A picture is worth only a thousand words

I spent the morning looking at a colleague’s photos from his trip to Europe. When he couldn’t answer some questions about the locations in the photos, another colleague quoted Paul Theroux’s whimsical comment, “The traveller doesn’t know where he is going, while the tourist doesn’t know where he has been.” (Incidentally, Paul Theroux wrote The Cerebral Snapshot, a charming essay I wish I could say this blog is named after.)

We all concluded that it is difficult to visit places with such rich histories when we know little about the places and in the rush of tour groups. Most photos were snapped in a mad rush, hoping to capture as many things as possible. After all, everyone wants to come home with some tangible memories to show, and the last thing we want is to be at a loss of words to describe what we have experienced to friends.

It is exactly what Theroux very eloquently wrote in The Cerebral Snapshot, where he described how he has tried in vain to explain in words the scene of three dozen doves spilling out of an old Italian cathedral, and how his friend took many pictures of galloping giraffes only to realize he has not actually seen the majestic scene.

No camera is like no hands, a feat of skill. And if you know that sooner or later you will have to explain it all, without benefit of slides or album, to your large family, then as soon as you see something you start searching the view for clues and rummaging through your lexical baggages for the right phrases.

After all, Theroux concludes that “a picture is worth only a thousand or so words”.

In the midst of an obsession with bigger and better cameras, we forget we might have missed out a lot in our trigger happiness. Today’s reminder came at exactly the right time, after I had so much fun playing with a friend’s SLR camera last night and promised myself one once I earn my first pot of gold.

While listening to a photo enthusiast friend explain the types of lenses on a camera and what functions they give last night, I remembered something a biology teacher once told me. She said that our eyes are perhaps the most advanced optical instrument around, for unlike cameras that cannot focus on an object and blur out everything else, our eyes can easily do that, all the time. My friend told me how regular point-and-shoot cameras cannot achieve that effect which is why we all need those expensive lenses. Or do we?

Considering there is still no technology to print cerebral snapshots (is there?), cameras are still fantastic. Seeing things through lenses which frame up the picture and cut out distractions is also an entirely different experience from what our all-seeing eyes are used to.

Despite so, there are some lessons from today and yesterday’s experience – traveling means nothing when there is no knowledge of the places we visit, and taking pictures means nothing when we do not see what we are taking.

Time to start reading up on the US for the upcoming graduation trip. Time to start applying this on my Singapore tour trips too. 

Now, I truly understand the need to plan, at least for a long overseas trip. Traveller or Tourist, we really do need to know where we are going and where we have been.

Non-virus striken happiness is overrated

Affluenza by Oliver James is another book I picked up this holidays. Sadly, it’s a huge disappointment, at least that first half I’ve read.

Maybe it’s the topic. When you write about “why we are better off now but not as happy and what we can do about it”, it’s pretty tough to come out with some insights on why we are so screwed up and let all us unhappy “virus-striken” (as James calls it) poor souls in on that great secret – assuming there is a secret, and assuming you know about it.

I began reading this book expecting it to be something good because in James’ prologue, he mentioned how he was paid a sum upfront to travel many places and interview many people for his book. He did mention a detailed report of his research published somewhere else (and I noticed some correlation statistics in the appendix), but rigorous research is not to be found in this book.

In fact, there were many times when I thought I just have to read this book as an opinion piece about something the author passionately believes in, instead of a well-researched book aimed at informing.

I began finding it difficult to take him seriously when he repeatedly refer to Lee Kuan Yew as “Lee Kuan” in his book. Has Mr. Lee gotten a new nickname, or is James, despite all his credentials and travels, completely misinformed about Chinese naming conventions?

The part that had me attempting a non-voluntary single eyebrow raise in a public bus was when he tried to explain the difference between the level of emotional distress between Shanghainese and Singaporeans. He wrote, “This cannot be down to genes, because 70 percent of Singaporeans are of Chinese genetic stock.” By that argument, it would also mean that obesity cannot be down to genes because people who have easy access to food are more prone to obesity than people from the same race located in a famine-striken place. Right, so genetic causes (or any other causation factor) can always be ruled out if there are other reasons, especially if that other reason is obvious.

In most of his book, he explains and supports his arguments by bringing out excerpts of what people he interviewed told him, and psychoanalyzing what they say so it supports what he wants to explain. And then he generalizes it to the population. I hope the detailed research report he has is different.

In short, what James argues for in his book is this: People in developed nations are less happy because they are often hankering for material goods that enhance their social status. There is an obsession with “having” rather than “being”. If we can be self-motivated and align our reasons for obtaining material goods with intrinsic beliefs and personal satisfaction, we will happy and contented instead of being depressed and screwed up while busy keeping up with the Joneses.

That is a convincing argument. If all you ever cared about is whether other people (especially unimportant people) like what you wear and where you live, you must be very unhappy if someone is unimpressed or if someone has something better. Now if you start doing only the things that please you without a care in the world about what other people think, then you will be a very happy soul.

That has to be the case, because you are only as happy as your expectations - you think your dress looks good, so you feel happy wearing it. If you start realizing that what you think is wrong, and you start noticing the flaws and imperfections, then you will be sorely disappointed and very very unhappy unless all that imperfection is rectified.

This reminds me of another Calvin & Hobbes quote. “So the secret to good self-esteem is to lower your expectations to the point where they’re already met?”

The truth is, we live in a society. And in a society where we are not alone, we compare with each other and we are influenced by social values and social norms. I don’t think it takes a sociologist to tell us that.

It is extremely difficult to keep to our own ideals and values, and it is impossible to tell which of these ideals and values are self-induced or planted into our heads by our upbringing, education and the general environment we live in.

Besides, where’s the fun in stubbornly sticking to our own ideas? We live to compare, compete and to bounce ideas off each other. I may say, “I think this dress is good enough.” And then someone will tell me, “No, the patterns don’t match across the seams. That’s bad workmanship. Look at my dress, isn’t it much better?” Sure, my ego takes a hit. How could I have been so happy with it when the problem is so blatant? I would be extremely unhappy knowing that I could have something better.

James would probably say, who says the patterns must match across the seams? What if I do like that mismatched pattern which you call bad workmanship, and it does make me very happy to have something different? Well then, I can’t argue against that. You can stick with it.

It’s just me and my warped belief that I cannot be ignorantly and ambitionless-ly happy. Yes, that means that even if I do like that mismatched pattern on my dress, but if it was merely a fortunate mistake in the tailor’s bad workmanship, I would rather be unhappy with that knowledge and a thirst for something better, than be mindlessly happy about something that intrinsically appeals to me.

I say, happiness is overrated. Go ahead James, psychoanalyze me. I’m a Singaporean too, by the way.

Sure, I don’t want to be unhappy all the time. (James’ examples often involve people who seemed clinically depressed.) But I’m sure all of us can live with some unhappiness. That’s what makes the upside sweet.

Besides, like I’ve written before, it’s too easy to be happy. Listening to a good piece of music makes me happy, achieving something new makes me happy, giving and receiving a small favor makes me happy. Oh yes, there are plenty of secular pleasures too. Indulging myself with a new item I don’t exactly need makes me very happy and I am very much entertained by mindless commercial flicks, including “Sex and the City” which James seems to dislike a lot. Reading James’ book also leaves me quite amused, and so I would say, rather happy.

On the other hand, being unhappy is a challenge. It means sticking your neck out of the comfortable box you’re in and putting your ideas and values out to be compared, discussed and possibly trampled on.

So would I “trade up” that knowledge of the imperfections, the fun in competition and the drive for something better for a contented and happy life? Hell no.

Oracular Spectacular

I first came across MGMT’s Time to Pretend in Time’s Top 10 Songs of 2008. When listening  to the first verse, I was really apprehensive about it(especially after really disliking the top song on that list), Time to Pretend sounded like yet another Nickelback “I wanna be a rockstar” song – fun, catchy and feel-good but nothing more than a party flick. I was wrong.

With clues from the all important line “We’re fated to pretend” and the second verse,

I’ll miss the playgrounds and the animals and digging up worms
I’ll miss the comfort of my mother and the weight of the world
I’ll miss my sister, miss my father, miss my dog and my home
Yeah, I’ll miss the boredom and the freedom and the time spent alone.

I realized that there’s much more to this song.

Time to Pretend is really one big satire, and a brilliantly sarcastic one too. As an emerging band, MGMT puts up an outright mockery of the established institution of “Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll”, positing themselves as a progressive band not tied down by the existing screwed up commercial show business.

What is more impressive about this band is the originality of their song style. It is original to the point of being genre-less. Perhaps the closest I can put it is Psychedelic with a touch of Electronica – think Pink Floyd meets Pet Shop Boys. Everything I can see about MGMT is outlandish, out of this world even, but there is a feel of genuineness in their music, rather than a mere attempt to shock and just be different.

MGMT is about change and progressiveness, hopefully for the better. It is not surprising that BBC named them as one of the top ten artists to watch. This looks like a band that is either going to fade into obscurity after one good single and debut album, or it’ll make it big.

I’ve not listened to their entire album yet, but a few that caught my ears are The Youth, which speaks about a changed generation, and Kids, which I see as a subtle song on environmental conservation.

Innovative music and thoughtful lyrics, there’s hope for 21st century pop.

Fooling Around with Randomness

About a book: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Although Taleb (very arrogantly) stated that unsolidated reviews, especially by unqualified people, are entirely unwelcomed, here’s me talking about his book anyway. Since he has also (quite accurately) pointed out that any measurements of a table done by a badly calibrated ruler is equivalent to using the table to measure the ruler, I will blatantly write as the ruler being measured by the table – I’ll state why I like his book. In no particular order,

I enjoy the subtleties

The Table that out-measures many Rulers – Taleb must be a table right? And definitely, a stool won’t be an appropriate object to use in this analogy.

Nero Tulip, the trader who outlived many high-flyers in a treacherous trading life - anything to prove, Nassim Taleb?

I agree

“I despise the moralizers beyond anything on this planet…” Well there might be things or people worse than moralizers, but moralizers are about the most irritating (and probably misguided) people around. If moral values were so clear cut, “controversy” won’t be in our dictionaries.

He’s skeptical about scientific findings. I love scientific findings, some are funny to quote, most sound intelligent enough to appear in reports, but will I bet my life on a published statistic or correlation? Hell no. The “scientific proofs” that support the hypothesis are the ones that will be published. Statistics can be calculated/interpreted to fit a requirement. Most quantified correlations are not meaningful, those that are will already be logically obvious.

He hates self-help books and people who tell you to brush your teeth. If I thought self-help books will actually help me, I would listen to my mother’s nagging.

Hindsight bias could be more rampant than we think. I always listen to what people attribute to their success with a pinch of salt. I’m especially skeptical when people tell me ”Warren Buffett is doing it/has done it too”. Taleb attributes a lot of insanely successful projects to randomness (black swans). Well, I believe randomness/luck definitely has a large part to play. But even if luck is not the reason, what we (on hindsight) think is the reason behind our success may not really be the reason. Most of the “how I became successful” cannot be repeated in the same environment many times to test its validity. And we certainly cannot use the strategy in everchanging real life situations while expecting to obtain the same success. So unless it’s some down-to-earth advice like “work hard” or “the chances of getting a job increases dramatically after you send in an application”, fancy strategies generally don’t stick with me.

Taleb argues that the eventual performance cannot be used to judge the validity of the strategy. It’s not very intuitive, but if you think about it, certainly true. If I bought a lottery ticket and won, does that mean I should always buy loterry tickets? Sure, not all things in life are governed by pure randomness like the lottery, but the popular advice of “taking chances” is dangerous advice. By starting a niche business, I could either strike it rich or be bankrupted. Who knows the chances? Although ships are not made for staying in the harbour, they’re not meant to be crashed either.

I found out that I could be…

An above average driver – There’s that frequently quoted proof of self-delusion where a (possibly mythical) survey showed that more than 50% of people believe that they are above average drivers. Turns out it’s entirely possible. If most people are good drivers, but there exists a small amount of impossibly bad drivers (say, we measure the driving skills of drunk drivers), then the average could be something that more than half the people are above. (Taleb didn’t talk about drivers, he showed how more than 50% of the individuals can be wealthier than average). Why didn’t I think about this earlier? I could have outsmarted some professors.

Smarter than my doctor – Here’s a probability question that actually appeared in one of my notes (but I didn’t pay attention to it because I was too turned off by the mathematical notations). If the probability that a diagnostic test says that you have a disease when you don’t is 5%, and 1 in 1000 people in a population has this disease, what’s the probability of you having the disease if the test says you’re positive? According to Taleb, most doctors think it’s 95%. It’s not. The answer is actually less than 2%, ask your doctor to rerun the test.

I enjoy the honest arrogance

Despite repeated mentions that his only advantage is in knowing his fallibilities and weaknesses, there is no attempt to mask how much he thinks he’s better off than a lot of people. It’s funny how those people who believe that “only fools are sure of themselves” are so sure of skepticism.

Touring Singapore

Some time ago, friend and I had a plan to tour Singapore and take gorgeous pictures of the things that are most distinctively her. Finally, armed with our trusty point-and-shoot cameras and true tourist mentality, we took the first step of our adventure last Saturday.

First stops: The Bras Basah, Selegie, Bencoolen, Fort Canning area.

This coming Saturday: Chinese Garden, Jurong Bird Park.

Don’t try to book me for anything on the coming Saturdays, I’ve got a country to explore.

All will documented at Singapore on Foot.