may be backdated at best, outright inaccurate at worst. It's another to really know what's going on.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that, in the career space, time spent working alongside the grunts is time not spent rubbing shoulders with the brass. This tends to have some knock on effects on their progression, even though it does wonders for grunt morale. There seems to be little incentive to actually do a good job in leadership sometimes, sad as it is.
When I think of a great leader, I'm thinking of someone like Alexander or Rommel. The sorts of leaders who put their own necks on the line and are acutely aware of action on the battlefront, which enables them to make accurate and appropriate decisions on the fly. It is one thing to lead from a podium far from the action, based on assumptions and analyses that may be backdated at best, outright inaccurate at worst. It's another to really know what's going on.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that, in the career space, time spent working alongside the grunts is time not spent rubbing shoulders with the brass. This tends to have some knock on effects on their progression, even though it does wonders for grunt morale. There seems to be little incentive to actually do a good job in leadership sometimes, sad as it is.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tracking Dreams
I recall dreams from time to time. It's not really all that often, probably once or twice a month according to my dream diary. The diary logs any dream that is significant, so of course there are a number of dreams I've had that are recalled but quickly forgotten for whatever reason. This night, I write about tracking dreams.
Dreams often have nonsensical premises, and one wonders where the dreams came from. For me, I interrogate my mind using the dream itself to gain some insight. If I dreamed about something that I was crossing the bridge at night with only a flashlight on, I'd run a search with concepts like flashlight and darkness. The first memories that surface are often the most salient ones that are most closely related to the dream itself. In this case, it was when I was guiding my folks down a dark passageway because they didn't see as well in the dark as I did.
The next step is to interrogate that memory for the emotions associated with it. It turns out that works as well, which makes a rather nice match to what the dream was about. After filtering for these memory associated aspects of the dream, it becomes possible to root out the other dream aspects that did not come from the memory. That is the essence of the dream.
Dreams often have nonsensical premises, and one wonders where the dreams came from. For me, I interrogate my mind using the dream itself to gain some insight. If I dreamed about something that I was crossing the bridge at night with only a flashlight on, I'd run a search with concepts like flashlight and darkness. The first memories that surface are often the most salient ones that are most closely related to the dream itself. In this case, it was when I was guiding my folks down a dark passageway because they didn't see as well in the dark as I did.
The next step is to interrogate that memory for the emotions associated with it. It turns out that works as well, which makes a rather nice match to what the dream was about. After filtering for these memory associated aspects of the dream, it becomes possible to root out the other dream aspects that did not come from the memory. That is the essence of the dream.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Chinese New Year Superstitions
Like with many superstitions, Chinese new year superstitions often make little sense. As usual, they are probably best thought of in terms of tradition rather than logic and actual practicality. Too much of it is based on the concepts of sympathetic magick, apparently without understanding of the principles of such spellcraft.
Now, let's consider the matter of luck and how it's purported to operate during the new year period. Supposedly, the practice of getting new things and cleaning out old (bad) things is intended to rid the house of ill luck. Makes sense. However, one's also told not to clean up for a period after to accept the good luck. Wait, if cleaning's good, why's cleaning suddenly bad? Gota make up our minds somewhere here...
In my opinion, if the year's been good, wouldn't it be generally harmful to attempt a thorough cleaning around the period since it may involve clearing the good luck along with the bad? Simply put, I really don't think the luck related superstitions hold much water at all. For one, I don't note religious adherents to such practices as being particularly rich or lucky. And for those who are about to say it...yup, both will involve empirical observations.
Now, let's consider the matter of luck and how it's purported to operate during the new year period. Supposedly, the practice of getting new things and cleaning out old (bad) things is intended to rid the house of ill luck. Makes sense. However, one's also told not to clean up for a period after to accept the good luck. Wait, if cleaning's good, why's cleaning suddenly bad? Gota make up our minds somewhere here...
In my opinion, if the year's been good, wouldn't it be generally harmful to attempt a thorough cleaning around the period since it may involve clearing the good luck along with the bad? Simply put, I really don't think the luck related superstitions hold much water at all. For one, I don't note religious adherents to such practices as being particularly rich or lucky. And for those who are about to say it...yup, both will involve empirical observations.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Processing Power
Human minds have limited processing power. One of the effects of living in a city is that processing power becomes overloaded fairly easily, and people go into shutdown mode in order to deal with it. That is, to avoid going positively nuts. Everyone does it to a greater or lesser extent.
Now, my consideration is with why it is that some people think for themselves and others don't. I'm going to assume that processing power norms exist, and most people are similarly smart. I'm also assuming that people are able to think, and most aren't necessarily running their brains in suspend mode all the time. With these assumptions in place, the logical question is what exactly the processing power is spent on.
Some of the supposedly "mindless" folk most probably do run their processors. They just seem to have their processors set on dealing with seemingly unproductive activities, such as fashion perhaps. However, it does seem to me that the constraints they set upon themselves (or have internalized from wider society) is the set of prescribed topics to think about. The reason "mindless" folk are as they are is that they are simply processing within the prescribed paradigm, and it never really does occur to them to consider anything beyond those confines. Not so mindless after all. Just...misguided.
Now, my consideration is with why it is that some people think for themselves and others don't. I'm going to assume that processing power norms exist, and most people are similarly smart. I'm also assuming that people are able to think, and most aren't necessarily running their brains in suspend mode all the time. With these assumptions in place, the logical question is what exactly the processing power is spent on.
Some of the supposedly "mindless" folk most probably do run their processors. They just seem to have their processors set on dealing with seemingly unproductive activities, such as fashion perhaps. However, it does seem to me that the constraints they set upon themselves (or have internalized from wider society) is the set of prescribed topics to think about. The reason "mindless" folk are as they are is that they are simply processing within the prescribed paradigm, and it never really does occur to them to consider anything beyond those confines. Not so mindless after all. Just...misguided.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Game Of Thrones
Power has ever been something that the people have fought over. In this current age, the internet is quite a potent powerhouse indeed, and once again control over this resource has become quite salient.
Unlike any other time in human history, a resource has been created that can potentially link the people of the world who are capable of accessing it. In fact, the sheer ubiquity of the internet has made it such that even common folk can have access in a goodly number of countries. Never before has a resource been created that can fell governments and change societies. Coordination becomes possible, and for once people can band together in sufficient numbers to a common purpose that may be contrary to the unified will of the authorities.
On the other side, the governments and corporations that help run them are feeling the pinch and are attempting to wrest back control of the internet from the people. Given the concentration of old fashioned political power and money in these folk, it would be interesting to see if people power has a chance to fight back this time. The key weakness of the mob has always been that it's too divided to fight back except in exceedingly dire situations, but this time it may well be different.
Unlike any other time in human history, a resource has been created that can potentially link the people of the world who are capable of accessing it. In fact, the sheer ubiquity of the internet has made it such that even common folk can have access in a goodly number of countries. Never before has a resource been created that can fell governments and change societies. Coordination becomes possible, and for once people can band together in sufficient numbers to a common purpose that may be contrary to the unified will of the authorities.
On the other side, the governments and corporations that help run them are feeling the pinch and are attempting to wrest back control of the internet from the people. Given the concentration of old fashioned political power and money in these folk, it would be interesting to see if people power has a chance to fight back this time. The key weakness of the mob has always been that it's too divided to fight back except in exceedingly dire situations, but this time it may well be different.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Inbetweeners
What did I just watch!? Alright well the background is that I was (again) asked along for a movie that I knew nothing about. (Perhaps I should stop doing this). Ultimately, I am perhaps a poor critic for this particular film because I didn't watch the TV series, and there is undoubtedly a lot of the flavor of the backstory that is whizzing right past me.
Simply put, this is a comedy about a bunch of boys who are really quite eager to get laid. Perhaps every bit as much as any other boy around their adolescent ages. There's the insensitive, the stupid, the geeky and the know-it-all. They stumble through their attempts to find their mates while on holiday, and the rest you just have to watch to get it.
So what do we have...a film chock full of good ole English adolescent humor. Perhaps a bit slapstick, but English humor regardless. Bunch of characters that I ought to recognize were I a fan, which I am evidently not. And lots of sex. And attempts at sex. And failed attempts at sex. And sex. With more sex. Without really explicit sexual moment. Which are sometimes explicit regardless. Right, then. I'd just say that this film is clearly a fan service, and the dude who watched with us was a fan so he did appreciate it. Unfortunately, I have no idea on that front, so I'll speak as a non-fan and give the film a 4/10.
Simply put, this is a comedy about a bunch of boys who are really quite eager to get laid. Perhaps every bit as much as any other boy around their adolescent ages. There's the insensitive, the stupid, the geeky and the know-it-all. They stumble through their attempts to find their mates while on holiday, and the rest you just have to watch to get it.
So what do we have...a film chock full of good ole English adolescent humor. Perhaps a bit slapstick, but English humor regardless. Bunch of characters that I ought to recognize were I a fan, which I am evidently not. And lots of sex. And attempts at sex. And failed attempts at sex. And sex. With more sex. Without really explicit sexual moment. Which are sometimes explicit regardless. Right, then. I'd just say that this film is clearly a fan service, and the dude who watched with us was a fan so he did appreciate it. Unfortunately, I have no idea on that front, so I'll speak as a non-fan and give the film a 4/10.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
On Group Think
One of my friends pointed out today that the high intellectuals of any day are highly susceptible to group think. That is, when their peers within their fields think in a particular way, the others start to follow suit. This leads to periods where people think in very particular ways, such as the trends in economic policy.
Truly, social proof is exceedingly powerful. Thinking from the perspective of an intellectual, it is rather difficult to convince people of a different point of view when everyone of the time basically agrees that a particular convention is incorrect. Man this is our entire world now, so who are you to disagree? I like to think that an individual can move a mountain all by herself, simply because she is right. Yes, it is unrealistic and against convention, but it is also the stability-giving convention that holds us back from thinking outside the box. It may not even be a question of can a single person move the mountain this instant, but a question of is it possible to do so at all and how can we make it possible...then easy?
I guess people really do need to be taught the ways of thinking that'll equip them with the ability to break out of group think. It's difficult, and sometimes it isn't even apparent that one's sinking into that particular morass. Truly it can work well most of the time to achieve a consensus, but at others, it's also downright important to be able to hear the dissenting voices so that progress can be made.
Truly, social proof is exceedingly powerful. Thinking from the perspective of an intellectual, it is rather difficult to convince people of a different point of view when everyone of the time basically agrees that a particular convention is incorrect. Man this is our entire world now, so who are you to disagree? I like to think that an individual can move a mountain all by herself, simply because she is right. Yes, it is unrealistic and against convention, but it is also the stability-giving convention that holds us back from thinking outside the box. It may not even be a question of can a single person move the mountain this instant, but a question of is it possible to do so at all and how can we make it possible...then easy?
I guess people really do need to be taught the ways of thinking that'll equip them with the ability to break out of group think. It's difficult, and sometimes it isn't even apparent that one's sinking into that particular morass. Truly it can work well most of the time to achieve a consensus, but at others, it's also downright important to be able to hear the dissenting voices so that progress can be made.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
A Tom Cruise movie. Honestly, if the reviews weren't all that great and my friends weren't asking me to watch it with them...I really wouldn't. Mission Impossible 1 was fascinating, but I still feel it should have just ended at that. Anything beyond will tend to become repetitive. Much like Ocean's 11. Regardless, the reviews looked fine and all that, so I watched this particular release.
First things first, this is a Mission Impossible movie. If the title didn't suggest it already, it's all about people trying to get a job done despite effectively impossible odds. Unfortunately, that seems to be the plot of a goodly number of action flicks nowadays, so the meme ceases to amaze or amuse me. Then again, for an MI flick, the movie is not half bad either.
So we've got the usual fodder of impossible situation and high tension moments that leave some of the audience gasping in their seats (fails to work with me, because the heroes invariably make it out just fine). Some of the classic MI accept your mission moments, and cocky operatives in action. Yet, despite all the tensioned shock and awe, the movie kind of zips past with few truly memorable moments. Perhaps I have become jaded by the glut of similar films.
Regardless, it's a respectable enough MI, but I would have to say that it isn't quite up to the mark of what a lot of review sites are saying. I'd give it maybe a 7/10. Predictable, both in a good and bad way.
First things first, this is a Mission Impossible movie. If the title didn't suggest it already, it's all about people trying to get a job done despite effectively impossible odds. Unfortunately, that seems to be the plot of a goodly number of action flicks nowadays, so the meme ceases to amaze or amuse me. Then again, for an MI flick, the movie is not half bad either.
So we've got the usual fodder of impossible situation and high tension moments that leave some of the audience gasping in their seats (fails to work with me, because the heroes invariably make it out just fine). Some of the classic MI accept your mission moments, and cocky operatives in action. Yet, despite all the tensioned shock and awe, the movie kind of zips past with few truly memorable moments. Perhaps I have become jaded by the glut of similar films.
Regardless, it's a respectable enough MI, but I would have to say that it isn't quite up to the mark of what a lot of review sites are saying. I'd give it maybe a 7/10. Predictable, both in a good and bad way.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Skyrim
If anyone noticed that I've been kinda missing over the last couple weeks, let us blame Skyrim. For the precious few who have yet to hear of this game, it is pretty much the biggest current Western style RPG. If anything, it is actually a huge open world with an incredible amount of content with a satisfyingly complex progression system to back it up. In short, it is stellar.
I recall the last game that managed to hook me this way was back in the days of Morrowind. Oblivion sort of dropped the ball due to its obvious console roots, and the perceived lack of sophistication in the gameplay system.
The thing about Skyrim is its sheer scale and varied atmospheric environments. One can march from lush forests to arid wastelands and up frigid mountains with a blizzard blowing in one's face, dealing with the wildlife and other stray humanoids along the way. That's in addition to the main attraction of doing errands...er...quests... to push the storyline along. Or not. The choice is yours.
So, what would I say in conclusion? Skyrim isn't really a game. It's more of a world created by game developers, and a rather engaging world as it were. I think I shall have to leave this boring one for a while now, so I can appreciate the truly beautiful things in life.
I recall the last game that managed to hook me this way was back in the days of Morrowind. Oblivion sort of dropped the ball due to its obvious console roots, and the perceived lack of sophistication in the gameplay system.
The thing about Skyrim is its sheer scale and varied atmospheric environments. One can march from lush forests to arid wastelands and up frigid mountains with a blizzard blowing in one's face, dealing with the wildlife and other stray humanoids along the way. That's in addition to the main attraction of doing errands...er...quests... to push the storyline along. Or not. The choice is yours.
So, what would I say in conclusion? Skyrim isn't really a game. It's more of a world created by game developers, and a rather engaging world as it were. I think I shall have to leave this boring one for a while now, so I can appreciate the truly beautiful things in life.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Trusted Incompetents
I think it is very common to see authoritarian leaderships decay into cesspools of incompetence, whereby incompetents get increasingly assigned to leadership positions, causing an overall decay of the system. This does not seem to make sense, since a solid system is what would help authoritarian leaders stay in office as long as possible.
However, the other thing that is obvious to such a leader is the fact that a personal support network must exist in order to stay in power. Given that not everyone close to a person can reasonably be expected to be exceptionally competent, it is only inevitable that an authoritarian leader wind up placing incompetents in charge of various areas. Over time, this nepotism will start taking its toll, leading to the characteristic decay of authoritarian regimes.
It is a pattern that is seen to repeat in pretty much every authoritarian regime that I know of. Infrastructure gets from bad to worse, selected parts of the economy are buffed while everything else slides to ruin. Indeed, non-authoritarian systems can and do face similar problems from incompetence, but it does seem that incidences of such trusted incompetents planted where they really shouldn't be does occur more often amongst the authoritarians. Even if the authoritarianism is localized within the organization.
However, the other thing that is obvious to such a leader is the fact that a personal support network must exist in order to stay in power. Given that not everyone close to a person can reasonably be expected to be exceptionally competent, it is only inevitable that an authoritarian leader wind up placing incompetents in charge of various areas. Over time, this nepotism will start taking its toll, leading to the characteristic decay of authoritarian regimes.
It is a pattern that is seen to repeat in pretty much every authoritarian regime that I know of. Infrastructure gets from bad to worse, selected parts of the economy are buffed while everything else slides to ruin. Indeed, non-authoritarian systems can and do face similar problems from incompetence, but it does seem that incidences of such trusted incompetents planted where they really shouldn't be does occur more often amongst the authoritarians. Even if the authoritarianism is localized within the organization.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Privilege Of Leadership
It is easy to think of how corrupt politicians can get, and how they stop serving their countries and wind up serving themselves instead. I am sure we can find many extreme examples of such bad behavior, and it's even more common to find incompetent leadership all over the place. At this point, my question is...why?
A leader cannot generally come to power of her own strength. Hitler certainly didn't go up there simply by shouting everyone else down. It was a gradual build up of power that eventually hit a critical mass, then became a self sustaining political engine. Clearly, even really bad leaders have had their moments of competence and become (more) corrupt afterwards. Such is the privilege of leadership: power corrupts.
However, such a statement seems overly glib. Power corrupts. Why? Power allows people to do many things, yes, but that also means that good leaders can enrich themselves without having to impoverish their people. Clearly something else went wrong. I think a part of that problem comes from the privilege of leadership whereby the leader winds up surrounded by similarly privileged people and becomes increasingly distanced from the general population. This distancing is more perceptual than physical, since they start to develop tunnel vision whereby their perceptible world becomes richer than average and they start to believe that the country itself is doing fine.
It is effectively what happened when Communist leaders started believing their own propaganda. Such a thing sounds logically impossible: you generated the lie yourself, so how can you possibly be fooled by it? Yet it happens, because human perception seeks patterns, and a statement that is repeated often enough becomes perceptual truth at least at a subconscious level. What can be done about this particular aspect of the problem? I don't know for sure, but having the leaders constantly exposed to the woes of the commoners is very likely a good start.
A leader cannot generally come to power of her own strength. Hitler certainly didn't go up there simply by shouting everyone else down. It was a gradual build up of power that eventually hit a critical mass, then became a self sustaining political engine. Clearly, even really bad leaders have had their moments of competence and become (more) corrupt afterwards. Such is the privilege of leadership: power corrupts.
However, such a statement seems overly glib. Power corrupts. Why? Power allows people to do many things, yes, but that also means that good leaders can enrich themselves without having to impoverish their people. Clearly something else went wrong. I think a part of that problem comes from the privilege of leadership whereby the leader winds up surrounded by similarly privileged people and becomes increasingly distanced from the general population. This distancing is more perceptual than physical, since they start to develop tunnel vision whereby their perceptible world becomes richer than average and they start to believe that the country itself is doing fine.
It is effectively what happened when Communist leaders started believing their own propaganda. Such a thing sounds logically impossible: you generated the lie yourself, so how can you possibly be fooled by it? Yet it happens, because human perception seeks patterns, and a statement that is repeated often enough becomes perceptual truth at least at a subconscious level. What can be done about this particular aspect of the problem? I don't know for sure, but having the leaders constantly exposed to the woes of the commoners is very likely a good start.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Acquisition
The human drive to acquire is insanely strong, and there's no period more obvious than during the Christmas season. Whenever I hear about Black Friday mad rushes where people literally fight to acquire something that they don't necessarily need, I am reminded at just how much humans really are herd animals and just basically take their cues from others.
I witness the idiocy of pepper spraying other shoppers to get a purchase, or fighting over discounted paper towels, and figure that the people probably don't really require the items. The purchase can be made later, and I'm reasonably sure that paper towels aren't Christmas presents or even really essential during Christmas...unless you need a lot of them for a dinner for whatever reason. While cases of need undoubtedly exist, I think a lot of it can be attributed to the building hype leading up to the season, after which all hell breaks loose when people suddenly realize that they are in competition with all those other increasingly impatient customers pent up outside the store.
This can be seen equally clearly in the case of keeping up with the Joneses, where people gather prestige items just to "keep up" with their neighbours. I find this to be largely unproductive, since the purchases seem to have a lot of social value, but precious little personal value. Some of my friends have remarked that however strong one may be, one cannot be an island. I concur in terms of productions and products that one cannot produce for oneself, but I also believe that one can still be as island-like as possible where applicable such that one does not get lost within the mindless masses.
I witness the idiocy of pepper spraying other shoppers to get a purchase, or fighting over discounted paper towels, and figure that the people probably don't really require the items. The purchase can be made later, and I'm reasonably sure that paper towels aren't Christmas presents or even really essential during Christmas...unless you need a lot of them for a dinner for whatever reason. While cases of need undoubtedly exist, I think a lot of it can be attributed to the building hype leading up to the season, after which all hell breaks loose when people suddenly realize that they are in competition with all those other increasingly impatient customers pent up outside the store.
This can be seen equally clearly in the case of keeping up with the Joneses, where people gather prestige items just to "keep up" with their neighbours. I find this to be largely unproductive, since the purchases seem to have a lot of social value, but precious little personal value. Some of my friends have remarked that however strong one may be, one cannot be an island. I concur in terms of productions and products that one cannot produce for oneself, but I also believe that one can still be as island-like as possible where applicable such that one does not get lost within the mindless masses.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows
Well I've actually missed the first installment of the SH series, so I can't really make a comparison with its prequel. Based on what I've just watched, however, I thiunk I can safely say that I'm not displeased.
In short, the movie is quite a reimagining of the Sherlock Holmes narrative, with quite a bit of bawdy humor thrown in along with an insight to Holmes's thought processes. It is difficult to say much without introducing spoilers, but I dare say that the action is well balanced with the deductive processes.
However, there's the usual gripes about period films, what with the usual anachronisms and historical (in)accuracy of props. Moreover, the way Holmes deduces certain scenarios is a little far-fetched, making it seem as if he already knew what would happen rather than piecing the puzzle together from fragmentary evidences.
Overall it's not the greatest movie I've seen, but neither is it particularly bad. I do have a soft spot for this sort of story, so I suppose it'd get a 7/10 from me.
In short, the movie is quite a reimagining of the Sherlock Holmes narrative, with quite a bit of bawdy humor thrown in along with an insight to Holmes's thought processes. It is difficult to say much without introducing spoilers, but I dare say that the action is well balanced with the deductive processes.
However, there's the usual gripes about period films, what with the usual anachronisms and historical (in)accuracy of props. Moreover, the way Holmes deduces certain scenarios is a little far-fetched, making it seem as if he already knew what would happen rather than piecing the puzzle together from fragmentary evidences.
Overall it's not the greatest movie I've seen, but neither is it particularly bad. I do have a soft spot for this sort of story, so I suppose it'd get a 7/10 from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)