AN IMMORTALITY THAT COULD MAKE YOU MORE MORTAL

How our virtual existence is taking away from life as we’ve always known it...

(NTUSU Tribune ~ Themed ~ March'10)

A virtual existence allows us to be whoever we want to be. It allows us to do things not easily done in the physical realm; we can own a zoo, cafe or farm, be a kung fu master or an American idol. Everything you can conceive of you can be, at least in that world. Furthermore, you can control what others see the virtual you as. It’s easy to see why we are enchanted by virtual reality; it seemingly gives us everything we want, or does it?

The fact remains that what exists in the virtual world is confined to it. You could be a billionaire in a virtual world and struggle to make ends meet in the “real” world. The hard realities of the physical world as we know it are the constant we have to come back to. As students those realities are often submission deadlines and exams. We spend hours on end on Facebook, playing games, chatting- basically living as our virtual selves. All that time and energy takes away from what we could devote to academics and ECAs. Rationally we know that we have to strike a balance between our virtual selves and our physical selves. Then why can the large majority of us not strike that balance?

The struggle to balance the disparate worlds we exist in is possibly costing us more than we realise. All that time hunched over computers, skipping meals because we’re too involved in a game, or worse staying up nights communing with computers. The obvious consequence is on one’s health- we’re all university students and again we know all of this. But it doesn’t stop at that.

The way I see it, there is a larger and potentially more troubling issue. The virtual world allows us to be who we want to be. However, in the physical world, we’re rarely who we want to be. In fact, it’d be a boring world if everybody was who they wanted to be; they’d have nothing to look forward to or work towards. So given this distinction between our virtual and “real” selves, how do we figure out where our virtual selves end and our “real” selves begin? My virtual self could be in seventh heaven winning hand upon hand of poker while my real self could be in the depths of despair after messing up a bunch of midterms. What I’m getting at is that virtual reality has the potential to blur the line between worlds to the extent that one could lose touch with hardcore reality.

Our virtual existence continues long after our physical selves have turned to dust. People can write on your Facebook wall whenever they think of you, send you a virtual hug or kiss even when you’re not there anymore. It is immortality in a sense- something we’ve chased for millennia and stumbled upon without really realising. Yet, it’s taking us away from the physical world and changing who we are at the very foundations. Is this change good or bad? I don’t know!

Gods, Aliens or Others?

...which of the above applies to what celebrities are in our lives?

(NTUSU Tribune ~ Features ~ March '10)

While we worry about alien invasions and make horror movies about them (think Mars Attacks!), more impactful invasions take place everyday- Celebrity Invasions. Celebrities dominate our lives. They dictate what we wear, how we talk and what we talk about. They’re the reason we bond with people, the topic of conversation when we meet friends over lunch or run into them in the washroom. In fact there’s even a disease termed Celebrity Worship Syndrome, or CWS, in which a person becomes “overly involved with the details of a celebrity’s personal life”!

A few days back Sachin Tendulkar (a very, very famous Indian cricketer) scored a double century in a one-day international, probably the ultimate feat for cricket enthusiasts. My Facebook newsfeed contained only Sachin’s mention; a friend’s status message read, “if you don’t know who Sachin Tendulkar is, I think it’s time u say bye bye to this world” (I kid you not). People were joining groups and basically celebrating that they were alive to witness this mean feat. The thing is that I was one of the few who wasn’t following the game and so was left feeling disconnected from everyone else. I felt none of the joy, pride or sense of achievement that everybody else felt. So essentially all that did for me was to exclude me from all social conversation and keep me off Facebook for a good 24 hours. I guess what I am getting at is that your celebrity following is a determining factor in your social life. Although an example from cricket has been used to illustrate the point, the same is true of a Manchester United match, a Federer game, a Christiano Ronaldo goal or a Lady Gaga red carpet ensemble!

As an experiment just walk along a row of girls rooms in any hall in NTU and count the number of gladiator sandals you see. Various Hollywood celebrities and supermodels such as Kate Moss started the Gladiator trend a little over three years ago and it’s impossible to go a day without seeing one of them! It’s ridiculous but I have a neighbour who has five (yes, five) pairs. When I asked her about them she gave me this what’s-wrong-with-you look and simply said- “They’re in fashion”. I suppose she thought that explained it all. Besides I’m no one to judge, being guilty of owning a pair myself!

While a lot has been said about the negative impact of celebrities on our lives, the truth is that there are two sides to this coin like every other. Celebrities inspire us in ways that others cannot and make us reflect on things we’d rather ignore. When Oprah shares her struggles with her weight and how she managed to lose 20-30 pounds, we decide that we can do it as well. Suddenly, we’re exercising daily and eating healthy (at least for while) because if she can do it, so can we. Britney Spears is taken to hospital and examined for bipolar disorder. That gets us worried about our own depression and instigates a period of reflection, which would otherwise not have occurred.

That celebrities have an impact on lives is inarguable- whether we do things because they do it, or refuse to do things because they do it. However, their impact need not be entirely negative. Like everything else, it is up to us to control the ways in which they influence our lives; they can be either Gods, Aliens or others.

Science. Stand-up Comedy. What’s the Difference?!

...nothing really if you’re in the realm of the Ig Nobel Awards! Read on for a 99% guaranteed “ROFLMAO” time

Those of you who have not heard of the “IgNobel” Awards are missing out on one of the most entertaining and hilarious things in life. So allow me to enlighten you!

Imagine what would happen if the Nobels got really drunk or inhaled laughing gas. Well, they’d become the Ig Nobels (more fondly known as the Igs)! The Igs are awarded for research projects that “first make people laugh, and then make them think”. Ten projects from diverse categories receive the Igs annually at Harvard’s Sanders Theatre from actual Nobel laureates. And *cough* an ex-PM of Singapore *cough* got the 1994 *cough* Psychology Ig *cough*.

After a few sleepless and highly troubled nights spent contemplating, I present to you my top 3 Igs of all time:

1. 2001 Astrophysics- Awarded to Dr. Jack and Rexella Van Impe of Jack Van Impe Ministries, Rochester Hills, Michigan, for their discovery that black holes fulfil all the technical requirements to be the location of Hell.

At last all us sinners know where we’re headed to! And scientists no longer need to worry about why black holes exist. Phew.

2. 2009 Public Health- Dr. Elena Bodnar received the Ig for her patented invention: “a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of protective face masks.”

Who’d have though lingerie could save your life?! Now the WHO knows how to prepare for a pandemic, especially when vaccinations for diseases are unavailable or do not exist!

3. 2005 Economics- Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday. Or in our case, ensuring that people get to early morning lectures and tutorials instead of sleeping through them!

While the Igs have certainly recognised some stupendous achievements such as discovering that human beings swim with the same speed in both syrup and water and that cows with names give more milk than those without, they’ve missed out on a few crucial people. So here’s my list of nominations for the 2010 Igs...

Public Health –Mark Zuckerberg

For developing a medium for people to keep in touch with everybody without talking to or seeing them. Facebook allows one to be friends with people they would otherwise find irritating, thus reducing the incidence of psychosis. Status updates warn people to steer clear of those in bad moods, preventing temper flares and decreasing the risk of hypertension. Carpal Tunnel and backaches are a small price to pay in return.

Linguistics-Ex-President George W. Bush’s speechwriters

For their earth shattering idea to “rename” global warming “Global Climate Change”. (Really. In every single one of the President’s speeches.) I’m sure the melting Arctic ice appreciates it!

And finally....

Public Service – Jimmy Wales

For giving us Wikipedia. How else would we complete our assignments and find an avenue to unleash our inner grammar nazi? (Yes, I openly admit to doing the latter. Its therapeutic!)

TOMMROW YOUR DOG WILL EAT YOUR HOMEWORK. AND YOU WILL GET MARRIED AT 29..

Exactly how predictable is THE FUTURE?

“ Everyday millions of people get relationship and career advice from their daily horoscopes. Other fates are cast by the random selection of tarot cards. Long life can be read in the palm of a hand and good fortune in the leaves of a freshly drunk cup of tea. Crystal balls, candles, coffee grounds and fortune cookies have all been used to give people a leg up on tomorrow…”

Thus began a documentary about Nostradamus on the National Geographic Channel. The desire to predict the future has plagued us throughout our existence. We have tried every means possible – from “reading” bloody animal entrails to charting the motions of stars light years away – to fulfill this desire. However, in all of this we have assumed that it is possible to predict tomorrow sitting here today; but do the laws of nature really allow us to peer forward in time?

In the Newtonian era it was widely believed that if the initial state of all the particles in a system was known, the laws of nature would be able to predict all future states of the particles. The conclusion was that nature was predictable; we could theoretically, have prior knowledge of events. We now live in the quantum era where it is known that nature is inherently unpredictable. Given a set of initial conditions there still remain a myriad of realizable future states. We live in a world of probabilities where even the most absurd of events have finite chances of occurring. A whale could call from the sky tomorrow, although it is admittedly not very likely!

Astrology is claimed by many to be a science. Based on the relative positions of celestial bodies, astrologers give millions of believers advice on their careers, finances and relationships. But how exactly do these celestial bodies affect us? The only two known mediums by which heavenly bodies can affect us are light and gravity. Yet, the motion of people around you and the light of the sun or the ceiling light above your head ensure that any such influences are washed out. So unless there is a third unknown force besides gravity and electromagnetism, the heavens have little to do with the course of our lives.

So if the future in indeed influenced by our actions today and is not set in stone then how do so many “predictions” come true? The answer is simple – they don’t! When an astrologer or seer makes predictions, 9 out of 10 don’t come true. We just always focus on the one that seems eerily accurate. That’s just human nature. To put it another way i’ll paraphrase Stanford Professor Chip Heath:

Ways to become the next Nostradamus:

1. Write a lot. Nostradamus wrote nearly 1000 quatrains (4-lined verses). Chances are something or the other will come true!

2. Be as vague as you can while making specific references. The more leeway there is for interpretation, the higher the chance that something can be interpreted as having being ‘foretold’.

3. Talk about negative aspects such as death and destruction. We love to hear that!

Tempting as it might be to blame the Fates or the heavens for things gone awry, they are apparently not at fault. And disconcerting as it might be the future might just be determined by a series of actions and decisions.

SHOULD ELECTIVES BE NON-EXAMINABLE?

Does the graded examination of electives result in a negation of their intended purpose?

Electives are a way to ensure that we obtain a “holistic” or “well-rounded” education. However, the only consideration we have when taking electives is that they should maximise our GPA while minimising our workloads! What is evident is that electives largely fail to achieve the idealistic objectives expected of them.

A while back I was talking to a friend on a similar subject, and he said to me- “I enjoy electives, but not if they are examinable!” On thinking about it, I realised that he’d hit the nail on the head. The reason that electives are not serving the purpose that they should is that the consideration of GPA and workloads overshadows every other consideration on this subject. It is logical to extend this line of thought and wonder whether it would help if the only motivation for taking up electives was to be one’s own interest in the subject matter.

One way to ensure that we take up electives out of interest is to make them non-examinable. Without the stress and pressure of exams, we would be able to enjoy the subject. Perhaps we’d even learn more than what we would by adopting an exam-oriented approach to the subject, thus contributing to a more holistic education.

The glaring problem with the abovementioned scenario is the absence of a quantitative method of assessing the knowledge uptake of the student. While making electives non-examinable removes all other motivations for taking up electives, save an interest in the elective, it also removes the quantitative basis we commonly employ for evaluation. However, a qualitative assessment of the proficiency of students is still possible, which cannot be included in GPA computation. If the intended objective of having electives is to give students a broad perspective and an extensive knowledge base, it should not be necessary to include electives in GPA computation (of course people who tend to perform better in their electives than in their ‘cores’ would disagree!).

While the opinions expressed in this article may seem preposterous, the objective is to ensure that taking up electives does not remain a search for GPA maximisation instead of knowledge gain.

MORE INFORMATION = SMARTER OR DUMBER?

A different perspective on the impact of the internet on our lives...

Yes the same clichéd subject. Who hasn’t heard of this debate? Is the plethora of information we are exposed to via the medium of the internet making us smarter, or dumber?

People who believe that the availability of a seemingly never-ending sea of information is causing us to drown in that very sea, blame it on the specificity and partitioning of information found online. Before such technology was invented, one would spend hours searching for the piece of desired information. During these hours he would pick up various pieces of information that he came across unintentionally. Moreover, the contextualisation of this information would imply that it would be less likely to be misinterpreted. Thus the absence of specificity and partitioning could actually lead to a greater uptake of accurate information.

Proponents of the view that the ease of access to a humungous quantity of information does indeed make us smarter argue that the efficiency and ease with which we can obtain information results in a more knowledgeable society. The sheer amount of time we save when searching for information since the invention and development of the World Wide Web is truly amazing. This should then make more people want to put in the effort (which is minimal anyway!) to search for desired information and thus lead to a smarter society on the whole.

While there are myriad views on this subject, all with some validity, I’d like to argue that the availability of information is not making us smarter or dumber. Having access to information about any subject under the Sun gives us the option of choosing the object of our attention. While some of us choose to read up on world politics and the latest developments in science, others choose to read their friends’ wall-posts and status updates on ‘facebook’. On the whole we still possess an exponentially greater quantity of information than we did a few decades, or even a few years back. The real question is whether this increase in information content is desirable or not; Is it simply an increase in quantity without much regard for quality?