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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.