Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
all evidence has led to me rejecting the null hypothesis.
but do all these evidence matter to me? do all these ppl hu make accusations matter to me? do their opinions have weight? maybe.
in fact, maybe. i tink some ppl hav been screwing around with me. although this is my biased pov, let's put it this way. if they screw around wif me, even if i want to act normally, i will not be able to act normally. by virtue of the fact that they paint a certain picture of me in front of different people, even if i am myself, heh, i will juz be a screwed person in their opinion.
but am i right to conclude this way? i wonder, seriously. for one, most ppl will see me as stable, potentially successful. but there are the other group, hu will sae i am a lousy person, the way i behave needs improvement. fine, my character needs improvement. but for one, teach me how. HAHA. and by virtue of the fact that u claim my character needs improvement, u are trying to say my parents hav sucked in teaching me. maybe that's true. den, dun scold me. seriously, go scold my parents for giving me a lousy upbringing. which is exactly what i want to show here isn't it? HAHA
the more i ramble, the more people will tink i am lousy. isn't that the point? come, juz think this way. perceive it so. i'm fine wif it. because some of u, u all are juz nice on the surface, shit inside. there are enough examples of people who behave like shit on the surface, in their hearts they are nice people. and of course, there are enough examples of the opposite. and it is in my skewed belief that many people follow that rule. people behaving shittily probably are nice people, people behaving like angels usually hav evil intents and vested interests.
and i hope people are not blind, and i believe people are not blind. they shld be able to discern. so why am i so frustrated? why should i be bothered? HAHA. i wonder.... hahahahahahaha.
but do all these evidence matter to me? do all these ppl hu make accusations matter to me? do their opinions have weight? maybe.
in fact, maybe. i tink some ppl hav been screwing around with me. although this is my biased pov, let's put it this way. if they screw around wif me, even if i want to act normally, i will not be able to act normally. by virtue of the fact that they paint a certain picture of me in front of different people, even if i am myself, heh, i will juz be a screwed person in their opinion.
but am i right to conclude this way? i wonder, seriously. for one, most ppl will see me as stable, potentially successful. but there are the other group, hu will sae i am a lousy person, the way i behave needs improvement. fine, my character needs improvement. but for one, teach me how. HAHA. and by virtue of the fact that u claim my character needs improvement, u are trying to say my parents hav sucked in teaching me. maybe that's true. den, dun scold me. seriously, go scold my parents for giving me a lousy upbringing. which is exactly what i want to show here isn't it? HAHA
the more i ramble, the more people will tink i am lousy. isn't that the point? come, juz think this way. perceive it so. i'm fine wif it. because some of u, u all are juz nice on the surface, shit inside. there are enough examples of people who behave like shit on the surface, in their hearts they are nice people. and of course, there are enough examples of the opposite. and it is in my skewed belief that many people follow that rule. people behaving shittily probably are nice people, people behaving like angels usually hav evil intents and vested interests.
and i hope people are not blind, and i believe people are not blind. they shld be able to discern. so why am i so frustrated? why should i be bothered? HAHA. i wonder.... hahahahahahaha.
Friday, September 24, 2010
the below taken from hereisthenews.blogspot.com
Sep 17, 2010
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew commented on Malaysian politics in an interview with The New York Times' Seth Mydans. We carry today excerpts from Malaysian press reactions to his remarks.
-----------------------
Of wise men & strongmen
By Tan Poh Kheng
LEE Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad are strongmen, having led their countries for 31 and 22 years, respectively.
Mr Lee passed the baton to his successor in 1990 but remains active as Minister Mentor. Tun Dr Mahathir stepped down suddenly in 2003 and has been outspoken although he holds no official post.
The two strongmen are in their 80s but still wield immense influence in their respective countries and are not to be dismissed lightly.
Mr Lee's criticisms of Malaysian politics may anger some, but Malaysian politicians, including Dr Mahathir, should learn from his attitude towards race and religion.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr Lee said Singapore could 'go looser' on various matters, but 'not race, language and religion'. If Singapore switched to racial politics, he warned, it is finished.
Singapore Chinese 'will not as a majority squeeze the minority... We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen'.
It is clear that Singapore's economic success and cohesive society are not the results of chance.
As a former prime minister, Dr Mahathir has failed to use his special status to promote national unity. He has stirred controversies and given the government trouble by criticising the policies of his successors, Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
A recent example was Dr Mahathir's criticism of Umno for disassociating itself from the Malay rights group Perkasa, a move which he said would lead to Umno losing Malay votes.
Dr Mahathir's words have gone beyond those of a long-winded retiree seeking the limelight. His conduct in the past seven years has exposed his deep-rooted racism.
His speech, at the general assembly of Perkasa, slamming Prime Minister Najib's '1Malaysia' concept smacked of racism, disappointing people who had respected him.
Even the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz has run out of patience with Dr Mahathir and has blasted him for being inconsistent. It is clear that Dr Mahathir has torn apart racial harmony and hurt Umno as well.
A strongman has to step down one day but a wise person will maintain his integrity into his later years. Who may that wise person be: Mr Lee or Dr Mahathir?
This article appeared in Malaysia's Chinese newspaper Sin Chew Daily on Wednesday. Translated by Ho Cheeng Cheeng.
---------------------------------------
Singapore 'should emulate Malaysia'
By Tan Melaka
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has repeated his criticism of Malaysia's political system, saying it marginalises non-Malays by providing Malays with a special position.
Mr Lee is 87 years old while his wife, who is 89, can no longer speak after a stroke two years ago. But he appears to still harbour a grudge over his failure to plant the idea of a Malaysian Malaysia in Malaysia more than 40 years ago.
That idea was eliminated with the ouster of Singapore from Malaysia but it appears to have blossomed again after the General Election of 2008 gave a new lease of life to the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which inherited the Malaysian Malaysia idea. In fact, it's an idea that is marching ahead with the DAP having obtained Malay opposition parties' support.
Umno Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin aptly said Mr Lee's statement was inflammatory as it was like adding fuel to the fires of racism. Mr Lee's statement can fan the anger of Chinese Malaysians who are beginning to see 1Malaysia as Malaysian Malaysia.
Yet, based on articles in newspapers in Singapore and abroad, it appears that the social justice that Mr Lee claims to practise cannot be felt by the new generation of Singaporeans. They feel they are oppressed, especially since they see the freedom enjoyed by their closest neighbour, Malaysia. Malaysians are free to express their dissatisfaction, and can even poke fun at their national anthem!
Singaporeans have for decades lived in fear of acting or speaking. In some cases, they are not free to practise their religion. For example, incense burning is not allowed in HDB estates, while the call to prayer (azan) of mosques cannot be loud.
Mr Lee has not given young Singaporeans what Malaysia has given its young - the air of freedom. In an interview with Seth Mydans of The New York Times recently, Mr Lee rejected the new generation's demands for political openness, saying it could open the door to racial politics. But young Singaporeans do not believe in that doctrine. They are struggling in silence against the authoritarian social controls, and will do so more openly when Mr Lee is no longer in control. Meanwhile, they need moral support, especially from abroad.
Umno Youth should actually sympathise with the new generation of Singaporeans, and help them create a new Singapore that can breathe the air of freedom and democracy. At present, Singapore is a developed country with a Third World democracy.
At least in this case, Singapore should emulate Malaysia.
This article appeared in Malay daily Utusan Malaysia yesterday. Translated by Carolyn Hong.
-------------------------------------
Glory of the Great Harmony
By Lu Pinqiang
I AM not a follower of Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Yet I deeply admire this statesman for his great foresight and the pragmatic ways in which he ran his country.
Earlier this month, at the ripe old age of 87, Mr Lee gave an interview to The New York Times. In it, he expressed his concerns that young Singaporeans were calling for open political debate, among other things.
He feared that the young in Singapore believe the country's achievements have come about naturally, so they can now do as they please. Mr Lee affirmed that Singapore could never be put on autopilot.
An example he gave was that each and every HDB block cannot have more than a certain percentage of Chinese, Malays or Indians. This was to make sure that all the races integrated well.
Singapore does not permit segregation or any mutual suspicion to emerge between the various races, as this is the most self-destructive thing any country can do to itself.
Not only that, it forbids the majority race from oppressing the minorities, while ensuring that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their race, language or religion.
This is the most important aspect of national unity that the Singapore Government has been trying to instil in its people.
We can see that the second and third generations of Singapore leaders that came after Mr Lee abide by the Confucian principle of 'Great Harmony', one in which everyone is treated equally and there is mutual trust between the people.
Among all the multiracial countries in the world, Singapore's successful example is the best model for everyone to emulate.
Leaders of countries should all lead by example, be a role model to others, and promote the spirit of 'Great Harmony'. Then, the people would be of one mind with the government and would cherish peace and reject extremist views.
They would also oppose racism and sweep aside those who call on members of certain ethnic groups to 'go back to their homelands' - as happened in Malaysia recently - while working unceasingly to achieve the Confucian ideal of the 'Glory of the Great Harmony'.
The 'Glory of the Great Harmony' is the only path to achieving peace that would last eternally.
This commentary appeared in Malaysia's Chinese newspaper Sin Chew Daily on Wednesday. Translated by Terence Tan.
------------------------------------
What are his motives?
By Zaini Hassan
I WAS very interested to read the Temasek Review website. It is very critical of the Singapore Government, its ruling party, and especially Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87.
There was an entry about how Mr Lee had offered permanent residency and citizenship to foreign talent, especially citizens of the People's Republic of China.
His strategy was perhaps to ensure Chinese control of Singapore and also to boost the Indian population of the Republic. Maybe he was planning to ensure that the Chinese in the People's Action Party (PAP) continue to control the island forever.
It is the same as what was done during former Malaysian prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's time, when he bestowed unconditional citizenship on more than a million Chinese and Indians.
The political situation in Malaysia is changing. The control of power by the Malays is being increasingly eroded. This is very good for Singapore.
In Malaysia, Malays control the government (so far), but in Singapore, it is the Chinese. There are also some Indians who are given high positions, above the Malays.
But what about the Malays in Singapore? The Singapore Government always cites meritocracy. The argument is that if the Malays are not qualified, they are not fit to hold certain offices, and therefore they are not being marginalised.
The truth is that in Malaysia, the Chinese dominate everything. The Malaysian Chinese are not interested in participating in government because they are successful in the private sector.
If we read the Temasek Review, we will find that Singapore is not what we think it is, or what the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and other opposition parties in Malaysia assume it is.
There is opposition towards the PAP Government, especially over its fondness for playing with Chinese sentiment and racism.
Reading Mr Lee's interview with The New York Times, we are not sure what his motives are by talking about his sadness over the separation of Malaysia and Singapore.
Everyone knows he is a great strategist. The question is, does he harbour ambitions of seeing Malaysia and Singapore reunited? This is not impossible. If the DAP and its allies gain control of Malaysia, the two countries could re-merge.
Then, Singapore will become Singapore Raya (Greater Singapore).
This article appeared in the Malay daily Utusan Malaysia on Wednesday. Translated by Hazlin Hassan.
---------------------------
now great question. i hate being some sort of a biased freak but do u see a disparity in the level of argument? heh
allow me the idiot, to give a critical assholic view of the situation. 1st and 3rd writer, although people will sae promoting harmony and quite in line wif my views, i'd sae actually abit restating something obvious sia. but of course a little bit of input there la, like some sarcasm employed by 1st writer, 3rd writer for highlighting the important thing that racial segregation is dangerous.
but take a look at 2nd and 4th writer. put it this way, imo they seem to hav quite some logical leaps in their arguments, centred on some cynicism and pessimism of s'pore. it's generally fine, but i was rather irritated by some misconceptions. e.g. 2nd writer sae that democracy = can poke fun at national anthem along that line (here feels real wrong i mean democracy doesn't mean u shld do anyting and everything heh), and he feel that should hav racial politics. therein lies a very standard qn, free politics or social stability? personally i'd choose the latter, others may still choose free politics though.
4th writer, 1st line very interesting. why should he believe temasek review? HAHA. it seem to show that he's bent on criticising the s'pore gov't, he overtly showed his intentions. and there is a fat extreme and not very based assertion in last line, talking about singapore raya. is it easily possible to make singapore raya? plz man... if china can't even get spratly islands in the short run, what makes singapore raya possible? put it this way, s'pore land size smaller than malaysia. malaysia has like about 28 million inhabitants, and it's freakin gov't controlled. is it so easy to collude and get it into s'pore? and do ppl even want it? personally i'd sae lousy idea to do so.
well that's about my myopic comments, feel free to hav some input too
Sep 17, 2010
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew commented on Malaysian politics in an interview with The New York Times' Seth Mydans. We carry today excerpts from Malaysian press reactions to his remarks.
-----------------------
Of wise men & strongmen
By Tan Poh Kheng
LEE Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad are strongmen, having led their countries for 31 and 22 years, respectively.
Mr Lee passed the baton to his successor in 1990 but remains active as Minister Mentor. Tun Dr Mahathir stepped down suddenly in 2003 and has been outspoken although he holds no official post.
The two strongmen are in their 80s but still wield immense influence in their respective countries and are not to be dismissed lightly.
Mr Lee's criticisms of Malaysian politics may anger some, but Malaysian politicians, including Dr Mahathir, should learn from his attitude towards race and religion.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr Lee said Singapore could 'go looser' on various matters, but 'not race, language and religion'. If Singapore switched to racial politics, he warned, it is finished.
Singapore Chinese 'will not as a majority squeeze the minority... We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen'.
It is clear that Singapore's economic success and cohesive society are not the results of chance.
As a former prime minister, Dr Mahathir has failed to use his special status to promote national unity. He has stirred controversies and given the government trouble by criticising the policies of his successors, Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
A recent example was Dr Mahathir's criticism of Umno for disassociating itself from the Malay rights group Perkasa, a move which he said would lead to Umno losing Malay votes.
Dr Mahathir's words have gone beyond those of a long-winded retiree seeking the limelight. His conduct in the past seven years has exposed his deep-rooted racism.
His speech, at the general assembly of Perkasa, slamming Prime Minister Najib's '1Malaysia' concept smacked of racism, disappointing people who had respected him.
Even the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz has run out of patience with Dr Mahathir and has blasted him for being inconsistent. It is clear that Dr Mahathir has torn apart racial harmony and hurt Umno as well.
A strongman has to step down one day but a wise person will maintain his integrity into his later years. Who may that wise person be: Mr Lee or Dr Mahathir?
This article appeared in Malaysia's Chinese newspaper Sin Chew Daily on Wednesday. Translated by Ho Cheeng Cheeng.
---------------------------------------
Singapore 'should emulate Malaysia'
By Tan Melaka
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has repeated his criticism of Malaysia's political system, saying it marginalises non-Malays by providing Malays with a special position.
Mr Lee is 87 years old while his wife, who is 89, can no longer speak after a stroke two years ago. But he appears to still harbour a grudge over his failure to plant the idea of a Malaysian Malaysia in Malaysia more than 40 years ago.
That idea was eliminated with the ouster of Singapore from Malaysia but it appears to have blossomed again after the General Election of 2008 gave a new lease of life to the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which inherited the Malaysian Malaysia idea. In fact, it's an idea that is marching ahead with the DAP having obtained Malay opposition parties' support.
Umno Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin aptly said Mr Lee's statement was inflammatory as it was like adding fuel to the fires of racism. Mr Lee's statement can fan the anger of Chinese Malaysians who are beginning to see 1Malaysia as Malaysian Malaysia.
Yet, based on articles in newspapers in Singapore and abroad, it appears that the social justice that Mr Lee claims to practise cannot be felt by the new generation of Singaporeans. They feel they are oppressed, especially since they see the freedom enjoyed by their closest neighbour, Malaysia. Malaysians are free to express their dissatisfaction, and can even poke fun at their national anthem!
Singaporeans have for decades lived in fear of acting or speaking. In some cases, they are not free to practise their religion. For example, incense burning is not allowed in HDB estates, while the call to prayer (azan) of mosques cannot be loud.
Mr Lee has not given young Singaporeans what Malaysia has given its young - the air of freedom. In an interview with Seth Mydans of The New York Times recently, Mr Lee rejected the new generation's demands for political openness, saying it could open the door to racial politics. But young Singaporeans do not believe in that doctrine. They are struggling in silence against the authoritarian social controls, and will do so more openly when Mr Lee is no longer in control. Meanwhile, they need moral support, especially from abroad.
Umno Youth should actually sympathise with the new generation of Singaporeans, and help them create a new Singapore that can breathe the air of freedom and democracy. At present, Singapore is a developed country with a Third World democracy.
At least in this case, Singapore should emulate Malaysia.
This article appeared in Malay daily Utusan Malaysia yesterday. Translated by Carolyn Hong.
-------------------------------------
Glory of the Great Harmony
By Lu Pinqiang
I AM not a follower of Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Yet I deeply admire this statesman for his great foresight and the pragmatic ways in which he ran his country.
Earlier this month, at the ripe old age of 87, Mr Lee gave an interview to The New York Times. In it, he expressed his concerns that young Singaporeans were calling for open political debate, among other things.
He feared that the young in Singapore believe the country's achievements have come about naturally, so they can now do as they please. Mr Lee affirmed that Singapore could never be put on autopilot.
An example he gave was that each and every HDB block cannot have more than a certain percentage of Chinese, Malays or Indians. This was to make sure that all the races integrated well.
Singapore does not permit segregation or any mutual suspicion to emerge between the various races, as this is the most self-destructive thing any country can do to itself.
Not only that, it forbids the majority race from oppressing the minorities, while ensuring that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their race, language or religion.
This is the most important aspect of national unity that the Singapore Government has been trying to instil in its people.
We can see that the second and third generations of Singapore leaders that came after Mr Lee abide by the Confucian principle of 'Great Harmony', one in which everyone is treated equally and there is mutual trust between the people.
Among all the multiracial countries in the world, Singapore's successful example is the best model for everyone to emulate.
Leaders of countries should all lead by example, be a role model to others, and promote the spirit of 'Great Harmony'. Then, the people would be of one mind with the government and would cherish peace and reject extremist views.
They would also oppose racism and sweep aside those who call on members of certain ethnic groups to 'go back to their homelands' - as happened in Malaysia recently - while working unceasingly to achieve the Confucian ideal of the 'Glory of the Great Harmony'.
The 'Glory of the Great Harmony' is the only path to achieving peace that would last eternally.
This commentary appeared in Malaysia's Chinese newspaper Sin Chew Daily on Wednesday. Translated by Terence Tan.
------------------------------------
What are his motives?
By Zaini Hassan
I WAS very interested to read the Temasek Review website. It is very critical of the Singapore Government, its ruling party, and especially Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87.
There was an entry about how Mr Lee had offered permanent residency and citizenship to foreign talent, especially citizens of the People's Republic of China.
His strategy was perhaps to ensure Chinese control of Singapore and also to boost the Indian population of the Republic. Maybe he was planning to ensure that the Chinese in the People's Action Party (PAP) continue to control the island forever.
It is the same as what was done during former Malaysian prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's time, when he bestowed unconditional citizenship on more than a million Chinese and Indians.
The political situation in Malaysia is changing. The control of power by the Malays is being increasingly eroded. This is very good for Singapore.
In Malaysia, Malays control the government (so far), but in Singapore, it is the Chinese. There are also some Indians who are given high positions, above the Malays.
But what about the Malays in Singapore? The Singapore Government always cites meritocracy. The argument is that if the Malays are not qualified, they are not fit to hold certain offices, and therefore they are not being marginalised.
The truth is that in Malaysia, the Chinese dominate everything. The Malaysian Chinese are not interested in participating in government because they are successful in the private sector.
If we read the Temasek Review, we will find that Singapore is not what we think it is, or what the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and other opposition parties in Malaysia assume it is.
There is opposition towards the PAP Government, especially over its fondness for playing with Chinese sentiment and racism.
Reading Mr Lee's interview with The New York Times, we are not sure what his motives are by talking about his sadness over the separation of Malaysia and Singapore.
Everyone knows he is a great strategist. The question is, does he harbour ambitions of seeing Malaysia and Singapore reunited? This is not impossible. If the DAP and its allies gain control of Malaysia, the two countries could re-merge.
Then, Singapore will become Singapore Raya (Greater Singapore).
This article appeared in the Malay daily Utusan Malaysia on Wednesday. Translated by Hazlin Hassan.
---------------------------
now great question. i hate being some sort of a biased freak but do u see a disparity in the level of argument? heh
allow me the idiot, to give a critical assholic view of the situation. 1st and 3rd writer, although people will sae promoting harmony and quite in line wif my views, i'd sae actually abit restating something obvious sia. but of course a little bit of input there la, like some sarcasm employed by 1st writer, 3rd writer for highlighting the important thing that racial segregation is dangerous.
but take a look at 2nd and 4th writer. put it this way, imo they seem to hav quite some logical leaps in their arguments, centred on some cynicism and pessimism of s'pore. it's generally fine, but i was rather irritated by some misconceptions. e.g. 2nd writer sae that democracy = can poke fun at national anthem along that line (here feels real wrong i mean democracy doesn't mean u shld do anyting and everything heh), and he feel that should hav racial politics. therein lies a very standard qn, free politics or social stability? personally i'd choose the latter, others may still choose free politics though.
4th writer, 1st line very interesting. why should he believe temasek review? HAHA. it seem to show that he's bent on criticising the s'pore gov't, he overtly showed his intentions. and there is a fat extreme and not very based assertion in last line, talking about singapore raya. is it easily possible to make singapore raya? plz man... if china can't even get spratly islands in the short run, what makes singapore raya possible? put it this way, s'pore land size smaller than malaysia. malaysia has like about 28 million inhabitants, and it's freakin gov't controlled. is it so easy to collude and get it into s'pore? and do ppl even want it? personally i'd sae lousy idea to do so.
well that's about my myopic comments, feel free to hav some input too
muz destroy inner demons. looks like jealousy is consuming people, greed is also consuming people around me a within me.
as i may hav discussed, some things that drive/motivate human action will be greed and jealousy. they seem to like to work hand in hand. being jealous of someone may lead u to covet what he has, in certain situations. let's say, someone has a lot of money. i am jealous he has greater purchasing power over me, he can buy more bowling ball, can buy more food. thus, i will become greedy, i will go and earn more money to match him out of jealousy, and in desperate cases, i may even steal from him out of greed, which stemmed from jealousy.
hmm. not a good example, abit of logical leaps. but about there la. so i tink we needa beware ourselves. cannot fall into the trap. although i fall into it considerably often enough.
as i may hav discussed, some things that drive/motivate human action will be greed and jealousy. they seem to like to work hand in hand. being jealous of someone may lead u to covet what he has, in certain situations. let's say, someone has a lot of money. i am jealous he has greater purchasing power over me, he can buy more bowling ball, can buy more food. thus, i will become greedy, i will go and earn more money to match him out of jealousy, and in desperate cases, i may even steal from him out of greed, which stemmed from jealousy.
hmm. not a good example, abit of logical leaps. but about there la. so i tink we needa beware ourselves. cannot fall into the trap. although i fall into it considerably often enough.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
feel. this word is very arbitrary.
where does it apply? where i've come in contact and that i can recall for now, 2 places, namely in a game or sport, and in interaction with others.
even though arbitrary, it seems that it is an important element of success, and it seem that u cannot cultivate or hone ur feel to a very high level. it can be improved, but it can never achieve the standard of an "innate" feel. let's say, person A has feel for person B. person B claims to have no feel for person A. person B may choose to build up some sort of a feeling for person A. but this feeling is not as strong as that of, if hypothetically, person B is interested in a person C that sort of a feeling. or that person B juz can't build up that feel for the person A.
that was very incoherent, but there is half a parallel to sport. sport is not animate, but it does have some resemblance to such a situation. suppose person A is really interested in soccer. train everyday. but unfortunately, he is not technically gifted. sure, he may train 1st touch and juggling etc to improve dribbling and ball control. but he will never attain the standard that a pro may have and some may attribute it to lack of feel. maybe for example because person A is not able to anticipate certain situations well or is not able to be creative on chances.
but the qn is, so does feel define ur level of success and attainment? i'm not so sure. i may respect such a person A for being able to persevere in training. but wad we see is that he cannot be able to perform at a desired level for a lack of innate ability. also, the person A is not able to win over person B due to again a lack of feel. so our level of success determined by feel?
i don't know. but for one, i do know, we have put in effort, we should not have regrets. as a certain teacher say, marks don't define you, even if u failed u are not a failure. so we may have no feel, but if we have tried to do sth about it in an area which we do not hav a comparative advantage in, maybe we shld juz keep in mind that we will never produce real impressive results. instead be realistic and know that we have produced a reasonable result.
where does it apply? where i've come in contact and that i can recall for now, 2 places, namely in a game or sport, and in interaction with others.
even though arbitrary, it seems that it is an important element of success, and it seem that u cannot cultivate or hone ur feel to a very high level. it can be improved, but it can never achieve the standard of an "innate" feel. let's say, person A has feel for person B. person B claims to have no feel for person A. person B may choose to build up some sort of a feeling for person A. but this feeling is not as strong as that of, if hypothetically, person B is interested in a person C that sort of a feeling. or that person B juz can't build up that feel for the person A.
that was very incoherent, but there is half a parallel to sport. sport is not animate, but it does have some resemblance to such a situation. suppose person A is really interested in soccer. train everyday. but unfortunately, he is not technically gifted. sure, he may train 1st touch and juggling etc to improve dribbling and ball control. but he will never attain the standard that a pro may have and some may attribute it to lack of feel. maybe for example because person A is not able to anticipate certain situations well or is not able to be creative on chances.
but the qn is, so does feel define ur level of success and attainment? i'm not so sure. i may respect such a person A for being able to persevere in training. but wad we see is that he cannot be able to perform at a desired level for a lack of innate ability. also, the person A is not able to win over person B due to again a lack of feel. so our level of success determined by feel?
i don't know. but for one, i do know, we have put in effort, we should not have regrets. as a certain teacher say, marks don't define you, even if u failed u are not a failure. so we may have no feel, but if we have tried to do sth about it in an area which we do not hav a comparative advantage in, maybe we shld juz keep in mind that we will never produce real impressive results. instead be realistic and know that we have produced a reasonable result.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
i try to throw the picture out of my mind, wanna leave the memories behind.
here by the ocean, waves carry voices from you...
there's a little unnecessary insecurity and uncertainty within me, in fact maybe it's warranted. but i tink i shall take on the utilitarian POV, juz take a hu cares attitude and go on. i've got tings to do, everyone got their things to do. so why bother so much man.
here by the ocean, waves carry voices from you...
there's a little unnecessary insecurity and uncertainty within me, in fact maybe it's warranted. but i tink i shall take on the utilitarian POV, juz take a hu cares attitude and go on. i've got tings to do, everyone got their things to do. so why bother so much man.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 09, 2010
i see, how jilted lovers of another education level behave. it's rather scary, rather shocking, and if i'm allowed to say, disgusting.
well. i have a cantonese song to tell them also though. 放手豁出所有，还有这个好友，已经已经足够. 所谓拿得起放得下。yea not easy. easy to sae nia. but sometimes it's about psychoing urself successfully. if u're able to do so, u're not bad alr. and tink of the benefits of doing so. personally, u'd be taking the next best alternative. but how about societally? if u choose to let go, u're improving social welfare by a considerable amount in fact. so which u choose? a selfish bastard, or take the next best choice for urself but increase social benefits?
therein lies another (not so good example of the) personal-social benefit trade-off situation.
well. i have a cantonese song to tell them also though. 放手豁出所有，还有这个好友，已经已经足够. 所谓拿得起放得下。yea not easy. easy to sae nia. but sometimes it's about psychoing urself successfully. if u're able to do so, u're not bad alr. and tink of the benefits of doing so. personally, u'd be taking the next best alternative. but how about societally? if u choose to let go, u're improving social welfare by a considerable amount in fact. so which u choose? a selfish bastard, or take the next best choice for urself but increase social benefits?
therein lies another (not so good example of the) personal-social benefit trade-off situation.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
如果再见是为了再分，失去才算是永恒，一次新的记忆为何还要再生？？
我从来不敢给你任何诺言是因为我知道我们太年轻
but it's ok. 既然爱了就不怨悔，多少的痛我也愿意背，我的爱如潮水，爱如潮水将我想你推紧紧跟随，爱如潮水它将你我包围
being a little optimistic doesn't hurt. but sometimes we need to be realistic. half of the time, the realistic part of life is good, the other part is bad. quite obvious. but why we focus on the bad too much? we shld take the action of weighing all possible outcomes, instead of just thinking one way, either super optimist or super pessimist. thus, people like me go ahead and talk like a half idiot. so u'd say things like, hmm this may happen, i am rather positive this would happen, yer noe, allow room for error. dun sae, this must happen man.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Saturday, September 04, 2010
well i do know from some sources that humans are communal beings.
but i tink i hav faced certain situations where humans become anti-communal. and sometimes humans become this way when they are in a situation where they can build on a certain communal relationship. why so?
i'd guess sometimes rational thought overrides the emotional connection we may seek, or wad we may put it as animal instincts.
for instance, i hav in fact chosen not to associate myself with certain people whom i tink are very self-absorbed and/or self-centred. i know it is not very nice of me to do so, but i'm not sure of the real reason why i'm doing so. i mean these people if you have a personal relationship with them usually won't be bad to u (although i do know some of these are really bad cases, will backstab u at any opportunity). and of course, one can build a good relationship with them, whether friends or some good working relation. but sometimes we choose not to.
and i'd postulate that we do not choose to maintain a candid relationship with them is because we are worried of the"societal" consequences. meaning, if i were to go around with this person, i'd be seen in this light. for example, i don't enjoy hanging around with extremely irresponsible for the very reason that i do not want to be assumed as some irresponsible person. similarly, some people may not want to go around with me because of the fear of being associated as some coffee-drinking, direct remark making person. for the very reason that they being around wif me, will lead to people generalising them as me. ditto for people choosing not to maintain a relationship with someone wif "undesirable" characteristics.
but in light of such selfish considerations, i'd sae: juz go ahead and be associate with them la. that applies to me oso. on the assumption that these people really have no evil intentions to stab u, that's self-explanatory, that person won't do u any harm. and moreover one more friend means one less potential enemy.
so my qn to myself will be, why nid to hide certain dealings i hav wif others under the carpet? quite lame sia. but on the same note, no point "publicising" it. i mean show off for wad? i got alot of dealings and links arh? really sia. if i really had links, i'd be doing business in china and india and africa and drinking money and oil.
but i tink i hav faced certain situations where humans become anti-communal. and sometimes humans become this way when they are in a situation where they can build on a certain communal relationship. why so?
i'd guess sometimes rational thought overrides the emotional connection we may seek, or wad we may put it as animal instincts.
for instance, i hav in fact chosen not to associate myself with certain people whom i tink are very self-absorbed and/or self-centred. i know it is not very nice of me to do so, but i'm not sure of the real reason why i'm doing so. i mean these people if you have a personal relationship with them usually won't be bad to u (although i do know some of these are really bad cases, will backstab u at any opportunity). and of course, one can build a good relationship with them, whether friends or some good working relation. but sometimes we choose not to.
and i'd postulate that we do not choose to maintain a candid relationship with them is because we are worried of the"societal" consequences. meaning, if i were to go around with this person, i'd be seen in this light. for example, i don't enjoy hanging around with extremely irresponsible for the very reason that i do not want to be assumed as some irresponsible person. similarly, some people may not want to go around with me because of the fear of being associated as some coffee-drinking, direct remark making person. for the very reason that they being around wif me, will lead to people generalising them as me. ditto for people choosing not to maintain a relationship with someone wif "undesirable" characteristics.
but in light of such selfish considerations, i'd sae: juz go ahead and be associate with them la. that applies to me oso. on the assumption that these people really have no evil intentions to stab u, that's self-explanatory, that person won't do u any harm. and moreover one more friend means one less potential enemy.
so my qn to myself will be, why nid to hide certain dealings i hav wif others under the carpet? quite lame sia. but on the same note, no point "publicising" it. i mean show off for wad? i got alot of dealings and links arh? really sia. if i really had links, i'd be doing business in china and india and africa and drinking money and oil.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
fractionation. i believe i've mentioned this somewhere in my blog long ago.
but it's really fascinating, that one can really become irrational over decisions of others. we're unable to consider logically or economically when faced with certain pressures or when the decision-making process is greatly controlled by a certain factor.
take for example, a drug addict. yes, he may want to quit taking heroin. but the withdrawal symptoms he has from not taking heroin may just override all his rational thoughts of stopping drugs, and "force" him to start drugs again.
but fractionation is even greater power, imo. claims of fractionation and its sucesses: men who are deemed by society to be ugly were able to hook up if i'm not wrong 15 women in 1 month for sex just by fractionating these women. talk about rational minds, heh.
maybe the human mind is really fragile? i dunno. hahahahahah
but it's really fascinating, that one can really become irrational over decisions of others. we're unable to consider logically or economically when faced with certain pressures or when the decision-making process is greatly controlled by a certain factor.
take for example, a drug addict. yes, he may want to quit taking heroin. but the withdrawal symptoms he has from not taking heroin may just override all his rational thoughts of stopping drugs, and "force" him to start drugs again.
but fractionation is even greater power, imo. claims of fractionation and its sucesses: men who are deemed by society to be ugly were able to hook up if i'm not wrong 15 women in 1 month for sex just by fractionating these women. talk about rational minds, heh.
maybe the human mind is really fragile? i dunno. hahahahahah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)