There have always been two schools of thought regarding education. One of which is that it enlightens insofar that it goes beyond common prejudices and stereotypes. The other sees education as instrumental in nature and seen as means of given end- often economic or social goals.
But in recent chaotic times, education is now seen as liability. It is seen as lacking in street cred and a byword for poor social product of a misguided generation which prides paper qualification over actual action.
It has proven without doubt and quite across a number of cultures and cutting across all context that education is not a liability but rather as a tool for emancipation and as a economic tool as well. I have seen this really ridiculous fad of ridiculing those whom have had done well academically and at this current moment comes of melting pot of strange occupation which replaces the academic route- singers, online stars, overnight Internet tycoons and quite a number of hare-brained ideas.
Brand-name schools no longer counts for anything more than a source of embarrassment for those that did not attend them. The previous era of branded snob appeal is replaced by a haphazard recognition which resembles anything close to fame. It was politically incorrect and impolite to mention that you come from brand-name schools to other's whom might not have attend them- and now it is replaced by a sense of guilt for having succeeding in a route which the "common" person did not attend. One almost feel inferior that one pay good money and spend good effort and time in obtaining an education as compared with someone whom have roamed the street and obtained street smarts and know the common prejudices more than anyone else.
The flattening out of the social structure is at this current juncture resembles that of a bazaar- where anything goes and anything comes so long as there is a price. This is fueling short term fads, speculations and crack pot theories, manias and crisis in the name of political corrected-ness.
The snob appeal is replaced by an unhealthy lack of skepticism resulting from the devaluation of education in the first place. It is almost to the era of who blinking first- regardless of whether quality- an overemphasis on situational brinkmanship and one-upmanship. It is ushering the eras of superstition in the name pusedo-scientific theories under the banner of political-correctedness. Being polite doesn't you are right, it means that I respect your point of view but it doesn't mean that I agree with you.
There are some things that education and conventional explanations are unable to argue convincingly but similarly, it doesn't mean the admission of all things which sound plausible and yet quite un-true.
Education have this value of opening your eyes and giving new perspectives- but it doesn't mean admitting everything new, it breaks down existing prejudices but it doesn't mean that everything else that we did not see previously becomes true. Otherwise, everything else will have no value whatsoever- insofar that you can hoodwink the person opposite of you.
Street cred is being realistic but it doesn't mean that it is the whole truth.
This flattening out of social structure, the political corrected-ness of not being snobbish, the value of opening your mind is not an excuse for any con-artist to enter into legitimacy in the name of universal suffrage.
It is true that changes comes from uncomfortable times, but when we know something smells fishy and stinks of a con, a sum of all of parts explanation is not good enough to look away of which is ultimately really taking advantage of an ideal of which is to allow a competition of contesting ideas and not an excuse for allowing any person putting self-interest in the name of general interest.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Aging Population
There are two truths in life as they say: death and taxes. The latter is adjustable, the former well, let us discuss things that happen prior to that. Most of us would probably die of old age- of wear and tear and illness-, but the slow burning question is that what happens to the environment as we grow older and of course vice versa.
There are a few responses to aging- one is that of piety- the respect of older folks as the guiding light. 2) tradition- one of which rituals and rites are used to guide appropriate behaviour and dissent in the community. The last is of context- we are the product of times and therefore we must move with the times and not vice versa.
The capitalist system has produced a couple of responses to that of a aging population. Initial responses where that of pension schemes and retirement schemes- both voluntary and mandatory. This is ensure that the retired and older folks have a basic standard of living after they retire and also funds to meet various medical needs as they grow older. This has raised taxes, increased private and public cost and at the same time made economies somewhat uncompetitive- resulting from the senority based reward system.
Another system is that community based aging system. The community replaced the state as the caregiver- and the state would only provide indirect financial assistance. The onus is therefore on the community and family to provide care in the retirement. The reason for it's relative infancy is that of it's uninstitutionalized character within a bureaucratic capitalist system. The informal nature meant the sprawling administration is seen as being helpless and cruel in not directly servicing it's citizens- of which is implicitly understood as the basic provision of the state- in providing rights of it's citizens if one is unable to fulfil it's obligations due to extenuating circumstances- in a social contract.
The last response of which is even more rare is that total community aging response. There are no private property- and only community property. Therefore the community decides on it's needs of the various individuals as if they were equals. The lack of institutional character meant that it does not exist except that of in small communities such as kibbutzim.
Socialism and communism even with it's equality ideals and communal ideas often fall short in execution as it eventually relies on it's bureaucratic character to deliver social goods to it's citizens. The most recent response is that of communitarianism- of which society is the state and vice versa- and with it's rather Orwellian speak, it often come under the purview of another facade for authoritarianism.
Ultimately then, the various responses of which to approach generational divide is often 2 means 1) institutional care 2) community welfare. But in providing retirement facilities for the aged does not answer the question: Does doing this transfer the burden to the young and hence by extension, does the market rule in society or really the community rule society and therefore the economy- and as such how competitive are we then if our response then if it is tha latter and secondly are we no more than market players for the former.
This divide and clash between the "old" and the "new" is more divisive than most thought out to be. The latter believes that they arise out of a vacuum and am above the history, context and structure of prevailing norms and values. They want to be "stars" and assert their individualistic personna by setting themselves in direct opposite of it the public character- thinking that they were newer, better and stronger. But the question remains that they are nothing more than the other side of a same coin.
After all, how can we rebel or be different without somebody being the authority or being conventional in the first place. Some want to test the system and climb up the system by employing unconventional means- having the very idea that he merited the place by the very virtue of being newer, or better, or faster in the new system. But really, how can one be "better" without someone being "worse". Ultimately, most employ to this particular tactic thinking that they have succeeded in the market place- but they managed only to semantically switch places in their brains and nothing else. They are not better or "newer" or "faster"- they basically just flip the coin thats all. The market will eventually punish them for adding no value in it other than flipping the coin. Chameleon will always remains chameleons. No risk is taken in changing colours and therefore- they will always be eating insects and spiders.
Hence, the common refrain in that the new complained that the old refuse to budge and the market will always punished the slow, the weak and the out-of-date. But the fact remains is the methods employed often are uncreative, a poor derivative of the original, lacking in imagination and vision and a lack of risk and gumption; and seems to derived it's competitive edge by constantly shifting the semantic categories and employing sometimes quite anti-social and ethically questionable- even though not illegal- techniques in gaining an upper hand.
The old on the other hand- is the master of asserting it's authority and therefore often espoused the need for respect and tradition- similarly often employs moral suasion to make a point. They do not need to be "better", "faster" or "stronger", they just need to sit there- and most are quite happy to do so- to survive. They lack the ambition and drive- and understandably so, given their age- and are comfortable with the status quo, after all, it benefits them more than anything else anyway. I had a boss who told me this: the less you do, the less mistakes you make. That very often is their mantra. It is both the product of the convention and that of a bureaucratic capitalist system imposition on the labour market requirements on non-capital owners. They condemned themselves to their fate as much as they condemned other's to their similar fate.
Hence, affirmative action preferring either ends often distort the already distorted markets. Therefore the solution is not to prefer one over the other or to encourage market-based solution- as an "objective" "by-the-way" solution.
More then 50% of the young in Spain is jobless, in most countries there are more graduates than there are graduate jobs available- in Japan, Korea, U.S. The ultimate solution is jobs, jobs and more jobs. It is not good enough to argue about the semantics of changing market place- but really where to find the capital to create jobs, and keep the economy chugging along as well.
Given the above numbers, it is not the time to argue about semantics of market place- but nothing really matters until you can put the food on the table. The numbers are drastic, any positive change is positive change, and until you can outpace jobs with labour growth, it doesn't really matter how you do it. The above argument will not exist as such.
There are a few responses to aging- one is that of piety- the respect of older folks as the guiding light. 2) tradition- one of which rituals and rites are used to guide appropriate behaviour and dissent in the community. The last is of context- we are the product of times and therefore we must move with the times and not vice versa.
The capitalist system has produced a couple of responses to that of a aging population. Initial responses where that of pension schemes and retirement schemes- both voluntary and mandatory. This is ensure that the retired and older folks have a basic standard of living after they retire and also funds to meet various medical needs as they grow older. This has raised taxes, increased private and public cost and at the same time made economies somewhat uncompetitive- resulting from the senority based reward system.
Another system is that community based aging system. The community replaced the state as the caregiver- and the state would only provide indirect financial assistance. The onus is therefore on the community and family to provide care in the retirement. The reason for it's relative infancy is that of it's uninstitutionalized character within a bureaucratic capitalist system. The informal nature meant the sprawling administration is seen as being helpless and cruel in not directly servicing it's citizens- of which is implicitly understood as the basic provision of the state- in providing rights of it's citizens if one is unable to fulfil it's obligations due to extenuating circumstances- in a social contract.
The last response of which is even more rare is that total community aging response. There are no private property- and only community property. Therefore the community decides on it's needs of the various individuals as if they were equals. The lack of institutional character meant that it does not exist except that of in small communities such as kibbutzim.
Socialism and communism even with it's equality ideals and communal ideas often fall short in execution as it eventually relies on it's bureaucratic character to deliver social goods to it's citizens. The most recent response is that of communitarianism- of which society is the state and vice versa- and with it's rather Orwellian speak, it often come under the purview of another facade for authoritarianism.
Ultimately then, the various responses of which to approach generational divide is often 2 means 1) institutional care 2) community welfare. But in providing retirement facilities for the aged does not answer the question: Does doing this transfer the burden to the young and hence by extension, does the market rule in society or really the community rule society and therefore the economy- and as such how competitive are we then if our response then if it is tha latter and secondly are we no more than market players for the former.
This divide and clash between the "old" and the "new" is more divisive than most thought out to be. The latter believes that they arise out of a vacuum and am above the history, context and structure of prevailing norms and values. They want to be "stars" and assert their individualistic personna by setting themselves in direct opposite of it the public character- thinking that they were newer, better and stronger. But the question remains that they are nothing more than the other side of a same coin.
After all, how can we rebel or be different without somebody being the authority or being conventional in the first place. Some want to test the system and climb up the system by employing unconventional means- having the very idea that he merited the place by the very virtue of being newer, or better, or faster in the new system. But really, how can one be "better" without someone being "worse". Ultimately, most employ to this particular tactic thinking that they have succeeded in the market place- but they managed only to semantically switch places in their brains and nothing else. They are not better or "newer" or "faster"- they basically just flip the coin thats all. The market will eventually punish them for adding no value in it other than flipping the coin. Chameleon will always remains chameleons. No risk is taken in changing colours and therefore- they will always be eating insects and spiders.
Hence, the common refrain in that the new complained that the old refuse to budge and the market will always punished the slow, the weak and the out-of-date. But the fact remains is the methods employed often are uncreative, a poor derivative of the original, lacking in imagination and vision and a lack of risk and gumption; and seems to derived it's competitive edge by constantly shifting the semantic categories and employing sometimes quite anti-social and ethically questionable- even though not illegal- techniques in gaining an upper hand.
The old on the other hand- is the master of asserting it's authority and therefore often espoused the need for respect and tradition- similarly often employs moral suasion to make a point. They do not need to be "better", "faster" or "stronger", they just need to sit there- and most are quite happy to do so- to survive. They lack the ambition and drive- and understandably so, given their age- and are comfortable with the status quo, after all, it benefits them more than anything else anyway. I had a boss who told me this: the less you do, the less mistakes you make. That very often is their mantra. It is both the product of the convention and that of a bureaucratic capitalist system imposition on the labour market requirements on non-capital owners. They condemned themselves to their fate as much as they condemned other's to their similar fate.
Hence, affirmative action preferring either ends often distort the already distorted markets. Therefore the solution is not to prefer one over the other or to encourage market-based solution- as an "objective" "by-the-way" solution.
More then 50% of the young in Spain is jobless, in most countries there are more graduates than there are graduate jobs available- in Japan, Korea, U.S. The ultimate solution is jobs, jobs and more jobs. It is not good enough to argue about the semantics of changing market place- but really where to find the capital to create jobs, and keep the economy chugging along as well.
Given the above numbers, it is not the time to argue about semantics of market place- but nothing really matters until you can put the food on the table. The numbers are drastic, any positive change is positive change, and until you can outpace jobs with labour growth, it doesn't really matter how you do it. The above argument will not exist as such.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Overkill
I am not the type to poke fun at people lifestyles. Sometimes, I do respect the life choices of people from different background but I find it rather strange that they need to flash their life for everyone to see. It's a Facebook thing and a social media thing I supposed but sometimes, we really don't want to know where you went between 7 to 9 and how does your child's poo looked like or even how many strands of hair your kid have.
Yes, we share your joy but really isn't that sometimes a little bit of an overkill.
I really find it rather strange that when you were in school and was a dork- you don't really flash the number of hours you played in World of Warcraft or how badly your date went but now you flash your kid like she was Kate Middleton and your family photos like you were BranAngelina.
Yes we do share your joy and we are happy that you are happy- but don't hogged the limelight vicariously through the child or family. Once or twice, we are genuinely happy, third time, we are politically correct, and anything more, is just killing the moment. Savour your moment while you can- yes at my age, a family is the in Thing and everybody's doing it. And family always get positive publicity everywhere- but really: I get this rather sneaky feeling that the more you try to hawk your family and children after 30, the more unpopular and geeky you were in school or younger.
It feels like payback- but the bad thing is that, it is just politically incorrect to rile against wholesome families but I guess it is probably fine to rile against socially awkward students. There is almost no outlet to vent legitimate frustration against those who seemed to parade themselves and their family for some photo-gawking time which they missed in school.
As you grow older and perhaps you were left single for whatever reason- perhaps anything after 30- it feels like you are the awkward kid back in class now. It feels like I have to have a family to be "cool" and to "fit in".
I resent that and I do not wish for the rest of my 30-40 years of my life to be rested on an instinct to "be cool". "Being cool" when you are younger requires little commitment but after 30, narcissism have no part left in being cool.
Therefore, I hoped for those who are happily married with kids- we genuinely are happy for you- but really sometimes, just don't kill the moment for yourself.
P/S: I really do not dislike families and marriage but sometimes, people kill themselves parading themselves. I love you but just don't put it in my face. You get the drift...
Yes, we share your joy but really isn't that sometimes a little bit of an overkill.
I really find it rather strange that when you were in school and was a dork- you don't really flash the number of hours you played in World of Warcraft or how badly your date went but now you flash your kid like she was Kate Middleton and your family photos like you were BranAngelina.
Yes we do share your joy and we are happy that you are happy- but don't hogged the limelight vicariously through the child or family. Once or twice, we are genuinely happy, third time, we are politically correct, and anything more, is just killing the moment. Savour your moment while you can- yes at my age, a family is the in Thing and everybody's doing it. And family always get positive publicity everywhere- but really: I get this rather sneaky feeling that the more you try to hawk your family and children after 30, the more unpopular and geeky you were in school or younger.
It feels like payback- but the bad thing is that, it is just politically incorrect to rile against wholesome families but I guess it is probably fine to rile against socially awkward students. There is almost no outlet to vent legitimate frustration against those who seemed to parade themselves and their family for some photo-gawking time which they missed in school.
As you grow older and perhaps you were left single for whatever reason- perhaps anything after 30- it feels like you are the awkward kid back in class now. It feels like I have to have a family to be "cool" and to "fit in".
I resent that and I do not wish for the rest of my 30-40 years of my life to be rested on an instinct to "be cool". "Being cool" when you are younger requires little commitment but after 30, narcissism have no part left in being cool.
Therefore, I hoped for those who are happily married with kids- we genuinely are happy for you- but really sometimes, just don't kill the moment for yourself.
P/S: I really do not dislike families and marriage but sometimes, people kill themselves parading themselves. I love you but just don't put it in my face. You get the drift...
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Game Theory
Game Theory is the science behind how people make decisions. It is the interplay of which whether the players would cooperate or to be self-interested. The Game is essentially simple- it is put a various amount of permutations of which who will nudged the player to rat out on a person or to cooperate with a fellow player or "prisoner" to achieve a win-win outcome. Very often, the game is played out assuming perfect information and that all player's decision are rational.
That is the reason game theory is used frequently in economics, politics and many other forms of social sciences- of which is to "predict" the behaviour of fellow human beings as social and rational actors.
Game theory was aptly shown in the movie: " A Beautiful Mind" where, John Nash protagonist started out from the idea whereby how come all the blond girls ultimately are left alone- because all the men where chasing them ironically.
The theory of course have more larger utilities beyond dating but it is the idea that how can achieve a given outcome given a benefit and punishment system. But like all Grand Theory, it has four fatal flaws 1) it is deterministic 2) homogeneity is a given 3) all players have perfect information 4) all players are rational creatures
The problem with all "Grand Theory" is that purports to explain all human behaviour without really clarifying the underlying assumption of which is the above.
1) Determinism is the belief that the theory will follow reality and we believe that the causal relationship is vice versa as well. And if it does, we would have created an utopia on earth- and all knowledge is made redundant.
2) Homogeneity is a given. In the game, all players are rational creatures, but the problem with reality is that what is carrot to some might be punishment to others. And vice versa. Hence therefore given such a scenario, the eventual outcome is an equilibrium of which is not reflective of the values of the players. For rationality to succeed in such circumstance, homogeneity must be a given. Otherwise weights and values are not given place in the carrot and the stick.
3) Perfect Information. This is related to the second. Perfect information refers firstly that all players have equal amount of information of which to decide the best outcome for himself/herself. But if what I viewed as important of which you don't and vice versa- and ultimately both have differing assumptions of each other, the game itself is skewed. Equilibrium can never be reached because both parties are searching for different things. What then ultimately transpired would always be a string of short run unsettled stable points isn't it.
4) All players are rational creatures. This assumption has been attacked by all corners and by every of scientist everywhere. Hence I will not say further but the ultimate payoff is that if we are all rational creatures- why aren't we aren't equally rich in the first place.
Since we are on this topic of Game Theory, I just like to add little more spice into this discussion. Since I have some knowledge of the Game Theory, why aren't am I applying to your personal life in the first place and secondly, and since you are so familiar with the game, I should be excellent at playing it isn't it.
Ultimately then, it must be said, one must look into assumption 2) and 3) for the answers. What is perfect information- and really is that the life you wish to live: and look assumption 4) and in the end we come back to 1), do we really wish to our live in this way.
At the end of the day, all knowledge is tautological and really as they say: "we are wiser when we know that we don't know."
Eugene
That is the reason game theory is used frequently in economics, politics and many other forms of social sciences- of which is to "predict" the behaviour of fellow human beings as social and rational actors.
Game theory was aptly shown in the movie: " A Beautiful Mind" where, John Nash protagonist started out from the idea whereby how come all the blond girls ultimately are left alone- because all the men where chasing them ironically.
The theory of course have more larger utilities beyond dating but it is the idea that how can achieve a given outcome given a benefit and punishment system. But like all Grand Theory, it has four fatal flaws 1) it is deterministic 2) homogeneity is a given 3) all players have perfect information 4) all players are rational creatures
The problem with all "Grand Theory" is that purports to explain all human behaviour without really clarifying the underlying assumption of which is the above.
1) Determinism is the belief that the theory will follow reality and we believe that the causal relationship is vice versa as well. And if it does, we would have created an utopia on earth- and all knowledge is made redundant.
2) Homogeneity is a given. In the game, all players are rational creatures, but the problem with reality is that what is carrot to some might be punishment to others. And vice versa. Hence therefore given such a scenario, the eventual outcome is an equilibrium of which is not reflective of the values of the players. For rationality to succeed in such circumstance, homogeneity must be a given. Otherwise weights and values are not given place in the carrot and the stick.
3) Perfect Information. This is related to the second. Perfect information refers firstly that all players have equal amount of information of which to decide the best outcome for himself/herself. But if what I viewed as important of which you don't and vice versa- and ultimately both have differing assumptions of each other, the game itself is skewed. Equilibrium can never be reached because both parties are searching for different things. What then ultimately transpired would always be a string of short run unsettled stable points isn't it.
4) All players are rational creatures. This assumption has been attacked by all corners and by every of scientist everywhere. Hence I will not say further but the ultimate payoff is that if we are all rational creatures- why aren't we aren't equally rich in the first place.
Since we are on this topic of Game Theory, I just like to add little more spice into this discussion. Since I have some knowledge of the Game Theory, why aren't am I applying to your personal life in the first place and secondly, and since you are so familiar with the game, I should be excellent at playing it isn't it.
Ultimately then, it must be said, one must look into assumption 2) and 3) for the answers. What is perfect information- and really is that the life you wish to live: and look assumption 4) and in the end we come back to 1), do we really wish to our live in this way.
At the end of the day, all knowledge is tautological and really as they say: "we are wiser when we know that we don't know."
Eugene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
