Pretending To Believe

Here's a question for you:

If the United States of America is predominantly a nation of believers, how can they suffer from a "crisis of confidence"?

Indeed this enormous economic bucket of shit that we are going through right now is purely a social phenomenon, with no exogenous causative factors like poor harvest, infectious disease or a one-million-tonne meteor dropping in from outer space.

Everybody knows that this recession will eventually end.

Everybody knows that this recession provides a rare opportunity for huge gains.

Yet nobody seems to believe that she/he will be the one to emerge unscathed, thereby worsening the recession.

Sounds like a subsystem conflict of interest to me.

It's a positive feedback loop - the market index falls, which spooks some investors into pulling out causing the index to fall further, which then spooks more investors to pull out...

Some banks fall and other banks start to distrust each other and even their own customers. They make it harder for businesses to obtain credit, which causes businesses to close and the unemployment rate to rise, creating a climate of uncertainty which discourages consumer spending, causing even more businesses to close.

And thus the USA drags everybody screaming and kicking onto a slow train to hell.

It shouldn't have happened.

The USA is supposed to be a nation of patriots and believers. If they really believed that everything is going to work out fine because they have divine support, then it is impossible for the crisis to spiral into such depths.

That immediately brings to mind our old friend Pascal's Wager.

Pascal failed to take into account the possible negative consequences of pretending to "believe".

Unfortunately, the Gods have spoken and totally kicked his ass.

This economic disaster has made it abundantly clear that pretending to believe is NOT the same as really believing.

There are no two ways about this.

A true believer could not have made a run on the market. How can someone profess true faith but yet put in a stop loss, "just in case"?

Putting in a stop loss immediately indicates that the person has no faith in his decision at all.

Anyone can say that they believe in anything. Under normal conditions, this can be very beneficial to the person to help build social consensus and gain social rank.

But when the push comes to the shove, many of these people will simply abandon what they have pretended to believe and act upon what they really believe.

They will sell off all their shares, they will engage the services of a gay hooker, they will inject insulin into their bloodstream and they will use stem cell derived therapies to save their lives.

Hypocrisy? An integral aspect of human society.

This current crisis of confidence is a social problem, and social problems require social solutions.

As you can see, I'm a fan of double-edged swords (there are plenty of these in biological systems eg. sugar, glutamate, blood clotting pathway, tumour suppressor proteins...).

If greed was the problem that led us into this mess, then greed (of a different group of people) will be the solution to lead us out of it.

People who pretended to believe in growth while preparing for a decline were the source of this disaster; people who pretend to believe in decline while preparing for growth will be the source of economic recovery.

It's difficult for greed to go out of fashion - the consequences of lacking this driving force in a cruel, competitive society are severe. The benefits, on the other hand, are immense if not a little transient.

But life is transient and people have short memories.

In this way - greed, faith and hypocrisy will persist for many generations to come.

Bulletproof Bracelets!

This morning a zombie ate my brainz and replaced it with pure stupid.




Tell me tell me... ta ta ta ta ta tell me...

Catchy song!

No More Bush!

This is not a brazilian wax advertisement...

Heh.

We live in a very odd world.

In this world:

1. If you rob 15 dollars from somebody, you will get three-and-a-half years jail.

If you rob billions of dollars from thousands of people, you will get million-dollar annual bonus.

2. If your small business fails, you will go bankrupt.

If your big bank fails, you will get a government bailout worth billions, and everyone except you will have to pay for it.

3. If you kill one person, you will be hanged.

If you kill hundreds of thousands, you will get generous retirement benefits, official fanfare and a helicopter to fly you home when it's all over.

Hmm...

Book me a ticket on the next space shuttle!*


*This is not a shampoo advertisement either...

Science Buskers Festival

This morning, the finals of the first ever Science Buskers Festival was held at the Science Centre, so Fresh Brainz popped in to see some enthusiastic young people perform some interesting demonstrations and have lots of fun.















The MC came onstage and gave a brief intro about the competition. Each team was given five minutes for their presentation. He later explained that the teams would be assessed by three groups of people: audience voting (25%), the judges (50%) and online voting (25%).















The audience sitting in the central section gets to vote using one of these handheld devices.

But not everyone gets to vote, and Fresh Brainz as usual is unable to vote, as has been the case for the past ten years...

Just like real life!















The judges are VIPs from various institutions and they're there to give candid feedback to the teams after their presentation, American Idol-style.















Aside from giving the contestants points to ponder, they also award them actual points.

Unfortunately, Simon Cowell is not among them. As you may have heard, Cowell is now more famous than God.

So if you think that getting the Lord Almighty to make an appearance is difficult, just imagine how hard it is to get Cowell to grace this occasion.















As for the audience, they're there to push buttons on those voting remotes, and to cheer!

That's right, screechy screamy schoolgirl CHEER!

What's cool is that supporters not only cheer for their own team, but for other teams as well.















And audience voting results are instantly available after each team performance.

Now don't let that make you think that science is some sort of popularity contest...

Just like real life!

Here are some highlights of the presentations:















Explosions!















Bigger explosions!















... and an ethereal plume of nitrocellulose flame!

In addition to explosions, here comes another science demo mainstay...















Dry ice!















More dry ice!















Let's not forget bubbles induced by dry ice!















Larger bubbles!















... and a dancing robot?!??















A breakdancing robot, no less.

Overall, an interesting and ingenious assortment of demonstrations, but some of the teams can do better with a more coordinated and polished delivery. After all, science busking is more about busking than science, and busking is more about entertainment than education.

Forget the detailed explanatory charts - send in the LOX donuts!*

Nom nom nom nom... BOOM!


Would you like to know more?
- Videos of all the Science Busker team presentations


*Legal disclaimer: LOX donuts are dangerous. LOX donuts are not meant to be eaten. LOX donuts are not magically delicious and do not produce a strange tingling sensation on your tongue. Tongues which are injured by LOX donuts have to be removed quickly, efficiently and painfully at the Slack Tongue Clinic.

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?