Fresh Brainz

Why Societies Collapse

2009-11-06T17:49:00.004+08:00

Interesting TED talk by Professor Jared Diamond, better known for his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

1. "One interesting common thread has to do with, in many cases, the rapidity of collapse after a society reaches its peak. There are many societies that don't wind down gradually, but they build up, get richer and more powerful, and then within a short time, within a few decades after their peak, they collapse."

2. "One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely, is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interest of the decision-making elites, and the long-term interest of the society as a whole. Especially if the elites are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions."

I am concerned with situations where a leadership class sets the society on a unsustainable trajectory that results in a rapid collapse of the whole system in a matter of decades.

This is especially worrying when the decision-makers are insulated from the consequences of their actions, therefore there is no feedback inhibition to reduce or stop their damaging policies.

If Corporations Can Do It, So Can You!

2009-11-03T18:04:00.002+08:00

Some things in life are really weird if you think about them a little.

More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas

You can outsource your work to a cheaper party, but then who would want to hire you?

It doesn't make sense for individuals, but somehow, it works for companies and countries.

More, More, Not Enough, Still Not Enough

2009-10-17T21:18:00.004+08:00

If you like the webcomic "Cyanide and Happiness", you may like their latest short video:

As some guy once said: "Success is a menace. It fools smart people into thinking that they can't lose."

Some William guy.

Wrong Department

2009-10-17T09:41:00.005+08:00

Whenever you face difficult problems in life, whenever the situation seems to be bleak and hopeless, whenever you need a shoulder to cry on, just remember - there will always be someone there for you...

... the Tech Support guy.

I don't know which is funnier, the fact that the lady thought that "support" was the place to voice her relationship woes, or that the respondent thought that to file for divorce is to "sue the shit out of the guy".

Whichever it is, here at Fresh Brainz we believe that the truth is always funnier.

The Magic Is In The Implementation

2009-10-09T12:56:00.003+08:00

Here is a beautiful rendition of the classic "Blue Room" stage illusion which shocked and mesmerised audiences when it was first shown in 1878.

The magic is in the implementation.

Can Delusions Be True?

2009-09-28T10:54:00.004+08:00

YouTube skeptic Nykytyne2 discusses the definition of the word "delusion", and some nuances of its meaning.

I like the clarity of his thought process and I find two aspects of his analysis especially interesting.

1. The Importance of Social/Cultural Context on Mental Disorders

Mental illness is often considered to be a problem within an individual himself or herself, but here it is clear from the DSM-IV that social/cultural norms is a major component of the definition of delusion.

Actually, if you think about it further, social norms and expectations are a big part in the definition of any disease!

Imagine a group of people who spend most of their lives in dark caves, searching for food and communicating via sound and touch. Loss of sight due to eye injury would be a minor inconvenience, not a serious pathology.

Conversely, imagine another group of people who for some historical or religious reasons find freckles to be absolutely vile and diabolical. They would shield children from sunlight to avoid the formation of freckles and advocate aggressive treatment once the freckles develop. Scarring caused by freckle removal is more culturally acceptable than the freckles themselves. In such a case, the term "freckles" would be defined as a serious skin condition, a type of disease.

2. The Importance of End Result in Social Perception

I find it fascinating that delusions can be about things that might eventually be shown to be true, like the micro-organism example mentioned in the video. So to Nykytyne2, the thought process is more important than the result when trying to determine if a belief is a delusion.

Still, an army friend once told me, "Money talks. Bullshit walks." For many people, the end result is of paramount importance, whereas the means is not so important or relevant.

But how can you get a "result" without a process?

This differing appraisal of a goal-directed process is very personality-dependent thing; there are people who are impressed by wealth and power and instantly confer respect based on these results, while there are others who cannot confer respect no matter the wealth and power, unless the process used to achieve the results are impressive.

For example -

a. Someone might say: "Hats off to Larry. He caught my heart. He has 12 billion Dollars and is the Head of a big company."

And the other might say: "Hellooo... he is an investment BANKER! He'll tell you lies, and then it's your turn to CRY CRY CRY-Y."

Alternatively -

b. Someone: "She's not an actor, she's not a star. She doesn't even have her own car. Therefore she is a loser, QED."

Other: "Not only that, she also tried unsuccessfully to be a pole dancer. That's why I'm hoping so much she'll stay. And that she'll love me anyway."

**********

Wait, that doesn't sound right.

I wanted to write some sort of MacGyver story for Example b, but I heard singing in my head and wrote that down instead.

Was that an auditory illusion?

*gobbles a handful of pills*

Shutters Shutters Everywhere

2009-09-15T12:34:00.002+08:00

The financial markets, energy prices and real estate prices are soaring.

Is the actual economy recovering?

Someone once said that you can't tell that Singapore is going through a recession because the central shopping districts are always packed with people.

Here at Fresh Brainz, we know that downtown malls are frequented by the rich and thus are not representative of the state of the economy in general.

Moreover, we have long realized that window shopping is free and thus you can't assume that everything is normal-normal simply because there are lots of people (penniless? heavily in debt?) walking around.

To know what is going on, you have to open your eyes and actually look at how the retailers are doing...

Business Vs Science: A Dash Of Gold

2009-09-13T09:41:00.004+08:00

Lab results are usually boring documents of jargon and numbers that only experts can appreciate.

So when would business people and investors be "excited" about scientists and their lab results?

When the scientist is a geologist, and the lab results are about the amount of gold deposits at a site.

**********

In 1993, geologist Michael de Guzman, project manager of Bre-X Minerals Ltd, discovered some gold near Busang River in Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Estimates of the gold deposits gradually rose from 2 million ounces to a massive 70 million ounces (~1984 tonnes), and consequentially Bre-X expanded from a penny stock into a 6-billion-Canadian-dollar company with a peak stock price of CAD $286.50 (over 10,000% increase in two years!)

Then, in 1997, the company collapsed. Bre-X filed for bankruptcy and billions of dollars of investor funds went up in smoke.

And the term "Bre-X" became synonymous with one of the biggest mining frauds in history.

Check out this documentary for a quick (and slightly over-dramatized) overview of the entire affair:

Masterminds - Fool's Gold Part 2 of 3

Masterminds - Fool's Gold Part 3 of 3

To me, two segments from the documentary are especially interesting -

1. Andrew Willis: "There was always some science backing up this fraud."

2. Narrator :"For years, de Guzman struggles for recognition in an industry dominated by large American mining companies."

Andrew Willis: "Mike de Guzman knew he was smart, he had fabulous marks, he had an engineering degree, but he never got a great job, he never got a crack at a great job. It's very difficult for the Filipinos, even with extremely good engineering training, to get senior jobs with the big mining companies."

Narrator: "While exploring the jungles of Borneo, de Guzman devises a plan to make himself rich. Unable to get the support he needs to find a gold mine, he decides to invent one."

Here's another interesting exerpt from an article entitled "The mystery of Michael de Guzman" -

3. By 1993, de Guzman was heading up the site for Walsh's Bre-X Minerals as the company's exploration manager in Indonesia.

At one point, it appeared as though the Canadians were preparing to pull the plug on the expensive -- and fruitless -- exploration.

De Guzman pleaded with Felderhof for more time and soon, Busang's drilling results turned up stunning levels of gold.

"We almost closed the property," de Guzman told Fortune Magazine in 1997, before the scandal erupted.

"In December 1993, John said, 'Close the property,' and then we made the hit."

**********

When business collides with science, when one person's ambition is repeatedly met with denied opportunities and rejection, when desperation coincides with brilliance and creativity...

Who can predict what happens next?

Would you like to know more?

About the Bre-X scandal:
- The mystery of Michael de Guzman (Canada.com)
- Stranger than Fiction: The Bre-X Gold Scandal (CBC Digital Archives)

About other cases of fraud:
- Scientists Who Cheat

About business vs science:
- Was It The Publication Record?
- War Between Business And Science

War Between Business And Science

2009-09-04T09:55:00.014+08:00

Have you ever wondered why billionaire talkshow diva Oprah Winfrey is so well respected by business professionals but almost universally disliked by scientific professionals?

Check out what a Harvard Business School Professor has to say about her:

""Still, when Professor Nancy Koehn introduced her guest on the last day of class this past spring, "everyone did a double take," Koehn recalls. Oprah Winfrey was in the house.

How the icon of daytime television and chief executive of a major media empire came to HBS after three years of effort is a story in itself. And what she told students brought them a unique perspective about leaders and leadership in the twenty-first century. "I think she's a great bellwether for the future of business," Koehn says. "Maybe she and her organization are on a path that a lot of leaders and organizations are going to be on.""

Compare and contrast that appraisal with this view from medical doctor David Gorski:

"Personally, I have no problem with Oprah’s level of success. Clearly, she is a very talented and savvy TV host and businesswoman.

Unfortunately, in marked contrast, Oprah has about as close to no critical thinking skills when it comes to science and medicine as I’ve ever seen, and she uses the vast power and influence her TV show and media empire give her in order to subject the world to her special brand of mystical New Age thinking and belief in various forms of what can only be characterized as dubious medical therapies at best and quackery at worst. Arguably there is no single person in the world with more influence pushing woo than Oprah."

Do you know why Oprah seems to be so intent on supporting dubious medical therapies?

Here at Fresh Brainz, I've had the misfortune of being trained in BOTH science and business, so let me give you my own analysis of what is going on...

**********

When you hear the word "science" or "evidence-based medicine" what does it mean to YOU?

Maybe you associate those words with a method of discovering facts and building theories by making observations, doing experiments/testing treatments, interpreting results and checking for biological significance/inherent biases/alternative explanations etc.

In other words, a careful method of learning about reality.

Or maybe you associate these words with large bureaucratic organizations/corporations, expensive machines, committees of powerful old men, obsession over meaningless details, close-mindedness and arrogance.

In other words, "wasting" tonnes of money to investigate the details of Nature that nobody else cares about, or a giant corporate machine that creates an incredibly high entry barrier so that only it alone can rake in the big bucks.

The reality is that modern scientific research is very expensive.

The days of the lone microscopist making a significant finding are numbered (though probably not true for the lone amateur astronomer). You can recycle fashion trends every two decades, but you can only make a scientific discovery once.

The "cheap" science, the "small" science; they have already been done by people in the past.

To do big science today, you need more than fancy degrees from a brand name school.

You also need big money.

That represents a very high entry barrier. You want to map the human transcriptome? Perform a large-scale clinical trial? Only governments and multinational corporations have that kind of money.

Moreover, from a purely business perspective, scientific research represents a weak return on investment.

Practically all curiosity-driven basic research has no chance of making money directly, while only a small proportion of biomed/biotech research will ever reach profitability. Even if you can come up with a technology or treatment with promising biological effectiveness, it will still have to face years of regulatory hurdles, as well as market pressures, before it can start raking in the dollars.

Clinical research is obviously nearer to practical applications, but only big companies have the resources to conduct large-scale trials. If you intend to invest money in a big, well-established pharma company, you can't expect to make much more than an incremental gain of around 10% yearly.

That is because most of the company's growth is already over, during its infancy - but that was also the riskiest stage of its development.

So what do you do if you are an ambitious young person who wants to build a successful business, preferably within your own lifetime?

Here's one way of doing it:

You take a fucking chance.

Governments and Big Pharma don't talk to nobodies. So you talk to much smaller players - obscure new outfits, individual inventors, alternative medicine practitioners, motivational gurus, unknown book authors...

It doesn't matter what they do, as long as you can identify the potential for a powerful social impact.

You have to understand the needs and desires of regular people, work closely with those who claim to have just the solution that the people need, and then promote their special solution confidently to the world.

The highest growth potential comes from untested small players, thus you should try to seek them out and grow with them. Remember that when blue chips rise by a few dollars it's only a percentage gain, but when a penny stock rises by a few dollars, it has increased its value by a FEW FOLD. The returns on investment can be tremendous.

However, penny stocks are very risky. Similarly, if you constantly align yourself with mystics and alternative healers, you might open the doors not only to harmless crackpots, but deliberate frauds and pranksters as well. This can have a negative effect, both on your bottomline and on your reputation.

Fortunately, if you were NOT trained in science, you don't have to dwell on it. Just disassociate yourself from any negative incidents, and move on. Your target audience won't know the difference anyway and won't expect you to be scientifically accurate. Academics may protest but you can always appeal to the anti-establishment sentiments of your supporters!

It's more important to get the timing right and seize an opportunity quickly, than to be factually correct or even conceptually consistent.

Remember that your goal is commerce, not science. More human than human should be your motto - it's about selling a hyperreality to the masses. Nobody will give you a single cent more for being too truthful or too careful.

In fact, in Oprah's case, she often seems to act first and check later!

This can be clearly seen from the site "Top 12 Oprah Mistakes, Lies and Embarrassments". The writer concluded that (emphasis mine) :

"In a long and extraordinarily successful career, Oprah Winfrey has often been wrong, but she rarely, if ever, conveys uncertainty. She’s admitted to having used cocaine in her 20s, under the influence of her then-boyfriend. She’s made questionable diet and health choices and presented each one to the world as a wonderful new discovery, only to change programs, beliefs and approaches. She’s invited at least two blatant frauds to share their stories with the world on her show, and has encouraged us to buy books full of lies and health products with no proven benefits. She is, in short, wrong quite a lot. And that’s okay. Most of us are. Most of us, though, don’t have millions of people accepting our every word as gospel. That should inspire a person to choose her words with a bit more care."

Note that uncertainty and persistence is the bread and butter of scientific research, whereas unshakeable confidence and flexibility is an indispensible aspect of business enterprise.

Also, Dr. Gorski may wonder why Oprah is successful despite her apparent lack of critical thinking, but in contrast, I find it hard to see how Oprah could have succeeded if she was saddled with critical thought!

**********

"Science" means something different from an academic or business perspective. It is both a method and an industry; an endeavour of individual effort and organizational strategy.

To make money directly from science is a difficult challenge because there are many contradictory skillsets between business professionals and scientific professionals.

But ultimately, in any organization somebody has to be the one to make the big decisions.

What if you spent your entire life training to become a scientist, only to realize that somebody who is neither interested in your research nor even appreciates its significance actually has more power over your research direction, your lab and your whole career than you yourself?

Conversely, what if you were a business-trained manager who was told that science was just another area of business, only to realize that research routinely spends far more money than it can ever generate, and because of the increasing pressure to achieve a better return on investment, you now have to convince over 1,000 disgruntled PhDs that all big science decisions have to be made by you yourself?

Those are interesting, academic questions.

Perhaps not academic for long.

Would you like to know more?

About an Assoc. Prof. who became a taxi driver:
- Was It The Publication Record?

We Can Simulate Your Marriage Wholesale

2009-09-03T16:40:00.007+08:00

Just came across this nice romantic flick with an interesting sci-fi twist...

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Ok, now that you've wiped your tears dry and snorted your nose juice down your throat, it's my duty as the resident spoilsport to inform you that:

1. Memories can't be implanted directly into the brain like that because the brain doesn't really have a central, fixed location where all the memories get stored. Also, unless you intend to cut a big hole on the back of someone's skull, the only way for a person to "experience" a VR is to actually put on sensory devices such as goggles, headphones... and Sogo-7 data gloves.

2. Complex systems are not predictable to the same extent that simple systems (eg. traffic patterns) can be. Thus it is not possible to produce an accurate simulation of a relationship by only plugging in the subjects' DNA and personality profiles, while ignoring other important factors such as the environment (eg. economic downturn leading to loss of job). Even if that was possible, at best the simulation can only be probabilistic, because a confluence of small factors can result in some emergent, opposite effect.

I know you don't care.

Would you like to know more?

Another movie about people getting their minds fucked:
- Total Recall (YouTube)

Looking Inside The Human Body At SGH

2009-08-30T16:46:00.004+08:00

I received this information from an old friend regarding a science.09 event at the Singapore General Hospital. If you are free this coming Saturday, why not bring your family along and check it out?

**********

Division of Surgery presents

"Looking inside the Human Body - Science Fair @ SGH"

"Looking Inside the Human Body" is a Science fair organised by Singapore
General Hospital's Division of Surgery in conjunction Singapore Science
Centre's annual science festival, science.09. The fair will feature
hands-on activities showing the inner workings of the hospital and
demonstrating key surgical principles, and will promise hours of fun for
you & your family!

Experience how our surgeons train in keyhole surgeries! Be involved in
saving a heart attack patient! Pick out your favouriate hearing aid and
cosmetic implants! And fill your goodie bags with souvenirs and prizes!!

No registration required.

Please help to disseminate this to your staff who have no access to email.

See you at the Fair!

**********

Let the kids have some hands-on fun - who knows, one of them may grow up to become a doctor... or even an angry doc!

Would like to know more?

A previous science.09 event:
- Exclusive Interview With Dr. Bunhead

South Korea Launches Naro-1 Rocket

2009-08-26T03:31:00.007+08:00

Yesterday, South Korea launched their first Naro-1 (also called KSLV-1) rocket from Naro Space Centre at Goheung.

Technically it was a cooperative effort with the Russians who designed and built the first stage of the rocket, while the Koreans built the second stage and its payload, the STSAT-2 satellite.

Check out the launch video:

One of the scariest launches I've seen so far!

The vehicle leans to the right immediately after lift-off and then makes a sharp correction to the left.

Not sure why this happened but I'm guessing that the gantry arm might have something to do with it; a video taken from another angle showed the rocket leaning away when released from the gantry.

In any case the rocket managed to reach space, but the satellite was sent to a maximum height of 342 km, which is higher than its planned orbit at 306 km. Some news sources report this as "overshooting the orbit" or "higher orbit" or "incorrect orbit" but I think it's more likely that the flight path was too elliptical to even make one complete orbit.

According to Reuters, South Korea's space agency had tried to play down expectations, saying that only about 30 percent of countries' first attempts to put a satellite into orbit succeed. Their officials have called this project a "partial success".

*Update: The satellite failed to reach orbit because one of the two fairings that covered it during the atmospheric phase did not fall off properly, causing the rocket to pitch up and also to lose too much speed to enter orbit (S. Korean Satellite Lost After Flawed Launch - Korea Times).

Would you like to know more?

- Latest updates: KSLV-1 launch (NASA spaceflight forum)
- Satellite Fails to Enter Orbit (The Korea Times)

Photo Gallery Fourteen

2009-08-23T11:57:00.009+08:00

The photos for this week's gallery were not chosen for any artistic quality, but for their ability to mildly amuse me.

I hope that they will make you smirk too - in a "heh" sort of way.

Heh.

Chope
(2009) Fuji J10

Someone dropped a tissue paper pack - at a strangely appropriate place.

Clumsiness
(2009) Fuji J10

Hmm... think I might go for the chance to excel in clumsiness and learning disability...

Giant loaf
(2009) Fuji J10

Now all we need is a giant jar of kaya.

Manicure disaster
(2009) Fuji S6500fd

"See! I TOLD you to leave it to the professionals!"

Moustaches and women
(2009) Fuji S6500fd

The main thing that define the 1980s is Mario... and Luigi.

TWO things that define the eighties - Mario, Luigi... and Tom Selleck.

Wait... THREE things that define the eighties include Mario, Luigi, Tom Selleck... and George Lam.

No, amongst the things that define the eighties are such things as Mario...

I'll come in again...

Moving on
(2009) Sony Ericsson K630i

Whatever happened, it's time to move on...

Throw Felicia
(2009) Sony Ericsson K630i

Why Felicia? What did she do to you?

Would you like to know more?
- Photo Gallery Thirteen

Was It The Publication Record?

2009-08-20T21:36:00.009+08:00

I must say that I find Dr. Cai Mingjie's blog "A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary" an interesting and engaging read.

It is a brutally honest account of a new taxi driver trying to make a living on the roads of Singapore.

But after reading his posts, most readers would undoubtedly ponder the question:

What happened?

How did an Associate Professor become a taxi driver?

Prominent blogger AcidFlask has a hunch; he examined Dr. Cai's publication record and found that Dr. Cai published a total of 16 papers (14, plus two more discovered by his commenters) in 16 years.

He felt that:

"With that in mind, it becomes a damning fact that Dr. Cai only has 14 publications to his name since joining the IMCB 16 years ago. Going only by that criterion of quantity, publishing less than one paper a year makes for a truly unimpressive publication record. But just about every practicing scientist knows that despite the current pressure to publish or perish, science and research isn’t (entirely) about churning out more and more papers, and the number of papers that can attributed to one’s name is not necessarily a good measure of a scientist’s productivity."

While AcidFlask acknowledges that there could be many other plausible factors leading to Dr. Cai's contract termination, one of his commenters is much, much less charitable...

#4 by i am not that great at August 19th, 2009:

"i don’t think it is that worth defending him per se. in the current competitive research environment, his publication record in 16 years probably only speaks of one thing – he is working in a very sheltered environment in which he does not have to fight for funding, and he is very comfortable in it.

i didn’t go that in depth into digging up his past papers, but my impression from his pubmed-searchable papers is that – his lab didn’t actually grow that much in the 16 years, and he does not have collaborators.

if he had worked in the states, and if he had been so comfortable with himself, he wouldn’t have survived the assistant professor stage. he probably is indeed a good scientist, but the environment spolit him. and when imcb’s culture changed, he didn’t realise it and he didn’t change, and he got killed.

hence, regardless of what measure a*star uses to judge the performance of its employees, he would still have been killed. face it, even in the US, if you are a young professor, you will have to work for money. if you apply for funding from ACS, you ought to package your work around cancer. it is a fact of life. if you work in a*star, you will have to make those guys that give you money happy. it is a different story if you are tenured, but obviously that guy is not…!"

**********

So, was it his publication record that ended Dr. Cai's appointment?

Here at Fresh Brainz, we are outsiders to this issue.

Moreover any single case is always a "unique" case.

However, Dr. Cai was not the only Principal Investigator who was affected.

When there is more than one case, an opportunity to learn more about the truth surfaces.

In Dr. Cai's blog a commenter by the name of Xinmin (most likely A/Prof. Cao Xinmin) left this comment:

Xinmin said...

"I read your article with tears. At the beginning, I was very sad, but at the end, I was so proud of you. I admire your courage and spirit. With these, nothing can beat you. As your former colleague, another PI in IMCB, we share a similar fate. I graduated from University of Chicago, working in IMCB for 19 years, publishing >50 papers (including 7 in 2008), trained many PhD, university, and polytechnic students. All the years of hard work and teaching don’t seem to count for anything. My lab will be closed down soon. You are not the first, and I won't be the last. We have made Singapore our home, and our children have gone or will go to National Service. More importantly, we have made our contributions to put Singapore on the world’s scientific map! Isn't it ironic that when the government is putting in considerable efforts to develop life science in Singapore, we lost or will lose our jobs? I may not have the qualification to become a taxi driver, but I will do my best in my life after IMCB, whatever that will be and to be like you. Even as a taxi driver, you live in a brilliant and wonderful way. I wish you all the best!

August 18, 2009 1:00 PM"

Was the publication record a major factor?

I'll let the readers decide.

God Is Made Of People

2009-08-19T18:33:00.007+08:00

Just read an interesting comment regarding the ST news story "PhD holder now a cabby".

Posted by: opinion2009 at Wed Aug 19 17:51:07 SGT 2009

"Solomon said that men of understanding are not the only ones who gain riches: 'nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding; nor favour to men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all'.

Solomon is telling us that those who are better, wiser and stronger don't win the war, don't win the race, don't get the riches and don't win the favour.

But those who are in the right place at the right time win the race, and enjoy favour and success.

The only one who can put you in the right place at the right time is God.

We can try through self-effort to better position yourself for success by studying more, working harder and cultivating more strategic relationships.

You may end up being slightly faster, slightly stronger and more well-connected, but only God can put you in the right place at the right time and give you success.

There are people who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are caught in a 'net' and they don't even know why.

For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, like birds caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them.

We need God for 'Right Happenings'.

If we are honest and humble enough, we will acknowledge our need for God in our lives."

**********

So... God is somebody who gives you opportunities for success, and if you are "honest and humble enough", he will help you win wars, get $$$ and stuff like that.

But what if God has decided to put YOU in the wrong place at the wrong time?

And why would an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God want to "help" some of his creations to become so rich and powerful that they would dominate and utterly devastate some of his other creations?

To an extraterrestrial observer, it seems like a "God" is actually a human social network that aggressively grows to accumulate material benefits to insiders while engaging in territorial conflicts with other "Gods".

Hmm... that reminds me of a classic movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy".

Narrator: "But the Gods have been careless; they had sent only one. And now for the first time in their lives, here was a thing which could not be shared because there was only one of it.

Suddenly everybody needed it most of the time; a thing they had never needed before became a necessity. An unfamiliar emotion began to stir. A feeling of wanting to own, of not wanting to share.

And other new things came. Anger, jealousy, hate and violence.

He was angry with the Gods.

He shouted: "Take back your thing, we don't want it. Look at the trouble it brought!"

But the Gods did not take it back.

He shouted: "You must be crazy to send us this thing, take it back!""

**********

Of course, the Gods will never take it back, because it was made by human beings.

To dispose of it, someone would have to take it to end of the Earth and throw it off, even if it meant that the person would have to walk for 20 days, perhaps 40.

Have you started walking yet?

Taxi Driver, Associate Professor

2009-08-17T16:43:00.006+08:00

In a bizarre turn of affairs, Stanford-trained former Principal Investigator and Adjunct Associate Professor Cai Mingjie is now a taxi driver.

He writes the blog "A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary".

It's a great read, please check it out.

Here's an exerpt:

"On my way home, I thought about what “man goes higher” means. In most people’s dictionary, it means higher pay, higher education, higher social status, etc. A higher position on the social food chain. That’s the norm of the society. From a professor to a taxi driver could only be seen by most people as a classical example of the exact opposite of “man goes higher”. But, I look at it differently. Yes, the bigfoots sitting high on the food chain can force me into a jobless situation. What it has done to me, however, is only to push me to a “new high”, a new boundary where their powers to set the rules, to twist the rules, to do whatever at will, do not apply, where I don’t have to survive by playing their games.

This is all that matters to me. Low or high, I can take it either way. In fact, I feel happier now as a taxi driver than before in my last two years as a professor, when I often had to feel sorry for myself for having to work in that environment."

**********

Still think that research is about the love of science (or pouring liquids from one tube into another)?

That's not the whole story, my friends.

*Update (19 Aug 2009)

Dr. Cai has been interviewed by Amresh Gunasingham from the Straits Times.

Online edition: PhD holder now a cabby

Print edition (scanned): cabby PhD holder now a taxi driver

Exclusive Interview With Dr. Bunhead

2009-08-15T23:24:00.018+08:00

Just visited the X-periment! 2009 venue this afternoon and it was a blast!

I caught Dr. Bunhead's 2:30pm performance and managed to grab a hold of him after the show for some totally impertinent questions.

The sort of questions YOU would ask him!

But first, a quick overview of the whole exhibition:

Compared to last year's event, this time round there are even more activities for audience participation at the booths.

Here are some visitors assembling electronic parts...

... learning about instant snow...

... learning how to constructing model molecules...

... making model molecules with lots of soapy films (which seems to be a hit among the kids) ...

... creating rainbow-coloured layers of sugary stuff...

... or playing a virtual version of "Human Tetris".

And it's not just the kids who are curious about the exhibits!

Our old friend the non-Newtonian fluid is back, this time as a glob of green-dyed cornstarch on top of a subwoofer speaker.

If you set the conditions right it can appear like a disgusting clump of teeming worms, but this glob here doesn't look that wormy.

Not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

In addition to the booths from various research institutes, this year there are booths set up by other organizations as well.

One of them is the Science Centre, which brought over some of their exhibits. Here, a girl and her mother play with a device that creates moving pictures.

A volunteer amuses a couple of visitors with a set of classic visual illusions.

The Singapore General Hospital has set up a booth too. This young lady is practicing laparoscopic surgery using a surgical trainer.

Oh NOES! Which hapless furry animal is at the sharp end of her merciless tools?

Whew... she is only trying to manipulate a furry wire through a series of metal loops.

She might have a future in suture!

And now - time for Dr. Bunhead's show!

He actually has a different show for a different timeslot, and some members of the audience have followed all of them.

"How many of you have seen four of my shows?"

A number of hands went up.

For this show, Dr. Bunhead introduces the audience to... LIQUID NITROGEN!

Uri Abusikov would have been proud.

Очень хорошо!

"Its temperature is -196 degrees, which is so cold that it's hard to imagine how cold it is. Does anyone want to touch it?"

Any brave volunteers?

When the cup of liquid nitrogen is lightly touched, it boils at a faster rate.

"Let me put it nearer my microphone so that you can hear it."

*fizz... pop pop... fizz...*

When you blow carefully into a container of liquid nitrogen, the water vapour in the breath condenses into a mist of water droplets.

"Look, her face is in a cloud!"

Next, Dr. Bunhead blows a long orange balloon and asks: "What would happen if I dip this into liquid nitrogen?"

Kids: "I KNOW! I KNOW!"

Will it become hard? Will it explode?

Let's see...

*squeek squeek*

Hmm, it didn't explode.

Let's squeeze it in there for a little while longer.

*squeek squeek SQUEEK!*

Oh my... it shrank!

Whoa, it's starting to expand again...

Next, what would happen if we put this piece of cut rubber tubing into liquid nitrogen?

It becomes hard enough to drive into a plank of wood!

*THUNK THUNK THUNK*

"It looks hard now, but it's not a good idea to make nails out of rubber. Unless you can keep the entire room in a very cold environment."

Which means that you CAN make nails out of rubber... on Pluto.

NASA never tried this!

Ho ho, is that a banana?

Dr. Bunhead actually gave the banana a name, but I forgot what it is so I'll call it "Mr. Banana".

I think I can see what's coming...

"I need a volunteer to check if Mr. Banana is firm and muscular."

"Mr. Banana is a very grumpy banana. You must approach him carefully, like you would approach a tiger."

Slowly... slowly...

*GROWL!*

Rabid banana on the attack!

"And now it's time for Mr. Banana to go bungee jumping into the container of liquid nitrogen!"

"Are you ready Mr. Banana?"

*fizz...*

Sounds painful.

Mr. Banana is now hard enough to drive a metal nail into wood.

*THUNK THUNK THUNK... plop*

Oh NO! Mr. Banana's head has fallen off!

Dr. Bunhead picks it up with a pair of tongs.

When liquid nitrogen turns into gas, it expands about 700 times in volume.

"This bottle contains about 100 ml of liquid, which will expand into 70,000 ml or 70 litres of gas, which is a much bigger volume. Normally this is difficult to see, but we can see this by attaching a balloon to the bottle."

The balloon starts to fill up...

... getting bigger...

"Maybe I should stand over here instead..."

*POP!*

"Did that balloon pop scare anyone? Good, because I am going to try something bigger!"

"How many lumps should we put inside this bottle?"

Strange that Dr. Bunhead says "lumps" instead of "cups".

"... and one more lump - just to scare me."

Nice.

"Hey, the balloon is not expanding. What's going on?"

The kids in the audience are all pointing to the liquid nitrogen container.

Kids: "IT'S STILL INSIDE! STILL INSIDE!"

"Will it work if I take the bottle out?"

Wow it is really expanding!

In fact it's expanding a bit too quickly.

"Should I be holding this?"

Kids: "NO! NO!"

"All right then. Do you want to hold it for me?"

Kids: "NO!!! AHHH!"

Children retreat anxiously as Dr. Bunhead scouts unsuccessfully for a volunteer.

Maybe cooling it in this pail of water will slow the expansion...

"YIKES! It's expanding even more quickly! What should I do? What should I do?"

*GASP*

*BOOM!*

*foooosh...*

"And now for the finale I will attempt to make the biggest cloud in the shopping mall!"

*FOOOOOOM!*

"Thank you everyone!"

With that, the show is over and it's time for the kids and their parents to pose with Dr. Bunhead for photos.

And time for me to ask Dr. Bunhead some questions!

Here goes:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your experience as a grad student?

Dr. Bunhead: "I applied to work with someone whose research I really liked, but he had no money. So I had to go to another supervisor, but I hated the project. We were fighting right from the beginning. The research work was repetitive and very precise, such that a small mistake could ruin three months of work. I found it very boring, very tough and very lonely."

2. How did you first get the idea to perform as a stunt scientist?

"During my PhD I was invited by a friend to do a chemistry show at a local school. It was just to help him out really, but they liked it and the school headmaster invited me back. Gradually, I did more and more shows, and less and less research. At first I was doing the shows for free. Then one day I met someone who was explaining some difficult physics concepts to an audience. I was impressed by his explanation. He gave me his namecard - 'Adam Selinger, Science Communicator'. Up till that time I had no idea that such a career existed; I was 30 years old and didn't know what to do. That was my Eureka moment."

3. Of the other Brainiac presenters, who do you like the most - Richard Hammond, Jon Tickle or Vic Reeves?

"Richard Hammond is my favourite. I think that Brainiac is most suited to him. He enjoys doing it and brings a cheeky enthusiasm to the show. I try to learn from him; when he speaks, his delivery is compelling, like David Attenborough. I feel that they are two of the most compelling science presenters in the UK."

4. How does the Brainiac production team manage to find so many sexy women for the show?

"I'd like to know that myself, actually *laughs*. And why they always get assigned to Jon Tickle. I am more handsome than he is!"

5. On the Brainiac show you are always unsuccessful when you try to use science to get a date. Were the women on the set really unimpressed or did you manage to work your charms on some of them?

"Actually, in real life about half the women responded positively. I was shown to be unsuccessful to make the comedy work. When we were making 'Pub Science with Dr. Bunhead', there was this lady who said that, yeah, she would go on a date with me after the show. But the production team wanted her to say no, and she protested 'why should I say no?'. In fact, this incident later became the inspiration for the "Dr. Bunhead on the Pull" segment. So, it does work in real life. I mean, how many men will walk up to you with a fire tornado?"

So there you have it. All your questions about the big mysteries that beset mankind, answered right here on Fresh Brainz.

OK, that's not really true, but you can still send your other questions about the Universe by tweeting them to @ProfWhy.

Don't miss your chance to win an Apple 16GB iPod Touch!

Would you like to know more?

Last year's event: X-periment! 2008

Other fun science shows:
- Kids Science Fest!
- Science in the Gardens

Dr. Bunhead Is Coming To X-periment! 2009

2009-08-14T00:03:00.012+08:00

Great news, fellow rabid Brainiac fans - Dr. Bunhead is coming to town!

The Science Centre and their co-organizers have informed me that, for the first time ever in Singapore, this year's X-periment! event will feature this world famous "stunt scientist".

Doctor of Exploding Things, Foamy Things... and Exploding Foamy Things.

I mean this guy.

If you have never heard of Brainiac (either because you've been living under a rock, or because you're a banker), here's a sample of what Dr. Bunhead does on the show...

Fooosh... BOOM!

And now, time for some of the details I've received about this event:

**********

science.09 will kick off with X-periment!, a three-day science carnival at Marina Square Central Atrium and will run from 14-16 August 2009. Highlights at X-periment! include special performances by Dr Bunhead from the UK. Dr Bunhead is sure to be a hit with everybody!

This year we are igniting that spirit of inquisitiveness at the heart of science, which has led to so many of its discoveries, with the theme – Ask Why. In that spirit, we are encouraging you and your readers to ask your science questions! (and win an Apple 16GB iPod Touch!)

So how do I participate?

1. Our website: Submit your questions along with your full name and email on the science.09 website (http://www.sciencemonth.org.sg/)

2. OR Twitter: To submit questions and qualify for the contest via Twitter:

a. Follow @ProfWhy (www.twitter.com/profwhy), the science.09’s mascot Professor Why

b. Tweet your questions to @ProfWhy

The more questions you ask, the greater your chances of winning!

Every Monday, Professor Why will also respond to a selection of the previous week’s questions. Check the science.09 website for answers!

How long is the contest period?

The contest will begin on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 and end at midnight (Singapore time) on Friday, 4 September 2009.

For further details, visit: http://www.sciencemonth.org.sg/asky_cont.aspx

***********

If you are free this weekend, why not bring your family down to Marina Square to check out Dr. Bunhead's mind-blowing performance? There are also interesting exhibits to see and hands-on activities to do in the various booths there.

Here's the schedule for Dr. Bunhead's show times:

15 Aug 09 - 12:00 noon, 2:30 pm, 4:30 pm and 7:30 pm.

16 Aug 09 - 12:00 noon, 2:30 pm, 4:30 pm and 7:30 pm.

See you there!

Would you like to know more?
- Last year's event: X-periment! 2008

The Problem-solving Intelligence Of Bird Brainz

2009-08-11T10:10:00.004+08:00

Picture this - you are a hungry bird and you are looking at a fat, juicy worm.

Unfortunately, the worm is floating on a bit of water in a very tall glass, and your beak is not long enough to reach it.

What do you do?

Sharp.

That practically replicates the Aesop's Fable "The Crow and the Pitcher"!

Is that a particularly smart bird, you ask?

Actually, four out of four rooks in the experiment were able to figure out this solution to the problem.

An elegant demonstration that problem-solving intelligence at least predates the evolution of mammals.

Pipette tip to Bayblab.

Would you like to know more?
- Rooks Use Stones to Raise the Water Level to Reach a Floating Worm (Current Biology)

Who's A Celebrity?

2009-08-06T19:18:00.013+08:00

Johnny Depp has a strange relationship with his own art:

So now I know of two movie stars who have stated that they don't watch their own movies, Johnny Depp, and if I remember correctly, Hong Kong actor Shing Fui-On (成奎安 - who often acts as a thug in gangster films).

Unlike Depp, Shing Fui-On doesn't want his children to watch his movies either, because his character usually ends up getting brutally killed on the big screen.

It's quite odd to see Johnny Depp say this - perhaps there is no simple profile of a "celebrity" and many people sort of wander into their professions via a series of contingent events.

I've been reading up a bit about the Myers-Briggs test and observe that in any given field, there is a wide range of personalities, which if unanticipated, can result in a lot of interpersonal stress.

I have previously assumed that certain professions should have a self-selecting tendency to attract certain personalities (eg. the Rationals in science and the Artisans in entertainment).

However, in my working experience I've realized that this sorting process is much less effective than I imagined and factors other than personality (eg. socio-economic status) could in fact be a stronger determinant of which career a person ends up in.

Even stranger, people whose personalities are not in sync with their careers can still be very "successful" based on the metrics of that profession (such as rank and earnings), often due to sheer determination and/or social pressure, although they may be privately living in abject misery.

Other people who are not aware of this tension might wonder: "This person has everything going for her, why did she suddenly snap?"

A rubber band can only stretch so far.

Creationism And False Dichotomies

2009-08-04T12:30:00.006+08:00

Lim Say Liang at The Online Citizen has written an interesting article entitled "God sneaks into our classrooms" about how creationism has turned up in Singaporean schools.

I understand that creationism is formally not acceptable by the MOE, so I have nothing to add to that discussion from an education policy point of view.

From the scientific perspective, as Dr. John van Wyhe from Cambridge has emphasized in his recent talk, there has been no debate between evolution and creation since the 1870s.

Evolution - more specifically the part about common descent - has been accepted by the scientific community for over a hundred years.

However, debate about the details of evolution, such as its primary mechanism (eg. natural selection vs neutral drift) continues on today.

This sort of dispute is usually only interesting among specialists (may sound very boring to the general public) but will be gradually resolved in time with theory development and more experimental evidence.

On the other hand, the "Evolution vs Creation" culture war (and predominantly US culture at that) is a very tiresome and possibly neverending squabble that will persist as long as people, politics and money exist.

I won't go into the details of this - interested readers can just click the "evolution" tag to see my numerous articles (and even more numerous comments) regarding this topic.

Instead I would like to focus on a pair of comments posted in response to the TOC article -

1. New Renaissance on August 3rd, 2009 2.33 pm:

"In fact, what critical thinking can there be if only one side is presented?"

2. Jer Bear on August 3rd, 2009 3.09 pm @ New Renaissance:

"The other side of science is not fiction. The other side of science is science itself. One cannot disprove logic with fairy tales – therefore if you truly believe in teaching our children critical thinking, show them the thousands of articles written to refute certain scientific and mathematical explanations. Creationism or ‘intelligent design’ doesn’t count."

I think Jer Bear has addressed the New Renaissance's criticism quite well, but I would like to add my views on this matter.

I have observed that creationists like to think of science as if it was some kind of legal process and like to think of scientists as if they were lawyers.

In fact, creationist lawyers tend to think that their legal training makes up for their lack of scientific training.

Why is this so?

Simple.

Dichotomies, even false dichotomies, have a lot of SOCIAL POWER.

Remember ex-US president George W. Bush's infamous line: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."?

A legal system is an adversarial system. Either a suspect is innocent or guilty. There is no middle ground and thus no need to consider alternative explanations.

By proving your opponent wrong, a lawyer can confidently "prove" that she is right.

When deliberately forced upon science, this legalistic perspective crushes the whole scientific process into an oversimplified single dimension with two absolute outcomes: right or wrong.

That is why creationists spend practically all of their time attacking science rather than do actual research to support their views.

To their credit, they do understand the human psyche very well; the general public is easily impressed by outward appearance of authority, conviction and eloquence. As long as they can "prove" that the scientists are unsure, or hesitant, or not very good at public speaking, or too easily annoyed, creationists can then claim success.

This can be done without actually addressing the scientific content of the argument; indeed, it can be done without adequate understanding of the subject matter at all!

That is because creationists are not as interested in knowing what is factually correct as they are obsessed about being "proven" right. If they are "proved" to be right they can consolidate the social cohesion among fellow believers and also feel that they have the justification to impose their worldview on everyone else.

To directly address New Renaissance's comment that there can't be any critical thinking if only one side is presented, I would say:

"Are there only two sides in every debate? What critical thinking can there be if only two sides are presented?"

If the subject matter is creation stories, why not present a multicultural primer about creation stories throughout the world? If the focus is on anti-evolutionary views, why not include a section on animal spiritualism and Hare Krishna's "devolution" idea?

Creationists will never advocate multifactorial thinking, because it weakens their case that they can be "proved" right as long as their opponent is "proved" wrong. If there are ideas that don't support their case, they will cleverly package all of them together into a single opponent, even if those ideas don't have much in common with each other.

Eventually they will try to force an adversarial approach in order to maximize their social power.

Only the debates between "us" and "them" matters; disagreements between them "evolutionists" or disagreements between them "pagans" don't matter.

They are all wrong anyway... because my belief "proves" it.

Photo Gallery Thirteen

2009-08-02T12:09:00.010+08:00

In a previous post, I briefly talked about how brand marketing has contributed towards the rising phenomena of tool worship and diminishing respect for professional training.

For this week's photo gallery I won't just talk the talk - I'll walk the walk!

Let me show you what a "toy camera" can do in competent hands.

Enter our unfortunate victim - the Lomo Fisheye 2.

Popular among fashionistas a couple of years back, it used to retail in arty bookstores for about a hundred bucks each. One look and you can tell that it's the sort of camera for the supercool to pose with and get totally bored with by the end of the week.

This example here is well kept, but has fallen onto hard times. I bought it used for $30 - "faulty" with an ailing internal flash (but I won't be needing it, as you shall soon see).

Incidentally, all the non-Nikon, non-Canon cameras in the above photo are second-hand. Poverty has its special way of compelling one to train hard - if you're rich then you can pay someone to do all the thinking and working for you!

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I digress.

Time for a checklist!

The Fisheye 2 has:

1. No Megapixels (uses 35mm film).

2. No Autofocus (fixed from 30cm on to eternity).

3. No Variable Aperture (fixed f/8 plastic hole).

4. No Metering.

5. No Automatic Shutter Speed (fixed 1/100 sec and a bulb mode).

6. No Multicoated Lens (10mm fisheye lens which looks cheap and plasticky).

7. No LCD display (with no pixels by no pixels resolution).

8. Has Optical Viewfinder (Hah, bet your digicam doesn't have one of these!).

9. No Spare Batteries (you don't even need any if you don't use flash).

10. No Free Cleaning Kit (OK, now I'm getting carried away...).

Hmm... looks sufficiently devoid of modern camera features.

Passed!

In fact, somebody once said that:

"If you cut the bottom off a beer bottle and hold it in front of your standard lens you will take better pictures than the Lomo."

Ho ho ho... is that RRRRRRight?

Well, the Fisheye 2 was intended to be a chic fisheye camera for "Lomographers" to take wacky portraits with multicoloured flash and streaks of light everywhere.

But that's not what I had in mind for this little fellow.

Here's one of my pictures, straight out of the camera (or film processing shop actually):

Interesting.

But I prefer my scenery shots to be rectilinear rather than have fisheye distortion.

To do that, you don't even need to buy Photoshop. Just head over to TawbaWare and use their PTAssembler shareware to "de-fish" the distortion in a few quick steps.

And now for the finished product (cropped and exposure-corrected):

Arch
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Not quite the bottom of a beer bottle huh?

Come to think of it, I could possibly make that work too...

Enjoy the rest of the photos!

Ceiling vanes
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Financial focus
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Old market vibe
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Passing through
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Stone life
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Underpass curves
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Welcoming palms
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

Wide and bright
(2009) Lomo Fisheye 2

You are thinking: "Hey, it's not the fact that the Lomo cost $30 that allows it to take nice scenery shots. It's the fact that it has a 10mm lens! The equipment DOES matter!"

Ha ha... you're right that every photographic tool has its strengths and weaknesses.

You generally can't use the Fisheye 2 for macro or sports photography.

But then again, if you know what you need for those applications, you wouldn't use the Lomo!

I think you understand what I'm saying now.

Would you like to know more?
- Photo Gallery Twelve
- Your Camera Doesn't Matter (by Ken Rockwell)

Solar Eclipse Over The Pacific

2009-07-22T15:31:00.004+08:00

From my blog statistics I noticed that there has been a large spike of visitors to Fresh Brainz looking for information on the 22nd July solar eclipse.

Well, it has been rainy and overcast in Singapore so we can't see the Sun, but even if the sky was clear only about 6% of the solar disk is covered by the Moon from our location, so there isn't much to see.

Good thing that the Japanese TV company NHK has just uploaded this video of the eclipse relayed from a ship in the Pacific Ocean that is smack in the middle of the lunar shadow, providing a few minutes of totality.

Spectacular.

I like the fact that you can see planets in the daytime, for example Mercury as shown in this video. I for one have never seen Mercury directly before.

It is also interesting to see that while at totality, the surrounding horizon is still lit by the Sun, so it's sort of like a weird sunset all around them - except that the Sun is still straight up in the sky!

Pity that in the middle of the sea there aren't birds to sing their mis-timed evening song, which often occurs when totality happens over land.

"Militant Secularism" In The Netherlands

2009-07-12T10:00:00.008+08:00

"Aggressive secularization" in the Netherlands leads to polygamy, euthanasia, infanticide and a suicide pill.

Oh noes, the Netherlands is DOOMED!

Wait a sec, this news report came from Fox News, which is the most "Fair and Balanced" news network in the USA.

Better go check some actual data...

**********

Divorce Demography
(crude divorce rate per 1,000 total population)

USA = 3.8 (2003)
Netherlands = 1.91 (2004)
Singapore = 0.78 (2004)

Prison Population
(per 100,000 total population)

USA = 701 (2002)
Singapore = 388 (2002)
Netherlands = 100 (2002)

Intentional Homicide
(per 100,000 total population)

USA = 5.8 (2008)
Netherlands = 0.97 (2002)
Singapore = 0.48 (2005)

Infant Mortality
(death per 1,000 live births)

USA = 6.3 (2005)
Netherlands = 4.7 (2005)
Singapore = 3.0 (2005)

Abortion
(per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years)

USA = 20.8 (2003)
Singapore = 12.6 (2004)
Netherlands = 10.4 (2004)

Suicide
(death per 100,000 total population)

USA = 11.1 (2005)
Singapore = 10.3 (2006)
Netherlands = 9.4 (2004)

**********

Wow, the USA is truly a world "leader" in all these areas!

Let's hope that the Netherlands (and Singapore too) will never follow its "lead" here.

Indeed, Fox News should be proud of their country and their own special style of reporting where the truth is always optional.

Pipette tip to Sandwalk.

Would you like to know more?
- Is Polygamy Really Legal in the Netherlands?

Third Year

2009-07-11T12:28:00.006+08:00

It's been three years down the road, and I would like to thank fellow Clearthought Singapore veterans and all my regular readers for staying on this channel.

I'll probably write a more substantial post a little later, because I went to the Darwin and Wallace talk in late June and took extensive notes, but right now my situation is not conducive to serious blogging.

So, to mark this third blogiversary I'll leave you with this little piece of Socratic dialogue, inspired by the post "don't need doctors anymore" at Angry Doc's site.

I hope you'll find it funny and interesting.

**********

Geordie: "Did you know that Steve McCurry, the photographer who took the famous 'Afghan Girl' photo came to Singapore and gave a talk at SMU?

Freddie: "Dang, I missed that. I went to John van Wyhe's talk at NUS instead. So, anything interesting?"

Geordie: "Somebody asked him what brand of camera he used. Ha ha, can you believe it?"

Freddie: "Heh, don't tell me it's the Nikon vs Canon dickfight again. Or is it Leica vs Zeiss?"

Geordie: "It's the Nikon vs Canon. I think that marketing hype is making people stupid. Nobody would ask a famous painter what brand of paintbrushes he used, so why should people care about the brand of camera that a famous photographer used? As long as the picture is focused and well-exposed would it have mattered if he used a disposable camera?"

Freddie: "I think that tool worship is common to people who don't understand or are not interested in the process. Perhaps the professionals themselves are contributing to this misunderstanding by making the process look too easy. The tool IS the profession. I can totally see it from that point of view."

Geordie: "What are you talking about? Are you saying that a camera can walk by itself to Afghanistan, endure the hardships of a wartorn environment, seek out interesting people, interact with them and produce a well-composed and expertly-timed shot?

Freddie: "Look, a camera is what takes the photos, right? If Steve McCurry didn't have a camera with him when he saw the Afghan Girl, the photo could never happen. You can consider him merely as a vehicle to bring the camera to the Afghan Girl and then press the shutter button. All he did was to travel to a remote place, turn some dials and push some buttons - the camera did all of the 'real' work."

Geordie: "Ha ha, that's a pretty twisted way to see it. The facts are the same but the emphasis is backwards. From such a view you can dismiss the photographer as an incidental, or even an irrelevant aspect of the photographic process!"

Freddie: "You don't need photographers any more, you just need an expensive brand name camera. The photographer only pushed a button! Anyone can push a button."

Geordie: "From that perspective you can pretty much dismiss the work of any professional. Teachers? Anyone can talk and write something on the whiteboard. The textbook IS education. Scientists? Anyone can push buttons and transfer liquids from one tube to another. The PCR machine IS research. Oh man..."

Freddie: "There you go."

Geordie: "Who could see it that way? Apart from a few strange people? I mean, that can't be a prevalent view, right?"

Freddie: "I suspect that it is more common than you think. To a society that is obsessed with results and performance indicators, most people can't be bothered about the process behind anything. What they want are results, now now now! Don't care how you do it. Just tell me what I want to hear."

Geordie: "But without the process you cannot have results."

Freddie: "But even with the process, you may not have results. So why care about the process? As long it produces a result that you like, it must be a 'good' process, whatever it is."

Geordie: "Ha ha, this must be a personality-dependent thing, because I don't understand how anyone can think that way. I suppose it is some kind of superduper mental shortcut. Good photo = expensive branded camera. Expensive = good. Cheap = lousy. Quick and easy."

Freddie: "Easy on the brain, but difficult on the wallet!"

Geordie: "Yeah, which reminds me of that neverending treadmill of earning and spending. If the price is the primary gauge of what is 'good' then people must keep buying more and more expensive stuff in order to feel a sense of improvement in their lives."

Freddie: "That's good news for the marketing people."

Geordie: "For the Nikon marketing people, Canon marketing people, or the disposable camera marketing people?"

Freddie: "Ha ha... suffice to say that happiness is not free, but it is surprisingly inexpensive.

Geordie: "It is meaningless to talk about the 'expense' of happiness. It's a process. You can't just stuff happiness into a bottle and slap a brand label on it."

Freddie: "Actually I think you can. And someone will pay real money for it."

Geordie: "Someone?"

Freddie: "Everyone."