Update: Results Of The AWARE EGM

Latest news - the result of the no confidence vote in the new AWARE Exco has just been announced:

1414 vote yes (in favour of the old guard).

761 vote no (in favour of the new Exco).

The vote of no confidence has been passed.

At this point in time (8.25pm), the new Exco is still considering whether to resign or not.

*Update 03 May 2009:

Ms. Josie Lau's team has resigned.

The newest AWARE Exco is now led by president Dana Lam.


Would you like to know more?

Online media sources:
- More than a thousand turn up for Aware EOGM (The Online Citizen)
- LIVE from Suntec: AWARE EGM, 2 May 2009 (The Wayang Party)

Mainstream media sources:
- New Exco of AWARE given vote of no confidence (Channelnewsasia)

Update: Spy vs. Spy

Yet another news release on the AWARE Exco takeover saga, this time with two bizarre twists (highlighted in bold):



AWARE president questions intentions of veterans unhappy over election outcome

By Cheryl Lim/Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia
Posted: 17 April 2009 1747 hrs

SINGAPORE: The new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Josie Lau, has questioned the intentions of veteran members who are unhappy that newcomers have swept most of the executive committee (Exco) seats in the organisation's recent annual election.

In a statement to the media, she challenged these members to disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly.

On Tuesday, 160 members had written to the new Exco to request for an extraordinary general meeting, with the apparent purpose of replacing the Exco. The much-awaited extraordinary general meeting will be held on May 2.

Meanwhile, Ms Lau pointed out that no more than five of the signatories were present at last month's annual general meeting.

She also highlighted that just-resigned president Claire Nazar had nominated six out of the 11 new Exco members with the support of veteran members.

Ms Lau also said that following the first Exco meeting on April 7, Ms Nazar unilaterally resigned by email on April 8.

The Exco then called for a second Exco meeting on April 15, the earliest possible date, as the Constitution requires at least seven days' notice.

It was at this meeting that Ms Lau was named the new president unopposed.

Ms Lau said the current committee hopes to improve the life of women in Singapore and is pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore.

She added that AWARE is a secular organisation - with members from different races, walks of life and belief systems.

She said that as a democratic society, they welcome diverse viewpoints.

Ms Lau added that she has full confidence in her team and that they are ready for the challenges ahead.

Meanwhile, on Friday evening, some members of the new Exco spoke to Channel NewsAsia.

The new Exco said the organisation's old guard is recruiting members to call the extraordinary general meeting.

The new guard said 120 of the 160 signatories were recruited in the last month to swell support for the requisition.

A vote of no confidence may be considered against the new committee at this meeting.

This comes just weeks after the old guard accused the new Exco of recruiting members to "muscle their way onto the Exco" in the society's annual general meeting.

When asked of their intention of joining AWARE, the new Exco said they wanted to bring fresh ideas to the organisation and improve the quality of life of women in Singapore. They are also planning programmes to help women who are suffering during the economic downturn.

**********

Wow.

I thought I was pretty good at bending my brainz around stuff, even quantum physics, but this latest news is just too much for me.

I... erm... I'm actually lost for words.

As such, Fresh Brainz will adjourn from this topic, at least until the new Exco actually organizes some dubious activities, if they ever have the chance.

Back to your regularly scheduled mix of wacky research, fun science events and my endless blathering about systems science!

*Update (18 Apr 2009): Josie Lau was actually nominated by Claire Nazar! (1 clash settled, 1 heats up - TODAYonline)

*Latest Update (20 Apr 2009): Josie Lau says that the takeover was not a planned coup. (Aware chief answers critics - ST)

Update: Josie Lau Is AWARE's New President

Latest news - the new president of AWARE is Ms. Josie Lau, who is a vice-president at DBS Bank and the wife of Dr. Alan Chin.

Check out the following news article for more details (key points in bold).

Click on the link to see some pictures of the new Exco:

DBS exec is Aware's head

Josie Lau appointed despite employer's advice not to run

By Tan Dawn Wei, Wong Kim Hoh & Yen Feng

BANK executive Josie Lau, 48, was appointed the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) on Wednesday night at a meeting of the new team in charge.

She is vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.

But shortly after she announced that she was president, posed for pictures and made brief comments to reporters, her employer expressed unhappiness that she had taken the top post at Singapore's best-known women's group.

DBS Bank said it had told her just before last night's Aware exco meeting that it did not support her running for president. The bank said it supported employees' participation in community work, but they needed approval before taking on external appointments.

And Ms Lau did not have the green light to be Aware president.

'We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,' a spokesman said last night.

Ms Lau could not be reached to comment as the new team wanted media queries to be channelled via the Aware office.

Checks by The Straits Times revealed that she is married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, who owns several clinics under the Lifeline Medical Group. They have two teenage daughters, and Ms Lau is also listed as director and shareholder in some of her husband's clinics.

A beaming Ms Lau refused to take questions from reporters when she emerged from last night's exco meeting which lasted nearly four hours. But she said she was pleased and delighted to be president.

'Together with the new exco which was duly elected under the Constitution, I will build on the good work of the past Aware members who advanced the causes for women in all areas of society through advocacy, research and community work,' she said.

**********

With this announcement, I think that the suspicions of many people regarding the Exco takeover has been substantiated.

The Straits Times also reported that "Exco member Caris Lim, a long-time member, walked out three hours into the meeting of the new team, saying she was 'very disillusioned'."

The official statement says: "The new team intends to build on the solid foundations laid by the founders of Aware and will continue to promote the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of our society. The goal remains to bring about full equality of the sexes and to end all forms of discrimination against women."

However, the new president has refused to answer any question from reporters.

DBS Bank appears to foresee the potential implications of this new appointment, but I fear that they may be vastly underestimating the public sentiment.

To me, reading this news feels like seeing the first six watertight compartments of a ship completely flooded with water.


Would you like to know more?

- Construction of the Titanic

Update: AWARE Exco Remains Silent

Here are some updates from mainstream media sources regarding the AWARE Exco takeover (I've highlighted some key facts in bold):


1. 160 AWARE members call for meeting to question new ExCo

By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

Posted: 14 April 2009 2057 hrs

SINGAPORE : 160 members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have submitted a request to call an extraordinary general meeting for the society, where a motion of no confidence in the newly-elected Executive Committee (ExCo) will be considered.

It all started at the AWARE annual general meeting on March 28.

Nine of the 12 Executive Committee positions went to newcomers during that meeting. Over 100 people had turned up to vote and many of these voters had only just joined AWARE.

Some of the newcomers have previously written to the media speaking against homosexuality. AWARE, on the other hand, is known for its liberal stance.

"It (AWARE) stands for choice, it stands for gender equity, it stands for democracy, it stands for diversity, plurality. That's why our membership has always been open," said Corinna Lim, a former Executive Committee member and AWARE member since 1992.

When asked for their reasons for seeking leadership, the new ExCo members declined comment.

"We told you that ExCo is going to be meeting sometime this week, after which there will be a press release. So there is no comment," said Charlotte Wong, VP of AWARE.

Its newly-elected President, Claire Nazar, a longtime member of AWARE, resigned barely two weeks after being voted in.

Some past presidents in the meantime, have been collecting signatures to call for an extraordinary general meeting - prompting some observers to comment that they are behaving like sore losers.

"We welcome change, it is not about losing at all. Someone from a different group came in, have certain ideas about what AWARE should be doing and hasn't communicated it, and all we want to know now is what this is about," said Lim.

"The extraordinary general meeting is an opportunity for the new guard to explain their position and win the members over. We can't really comment whether they will hold fast to the traditional line of AWARE, but I can't imagine why not, if they chose to enter AWARE and run for office there," said political analyst Gillian Koh.

The current committee has not replied to members' request to hold the meeting.

AWARE has about 500 members. - CNA /ls

2. Old guard calls for meeting

ESTHER NG

estherng@mediacorp.com.sg

THE old guard is fighting back.

After a leadership grab by new faces, the abrupt resignation of the new president and rumours of hidden agendas swirling on the Internet, some 150 longstanding members of the women’s advocacy group Aware have called for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) that may include a motion of no-confidence in the new executive committee (Exco).

“We don’t know who these people are. We’ve not heard a word from the new Exco for the past two-and-a-half weeks,” said Ms Corrine Lim, a longstanding member of Aware, which stands for the Association of Women for Action and Research. Ms Lim is one of the 150 signatories calling for the EGM.

The concern of the old guard is palpable. On March 28, a large group of new members turned up at Aware’s annual general meeting and apparently staged a coup. Nine of the 12 seats on the society’s Exco went to new members. Eleven days later, its new president Claire Nazar quit abruptly and cyberspace has since been abuzz with rumours about the religious and allegedly anti-gay views of the new Exco members.

“It didn’t help that people were speculating all kinds of things on the Internet. In fact, in times like these, the Exco should come out to respond quickly,” said Ms Lim.

Aware’s new vice-president Charlotte Wong was tight-lipped when Today met her at the group’s office yesterday.

“None of us can answer your questions until the Exco meets. We’re just following the rules. They are in the constitution,” said Ms Wong. “We’ll be releasing a statement after we meet.”

However, a check with Aware’s constitution has turned up no such rule. Today understands that the Exco will meet today.

Responding to comments by veteran journalist P N Balji that Aware should live up to its spirit of “championing the need for choices in a pluralistic society” and so accept the new line-up, Ms Lim said the EGM will precisely serve this purpose.

“It will be an opportunity for members to raise their concerns with the Exco and also for the new Exco to explain their values and vision of Aware. If the general meeting is happy with their goals, we’ll go along. If not, we’ll put (the matter) to a vote,” she said.

Members of the old guard have asked that the notice to call the EGM be issued no later than 14 days from the date of the request. This is the first time that the society has called for one.

3. Counter-attack at Aware

160 veterans to table no-confidence vote at extraordinary meeting

By Wong Kim Hoh, Senior Writer

THE old guard at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has launched a counter-attack after several unknowns seized the leadership at its recent elections.

A group of 160 veterans are calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) where they intend to table a vote of no confidence in the new executive council.

In a statement on Tuesday, they expressed concern over the unusual nature of the March 28 annual general meeting 'when a large number of new members turned up and appeared to vote for several office bearers, all of whom are also new members'.

Older members present were shocked when the newcomers contested and won almost all positions, beating more seasoned members by wide majorities.

Those calling for an EOGM also found it disturbing that Mrs Claire Nazar, who was elected president without a contest, resigned within days.

The new exco members have yet to make known publicly who they are, how they are connected, what prompted them to take over in the manner that they did, or their plans for Singapore's leading women's group.

Repeated attempts to reach exco members for comments have drawn a blank since last week.

Ms Corinna Lim, 44, a spokesman for the old guard group, told The Straits Times: 'It is necessary to have an EOGM because we need an open discussion of what their agenda is.

'We've had a lot of calls from concerned members but we have had no communication from the new exco.'

Ms Lim, a corporate counsel, said that under the Aware constitution, an EOGM must be called if 10 per cent of the membership ask for one in writing. Given the rules, it could be held within a month.

**********

In light of this new information, I think that my previous guess that there is a lack of rapport between the veteran core and their members is incorrect.

The fact that 160 members can stand together and call for an extraordinary general meeting shows that their ties within the organization and their commitment to AWARE's mission remain very strong.

This suggests that the Exco takeover was only successful due to its unexpected nature and not because of any fundamental disunity within the organization.

If there is any schism at all, it is between the new Exco and the vast majority of AWARE members.

And this gulf widens every day with their continued and concerted effort to stop communicating with their own members, not to say the press.

Even more worrying, they appear to be interpreting AWARE's constitution in their own special way.

If this situation persists, the remaining silent majority of about 300 members may become motivated to take a stand.

Anyone who has some experience as a member or a leader of a committee would be aware of the importance of a clear channel of communications, especially during unusual situations.

And this is an unusual situation indeed.

How unusual? Let me put it this way:

Imagine if you just won an election, by a landslide victory, over a group of veterans in an established and respected organization.

You would thank your supporters enthusiastically.

You would immediately reach out to the outgoing exco, thanking them for their previous contributions and assuring their supporters that their voices will continue to be heard by the new administration.

You would greet the new day with a press release announcing the plans of the new exco, affirm your commitment to the core values of the organization and say something optimistic about its future.

In other words, you'd be rather happy. Ecstatic even.

Because you won!

But instead, we get this cold, hard, stonewall.

Even the supporters, who in other elections (remember the US presidential election?) would be running around happily, singing praises of the new committee, remain strangely silent.

"No comment".

In my previous post, I used the metaphor of an iceberg collision to convey my feelings about this matter.

Once a few chunks of ice hit the deck, people will start to ask questions.

If the leaders do not quickly and honestly communicate the situation to the people, the people may begin to imagine all sorts of hideous problems under the surface.


Would you like to know more?

- Time line of events aboard the Titanic

The Same Thing We Do Every Night, Pinky

One of the most chilling scenes I've ever seen in a movie is this part when the Titanic hits the iceberg:





It's not the frantic action and the utter devastation below decks that gets me, but what happens up at the passenger levels.

Where... nothing much happens really.

Rose and Jack just see some chunks of ice drop onto the deck, while other passengers look on sheepishly at what they thought was a near collision.

It all seems very boring.

But yet, at that exact moment, the Titanic was already doomed to sink "with mathematical certainty".

In hindsight, these boring scenes at the passenger levels give an eerie sense of forboding.

Today, I got a similar feeling when I read this news (pipette tip to Lucky Tan):

Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls

Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces

By Wong Kim Hoh

SINGAPORE'S best-known women's group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard - which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.

When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.

Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.

And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.

In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.

One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.

But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.

She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.

It is not known who will now become president.

Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.

The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.

Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.

'I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I've been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,' said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.

Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: 'There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.

'In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.'

The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.

Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.

'It was alarming,' said Ms Lam. 'How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?'

Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.

Ms Tan said: 'We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.'

Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being 'all inclusive', has never vetted the people who apply to be members.

Men can join too, as associate members.

As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.

They got only the briefest answers, they said.

Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware's various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.

But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.

Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.

There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.

Ms Tan said: 'We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.'

She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.

'It could not be pure coincidence,' she said.

But little is known of Aware's new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.

Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.

'When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,' Ms Lam said.

Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.

But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.

'If you are keen to serve, you don't challenge every position. We do not know who they are,' said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women's group Unifem.

'It is very troubling, more so because I've heard the new president has resigned.'
Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.

New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued 'in a few days' and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.

A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.

Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.

In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.

In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been 'visibly distraught' when she opposed Mr Siew's petition vigorously.

Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.

Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile, news of Aware's AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.

The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?

Ms Mathi said: 'The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.

'Why can't they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.'

Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.

Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.

But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.

'Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,' he said.

Three former Aware presidents - Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi - have served as NMPs.

'Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,' said Mr Lim.

kimhoh@sph.com.sg

**********

A number of bloggers have voiced their opinions on this issue (Sam Ho has a good compendium of their responses).

Some of them suspect a conspiracy and are concerned about the possibility of an anti-homosexual agenda by the new Exco members and their supporters.

I should say that I'm surprised that Dr. Alan Chin (who is no stranger to us at Clearthought Singapore; check out his views on homosexuality here, here and here) is a member of AWARE.

Nevertheless, here at Fresh Brainz we are obsessed with systems science and thus are more interested in the plausible strategy of the takeover. From this perspective, all those discussions about homosexuality are just "chunks of ice falling on the passengers' deck".

What is more significant is the fact that a group of total newcomers have swiftly taken over the reins of leadership from a core of established veterans!

Incumbent leaders of other organizations who have been looking on sheepishly should sit up now and pay attention.

Assuming that the events depicted by the Straits Times is factually true, this is the approximate timeline of key events:

Jan - March 2009

- Spike in AWARE's membership.

28 March 2009

- Unusually large turnout during AGM, about 3 times bigger than normal, nearly 80% are newcomers.
- 9 of 12 Exco positions goes to newcomers, so new that they have no subcommittee experience.

Early April 2009

- President Ms. Claire Nazar resigns.
- Media blackout regarding the new Exco.

Here are three plausible system-level weaknesses:

1. Lack of defence mechanism

- no vetting process for membership.
- no consensus standards for evaluating eligibility of Exco candidates (whether they publicly support AWARE's vision and values, eg. equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality).
- no subcommittee experience, or minimal membership time required for Exco candidates.

2. Voter apathy

- low turnout on regular AGMs permitting a takeover via manageable number of supporters (~100).

3. Lack of rapport/schism between veteran core and ordinary members?

- May explain low voter turnout.
- May explain why some members are not alarmed by the sudden takeover.


Would you like to know more?

- Are you aware of AWARE? (Sam's thoughts)
- The AWARE AGM 2009 — my personal take: beware of ST (Mathia Lee)

A Link Between Straits Times And Violence?

Sometimes, a news article produced by the mainstream media reveals more about the media itself than the incident it is trying to report.

Here is one such article (subscription required) :

A link between gaming and violence?

Experts say there is no direct link but in extreme cases, multiple risk factors are involved

By Jamie Ee Wen Wei
Mavis Toh
Huang Huifen

Three gamers were in the news last week for the wrong reasons. Two are dead and a third is in jail after they hurt themselves or others.

Is there a link between gaming and their aggressive or violent behaviour?

Studies by Iowa State University's Distinguished Professor Craig Anderson, one of the world's foremost scholars on media violence, show that playing violent video games causes people to think and act more aggressively, but he does not not believe playing video games will turn "normal 12-year-olds into school shooters".

Social psychologist Angeline Khoo, said that the link between violent computer games and aggressive behaviour is co-relational rather than direct.

Dr Khoo, who is the National Institute of Education's associate professor of the psychological studies academic group, explained: "When people read sensational news like this, they tend to think, it must be the evil game. But there are many people who play violent games and are perfectly normal."

What most people fail to understand is that physical violence, like stabbing, is only an extreme form of aggression. It rarely happens, she said.

More common manifestations of aggression are verbal, like raising voices or spurting vulgarities, she said. "The aggressive tendencies tends to be short-term. They can dissipate. For example, if you listen to soothing music after playing a violent game, you will calm down."

Experts agree that in extremely violent cases, there will usually be a convergence of multiple risk factors. There include gang involvement, anti-social parents and peers, substance abuse, poverty and media violence. Males are more at risk.

On the ground, psychiatrists and social workers are reporting more gaming-related problems among youths. At Touch Cyber Wellness and Sports, counsellors have seen more than 140 cyber-related cases in the past three years.

Dr Brian Yeo, a consultant psychiatrist at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, said he sees at least one patient daily who has gaming or Internet related issues.

"Some of them have avatars, and when their avatar dies or gets killed, they can become very angry, and in extreme cases, they may throw things or scream at their parents, or threaten to commit suicide."

Gamers are, however, upset that violent games have been fingered for the recent incidents.

Referring to the stabbing incident at Nanyang Technological University last week, Mr Nicholas Khoo, 31, co-founder of the Cybersports and Online Gaming Association, said: "Such incidents happen to a minority of gamers... In this incident, there could have been other reasons that led him to do it, so why was gaming blamed?"

Those interviewed also said they have not experienced any violent behaviour, although they said their relationships may have suffered.

Ms Sabrina Ong, 25, a blogger and avid gamer, said: "I don't become violent, but I tend to be more engrossed when I'm killing a character in shooting games like Left 4 Dead. I will shoo people away when they come and talk to me."

Technician Eddy Zhang, 28, said: "I became a bit reclusive. My girlfriend also broke up with me as she felt that I was spending more time playing games than with her."

Dr Khoo said studies have shown that parental involvement is vital in managing the violent effects of gaming.

"For instance, if someone utters a profanity in the game, the parent can tell the kid, we are not going to imitate this person's behaviour. There will at least be some guidance."

AsiaSoft, publisher of games like Maple Story, has created pop-up messages to remind gamers to take breaks. By the fourth hour, the gamers are asked to quit the game. Its spokesman said: "It's all about moderation."

David Hartanto Widjaja, 21

Online activities: A fan of the computer game World of Warcraft, the Indonesian student from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) spent as much as six hours a day in front of his PC.

What he did: He stabbed his lecturer, Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk, 45, in the lecturer's office last Monday.

What happened to him: Shortly after the attack, Mr Widjaja fell four floors to his death at the NTU campus.

Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 27

Online activities: The Singapore Armed Forces doctor was an avid Warcraft player who became one of the top 10 Warcraft players in Singapore, and was among the top 100 in the world.

What he did: He had been absent without official leave since last October, reportedly cutting off all contact with people close to him.

What happened to him: He was found dead in Melbourne last Tuesday.

Xia Yun, 19

Online activities: He played games from the multi-player online gaming site, AuditionSea.

What he did: Two years ago, he met a 10-year-old girl at the gaming site, and eight months later, they had sex.

What happened to him: He was charged with two counts of carnal connection. If he is not granted probation, he faces jail of up to five years and a fine of up to $10,000 for each charge.

**********

This is the most incredible Straits Times report I've read all year.

Based on all the expert opinions in the article itself, the heading should be "Experts say: no link between gaming and violent crime"

But yet it is "A link between gaming and violence?"

Eh???

The experts have clearly stated that the aggression displayed by engrossed gamers is short-term and there is only correlation data to show that violent computer games are "linked" to violent behaviour, not to say violent crime.

Correlation does not imply causation; this sort of "link" has no predictive value.

Let me illustrate this concept using an example given by Stanford professor Jerker Denrell.

The three men mentioned in the article not only played computer games regularly, but also brushed their teeth regularly.

Does it mean that toothbrushing is "linked" to violence?

To underscore how ridiculous this sort of insinuation is, let's rewrite some parts of the original article to reveal yet another apparently sinister, but utterly meaningless "link":

A link between newspaper-reading and violence?

Experts say there is no direct link but in extreme cases, multiple risk factors are involved

Three newspaper-readers were in the news last week for the wrong reasons. Two are dead and a third is in jail after they hurt themselves or others...

... Experts agree that in extremely violent cases, there will usually be a convergence of multiple risk factors. There include gang involvement, anti-social parents and peers, substance abuse, poverty and media violence. Males are more at risk.

Oh my!

Now I know why many people are so irate when they read our mainstream media articles - they become angry because of the violent news that is reported in the papers!

Or perhaps it's because the newspapers sometimes perform bizarre stunts, like trying to draw such a tenuous connection between three disparate cases and gaming.

To their credit, the Straits Times seemed to know that a single case cannot tell us much, and attempted to do a comparative analysis of these three cases.

However, a cursory look will reveal that even the correlation is not there:

Online activities:

1. David Widjaja = WOW (MMORPG with combat element - possibly violent)
2. Allan Ooi = WOW (MMORPG with combat element - possibly violent)
3. Xia Yun = AuditionSea (Online dancing game - violent???)

What they did and the aftermath:

1. David Widjaja = Apparently stabbed lecturer and committed suicide, investigation underway (violent)
2. Allan Ooi = AWOL, found dead under a bridge in Melbourne, investigation underway (violent???)
3. Xia Yun = Underaged sex with 10-year-old girl, charged in court (violent???)

Also, their interviews with various members of the public do not suggest any such correlation:

a. Nicholas Khoo: "Such incidents happen to a minority of gamers... could have been other reasons..." (disagreed with correlation)
b. Sabrina Ong: "I don't become more violent, but I tend to be more engrossed..." (disagreed with correlation, engrossed = violent???)
c. Eddy Zhang: "I became a bit reclusive. My girlfriend also broke up with me..." (reclusive = violent???)

What the hell is going on?

**********

At first, I could not believe that I was reading this sort of rubbish in our mainstream media.

On closer reading, I realized that practically nothing in this article supports the suspicion that gaming is linked to violent behaviour.

In fact, it almost seems as if the writers had set out to disprove this connection, but a subeditor decided to slap on a heading that is 180 degrees opposite to their assertion.

Which brings us to this crucial question that is glaringly omitted in the article:

Who is claiming a direct link between gaming and violence?

Experts don't claim this and the people interviewed don't claim this.

Is this report spurred by a massive discussion on online forums about the role of gaming in recent cases of violent crime (which I doubt because netizens tend to focus on the scholarship issue)?

Or did the Straits Times receive a huge influx of letters from concerned parents regarding gaming (which they have decided not to publish for some reason)?

Someone wanted to push the angle of computer games and violence.

Who?


Would you like to know more?

Proponent of association between violent games and violent behaviour:

Actual viewpoint of Prof. Craig Anderson (Dept of Psychology, Iowa State University)
- Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions (APA Online)

Opponent of causal link between violent games and violent behaviour:

Viewpoint of Prof. Jonathan Freedman (Dept of Psychology, University of Toronto)
- Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games
- Jonathan Freedman, deputy provost

Another article that revealed more than its author intended:
- A Uniquely Singaporean Letter

Chick Tracts In Singapore

An interesting news in the Straits Times today:

Offensive booklet reported

By Elena Chong

A MUSLIM administrative manager said she felt offended and angry after reading a small anti-Islamic booklet sent to her by post.

Madam Farhati Ahmad, 36, said she received the comic book called The Little Bride through the mail at her Woodlands home on March 6, 2007.

After reading the contents of the booklet, published by Chick Publications, an American Protestant publisher, she made a police report the same day.

She did not know who sent it but suspected that a Christian organisation had done it. She said she felt very insulted by the booklet whose objective was to insult and confuse Muslims.

'I also feel that its intention was to instigate feelings of anger or hatred for Islam as a religion,' she said.

She was testifying at the third day of the trial of technical officer Ong Kian Cheong, 50, and his wife, Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 45, an associate director with a bank, on charges under the Sedition Act and Undesirable Publications Act.

The Christian couple are alleged to have distributed a seditious publication each to two men, and the objectionable publication to Madam Farhati between March and December 2007.

The charges say the publications had the tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Christians and Muslims in Singapore.

When Deputy Public Prosecutor Anandan Bala asked why she made a report instead of throwing the booklet away, Madam Farhati said if the publication which she described as dangerous were to fall into wrong hands, it might disrupt racial harmony in Singapore. She also said people could use it to cause harm and chaos.

The other two Muslims who made police reports after receiving The Little Bride and Who Is Allah? are Mr Irwan Ariffin, 32, and Mr Isa Raffee, 35.

The hearing continues.

Click this link (Booklets available in store) for more details about this trial, where the defence lawyer argued that distributing Chick tracts is not an offence because they are freely available in places such as the Tecman bookshop.

**********

Chick tracts are nothing new in Singapore. I'm sure that many of my readers would have encountered them in one form or another, especially classic ones such as "This Was Your Life".

I recall that I was given one as a teenager - I was flying model gliders near the void deck of my flat when a military officer came up to me and offered the tract to me. I suppose he felt that I was good material for "salvation" and gave it to me on good faith, but when I read the contents of the tract, I found it to have a very simplistic, biased and threatening tone.

Chick tracts are a straightforward conversion tool - every one of them ends with a statement compelling the reader to convert. Thus there is no discussion of nuance or alternative interpretations and explanations within.

To make his case in a small pamphlet with only a few pages, Jack Chick employs a sledgehammer approach and simply attacks everyone with beliefs other than his own, hoping to win converts via doubt, shock and fear. I'm not surprised that someone will eventually be offended by these tracts, I just wonder why it took so long.

The government will most likely resolve this issue using censorship, but I suspect that this might increase the secret appeal of the tracts instead.

In some other countries, Chick tracts are simply deconstructed, refuted and spoofed into irrelevance. I don't know if that would work in Singapore, but personally I would prefer to see an open discussion of such issues rather than the short-term solutions of legal action and censorship.

Redundancy Redundancy

I think that creationists who support the concept of irreducible complexity don't really understand what their idea entails.

They seem to think that a biological system (or subsystem) is made up of absolutely interdependent and indispensible components - if any of these parts was suddenly removed, then the whole system would fall apart.



















Even a cursory glance at reality tells us that this is not true.

People don't disintegrate if their fingers, hands or arms are chopped off - indeed they can stay alive for a while even if a critical organ like the liver is removed, otherwise organ transplants would be impossible.

But assuming that some irreducibly complex system can be found, it still doesn't follow that the system could not have developed via stepwise evolution.

To illustrate this: imagine that you have been appointed as the CEO of a large corporation today, and you decide to sack the entire sales department immediately.

This would inflict a severe wound on the company which can cause the whole company to collapse if competent replacements are not quickly found. That's because the critical functions of a corporation have been delegated to departments which have become highly specialized and optimized over time.

Clearly, finding such an irreducibly complex corporation today doesn't mean that it MUST have poofed into existence by supernatural means!

It just means that roles of its members have gradually changed over time.

When the company was in its infancy, it had only a few staff members.

Everyone helped out to do sales, so there was no sales department.

That wasn't particularly efficient but it didn't need to be, because a small company simply didn't require (and couldn't afford) a proper sales department.

Likewise, hundreds of millions of years ago our simple animal ancestors didn't have any hearts or brains - they just didn't need them. Of course, we won't last long without these critical organs today.

In any case, complex biological systems can tolerate a certain amount of damage or loss of their subsystems because they exhibit modularity (to reduce spill-over effects) and redundancy (to backup some functions).

However, if there exists a system which has absolute component interdependency, no modularity and no redundancy, then the creationists would be right and any small change would bring down the whole shebang.

Such a system cannot be "constructed" by any stepwise process; indeed it cannot be physically constructed at all and must magically come into existence completely intact.

The fact that creationists prefer to assume that biological systems must be organized in such a manner, reflects strongly on their ideology.

**********

In my previous full article about social systems, I talked about some of the problems of an absolute authority, but I forgot to elaborate on the importance of redundancy, which I will highlight in this article.

Absolute authorities are problematic due to the lack of checks and balances, but singular absolute authorities have an additional problem - the lack of redundancy.

If a system contains redundant components, then it will continue running even if some of its components are flawed or missing.

On the other hand, if a system contains no redundancy at all, then the imperfection of one component will lead to the collapse of the whole system.

Thus, people who believe in singular supernatural authorities tend to have a worldview that contains no redundancy and brooks no dissent.

They can only be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, because any "wrongness" of any one part would render the whole belief wrong (although in practice they take on faith that no part of their belief can possibly be wrong).

Seeing the world through such tinted glasses, they expect other social systems to exhibit this same characteristic.

Of course, this is false - even within the area of supernatural belief, people who believe in multiple deities for example, do not share this problem.

Also, systems that do not depend on central authority don't have this problem.

Science, for example, is made up of multiple specializations. In addition, scientific theories and facts are discovered using independent lines of evidence, often employing diverse approaches or technologies.

So if any particular fact, theory or even an entire field is shown to be wrong, it won't bring down the entire scientific endeavour.

Thus, redundancy is a strong defensive move.

This is clearly illustrated in the previous post about investor psychology - diversification helps to preserve capital and guard against the big loss.

Unfortunately, diversification also diminishes the gains from any particular stock, which suggests that singularity is a strong offensive move.

And that is definitely true from the historical point of view - monotheistic belief systems have grown faster and to far greater numbers than any other supernatural or naturalistic system.

My previous articles have already covered the reasons why a centralized and rigid power structure is so effective against a fragmented power-sharing structure.

Since science is driven by evidence, not by central authority and social consensus - thus it mean that, as a social movement, scientific thinking will never be able to compete with supernatural beliefs?

Not quite.

Although science appears fragmented because it cannot in principle have unity through centralized supernatural authority, it can have unity through emergent authority.

A unity of knowledge.

**********

Regular Fresh Brainz readers might have been wondering why I embarked on this odd detour into foreign territory such as sociology and economics in my recent articles.

Well, the gig is up - all these articles constitute the prologue to an original idea that I have been developing for the past ten years.

I had originally planned to hone it in secret and publish it in a book to make a tonne of money, but many events have since transpired that made me change my mind.

Facing a depressing job market and a difficult career ahead, I don't feel confident about the relevance and usefulness of my idea, and so I have decided to post what I've currently worked out to all my readers.

Stay tuned for the first post about FAMILIAR: Fractal-Analog Method of Integrating Limitless Information into Aligned Resources.


Would you like to know more?

Prologue to FAMILIAR:
Part 1 - The Meanings Of Life
Part 2 - Elitism: Human Warmth or Weakness?
Part 3 - Not Right, But Necessary
Part 4 - In Fiat We Trust
Part 5 - When The Sane Go Marching In
Part 6 - Downfall Of Gods

Downfall Of Gods

As a true blue Star Wars fan, it's unavoidable that I would sometimes ponder about the implications of its story arc.

Not sure if movie reviewers have noticed this, but I've discovered a recurring theme that runs through the entire story -

The hunger for absolute power gradually corrupts and ruins everything.

Just consider this:

1. In the beginning of the story, the Jedi Order was supposed to represent the light side of the Force - all that is wise and good.

They defeated the evil Sith Lords and have enjoyed great social power and prestige in the Old Republic for a thousand generations.

So why is it that when they felt an imbalance in the Force, they automatically assumed that it's the Sith who needed downsizing?

Indeed, their obsession with the absolute eradication of the Sith completely blinded them to the Darkness that lies within themselves. As the separatist war progressed, the Jedi Order would make more and more compromises to its core principles until it eventually turned on itself - a Jedi Knight would become a Sith!

From that point onwards, the Jedi Order was doomed.

2. The Jedi turncoat was Anakin Skywalker-slash-Darth Vader, the chief protagonist of the whole series.

Anakin's personal story is a microcosm of the main theme - a kind, brilliant boy who slowly develops a thirst for power after a personal tragedy and numerous setbacks.

He realizes that he always wants more power and comes to believe that he can do the absolute good, if only he can acquire the absolute power.

Eventually this quest for power will cost him everything that he treasures - ironically the very people he wants to protect with that power.

3. Interestingly, the same motif is repeated once again during the Empire; except that this time the "hapless" victim was none other than Emperor Palpatine himself!

He was obsessed with the elimination of his enemy, perhaps the only thing he had in common with the Jedi.

A wicked, scheming political wizard, Palpatine had manipulated many evil people in order to rise to great power.

With practically all of the Old Republic's military might under his command, he could have simply rendered the Jedi harmless, but he wanted to kill them all.

He wanted this so much that he was willing to take a huge risk by converting a Superstar Goody-Two-Shoes Jedi Knight to become his own apprentice, gambling that Anakin's desire for power would wipe out any trace of good left inside.

Unfortunately for the Emperor, Anakin was far more conflicted than that.

Blissfully unaware of this inner conflict, Palpatine even had the audacity to order Anakin to bring his powerful son to Palpatine's personal lair, so that he can witness their mutual destruction.

Talk about a recipe for disaster.

Of course, the Emperor never achieved absolute power and was killed - ironically by his greatest ally...

**********

In this sixth article about social systems, I am going to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of Centralized rule vs Power Sharing.

From the leadership's point of view, centralized rule is certainly more convenient.

Without dissent from other powerful groups, the leadership class (or a single leader) can quickly and decisively impose new policies that has the potential for a lot of good.

Conversely, an evil leadership class can also quickly and decisively impose new policies that can cause a lot of damage to society.

Without external checks and balances, nobody can stop them. Using internal "self-regulation" as a means of checks and balances will only be effective if members of the leadership class are not acting in unison, which isn't likely to happen if there is an effective centralized rule.

Unfortunately, power sharing via "rule-by-committee" isn't perfect either. When there are many powerful political groups fighting it out in parliament, policies will take much longer to pass, if they ever do. All this politicking can render unitary action very difficult, making the government weak and indecisive.

Thus, it's not surprising that most audacious conquerors in history, such as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler all utilized direct, centralized command.

In particular, Alexander quickly conquered and united all the city states of Ancient Greece - previously ruled by committees.

Nonetheless, even a dictator needs to have some form of checks and balances in order to avoid making mistakes that can ruin everything.

After all, he wants to gain absolute power, not to lose his entire kingdom.

But in order to get accurate feedback from other people, he must give them enough power to counteract some of the decisions he might make in the future.

Giving away power in order to gain more power?

The quest for absolute power is an unsustainable, impossible quest.

At the end, the dictator either gives away too much power and become sidelined, or seizes too much power and becomes a victim of his own mistakes.

That is the reason why even till today, the only sustainable method for leaders to hold on to power is a broadly centralized rule with much of the power shared by groups acting as checks and balances on each other.

OK, now let's imagine for the moment that a single, absolute power does exist and is somehow sustainable.


















Is this the face of ultimate good or ultimate evil?

Wouldn't you be at least a little bit disturbed by an absolute authority who is checked by no one and is answerable to no one?

He is advised by no one and constrained by nothing.

Under normal circumstances, a personal relationship with a powerful authority can confer special benefits to you. A leader may be willing to listen to you because your idea may benefit him - for example, to help him gain more power or avoid making stupid mistakes that will cost him his crown.

But what can you offer the absolute authority of the Universe? A friendly hug???

He doesn't lack power and never makes mistakes - not from his point of view anyway.

As I have written in the previous article, human social groups are stable precisely because they do not have absolute power; they only have emergent authority derived from their component individuals. Critical mass and organization help to keep the group behaviour locked into rigidity.

But how would an absolute authority maintain behavioural stability?

You would expect him to do whatever he wants, wouldn't you?

To make up rules, to break rules, to constantly change his mind, to redefine love as hate and hate as love, to redefine good as evil and evil as good, to redefine true as false and false as true - all on a whim.

There is no one to stop him.

It's worse if this ultimate power is supernatural - not only can you do nothing about it, you can't even see it coming!

So how can anyone really feel comforted by a belief in a supernatural absolute authority?

Any ordinary person should only feel constant fear.

But yet many people say they feel comfort and peace when they think of a supernatural authority.

Perhaps they are unaware of the full implications of such an authority. Maybe they are misattributing their confidence in emergent authority to a faith in supernatural authority. It is also possible that they are actually feeling fear, but calling it "comfort" so as to avoid offending the supernatural authority.

In any case, it's not the existence of a supernatural authority that really matters; it's whether such a supernatural authority has any relevance to human life.

Is he listening?

Does he even know you?

If an absolute power decides to passively watch as millions of people starve and thousands of believers who are all faithful to him kill each other in horrific ways (even as relatively powerless humans struggle to find solutions) ...

Do you think you can change his mind?

And do you think you can believe in the promises that he makes?

When The Sane Go Marching In

Here are two examples of human social behaviour that never cease to amaze me.

First up - the impressive display of thousands of soldiers during a large-scale military parade.












If you consider people as freely independent living systems, then isn't it odd how social groups can so easily get thousands of their members to march perfectly in sync and stand stiffly together in tidy blocs for hours on end?

An awe-inspiring, fear-inducing appearance of unity and solidarity.

(But is it only an appearance?)

Second, I always find it strange how people will ask the government to intervene in their personal matters (eg. a noisy neighbour or family in-fighting), which happens fairly often in Singapore.

If you believe that people strongly value their freedom and independence, you'd have to wonder why they will so easily give that all up in order to get their way in such petty matters.

Perhaps freedom is something that only a tiny minority really care about?

Perhaps most people are far more concerned about getting what they want - whatever the cost...

**********

In this fourth article about social systems, I am going to talk about the emergence of authority.

Complying with the authority structure comes so automatically for human beings that many people are not aware of just how bizarre it is.

There is a segment in the British science entertainment show Brainiac called "Undercover Brainiac" that illustrates how absurd this behaviour can be:

A middle-aged man is tasked to approach random strangers on the street and ask them to open their bags for him.

First, he attempts to do this while wearing casual clothing.

Not surprisingly, all of the people he approached turned him down immediately, some of them expressing disgust at his intrusive request.

Next, the Brainiac team provides him with an official-looking security guard uniform (complete with beret and walkie-talkie) with badges and insignia from a totally bogus organization.

They then set him loose on the streets again.

This time the results are, should we say... quite interesting.

Practically all the people opened their bags for him instantly. They let him poke around in their private belongings without complaint.

Nobody checked his credentials or looked suspiciously at the funny badge on his beret.

He asked; they opened.

To underscore the ridiculousness of the entire situation, the fake "security guard" even managed to snack on a few french fries from one victim's lunch bag.

At first blush, this sort of blind faith in the mere appearance of authority seems to be pure stupidity.

Here in Singapore, nary a week passes by without the news of somebody getting cheated by a Nigerian scam, "magic stone" scam, bogus kidnapping scam, fake predictions from a fortune teller... the list goes on.

Were these victims afflicted by such utter stupidity that they did not even attempt to check or seek independent verification that what the trickster claimed had any passing semblance to reality?

While I don't think that people who fall for these scams are particularly smart, I doubt that they are that stupid.

Fear or greed, coupled with the "normal" social behaviour of automatically complying to the appearance of authority made them easy pickings for fraud.

Many of these victims are senior citizens who have enough smarts for persevering through a long career and raising a whole family; clearly they are not so dumb in other aspects of their lives.

In fact, their blind faith and unquestioning trust towards others may have enabled them to form strong and loving social networks - a positive contributing factor towards their longevity.

You might ask: "But what about the critical thinking skills that would have warded them against these cheats?"

I suspect that apart from technical professionals, critical thinking skills are simply unnecessary in the everyday lives of the vast majority.

People commonly make big decisions based on personal recommendations from trusted allies alone, without due regard to independent verification.

This is especially the case for people who are struggling for power within a hierarchical social structure - there is a strong pressure to comply with in-group beliefs and dismiss out-group beliefs.

Which is a terrible, but understandable practice since people who rely on social influence to thrive will naturally be focused on social contingencies first, rather than basic physical reality.

As a hypothetical example, as a manager it's better to accept a potential lie from your superior, than to believe in the "objective" safety data from the technicians.

After all, if you express doubts and offend your superior, your career might end. On the other hand, if she was really spouting bullshit and the technicians are right, only the technicians themselves will directly suffer the consequences of your decision.

This is why many powerful people can fiercely maintain such anti-scientific beliefs - denying physical reality not only has no ill-effects on their careers, but can often enhance their social influence due to in-group dynamics.

He asked; they opened.

**********

Nevertheless, authority structures have always been an integral aspect of human society.

As I have mentioned in my earlier post, some groups of people are suspicious of it, while others absolutely thrive in it.

But what is this "authority" actually made of?

If the people who populate an authority structure are free-living, independent organisms, how does the structure maintain unitary strength and prevent itself from falling apart?

To delve deeper into the discussion, let's examine this question:

Why is authority emergent?

Isn't authority derived from the top-down power of the leadership class?

Why is it emergent?

In Joseph Heller's novel "Catch-22" set in the Second World War, bombardier Yossarian is ordered to fly an increasing number of missions, which he realized would accomplish little more than getting himself killed.

He refuses to fly any more missions and so his superior Major Major tries to persuade him to change his mind.

Major Major: "Would you like to see our country lose?"

Yossarian: "We won't lose. We've got more men, more money and more material. There are ten million men in uniform getting killed and a lot more are making money and having fun. Let somebody else get killed."

Major Major: "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way."

Yossarian: "Then I'd certainly be a damn fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"

"Authority" structures can only have authority if enough people are willing to follow the orders that the leadership issues out.

Following Yossarian's train of thought, let's imagine a situation where millions of young soldiers from both sides of a conflict suddenly decided to disobey orders, drop their weapons and stop fighting.

Then, the war would instantly stop. Millions of lives would have been saved. No country would execute an entire army for insubordination, and besides, all of the potential executioners have also quit their guns!

Happily ever after, right?

But this has never happened in the history of humanity.

There are two strong reasons why - critical mass and organization.

If only a minority of the soldiers are willing to risk death to stop fighting, then the immense momentum of the authority structure will simply snub them out.

Only when there is enough people who are so tired of war that they'd rather die than fight, will there be a critical mass to make a difference.

Unfortunately, even if this critical mass is achieved, you still need to organize them in such a way that the authority structure cannot simply suppress them using the "divide and conquer" strategy. They have to all drop their weapons at the same time - if there are too many loyalists and fence-sitters then fighting will resume and their efforts will be in vain.

These obstacles are so hard to surmount that till date no military organization has quit fighting en masse no matter how battle-weary their soldiers have become.

Indeed, critical mass and organization are also crucial elements to the integrity of a military organization.

Although it is made up of previously free-living, independent people, an effective army has constrained the autonomy of its components via a rigid authority structure, resulting in a unitary force that the leadership can rely on.

I again emphasize that the source of this authority is emergent from the people themselves, in a similar way that the value of fiat currency is emergent from the people themselves. Top leaders can issue orders, but they cannot compel everyone to fight or assign real value to printed paper, unless enough people are willing to participate and help perpetuate these orders. As discussed in an earlier article, if the people are all cold and socially indifferent then an authority structure cannot even form!

Thus, social consensus has created concrete forces "out of thin air". However, there is nothing abstract about these forces - units continue to fight to the last man despite losing contact with the high command, and merchants continue to assign stable value to a piece of paper issued by an extinct government - these are real human lives and real physical goods that we are talking about.

Also, social consensus has created stability and permanence out of unstable, independent components.

For example, in the picture at the top, who knows what each individual soldier in the military parade is thinking. Someone may truly love the authority structure; someone else could be planning to defect to South Korea that very weekend.

Yet they all stand together in perfect coordination. Components may come and go, but the entire army as a whole is highly stable and can be considered as one functional unit.

In everyday language, we often make this over-simplification by personifying large authority structures as if they were some kind of super-sized individual human being.

"Our country is strong and prepared..."

"Our community is friendly and warm..."

"Our company prides itself on innovation..."

This feeds into a common misconception that since individual people can be unreliable and capricious, human organizations that are composed of people must necessarily be unreliable and capricious - formally known as a fallacy of composition.

Thus, some people yearn for a supernatural authority that would transcend such human weaknesses.

In fact, we have seen that opposite is often true - organizations can have such a rigid and unitary behaviour that top leaders can borrow the power structure for their personal ambition, and other component members of the group would simply go along, more like cogwheels in a machine than capricious, free-living individuals.

The stability of a social system is due to a combination of factors such as critical mass and organization. However, due to the fallacy of composition, there are people who attribute socio-emergent traits such as stability, authority and morality to supernatural sources. This is completely unnecessary as these traits already have fully naturalistic explanations.

Moreover, even social groups that purport to hold supernatural beliefs always use material means, primarily social means to achieve their goals.

Direct supernatural authority has never been observed - it is always mediated through people.

In addition, the power of a social group has always been in proportion to its number of adherents and total material assets. If any group really has access to supernatural authority, then a small number of members should be able to command essentially infinite direct power (eg. to stop diseases, stop wars en masse, roll back flood waters, regrow amputated limbs... so on).

In reality, social groups with poor membership and empty coffers are also those that command the least influence.

Nevertheless, numerous people still cling on to a belief in supernatural authority because it brings them comfort in times of distress and uncertainty.

Does believing in a supernatural being really bring you comfort?

In my next article, I will focus on this issue by examining the strengths and weakness of centralized rule vs rule-by-committee, and discuss the importance of redundancy.

In Fiat We Trust

Earlier this week, fellow science blogger Mike O'Risal came upon this question:

"If only the natural world exists, then how did belief in the supernatural evolve?"

Mike responded:

"Ignorance. Nothing in the material world precludes being wrong.

Ignorance is not knowing something. That doesn't have to "evolve." It isn't biological; ignorance isn't a living thing, simply an absence of knowledge. It makes no more sense that ignorance has to evolve than it does to maintain that there not being unicorns had to evolve."

That's an interesting answer, though I would use a different approach.

To start, evolution of behaviours - in contrast to the evolution of biochemical function or anatomical features - is notoriously difficult to study. One major reason is because behaviours can have a biological and/or a social source, and cultural evolution doesn't have to follow the rules of biological evolution.

Regardless of the source of this behaviour, I would say that belief in the supernatural is an over-extension of the belief in the natural, and thus both of these likely evolved in much the same way.

Just consider this:

We have direct experiences of moving around in a three-dimensional world and routine travel at subsonic, subluminal speeds.

There is nothing to stop us from extrapolating from our experiences and trying to imagine how life in higher dimensions and travel at supersonic or superluminal speeds would feel like.

Would you be able to look into the insides of everyone?

Would you be able to hear anything in a supersonic jet?

Would you be able to travel back in time when travelling at superluminal speeds?

In the case of supersonic travel, it is physically possible (and surprisingly mundane).

However, hyperspatial and superluminal travel may be physically impossible. Thus, any current speculation about what happens in those situations would be untestable, possibly incorrect and mostly irrelevant to people anyway.

But the speculations themselves had a real world source.

Now let's look at the gods of the Ancient Greeks.

Although they are supposedly supernatural beings, they can be angry, jealous, cruel, kind, loving, happy, unfaithful, fickle... encompassing the vast repertoire of human emotions.

The fact that the Ancient Greeks believed in them doesn't mean that these gods really did exist, or that gods must necessarily exhibit human emotions.

The behaviour of these gods were simply extrapolated from human nature.

Of course, anyone can insist on believing in their extrapolations.

Stock market traders would caution against this sort of high risk behaviour though. Just ask anyone who believed in the prediction that crude oil will hit US$200 a barrel this year...

You can immediately see that it's a bad practice to compel others to believe in your speculation as if it was a fact.

In this post, I am going to focus on yet another human behaviour that is commonly over-extended.

Faith.

It is a deeply polarizing word that can evoke feelings of warmth or disgust, depending on your worldview.

But I should emphasize that faith has a real world, naturalistic source - it is an extension of trust, confidence and loyalty, a human value that is indispensible for the formation of society.

There is nothing fake or imaginary about faith itself. It is an emergent social trait as concrete as any material object.

Not convinced?

Let's discuss this with a real world example.

Suppose I was feeling hungry one day and wanted to eat a loaf of banana bread.

In a remarkable flash of "inspiration", I decide to print my own dollar bill to pay for it.










I hand this note (Microprint! Gotta have more microprint!) over to the minimart cashier.

Can anyone guess what would happen next?

Of course she won't accept it.

If I wasn't immediately laughed out of the store, the cashier might even keoh mata (call police).

But... real money is also made of paper, so what's the diff?

What gives value to a piece of paper?

The uninitiated might answer: "Real government money has symbols such as the government Coat of Arms and real security features like hologram and security thread. The paper is given value by the authority of the government. Your dollar bill is not backed up by authority, so it is worthless."

Hmm... sounds plausible.

Let's go for a quick history lesson:

When the First World War started in 1914, Germany expected to win.

Thus, instead of taxing people to pay for the war effort, the government borrowed huge sums of money to be paid by the enemy after the war.

Unfortunately, they lost.

In addition to the heavy war debt, victor nations such as the United States, Britain and France exacted severe reparations on Germany's new Weimar Republic government.

To make matters worse, the democratic socialist government had promised the people reduced work hours and improved social benefits.

The country was still rebuilding from the ruins of war and did not have the resources to finance these new benefits.

So, in order to pay off all these debts, the government resorted to printing money.

Billions of new German Marks rolled off the printing presses.

At first, everything seemed OK. During the war years, the German people had been working hard and saving hard. There weren't many opportunities to spend money as millions of men were away from home on the battlefields, while the women worked in the military factories.

As the post-war economy normalized, all those saved Marks reappeared on the market.

Together with the massive supply of newly pressed money, inflation started to pick up pace.

As prices crept higher and higher, the German public started to lose their confidence in the paper money that they own.

Worried that the Mark will quickly lose its value if they keep it, people rushed to the market to cash them in for real goods.

As the money supply on the market increased, the value of the Mark dropped further, making the goods more expensive by the day.

People were running out of money to spend, so in response the government printed even more Marks, in higher denominations.

A dangerous positive feedback loop was emerging.

In the middle of 1922, the German economy exploded into hyperinflation.

People kept spending money, which kept depreciating in value, resulting in a lack of money causing the government to print more money.

Businesses had to deal with dwindling profits and increasing labour costs, so they increase prices even further.

In addition, hyperinflation had the bizarre effect of diminishing debt towards nothingness, so companies started to borrow excessively to buy more goods and infrastructure, creating yet more demand for money.

Rinse and repeat.

More and more zeros were added to the new Marks that were flying off the presses.

By late 1923, ordinary citizens had all become "multi-billionaires", except that a billion Marks could barely pay for a loaf of bread.

The "Paper Mark", as it would be later called, arguably became worth less than the paper it was printed on. People started to burn stacks of Paper Marks as firewood and used them as wallpaper.

Eventually a currency reform known as the "Rentenmark Miracle" finally put an end to this economic disaster. Although the economy was saved, the severe hardship experienced by the people and their resentment towards the government and banking industry would later steer them towards Hitler and his Nazi Party.

Although all this happened 85 years ago, hyperinflation isn't a thing of the past.

Right now, it is happening in Zimbabwe, with the official inflation rate of 231 million per cent last year.

Even after dropping ten zeros off the old Zimbabwean dollar in August, the government finds itself continuing to add more zeros to the new dollar. Just yesterday, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issued a new 500 million dollar bill which is only worth US$8 and rapidly depreciating.

Notice that in both Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, paper money is officially printed by the government with real security features and backed up by the full authority of the government, but yet they are practically worthless.

So now let's return to our original question.

What gives value to a piece of paper?

The answer is confidence, or faith.

People believe that their paper money is worth something, as long as everybody else around them also believes that.

Most modern paper money is fiat currency, which means that they are no longer pegged to physical commodities such as gold and thus do not have any "intrinsic" value.

But if you think about it, even the use of gold as currency also depends on faith.

If nobody around you is willing to exchange your gold coin for food, you'd starve to death real quick.

The value of any form of money depends on the common belief of thousands upon thousands of adherents.

It can't be the faith of just one person. That's the reason why my Fresh Brainz dollar is worthless.

The establishment of a new currency may depend on government authority, but once it's out on the market, it's the people who will assign real value to these placeholders.

If the value of the money slips too much due to over-supply or other forms of economic mismanagement, the people will begin to lose confidence in the value of money and try to exchange it for something of stable value.

Once this confidence evaporates, even governments backed by strong military power are helpless to stop the vicious cycle of hyperinflation.

Therefore, faith in the value of money is socio-emergent and not primarily determined by top-down authority.

In fact, money can continue to maintain value in the absence of the issuing authority!

Here's an interesting quotation:

"Friedman notes that after the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks introduced a new currency. They printed huge amounts of it and soon it became almost worthless.

At the same time some of the older Czarist currency still circulated and maintained its value in terms of goods. It appreciated enormously in terms of the new money.

Why?

This money was not redeemable. Nobody expected the Czarist government to return.

Why did this currency hold up?

"Because," says Friedman, "there was nobody to print any more of it."

As long as there is a social consensus to assign worth to a piece of paper, it will hold its value even if the government that printed it no longer exists.

Thus, you can see that there is nothing magical about faith, though it can be over-extended in the supernatural or any other realm that one desires.

Even without a central authority, a large group of people can create stable entities of value out of practically nothing, using social consensus.

If the source of the power is within the people themselves, then why do so many people prefer to believe in supernatural authorities?

Stay tuned for the next article about the socio-emergence of authority.


Would you like to know more?
- Supply and Demand of Money (Optionsatoz.com)