The Earth is One Big Deserted Island and We are All Stranded on It!

The old and famous phrase "no man is an island" points to the fact that we humans are social beings. Think about the food that we eat, the clothes that we wear, the iPhone and iPads that we use––we take all of these for granted on a daily basis. But do you even realise that the process making all of these things actually needs people to work together?

The society we live in is so large that the above may not seem obvious. All we think about is how to make as much money as possible. We think we can have anything we want with money. But I hope this article so far has made you realise that money is not that real––what's real is the fruits of cooperation among humans. Money just simplifies the process of exchange of expertise in an enormous and complex human community. But Money is a discussion for another time.

Now think about this: if you were stranded on an island with a group of people––say ten people––one person is skilled in cooking, another one in building, another in manufacturing, another in farming, etc; here you've got an ingredient to form a working society. If you really think about it, we are all that group of people, stranded on one huge island called the planet Earth!

What point is this article trying to make? It is trying to remind readers to live peacefully within this huge Earth society and that we essentially need each other. If you imagine being stranded on an island with only a handful of people, even enemies would need to put aside their differences and egos, and start working together if they wanted to survive!

The "Zodiac-signs" of the Business World - The Four-letter Personality Types According to Myers-Briggs

You probably have come across some random online quizzes that your friends share with you on Facebook, which at the end give you the result of a set of four letters like INFP or ESTJ. What the heck do those four letters mean, you might ask. It is actually a personality typing system referred to as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and this article attempts to give a quick explanation of it.

According to the MBTI our personality is a combination of four letters:

• 
I or E (Introverted or Extroverted)
• 
N or S (iNtuition or Sensing)

• F or T (Feeling or Thinking)

• P or J (Perceiving or Judging)



Hence there are 16 possible permutations: INFP, ISFP, ISTP, ISFJ, ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, INTP, ENFP, ESFP, ESTP, ESFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ and ENTP. And according to this system, you are simply one of these.

The words that the letters stand for don’t exactly mean what we commonly understand them to mean. Instead, to determine which letters you are, here is a general guideline:

• 
I or E: do you feel you gain or drain energy in social situations? For example, if you go to parties, would it sap your energy (you'd be an I) or would it energize you?


• N or S: do you pay attention to abstracts or concretes? For example if you got asked to describe the fruit apple, and if you were an N you would probably prefer to describe it in a more symbolic manner such as “it's a fruit that's associated with Newton, New York, and Adam and Eve.” If you were an S you might prefer to describe it in a more concrete way such as “it is crispy, tastes sweet and smells refreshing.”


• F or T: do you make decisions based on your feelings or reasoning? For example if you were a boss in a company and needed to retrench someone, would you go: “aww it will be hard on his family” (you'd be an F) or “it will be good for the business.” 

• P or J: do you tend to 'play it by ear' (you'd be a P) or do you tend to like plan and structure?



The random quizzes that you come across online might give you which of the sixteen personalities you could be, but I find it more reliable using the following method:

Estimate which four letters you are using the guideline above. Then read the personality description for it from an MBTI book (a good one is listed in Further Readings below) or an MBTI website 

(e.g. http://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html).

That is, if you think you are INFJ, read the description for INFJ. If you think the description doesn't fit your personality, check out another one. For example, my friend thinks he could be a borderline ENTJ or INTJ but after reading the two descriptions he concluded that he is more an INTJ.

MBTI is very popular in the business world and may well be likened to "psychology version" of zodiac signs. You might also be able to use it to determine what type of job suits you best and what kind of person would make a great partner for you. All in all this system could seem enlightening but be careful and take it with a grain of salt, especially if you were going to make a major life decision with it. According to an article published recently by Business Insider, it may not be so reliable after all. 

I’d say use it more for entertainment purposes only. Have fun with it and happy exploring!

Further Readings:

• Baer, D 2014, Why The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Misleading, Inaccurate, And Unscientific, Business Insider, viewed 5 July 2015, <http://www.businessinsider.com.au/myers-briggs-personality-test-is-misleading-2014-6>

• Tieger, PD & Barron-Tieger, B 2007, Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You Through the Secrets of Personality Type, 4th Edn, Little, Brown and Company Hachette Book Group USA, New York

• Wikipedia Contributors, Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia, viewed 5 July 2015, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator>

A Little Adventure With My Subconscious Mind

Yesterday I saw a somewhat famous person, who I've seen before on the Net, on TV–an amazing guy, dubbed "The Human Calculator"–but couldn't remember his name. I had no recollection whatsoever of the name. It really felt impossible to recall this name without googling it.

So, I wanted to see if I could dig it up from the subconscious mind, as we know that sometimes things like this just spring to mind without us even thinking about it. So I kind of started going, ‘Come on, Mind! What's that name?!!’

I calmed back down. A few minutes passed. I started getting a name in my head: "Scott". I wasn't sure if that was indeed the name, but somehow felt surer and surer after a short while so I locked it in.

Now, just left with getting his last name, it really felt unlikely that I would get it without Google's help. However "F" shortly came to mind. ‘Scott Forstall?’ I thought to myself. ‘Nah, that's the guy at Apple, silly! ;-P’ But "F" sure felt like something. So I sat on it a little longer. Same thing happened with earlier–somehow I felt more and more certain with "F" after a few minutes. Then it dawned on me–I got excited: ‘oh my god, its starts with “FL”! I can feel it coming back to me!!’

‘“FL…” “FL…” “Flanigan”?!’ I kept pondering and ruminating until I finally ran out of patience. I fired up Google and typed 'Scott Flanigan' in. The result came up and alas, it wasn't the person I was looking for.

Disappointed but still somewhat convinced, I backspaced a few characters. As I backspaced slowly, Google Instant search kicked in. When I got to "Scott Flan..." there it was–the results popped up with the name of the individual I was looking for, "Scott Flansburg”.

Communicating Effectively – the Zen way

"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory" -Bruce Lee in 'Enter the Dragon (1973)'

The above quote to me is profound. It stresses the importance of focusing on 'the moon' (the underlying meanings, intentions or thoughts) rather than 'the finger' (the words used to point to the meanings, intentions or thoughts).

But 'the finger' is also important. It is important to phrase your words in a way that accurately represents your intentions and thoughts to other people.

A simple example is in my experience this afternoon. I threw a question out loud with the underlying intention of simply finding out whether someone was present at work. However, what came out of my mouth was the question 'where is she'. So what I got back was a (friendly) sarcastic remark of where the person could be (at home, shopping, sailing, etc). Of course this could be frustrating for someone in my position, as all I wanted to know was whether she was in the office. But fair enough, it is difficult for the answerer to discern my underlying intention with that question.

I have seen this type of simple communication glitch causing conflicts and frustrations in professional or social settings. Most people are not aware of the underlying cause of their communication problem–the incongruity between the words they use and their underlying intentions.

I propose the following approach for effective communication: be intently aware of what we are phrasing and whether it accurately represents our underlying intentions. Rephrase as required according to the feedback we get. Also doing the opposite where possible–try to penetrate and see past the words people use. People use certain words to describe something that we would possibly use different words for. The thing to keep in mind here, is to focus on the underlying meaning of their words. As an analogy, an address can be written as 'Unit 7, 123 Fifth Street' or '7/123 Fifth St'. Whichever way we prefer, at the end of the day, they still point us to the exact same location! To see past their words, keep a mindfulness of the context in which the communication is occurring, or keep clarifying until you understand their underlying intentions. Since using this approach, I have been successful in maintaining healthy relationships with my friends and colleagues.

As humans, we've been given a great ability to communicate with each other. No other species on earth, as we know it, could communicate with the level of intricacies that we can. We have words as the tool for communication. But we need to realise that words are merely a tool. They are kind of like signposts to our intentions and thoughts. Intentions and thoughts are the real essence of our communication. Until we develop the ability of telepathy, to be mindful of underlying intentions behind words is the best approach we have for an effective and efficient communication.

There is no such thing as Evil

When thinking of the word 'Evil', what readily pops up in your mind? Monsters? Horned Satan? Lex Luthor? It is very commonly depicted in the media that 'Evil' is all about destruction and inflicting pain in others. Since we were kids, we developed this idea about the eternal battle between the forces of 'Good' and 'Evil'. We watched superhero cartoons on the television. The good guys are represented by characters with cool costumes while the bad guys depicted as disfigured creatures with ugly faces. The good guys always win at the end.

You see, that is all an oversimplification. As a child this idea is very enlightening to us. You have 'Good' and you have 'Evil'. We should not be 'Evil' or we will perish like the bad guys on the television.

But we all reading this are now old enough to understand about the reality. Anyone still clinging to this oversimplified notion: you need to let it go. There is really no 'Evil'. It is nothing like that depicted in your typical superhero television shows.

Two things I'd like to point out: (1) 'Evil' is nothing but Selfishness. (2) The fight between the so-called forces of 'Good' and 'Evil' is nothing but just two conflicting point of views, each trying to survive (but as you will see, duality is part of nature).

If you don't care about other people, you are less likely to care about what happens to them. That makes you kind of... 'Evil' doesn't it. This is exactly what happens in the movies–the bad guys don't care about others. They only care about themselves, or their own group. Ergo, 'Evil' is really Selfishness.

On conflicting point of views, let me give you an example: Imagine aliens came down to our planet and wishing to eliminate us so that they could take over our Earth. Of course, to us, they are evil. But what if you belong to the alien race?  This is akin to the idea of European Settlers who colonised the American continent^[A]. To the European Settlers, the Native Americans were the 'Evil' forces. To the Native Americans, of course, it's vice versa. Another example would be humans poisoning vermin to control their population to avoid destruction of the crops. But if you were one of the rats, who's the 'Evil' force now?

I'd like to emphasise here, that 'Evil' is really nothing like what we came to understand as a child. You see, a quality cannot exist on its own. It has to be in relation to another quality. To illustrate this: there has to be a 'Short' in order for a 'Tall' to exist. There needs to be a 'Slow' so that you can have a 'Fast'. You need to have a 'Hot' so you can have a 'Cold'. 'Cold' would be meaningless if there's no such thing as 'Hot'. So there needs to be an 'Evil' in order for there to be a 'Good'. I realise that sounds a bit wrong, but hey, I think you get my point. Note the symbol on the top of this article. It is, of course, the famous symbol from Taoism–the Yin and Yang–denoting duality as part of the nature.^[B] It is totally natural to have these dualities. 'Good' and 'Evil' are merely labels to describe qualities.

Next time you see/hear the label 'Evil', I want you to roll your eyes and think "Evil-Schmevil". Selfish is more like it.

Footnotes:
[A]. Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. (2012, April 14). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 09:44, April 28, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&oldid=487278861

[B]. Yin and yang. (2012, April 27). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 10:50, April 28, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yin_and_yang&oldid=489436708

The truth about believing and being skeptical

Being a blind-believer is commonly associated with close-mindedness. But here's a quick twist: whether you are a skeptic or a believer, at any of the extreme ends, it would make you the exact same close-minded person! One could be so skeptic that they would not accept anything that suggests otherwise. The same way that one could believe in something so much that they would not accept anything that disproves it.

A lot of people like to think they are "neutral". So they would say that they are placed right in the middle along the scale in the above diagram. But note I drew that hollow space in the middle.

Most people's definition of being "neutral" is 'not siding with any of the views'. But I beg to differ–I reckon we cannot not side! If we are thinking about it, we will have to be inclined to either views (believing or not-believing). The correct definition of being "neutral" would then have to be 'balancing the two views' as if on a seesaw, not 'not siding with any of the views'.

The hollow space in the middle is akin to the idea in Quantum Physics that matter exists as a potential (it does not really exist) until someone observes it (please see my previous post on Objectivity). Hence if you say you are positioned right in the middle of the above scale, you would really have to be not thinking about it at all!

Two points I want to make: (1) if you think you're a skeptic and not a blind-believer, be careful as you could possess the exact same negative characteristic as the blind-believer: close-mindedness. And (2) be mindful as you always would have to be inclined to one view or the other; and while you can keep balance between the two views, you cannot be so-called "neutral" unless you're not thinking about it. 

The Monopoly Board Game and the Society

Traditionally, the objective of playing the Monopoly is to try and own as many squares as possible and build houses and hotels on them, and ultimately to “screw over” other players by hoping they will land on them and pay up a hefty sum of money. Muahaha.

Lately I’ve been playing Monopoly on my iPhone and have been winning a lot. I think the Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’–the Computer Player) may not be very bright though I've set it to the highest difficulty level. But that is beside the point, the point is: playing this board game again has given me a profound insight into the behaviour of our own society.

When I'm winning in the game, I own most of the squares, have houses & hotels built everywhere. So, what I started noticing is that the AI would struggle to pay rent for the squares it lands on. It would reluctantly mortgage everything it owns to meet the renting commitments. When this happens, I feel sorry for it. I wish I could give away some of my squares so that it would stay ‘alive’, but alas the game wouldn’t let me–as that would be a weird way to play! But heck, the last time I dominated the game I actually sold down the number of houses and hotels I own so the AI can carry on.

Why do I play the game in this funny way? Because I'm seeing a glimpse of our society: Powerful corporations trying to get the edge on the competition by suing other companies that happen to draw some inspiration from them (read: Apple); big Music and Movie Studios, despite making millions of dollars of profit, trying to sue students and single mums who only wish to share and care; or the Big Banks who, despite making billions of dollars every year, raise interest rates at the expense of average home loan owners when the country’s Reserve Bank leaves the Interest Rate on hold.

The greed of some powerful members of our society translates to Income Inequality–an unbalanced spread of wealth. Please take a look at this article by Linette Lopez of the Business Insider. In summary, Income Inequality in a society could mean:^[1]

- Less children well-being
- More children Dropping out of High School
- Higher crime rates
- Less trust in each other in the society
- More mental illness
- More competition and stress
- Less Social Mobility (e.g. Career Opportunities)

If we want to live in a society where everybody thrives, we need to adopt the attitude of how I play the Monopoly, where I want my opponent to stay alive and thrive. Of course this is a strange way to play the game and we would never finish it. But we wouldn't want our real world to end like a Monopoly game. We want our world to never end and everybody in it to stay alive and thrive, wouldn’t you agree?

Footnotes:
[1]. Lopez, Linette, 2011, "This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies," Business Insider, Web. 20 Feb. 2012 <http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11?op=1>