The truth about logic

Logic is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=logic)
S: (n) logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
S: (n) logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
S: (n) logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
S: (n) logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
S: (n) logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)

With the vast increase in literacy rates since 1900, it is logical to assume that people are getting more educated. With more people getting more educated, it is logical to assume that the world should be having less issues / crises. What defies logic is the fact that instead of progressing forward, I suspect that the human civilization is actually regressing backwards (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-humans-are-we-evolving-or.html). How so? I met E.T’s (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-et.html) who are highly educated but do not behave as a highly educated person. We proudly call ourselves civilized (human civilization) but we conveniently forget our civilities when it comes to discussion on corrective actions.

If it is logical for humans to live together in peace, why have we not achieved world peace? As the number of educated people increases, how is it logical that the chances for world peace actually diminishes instead of being increased? The hostilities that are happening world wide are mainly due to misunderstanding arising from ignorance of political, religious or cultural differences from one another. I have yet to come across a country who can proudly claim that their country’s politics are not marred by dirt / grime / mud). Surely that is illogical because politics are meant to be clean but how is it that politicians end up becoming dirty?

All of the religions in the world preached about living together in harmony. Is it logical that we end up killing one another to uphold the good name of our religions? What if one day an alien race were to come in peace but they do not practice any of our religions? Do we tell them “I am sorry but I have to exterminate you because you are a pagan?”. I find such thinking highly illogical befitting a civilized person.

Cultural differences have sparked many deaths as well. I read that in India, where banned caste systems are still being practiced, young couples are executed by their own family members because they tried to marry some1 from a lower caste. Human race has 6,000 years of recorded history, despite all these years, is it logical for us to continue to behave how we had behaved?

One of the definitions for crazy is doing the same thing over and over again BUT expecting different results. Taking into consideration that human race is behaving the same way but expecting world peace without making the extra effort to do so is tantamount to crazy. Is this a logical assumption?

The corrective action for us to progress forward is to adopt a logical approach in whatever we do. What do you think?

The Truth About Superstitions

“Break a mirror and risk 7 years of bad luck” was something that I read in one of the many The Adventures of Tintin comic book series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) during my younger days.

I remember vividly when I showed the comic to my father and asked him “Why seven years, not more or less”?. He replied that it was an old belief by the Westerners.

Growing up, I discovered that for most of the superstitions, when I asked around, nobody knew the reason for such beliefs. Superstition is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=superstition) :

S: (n) superstition, superstitious notion (an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear)

For a more elaborate definition on superstition, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

As superstition is defined as an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear, since knowledge was limited to the wealthy or nobility since ancient times, it makes sense that with the literacy rates increasing, the number of superstitions would slowly vanish. The main reason why superstitions would not vanish is because adults continue to emphasize it to their young. Some of the more common ones include (http://www.oldsuperstitions.com/) :
* An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
* All wishes on shooting stars come true.
* Friday the 13th.
* Walking under a ladder.
* 4 leaf clover / horseshoe
The list goes on and on.

It is human nature to blame, justify and give excuses as it is comparatively easier, and safer, than to investigate the actual reason. For an example, Friday the 13th is nothing more than an observation that a series of natural and man-made disasters taking place on Friday the 13th. It doesn’t make sense to me because every single day, there is a disaster, be it natural or man-made. I believe that births are a celebration of life and every single day thousands of new babies are born across the globe. This being the case, how can Friday the 13th be classified as a ‘bad’ day?

The 4 leaf clover / horseshoe are ancient beliefs symbolizing good luck – but how much research has been conducted on it to prove that they really do bring good luck? The truth about superstition is that if you believe in them, they will become manifest in your subconscious mind and the law of attraction will attract the necessary forces in the universe to make your belief come true. But where do you draw the line? Do you believe in all of them or only in the ones that you choose that you want to believe in? For me, I choose to believe in facts, not fiction. The corrective action would be for parents to stop disseminating such false beliefs to their children. I came across the following saying:

There is no cure for stupidity but there is a remedy for ignorance; it is called learning.

Superstition is a way of the past – in this era of Knowledge Economy, there is no room for ignorance.

Technorati

Technorati Profile

The truth about being tactful

In this modern day of nanotechnology, it is strange to see that humans are evolving (or are we devolving) (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-humans-are-we-evolving-or.html) into something more primitive when it comes to manners and tactfulness.

I come from a contact centre background and I am surprised that instead of becoming more tactful, people are becoming less tactful. In fact, consumers are capitalizing on any given opportunities to yell, scream and holler at customer service agents over the phone simply because they think they can. Many people think that the reason for them to behave in such a manner is because they were influenced by the media. I beg to differ.

In the movie “The Dark Knight”, Michael Caine played the role of Alfred PennyWorth. Rachel Dawes, Bruce Wayne’s long time girlfriend, handed an unsealed note to Alfred to be handed to Bruce. Rachel meant to tell Bruce that she has chosen Harvey Dent and that she will be marrying Harvey. Bruce was in a daze when he found out that he couldn’t save Rachel, the one woman he truly loves, and he muttered “she was going to wait for me”. Alfred, being tactful, decided that Bruce should be spared from the pain that was written in Rachel’s note and decided to burn the note. Throughout the movie, Alfred is the epitome of tactfulness.

Tactfulness is defined as the following: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tactful)
*S: (adj) tactful (having or showing a sense of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with others) "she was tactful enough not to shatter his illusion"; "a tactful remark eased her embarrassment"
*S: (adj) tactful, kid-glove (showing skill and sensitivity in dealing with people) "by diplomatic conduct he avoided antagonizing anyone"; "a tactful way of correcting someone"; "the agency got the kid-glove treatment on Capitol Hill"

In my opinion, tactfulness can only be applied when one is in control of one’s emotions; my MALT concept (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-about-mind-does-mind-exist.html) was derived specifically to emphasize how important it is for us to retain full control of our thinking faculties instead of subjecting ourselves to be emotionally hijacked into becoming an E.T. (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-et.html)
Do share your thoughts.

The truth about humans - are we evolving or devolving?

What are the distinct characteristics that define a human? Is the human race evolving or devolving? In line with the saying ‘you reap what you sow’, I believe that in our race for evolution, we have successfully sowed the seeds of devolution. With the possible exception of the African continent, I believe that obesity is a major health concern faced by countless nations across the globe. Obese people have higher risks of being afflicted with:
* Cardiovascular diseases due to high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels.
* Diabetes
* Osteoarthritis
* Cancer

While it is true that the average lifespan for humans has increased tremendously from 47.3 years in 1900 to 77.8 in 2004 (from U.S. Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027) mainly due to the advancement of medical sciences, advancement in general technology has led humans to lead a more comfortable live due to less physical exertion. It is because of less physical exertion that is directly contributing to the ‘devolution’ of the human race. Are these diseases a result of evolution of devolution?

In line with the saying ‘what goes up must come down’, isn’t it possible that by reaching the peak of evolution, the human race must face devolution? Surely after 6,000 years of recorded human civilization, the human race has evolved near peak levels? Take for an example in the Beijing Olympics 2008, where Michael Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps) won the most number of gold medals at a single Olympics, a total of eight. In terms of human physique, if this is not an indication that the human race has evolved to near peak levels, I do not know what this is.

In terms of scientific advancement, physicists have made many breakthroughs in quantum physics to the extent that even the smallest building block particle has been proven to exist. In fact, scientists are building a USD8 billion international physics laboratory called CERN (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9473392). In terms of economic activities, the numbers of billionaires are increasing annually. In terms of academic achievements, the students are continuously creating new academic records. In every single field of study, new records are being created. If these are not indications of human evolution are near peak levels, what are they?

To quote the following sayings:
* We have eyes but we choose not to see
* We have ears but we choose not to hear

* We have limbs but we choose not to act

What are the corrective actions for us to implement if the continuous evolution will mean devolution for the majority of the global populace? Perhaps we should research into making daily tasks more physically challenging? I have no answers, only more questions. Do share your thoughts.

The truth about babies

Most parents I come across end up telling me that babies are easy to take care. Little do they know that they are being taken care by the baby. You may think I am a lunatic but I have seen how a smile from a baby wipes away the frown on a parent’s face; mind you, that parent just lost his job and chances of him getting employed was bleak.

In this case, who is taking care of whom? Yes, the parent is taking care of the baby in terms of food, clothing and shelter but the baby ‘fed’ the parent’s emotional needs. Many adults sneer at me when I said that there are many things we can learn from babies; until I asked them whether it is true that babies ALWAYS stand up regardless of the number of times they fall down. I read in the newspapers that teens and adults commit suicide but have never come across an article of a baby committing suicide. How it is a baby can handle greater adversity than a teen or an adult? I believe the answer is simple: they are innocent (a polite term for ignorance), thus the saying “ignorance is bliss”.

I read somewhere children as young as 8 can master 5 different languages given the proper lessons. I am 30 but I dare not claim that I master a single language. It means that right from birth, babies never stop learning but as adults, somehow we decided that we can stop learning because we have hit a certain number in our age. What adults tend to brush off is that babies or young children is able to learn because they remain focused. After all, they have no bills to pay, no deadlines to hit, no social issues to deal with, no headaches to worry about who to vote for in the coming elections etc. Perhaps the stumbling block for adults to learn is how to remain focused despite surmounting issues?

Back to babies, there are babies who cry all the time and parents try different kind of tricks to get their babies to stop crying and in most cases, the parents will succeed in their mission. In the adult world, there are delinquents who misbehaves but do the rest of the adults try different kind of tricks to get them to behave? I have seen how one baby tries to calm another baby that is crying; mind you, these babies are total strangers to one another in a shopping mall. But I do not see adult strangers consoling one another if one of them cries.

Once the babies learn how to talk, it seems that nothing can stop them from talking. With the advancement of emails and SMS (text messaging), it seems that adults are talking less and less. The truth about babies: we have lots to learn from them.

The truth about learning - what is your learning quotient

There is no doubt about it – children learn things very quickly. Even the most powerful computer in the world has yet to rival a child’s learning capacity. I have come across terms such as IQ (intelligence quotient), EQ (emotional quotient) and SQ (spiritual quotient) but I when I tried to Google ‘learning quotient’ and found that there was no definition, I was truly shocked.

In my opinion, Learning Quotient (LQ) should be given immediate emphasis, adults and children alike, because it plays an important role in our daily lives. Why is this important? Because every individual has different inclinations, such as visual, audio, action oriented, arithmetic and etc, it is important for us to gauge the best way for the individual to learn. And I felt that this can be best demonstrated via LQ. Humans need to be taught, and in order to be taught, the students must be able to learn.

For teachers (or parents or bosses for that matter) to teach effectively, I would like to think that LQ would enable them to understand why some students (or children or employees) learn faster from the rest. A simple test could be the following scenario:

Scenario 1
A teacher writes “1 +1 = 2” on the blackboard

Scenario 2
A teacher says one plus one equals to two.

Scenario 3
A teacher gives all the students 2 peas each and explains why 1 + 1 = 2

Scenario 4
A teacher gets the students to come up with different examples of the concept.

All 4 scenarios involves a teacher trying to teach students simple mathematics via different methods:

Scenario 1 = visual learner
Scenario 2 = audio learner
Scenario 3 = action learner
Scenario 4 = reaction learner = learns more as they teach

It seems deceptively simple but I assure that in real life situation, many parents or bosses take for granted that their children or employees learn from only ONE of the above scenarios, usually audio. Which is the reason why we keep hearing “how many times must I say….” and “didn’t I tell you this 3 times before?”.

I have seen it happen many times in real life how sports coaches tried in vain to tell their players not to repeat certain moves. If only they take the trouble to record the actions on video and show it to their players, they may save themselves a lot of misery.

There are probably a lot more scenarios to LQ and it would be great if you could share more with me.

The truth about conscience

I visited http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience to learn that conscience is defined as:
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or

motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates

of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or

inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.

It amazes me how seemingly simple decisions can lead to disastrous results because the decisions were made due to the absence of conscience. Enron and Arthur & Andersen are two of the more well known corporate examples whether so called ‘simple’ decisions made by the leader/s led to disastrous results; the leader/s decided that it was ‘acceptable’ to tell a ‘white lie’ as everyone was doing it. They justified their actions by saying that “my conscience is clear”. These are two of the well known incidents – what about those that are not known?

The terrorist attack on World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 will remain on my mind till the day I migrate from this world. I have always wondered how did the terrorists who piloted the planes got over their conscience; to commit suicide is one thing but to go to extreme lengths (learning to pilot a plane, coordinating attacks and hijacking several commercial planes simultaneously to commit mass suicide) is another thing altogether. This led me to think, is it possible for us to adjust our ‘conscience’? If conscience is about what is right or wrong, and since right or wrong can always be re-defined, it means that it is possible to tamper with our conscience. I came to realize that my conscience is being tampered with.

With the media focusing on the negative aspects of human actions (rape, robbery, murder, arson, white collar crimes, kidnapping, terrorist attacks, hijacking, rampant corruption etc), I come to realize that I am becoming more tolerant of such reports. I remember when I was learning martial arts many years ago, the first hit was the most painful. But the more hits I took, the less painful it was for me. Similarly, with the media emphasizing on the negativity, I find it that it is no coincidence that the rate of wrong doing keeps on increasing because everyone else’s conscience is numbed with the negativity.

Honestly speaking, I am sick and tired with all the wrongdoings taking place on this planet due to individuals in power who decided seemingly simple decisions that led to disastrous results. The funny thing about all these seemingly simple decisions; it was made with a clear conscience. Because of the higher rate of wrong doings, I conclude that our conscience is highly adaptable. Unlike birds, spiders or caterpillars, humans do not have the innate ability to know how to be a human. Birds know how to build a nest, spiders know how to weave spider webs and caterpillars know how to make cocoons without being taught.

What I am suggesting is that it is possible to realign our definition of right and wrong thus it is possible to redefine our conscience. That is the beauty and dangerous part of it: it is beautiful because we can learn how to make this world a better place (if you are in the media, emphasize on positivity instead of negativity). It is dangerous because some megalomaniac can utilize this fact to brainwash an army of soldiers to do his bidding.

While I agree that it is important to have freedom of press, perhaps we should consider implementing media with conscience?

The truth about fear - why you should fear fear itself

“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”
The above is quoted from Marie Curie (1867-1934), a French physicist, twice winner of the Nobel prize.

Fear, as an emotion, has assisted mankind’s forefathers throughout the millennia with the fight-or-flight response. According to Howstuffworks (http://health.howstuffworks.com/fear.htm) , fear is defined as:

Fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with a stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight-or-flight response.

Science has proven that emotions are essentially chemicals released in the brain; from a scientific point of view, we could probably synthesize medications to negate the release of fear in our brain thus ultimately ridding ourselves of fear as an emotion. However, that may lead to other unwanted results such as young children walking into a lion’s cage in the zoo due to the absence of fear or youths who end up stealing or robbing for being fearless.

Why should we fear nothing but fear itself? I would like to share some very interesting articles that I have read:
In August 2006, The Boston Globe newspaper featured an article with the title “Scared to Death”
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/08/06/scared_to_death/?page=1)

In October 2006, a doctor says that it is possible to suddenly die from intense fear or trauma. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=2614635&page=1)

Recently in March 2008, German scientists have discovered that fear may freeze the blood in your veins thus increasing the risk of a heart attack (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-ftf032508.php#)

In fact, when you Google the phrase “scared to death” you would probably find more than 2 million results. All over the world, people are intrigued to discover whether it is possible to be scared to death.

Assuming that the 3 articles are inconclusive due to insufficient amount of research conducted, should we live a life in fear?

Assuming that the 3 articles have some truth in them, should we fear nothing but fear itself?

The interesting part is, the more fearful you are, and the more likely you are to contract diseases. The question is, do you want to be healthy or do you want to be stricken with diseases? Now that you know that by fearing nothing but fear itself can assist you in becoming more healthy, which one would you choose? Make an informed decision, not a ‘fearful’ (emotional) one.

The truth about common sense

I would have thought that the definition of common sense would be straight forward but I wasn’t quite ready for the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense


Whatever definition one uses, identifying particular items of knowledge as "common sense" becomes difficult. Philosophers may choose to avoid using the phrase when using precise language.

Isn’t it strange that we incorporate a phrase into our daily lives when the general consensus is there is no common sense? The image above shows a person trying to slot in a square peg into a round hole contrary to common sense. I have heard teachers reprimanding students to use their common sense because the students forgot to write down their names on the exam paper.

For myself, I have frequently encountered road bullies who do not seem to have common sense; they tailgate your vehicle to the extent that there is barely an inch of space between both vehicles in order to intimidate you. In one of my earlier articles “Are you E.T.”, road bullies truly illustrates how an E.T. would behave behind the wheels; common sense dictates that it is dangerous to tailgate a vehicle so closely. However, such road bullies do not have common sense, or do they choose to ignore it?

I believe that the majority of us chose to agree with the general consensus that there is no common sense simply because we have accepted the truth that the general population chose to ignore the fact that we do have a common sense. In this era of nanotechnology where the scientists are racing against time to map out the human genome project (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml) in their bid to search a cure for AIDS and cancer and other fatal diseases, we chose to be selfish with our individual needs.

When we sit down and think about it, common sense isn’t such a difficult concept, in fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that common sense is similar to my MALT concept (in my earlier post titled “The truth about the mind – does it exist). We are gifted with the ability to analyze and reason but we chose NOT to use our gifts. If common sense is universal, then there wouldn’t be wars or nuclear weapons or divorces for that matter.

The truth about common sense is not that it doesn’t exist, rather it has been overshadowed by other selfish reasons. What do you think?

Do you look before you jump or do you jump before you look

Life is about making choices; usually deceptively simple looking but it isn’t when you decide to zoom in deeper. Here’s another one for you to think about;

Do you look before you jump OR
Do you jump before you look?

Scenario 1:
Due to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998, George lost all his life savings in the stock market. To top it all, he owes relatives, friends and banks a large sum of money. As the saying goes, desperate situation calls for desperate measures and George decides to end his life in a suicide pact with his business partner Bush. George and Bush closed their eyes and jumped off a 20 storey building and died side by side.

Scenario 2:
Due to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998, Richard lost all his life savings in the stock market. To top it all, he owes relatives, friends and banks a large sum of money. As the saying goes, desperate situation calls for desperate measures and Richard decides to end his life in a suicide pact with his business partner Branson. Richard closed his eyes and jumped off a 20 storey building first and died instantly. Branson, eyes wide open, hesitated and he decided that he wanted to die in a more dignified manner. He decided to live and start a counselling hotline that is similar to Befrienders and subsequently went on to build many successful business ventures.

Both scenarios have similar circumstances but have different results. Truth hurts; and humans find it difficult to accept change. There are times in our lives when thinking (looking) may be the vital one nano-second that the window of opportunities to open for us to act (jump). For us to see that window of opportunity, we need both our eyes to be wide open and thinking clearly in spite of the surmounting odds stacked against us.

We can learn from the diamond – the hardest substance known to mankind - comes from a humble beginning as a coal but subjected to tremendous amount of pressure for millions of years. As humans do not have a chance to live for millions of years, how difficult can it be to live in spite of surmounting off stacked against us for several decades?

The choice is yours; who would you rather be in the above scenarios?