The below mentioned piece of counsel was caught transversing the ethereal space of the internet at the speed of light.
It relates to a point by point speech purportedly made by the multi-billionaire Bill Gates to a bunch of high school kids. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created (and continues to create) a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
The 11 Reality Checks are:
Reality 1:
Life is not fair - get used to it!
Reality 2:
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Reality 3:
You will NOT make vast amounts of money right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a company car until you earn both.
Reality 4:
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Reality 5:
Menial work is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for menial work: they called it opportunity.
Reality 6:
If you mess up, it’s not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Reality 7:
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Reality 8:
Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Reality 9:
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Reality 10:
Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to go to the office.
Reality 11:
Be nice to people. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Interesting reality checks that are not in keeping with the new-age mentality of positive self esteem and constructive approbation. Yet, all real and glaringly hard.
To my mind, the stated reality checks should be read by all who perceive the democratic processes as being one where ‘take take take’ is the rule of thumb.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Global Warming: A Growing Woe
I am of the opinion that the whole so called global warming/climate change issue is too complex a subject to just apportion blame willy-nilly onto the veritable human being, especially as no real workable solutions are put forward by the activists and pundits of global warming/climate change theories.
We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)
The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.
I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.
Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.
The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.
The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.
Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).
So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’
What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.
What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.
The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.
And then there is technology; another detractor.
Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.
Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.
And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.
I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.
My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?
Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!
Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.
The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.
Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’
It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.
We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)
The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.
I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.
Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.
The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.
The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.
Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).
So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’
What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.
What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.
The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.
And then there is technology; another detractor.
Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.
Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.
And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.
I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.
My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?
Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!
Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.
The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.
Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’
It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
What is in your tog-bag?
Modern life is about the accumulation of material goods which translates into the precept of being well-off or of being seen as someone of means. In other words: material possessions, lots of them.
The challenge with the precept in question is that it is a precept rather than a tangible event. It relies on the visual appearance rather than the actual state of affairs. The challenge also relies on others falling for the illusion rather than accepting the actual reality.
The theory behind ‘what is in your tog bag’ is about unpacking the so-called tog bag until one is freed up from all the self-imposed material constraints that limit one’s ability to live and function as a human being.
The theory also relies on one’s ability to step-away from being a wage-slave; which is quite contrary to that which the fiduciary system calls for. What the theory does not call for is irresponsible reactive action while in the pursuit of unpacking the proverbial ‘tog bag.’
The ability to step-away from being a wage slave implies a pro-active action that will gradually lead to one being able to step-away from being caught up in a world where material possessions and living-the-high-life illusion reigns supreme.
Thus walking away from one’s self imposed fiduciary responsibilities is not what the theory calls for. Quite the contrary. One needs to step-away from the real world without the worry that debt-hounds will eventually rob one of the sought-after freedoms.
The first step towards understanding the ‘what is in your tog bag’ theory is to visualise an empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor full of emptiness. This visualisation process is an important one as the picture of an empty ‘tog bag’ must be fully understood and felt by the mind. If the visualisation process is executed correctly, one must be able to touch and smell the empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor.
The ensuing steps revolve around picking up the ‘tog bag’ and beginning to slowly start filling it with ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis i.e. toothpaste, toothbrush, clothes, shoes, wallet, briefcase, etc. Feeling the weight of the ‘tog bag’ increasing becomes the paramount sensation in the continuing visualisation process.
Once all the ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis are packed, one can progress to filling the ‘tog bag’ with electrical utensils i.e. kettle, microwave oven, coffee percolator, etc. Once all the utensils have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ start filling it up with the rest of the possessions one has in the home i.e. bed, bed linen, desks, couches, TV, computers, etc.
When all these have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ one can now place the last remaining items in the ‘tog bag’ i.e. car, bicycle, gym equipment, workshop tools, garden tools and equipment, etc.
Finally one can add the ‘home’ to the bag.
It must be ensured that after each step, the incremental weight increase is felt by the mind’s eye. Even if one understands that one cannot lift said bag from the floor, ensure that the exertion required is felt to its fullest extent. Again, the sensation of weight to the mind’s eye is of paramount importance.
To the final sensation, start asking the question: What can I do without and still retain the lifestyle that I want to live? Do not rush this step. Think about it carefully over the span of a few days, all-the-while recalling the weight-sensation of the full ‘tog bag’ every time the question is asked (recalled.)
Once one is comfortable with the realistic answer, visualise the items being removed from the ‘tog bag’ and the sensation of relief evident from the reduction in weight of the ‘tog bag.’ Feel this sensation to its fullest extent. Again, the relief must be felt by the mind’s eye.
The items in question must at first only be those items that are dragging one down or are of unnecessary bulk.
Once the items have been identified and accepted by the mind from amongst all the rationale imposed on the question asked, bit-by-bit, one can start implementing a physical plan-of-action with the view to getting rid of said items or reducing the obligatory debt associated with said items i.e. credit card debt, unused gym equipment, etc.
It must be emphasised that throughout the continuing process, the sensation of ‘weight’ must be visualised and fully felt by the mind’s eye. This includes the ‘relief’ felt when items are removed from the ‘tog bag.’
The whole exercise uses left vs. right brain activation processes as the means to achieving a goal. Being able to just positively think about overcoming a problem does not instinctively instigate the required actions for lightening of one’s material life burden.
The challenge with the precept in question is that it is a precept rather than a tangible event. It relies on the visual appearance rather than the actual state of affairs. The challenge also relies on others falling for the illusion rather than accepting the actual reality.
The theory behind ‘what is in your tog bag’ is about unpacking the so-called tog bag until one is freed up from all the self-imposed material constraints that limit one’s ability to live and function as a human being.
The theory also relies on one’s ability to step-away from being a wage-slave; which is quite contrary to that which the fiduciary system calls for. What the theory does not call for is irresponsible reactive action while in the pursuit of unpacking the proverbial ‘tog bag.’
The ability to step-away from being a wage slave implies a pro-active action that will gradually lead to one being able to step-away from being caught up in a world where material possessions and living-the-high-life illusion reigns supreme.
Thus walking away from one’s self imposed fiduciary responsibilities is not what the theory calls for. Quite the contrary. One needs to step-away from the real world without the worry that debt-hounds will eventually rob one of the sought-after freedoms.
The first step towards understanding the ‘what is in your tog bag’ theory is to visualise an empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor full of emptiness. This visualisation process is an important one as the picture of an empty ‘tog bag’ must be fully understood and felt by the mind. If the visualisation process is executed correctly, one must be able to touch and smell the empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor.
The ensuing steps revolve around picking up the ‘tog bag’ and beginning to slowly start filling it with ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis i.e. toothpaste, toothbrush, clothes, shoes, wallet, briefcase, etc. Feeling the weight of the ‘tog bag’ increasing becomes the paramount sensation in the continuing visualisation process.
Once all the ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis are packed, one can progress to filling the ‘tog bag’ with electrical utensils i.e. kettle, microwave oven, coffee percolator, etc. Once all the utensils have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ start filling it up with the rest of the possessions one has in the home i.e. bed, bed linen, desks, couches, TV, computers, etc.
When all these have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ one can now place the last remaining items in the ‘tog bag’ i.e. car, bicycle, gym equipment, workshop tools, garden tools and equipment, etc.
Finally one can add the ‘home’ to the bag.
It must be ensured that after each step, the incremental weight increase is felt by the mind’s eye. Even if one understands that one cannot lift said bag from the floor, ensure that the exertion required is felt to its fullest extent. Again, the sensation of weight to the mind’s eye is of paramount importance.
To the final sensation, start asking the question: What can I do without and still retain the lifestyle that I want to live? Do not rush this step. Think about it carefully over the span of a few days, all-the-while recalling the weight-sensation of the full ‘tog bag’ every time the question is asked (recalled.)
Once one is comfortable with the realistic answer, visualise the items being removed from the ‘tog bag’ and the sensation of relief evident from the reduction in weight of the ‘tog bag.’ Feel this sensation to its fullest extent. Again, the relief must be felt by the mind’s eye.
The items in question must at first only be those items that are dragging one down or are of unnecessary bulk.
Once the items have been identified and accepted by the mind from amongst all the rationale imposed on the question asked, bit-by-bit, one can start implementing a physical plan-of-action with the view to getting rid of said items or reducing the obligatory debt associated with said items i.e. credit card debt, unused gym equipment, etc.
It must be emphasised that throughout the continuing process, the sensation of ‘weight’ must be visualised and fully felt by the mind’s eye. This includes the ‘relief’ felt when items are removed from the ‘tog bag.’
The whole exercise uses left vs. right brain activation processes as the means to achieving a goal. Being able to just positively think about overcoming a problem does not instinctively instigate the required actions for lightening of one’s material life burden.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Poor be Damned!?
The other day while listening to another well-meaning politician sprout foibles on the eradication of poverty, I was struck by the lack of solutions in his speech. This phenomenon is common whenever politicians or people get-together to source solutions to an ever-present, and growing, social ailment.
This lack of presentable solutions is more of an ill than the whole poverty paradox. Poverty is solvable. The problem arises mostly from the reality that solutions are money based and that in itself, will require a mindset change by the way many think about money.
Money or even the mention thereof is a taboo in most languages. Yes, most will talk freely about other peoples money, but their own is a guarded secret.
Many, when confronted by poverty, will jump on the get-a-job horse. Others will look the other way. Some will put some pennies into the begging-tin and drive off in a rush. Few will attempt to come up with short term solutions (meals-on-wheels, shelters, charity drives, etc) but find themselves alone in the fight-to-eradicate-poverty.
There have been many workable solutions put forward by thinking individuals on changing the way society views and thinks about money:
1) The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived by Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year.
2) The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been encouraged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less. This plan would cost the government less than the present welfare systems, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy factors.
3) The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Again this would cost "the government" less than the present welfare systems. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody would know if it was supplementary income or a refund.
My take on the whole eradication of poverty is a simple one.
In South Africa we have a Lotto entity that pays out huge amounts of money in a given year (In excess of 50 Million Rand.) With an estimated population of 50 million persons, a conservative disbursement of 250 thousand Rand per person would elevate all to a liveable economic level and rid the SA society of the terms poverty, poor and the-poor-of-the-poor in an instant
.
From the outset, my avaricious money-based common-sense screamed louder than a wailing ambulance siren: the rich would get richer, many would stop working thus creating economic chaos, employers would loose their power over their remaining employees, politicians would not be happy, inflation would shoot sky high, the money markets would suffer, what about the work ethic (did not the ancients say that one needs to work to acquire wealth,) how would the disbursement work, who would oversee the disbursement process, etc, etc, etc.
On the other hand, would people not revert to doing what they enjoy doing, would not their creative potential rise to the fore collectively, etc?
As the global situation stands, the human race future looks bleak. To survive longer than its nose, it needs to elevate itself above clichés of old, do away with wage slavery, embrace humanity and move forward to a co-operative mind-set for the good of all.
Alas, I feel that humanity will remain doomed.
(with thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)
This lack of presentable solutions is more of an ill than the whole poverty paradox. Poverty is solvable. The problem arises mostly from the reality that solutions are money based and that in itself, will require a mindset change by the way many think about money.
Money or even the mention thereof is a taboo in most languages. Yes, most will talk freely about other peoples money, but their own is a guarded secret.
Many, when confronted by poverty, will jump on the get-a-job horse. Others will look the other way. Some will put some pennies into the begging-tin and drive off in a rush. Few will attempt to come up with short term solutions (meals-on-wheels, shelters, charity drives, etc) but find themselves alone in the fight-to-eradicate-poverty.
There have been many workable solutions put forward by thinking individuals on changing the way society views and thinks about money:
1) The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived by Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year.
2) The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been encouraged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less. This plan would cost the government less than the present welfare systems, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy factors.
3) The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Again this would cost "the government" less than the present welfare systems. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody would know if it was supplementary income or a refund.
My take on the whole eradication of poverty is a simple one.
In South Africa we have a Lotto entity that pays out huge amounts of money in a given year (In excess of 50 Million Rand.) With an estimated population of 50 million persons, a conservative disbursement of 250 thousand Rand per person would elevate all to a liveable economic level and rid the SA society of the terms poverty, poor and the-poor-of-the-poor in an instant
.
From the outset, my avaricious money-based common-sense screamed louder than a wailing ambulance siren: the rich would get richer, many would stop working thus creating economic chaos, employers would loose their power over their remaining employees, politicians would not be happy, inflation would shoot sky high, the money markets would suffer, what about the work ethic (did not the ancients say that one needs to work to acquire wealth,) how would the disbursement work, who would oversee the disbursement process, etc, etc, etc.
On the other hand, would people not revert to doing what they enjoy doing, would not their creative potential rise to the fore collectively, etc?
As the global situation stands, the human race future looks bleak. To survive longer than its nose, it needs to elevate itself above clichés of old, do away with wage slavery, embrace humanity and move forward to a co-operative mind-set for the good of all.
Alas, I feel that humanity will remain doomed.
(with thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Online Shopping: The New Cup of Tea
During the past holiday season, my fancy took me to surfing online shopping sites. A form of consumerism that is becoming popular in leaps and bounds.
All at once I could view, compare and critique items across a wide spectrum of commodities and articles and suppliers; all from the security of my home PC. It was like entering a new world. One where fancies, likes and imagination could be satisfied on the spot. Of course, the money issue did put a damper on the googly eyed adventure. In essence, a reality very much like the traditional way of shopping; except for the armchair bit.
In between the hours spent online, I kept thinking as to the popularity of the medium at hand: Is the South African populace in tune with this medium? Which population demographic finds this electronic shopping experience attractive? What is popular? What about the legal paperwork? Probability of scam attacks and phishing expeditions?
To the first and second question, in speaking to friends and acquaintances, I derived that generally middle to high income households have shopped online: be it tickets to a movie, to a motor car. Most also tried their hand at grocery shopping. Thus the appeal is there.
What was fascinating is how members of the lower income demographic made use of internet cafes (the least of all secure sites) to carry out their order of business (The numbers in question were few but growing.)
The interesting bit came in the guise of some using the information at hand to do comparisons, then going to a physical shop to purchase the selected item in question. Fear of Credit Card information theft and of the faceless entity behind the online façade were the greatest deterrents to actually buying online; specially when substantial payment had to be made (I use one dedicated credit card with low limits to transact across the world wide web.)
Thus more questions came to mind: What would make the online experience more palatable and attractive? What would make the existing system more secure? What would quell the fears a consumer has about shopping online? What impact would the incoming consumer protection act have on the online shopping fraternity (would online service providers have to be RICA’ed or FICA’ed?) Would this action put to the inherent consumer fear of shopping online? Would a ‘comment box’ assist the consumer in voicing their opinions on the service, articles, etc?
The one avenue I found in my searches relates to the commonality of after-sales support more so than the offering of an online shopping portal. In the whole, retail companies offer online after-sales support structures: An operator will contact a consumer after a certain lapse in time to find out about the satisfaction perception. If positive, then all is well, if negative, then how can they assist!?
The above process tends to mostly placate and pacify consumers to the inferred ethos that the company cares.
As a whole, those that can, make use of online shopping to buy low to mid-priced items. The caution factor kicks in where huge payments have to be made. Here the consumer will go to the physical shop and pay there.
The lower income groups use the net more for comparison and availability purposes rather than outright online buying. The picture with the lower income groups is that the mindset is changing as the costs of internet hosting are dropping. The advent of intelligent mobile phones is also helping to change the mindset.
Personally I found the whole exercise insightful and calming: the threats are there, but with a small amount of internet savvy, threats can be managed and overcome.
Will I continue to buy online? Yes! Sensibly so.
All at once I could view, compare and critique items across a wide spectrum of commodities and articles and suppliers; all from the security of my home PC. It was like entering a new world. One where fancies, likes and imagination could be satisfied on the spot. Of course, the money issue did put a damper on the googly eyed adventure. In essence, a reality very much like the traditional way of shopping; except for the armchair bit.
In between the hours spent online, I kept thinking as to the popularity of the medium at hand: Is the South African populace in tune with this medium? Which population demographic finds this electronic shopping experience attractive? What is popular? What about the legal paperwork? Probability of scam attacks and phishing expeditions?
To the first and second question, in speaking to friends and acquaintances, I derived that generally middle to high income households have shopped online: be it tickets to a movie, to a motor car. Most also tried their hand at grocery shopping. Thus the appeal is there.
What was fascinating is how members of the lower income demographic made use of internet cafes (the least of all secure sites) to carry out their order of business (The numbers in question were few but growing.)
The interesting bit came in the guise of some using the information at hand to do comparisons, then going to a physical shop to purchase the selected item in question. Fear of Credit Card information theft and of the faceless entity behind the online façade were the greatest deterrents to actually buying online; specially when substantial payment had to be made (I use one dedicated credit card with low limits to transact across the world wide web.)
Thus more questions came to mind: What would make the online experience more palatable and attractive? What would make the existing system more secure? What would quell the fears a consumer has about shopping online? What impact would the incoming consumer protection act have on the online shopping fraternity (would online service providers have to be RICA’ed or FICA’ed?) Would this action put to the inherent consumer fear of shopping online? Would a ‘comment box’ assist the consumer in voicing their opinions on the service, articles, etc?
The one avenue I found in my searches relates to the commonality of after-sales support more so than the offering of an online shopping portal. In the whole, retail companies offer online after-sales support structures: An operator will contact a consumer after a certain lapse in time to find out about the satisfaction perception. If positive, then all is well, if negative, then how can they assist!?
The above process tends to mostly placate and pacify consumers to the inferred ethos that the company cares.
As a whole, those that can, make use of online shopping to buy low to mid-priced items. The caution factor kicks in where huge payments have to be made. Here the consumer will go to the physical shop and pay there.
The lower income groups use the net more for comparison and availability purposes rather than outright online buying. The picture with the lower income groups is that the mindset is changing as the costs of internet hosting are dropping. The advent of intelligent mobile phones is also helping to change the mindset.
Personally I found the whole exercise insightful and calming: the threats are there, but with a small amount of internet savvy, threats can be managed and overcome.
Will I continue to buy online? Yes! Sensibly so.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
I Am In Love With Me (or why narcissists always rise to positions of power?)
In this world of new age philosophies, gobbledegook optimism, politically correct challenges, the glass is half full euphemisms and there-are-no-problems syndrome, Narcissism rules supreme.
What used to be viewed as a non-curable character flaw is now viewed as something to strive for or to live by. The media live by it, marketing strives on it and the corporate spaces abound with it. The megalomaniac philanthropist, Mr. Bill Gates, called it ‘tough love.’
During the sixties, the ‘I’ philosophy raised its ugly head in the shape of a smiley face. All the sudden it was not on to think of family or society as a comforting safe space. The ‘I’ was elevated beyond all hereto known values. Suddenly it was cool to claim; I am worth it, it is my life, what is in it for me, I am numero uno, greed is king, et al.
It is understood that human beings are social creatures that require frequent validation of their self worth. Social interactions usually take care of this need through normal everyday dialogue, debate, interchange of ideas, creative processes and the like.
Unfortunately, these so called normal processes, do not suffice in a narcissist world. The need to be superior is the primary force; a force that involves the covering up of feelings (a sign of weakness) while fostering feelings of self-importance and self-appeasement (a sign of grandiosity.) In other words, I am, I can…when I was …, I, I, I.
The plus side of narcissism is that it is an energetic, motivated, assertive and competitive condition. All who suffer from narcissism are individuals (a very important asset) who value creativity, who strive to always improve on themselves and who constantly view mistakes as non-entities. They also value intellectual performance above all else.
No that bad, one would think. The down side is that a narcissist will internalise failure to the extent of hostility towards others who are perceived to be their betters and thus will externalise blame on all negative events.
In other words, a narcissist will rationalise or rewrite history in their favour: “ They freely transform failures into successes, and construct lengthy and intricate rationalisations that inflate their self-worth or justify what they believe is their right.” Dr Theodore Milton. Dr. Roger Davis further pointed out that narcissists, “remember the past as they would have wanted it to occur, not as it actually happened.”
When confronted, narcissist will overtly express themselves in a self-justificating rage, character assassination and projection or deflection e.g. you are just envious.
They also exhibit traits such as; self-focus in interpersonal exchanges, difficulty with empathy, hypersensitivity to any perceived insults, a vulnerability to shame rather than guilt, subtle but persistent bragging, expert claims to most things, denials of remorse and gratitude, etc, etc.
All in all, not a nice condition at all.
Yet, this is what is being projected and inferred as to what one must aspire to.
The sixties ‘smiley face’ was an icon to the art of positive thought given the wars that were being fought at the time, and the impact they were having on society at large. Narcissism was never the intended outcome.
But as usual, the human condition will rise to the occasion and turn all good intentions to hell.
Food for Thought: The strange thing about narcissism is that it needs enablers to feed its need for attention and feeling of superiority. One craves power the other, security.
For me, give me a juicy portion of t-bone and chips, crème brûlée, and all is well with me.
Mwah!
What used to be viewed as a non-curable character flaw is now viewed as something to strive for or to live by. The media live by it, marketing strives on it and the corporate spaces abound with it. The megalomaniac philanthropist, Mr. Bill Gates, called it ‘tough love.’
During the sixties, the ‘I’ philosophy raised its ugly head in the shape of a smiley face. All the sudden it was not on to think of family or society as a comforting safe space. The ‘I’ was elevated beyond all hereto known values. Suddenly it was cool to claim; I am worth it, it is my life, what is in it for me, I am numero uno, greed is king, et al.
It is understood that human beings are social creatures that require frequent validation of their self worth. Social interactions usually take care of this need through normal everyday dialogue, debate, interchange of ideas, creative processes and the like.
Unfortunately, these so called normal processes, do not suffice in a narcissist world. The need to be superior is the primary force; a force that involves the covering up of feelings (a sign of weakness) while fostering feelings of self-importance and self-appeasement (a sign of grandiosity.) In other words, I am, I can…when I was …, I, I, I.
The plus side of narcissism is that it is an energetic, motivated, assertive and competitive condition. All who suffer from narcissism are individuals (a very important asset) who value creativity, who strive to always improve on themselves and who constantly view mistakes as non-entities. They also value intellectual performance above all else.
No that bad, one would think. The down side is that a narcissist will internalise failure to the extent of hostility towards others who are perceived to be their betters and thus will externalise blame on all negative events.
In other words, a narcissist will rationalise or rewrite history in their favour: “ They freely transform failures into successes, and construct lengthy and intricate rationalisations that inflate their self-worth or justify what they believe is their right.” Dr Theodore Milton. Dr. Roger Davis further pointed out that narcissists, “remember the past as they would have wanted it to occur, not as it actually happened.”
When confronted, narcissist will overtly express themselves in a self-justificating rage, character assassination and projection or deflection e.g. you are just envious.
They also exhibit traits such as; self-focus in interpersonal exchanges, difficulty with empathy, hypersensitivity to any perceived insults, a vulnerability to shame rather than guilt, subtle but persistent bragging, expert claims to most things, denials of remorse and gratitude, etc, etc.
All in all, not a nice condition at all.
Yet, this is what is being projected and inferred as to what one must aspire to.
The sixties ‘smiley face’ was an icon to the art of positive thought given the wars that were being fought at the time, and the impact they were having on society at large. Narcissism was never the intended outcome.
But as usual, the human condition will rise to the occasion and turn all good intentions to hell.
Food for Thought: The strange thing about narcissism is that it needs enablers to feed its need for attention and feeling of superiority. One craves power the other, security.
For me, give me a juicy portion of t-bone and chips, crème brûlée, and all is well with me.
Mwah!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Healthy Ignorance
If a high intelligence quotient as an ideal equates to the ultimate desire, then the ‘majority’ have much to aspire to. In statistical circles, 2% of the population (exceptionals) have IQ levels of 120 points or more while the ‘minorities’ (100 to 120 IQ points) account for around 15% of the population leaving the ‘mediocre’ and ‘majorities’ to account for the rest.
Putting the whole IQ world in perspective is a tricky exercise, but one which I believe to be of vital importance if one is to understand how the world of IQ levels is perceived. It is supposed that persons with IQ levels below 20 IQ points cannot be toilet trained while those with around 40 IQ points, although they may be able to attain grade 4 by ages 18, cannot look after themselves, and those with IQ points of 70 and lower cannot differentiate between right or wrong.
The ‘mediocre’ (90 to 100 IQ points) fare no better. Although they can do all the above with closed-eyes proficiency, they are not University material, their reading material is, at best, news stories (the reading of Editorials not included,) popular magazines and novels. Their morality is formed around executing what Authorities expects from them; be it work, religious, governmental or scholastic.
It must be understood that an IQ result is a statistically derived number which indicates relative and comparative abilities that can be used to obtain academic skills and knowledge. An individual has many specific mental abilities of which some can be measured accurately while others can only be used as indicators (or predictors) of academic abilities.
(Note: An IQ test does not measure most kinds of human abilities such as musical talent, artistic flair, emotional stability, physical co-ordination, or spiritual level.)
Thus it is left to the ‘minorities’ --
Actually, the ‘minority’ prospects are rather gloomy. Research at a Swedish University has scantly indicated that ‘minorities’ tend to suffer from one or other form of physiological malady when exposed to prolonged periods in the company of mediocrity. The results were obtained by randomly questioning ill people whose IQ levels fell within the prescribed range, specially those in corporate environments, as to what brought on the infirmity. All persons questioned replied that prior to the attack, or closely thereafter, they had to endure some or other act of stupidity by one of their fellow work mates; who were subsequently tested and found to have IQ levels below 100 IQ points.
-- and the ‘exceptionals’ to rule the roost, as these are individuals that can reason abstractly, postulate logic and solve what-if situations: exactly what is expected from leaders, politicians and decision makers!?
If the world is indeed ruled by the ‘brilliant,’ why is it in such a mess? Surely the intellectually superior can, by way of reason, foresee the outcome of a given action? And maybe they too suffer, like everyone else, from attacks of megalomania, from desires of grandeur and from blatant power mongery.
Consider; (all below mentioned are claimed to have an IQ above 100 points)
Hitler; an intelligent man who used reason as a means. Yet, his noble pursuits lost their benevolence as his insolence grew. Why should he who gained knowledge through reading implement a draconian rule like book-burning? Surely his common sense should have kicked in and told him that he was being a fool? Why the abnormal abhorrence of a people when intelligence, through reason, dictates that, in life, its not about absolutes but temperance?
Sister Theresa; a well-to-do woman who revelled in altruist pursuits. There was nothing that this women would not do for others; as long as their suffering met with her expectations.
Einstein; a confirmed logical thinker of high acclaim. Yet he believed in God; a subject that has no logical substance except through the eyes of faith. And his domestic life left a lot to be desired; just ask his wife’s.
Margaret Thatcher; highly respected for her powers of rationale and astuteness in negotiations. Yet she had no qualms about condemning (indirectly) a portion of the British population to death (starvation, exposure, war, etc) just because her pride could not be blackmailed.
What about persons who head reputable institutions, that are loved by their employees and partners alike, that are known for their powers of reason while behind closed doors, abuse their loved ones, and comit other atrocities.
What about a less known factor that most shakers-and-movers sufferer from one or other form of schizophrenia - Not a duality of character but of psychotic mania.
In the world of politics, we are all equal, but by all reasoning, an exaggerated misnomer:
Fact; In the world of IQ testing, we are not equal.
Fact; In the world of anthropomorphic measurements, we are not equal: That verbal inabilities are vast. That musculature variations are many. Even our powers of reason are dissimilar; and the list goes on.
Given all of the a foregoing reckonings, are IQ results of any use to anyone or to life in general?
As a means to an end, let me simplify the inadequacies of IQ testing by means of a true story: There was a murder case where this person, with an IQ below 70 points, could not be executed for his crime as he was deemed not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, yet, because of his shrewd dedication in the pursuit of justice, the jury ruled that he was intelligent enough to die.
But it must be bliss to live in ignorance. It is postulated that higher intelligence may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, contests the claim that ‘it is better to be smart than to be stupid,’ at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are far more successful than primates in these terms, and that is generally true of creatures that fill a specific niche or can undergo rapid genetic change.
Intelligence versus inanity will remain a bone of contention with much time being dedicated by pundits in the pursuit of answers. In the end, what will it all mean? I do believe that, in the greater scheme of things, not much. Life will continue its ineffable journey with us as passengers, whether we like it or not.
Healthy ignorance must be bliss, as no time is wasted on profound thought processes, in life analysis, or in elucidation. Life is lived as it comes and the rest will take care of itself; what joy, what bliss…what a waste.
Putting the whole IQ world in perspective is a tricky exercise, but one which I believe to be of vital importance if one is to understand how the world of IQ levels is perceived. It is supposed that persons with IQ levels below 20 IQ points cannot be toilet trained while those with around 40 IQ points, although they may be able to attain grade 4 by ages 18, cannot look after themselves, and those with IQ points of 70 and lower cannot differentiate between right or wrong.
The ‘mediocre’ (90 to 100 IQ points) fare no better. Although they can do all the above with closed-eyes proficiency, they are not University material, their reading material is, at best, news stories (the reading of Editorials not included,) popular magazines and novels. Their morality is formed around executing what Authorities expects from them; be it work, religious, governmental or scholastic.
It must be understood that an IQ result is a statistically derived number which indicates relative and comparative abilities that can be used to obtain academic skills and knowledge. An individual has many specific mental abilities of which some can be measured accurately while others can only be used as indicators (or predictors) of academic abilities.
(Note: An IQ test does not measure most kinds of human abilities such as musical talent, artistic flair, emotional stability, physical co-ordination, or spiritual level.)
Thus it is left to the ‘minorities’ --
Actually, the ‘minority’ prospects are rather gloomy. Research at a Swedish University has scantly indicated that ‘minorities’ tend to suffer from one or other form of physiological malady when exposed to prolonged periods in the company of mediocrity. The results were obtained by randomly questioning ill people whose IQ levels fell within the prescribed range, specially those in corporate environments, as to what brought on the infirmity. All persons questioned replied that prior to the attack, or closely thereafter, they had to endure some or other act of stupidity by one of their fellow work mates; who were subsequently tested and found to have IQ levels below 100 IQ points.
-- and the ‘exceptionals’ to rule the roost, as these are individuals that can reason abstractly, postulate logic and solve what-if situations: exactly what is expected from leaders, politicians and decision makers!?
If the world is indeed ruled by the ‘brilliant,’ why is it in such a mess? Surely the intellectually superior can, by way of reason, foresee the outcome of a given action? And maybe they too suffer, like everyone else, from attacks of megalomania, from desires of grandeur and from blatant power mongery.
Consider; (all below mentioned are claimed to have an IQ above 100 points)
Hitler; an intelligent man who used reason as a means. Yet, his noble pursuits lost their benevolence as his insolence grew. Why should he who gained knowledge through reading implement a draconian rule like book-burning? Surely his common sense should have kicked in and told him that he was being a fool? Why the abnormal abhorrence of a people when intelligence, through reason, dictates that, in life, its not about absolutes but temperance?
Sister Theresa; a well-to-do woman who revelled in altruist pursuits. There was nothing that this women would not do for others; as long as their suffering met with her expectations.
Einstein; a confirmed logical thinker of high acclaim. Yet he believed in God; a subject that has no logical substance except through the eyes of faith. And his domestic life left a lot to be desired; just ask his wife’s.
Margaret Thatcher; highly respected for her powers of rationale and astuteness in negotiations. Yet she had no qualms about condemning (indirectly) a portion of the British population to death (starvation, exposure, war, etc) just because her pride could not be blackmailed.
What about persons who head reputable institutions, that are loved by their employees and partners alike, that are known for their powers of reason while behind closed doors, abuse their loved ones, and comit other atrocities.
What about a less known factor that most shakers-and-movers sufferer from one or other form of schizophrenia - Not a duality of character but of psychotic mania.
In the world of politics, we are all equal, but by all reasoning, an exaggerated misnomer:
Fact; In the world of IQ testing, we are not equal.
Fact; In the world of anthropomorphic measurements, we are not equal: That verbal inabilities are vast. That musculature variations are many. Even our powers of reason are dissimilar; and the list goes on.
Given all of the a foregoing reckonings, are IQ results of any use to anyone or to life in general?
As a means to an end, let me simplify the inadequacies of IQ testing by means of a true story: There was a murder case where this person, with an IQ below 70 points, could not be executed for his crime as he was deemed not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, yet, because of his shrewd dedication in the pursuit of justice, the jury ruled that he was intelligent enough to die.
But it must be bliss to live in ignorance. It is postulated that higher intelligence may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, contests the claim that ‘it is better to be smart than to be stupid,’ at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are far more successful than primates in these terms, and that is generally true of creatures that fill a specific niche or can undergo rapid genetic change.
Intelligence versus inanity will remain a bone of contention with much time being dedicated by pundits in the pursuit of answers. In the end, what will it all mean? I do believe that, in the greater scheme of things, not much. Life will continue its ineffable journey with us as passengers, whether we like it or not.
Healthy ignorance must be bliss, as no time is wasted on profound thought processes, in life analysis, or in elucidation. Life is lived as it comes and the rest will take care of itself; what joy, what bliss…what a waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
