TwIsTeR's Ramblings: Luck

Filed under: by: wj




We agonize over it. We curse it. We wish it. We bless it. Luck is the one thing that human beings have spent ages trying to comprehend. We just can't get by the concept of chance. Probably because it is one of the few aspects in life that we have no control over. Sure, we can improve the chances by taking rational steps, but it is still chance nonetheless.

Luck is linked to superstition. And it is in human nature to be superstitious. Walking under a ladder? Or cross a path of a black cat? Friday the thirteen? All of these superstition seem to bring about bad luck. They are are also attempts to control the fortune that we have.

We are all superstitious. Some less so than others, but still is. It is present when we wish another good luck. It is there when we avoid funerals. It is in the things we think we see when the lights go off.

This phenomena of superstition also seem to be more pronounced in people who deal with luck in close proximity. Athletes, businessman or even criminals were shown to be extraordinarily superstitious. NBA players were known to follow a routine before entering the game, hoping for an improvement in the one aspect of the game that could mean win or lose.

Therefore superstition is expected. It is tolerated. The problem arises when it starts to control our lives. When it affects how we think and operate. im sure I do not need to elaborate, all of use know of a certain person in our lives who are overwhelmingly superstitious, and build their lives, actions and emotions around such events that do not make any sense. In fact supserstition is so ingrained into our society it is presented not as superstition but as culture. I have mentioned this somewhere before.

How do we lessen the impact of superstition? How do we cut down the ignorance? Education is one answer. The superstitious tend to be lesser educated, often facing poverty. That is not to say all educated men aren't superstitious, but the numbers are significantly less so. For example, in China, many of the people facing poverty tend to believe in spirits and are willing to sacrifice livestock to appease them. This is vastly different from the Chinese living in more modernised cities such as Shanghai.

The other way is to have security over our beliefs and our values. I am a firm believer that nothing will come to harm you if you did not give any reason for it to. Therefore, I do not believe that walking under the ladder will cause anything other than the chance of the ladder falling on top of you. Nor do I believe that, should ghosts and spirits exist to upset a poor person's luck, they would be so petty as to take small trivial things as offense to them.

Let me dwell on that a little further. Using logic, why would ghosts, according to chinese belief. come through the gate of hell to prey on the innocent? Why would they come and bother people because they, say, step on a patch of grass? When the person has done nothing wrong to hurt them when they are alive? If you think about it, if ghosts do exist, I think it will more likly to be Casper than to be poltergeist.

Of course, one can never be sure. So why worry about it? Why fret about it? Why let something like that affect your life? Be thankful of what we have, and have faith that we are safe, and we will be alright.




Sometimes we're on a collision course, and we just don't know it. Whether it's by accident or by design, there's not a thing we can do about it.
A woman in Paris was on her way to go shopping, but she had forgotten her coat - went back to get it.
When she had gotten her coat, the phone had rung, so she'd stopped to answer it; talked for a couple of minutes.

While the woman was on the phone, Daisy was rehearsing for a performance at the Paris Opera House.
And while she was rehearsing, the woman, off the phone now, had gone outside to get a taxi.
Now a taxi driver had dropped off a fare earlier and had stopped to get a cup of coffee.

And all the while, Daisy was rehearsing.
And this cab driver, who dropped off the earlier fare; who'd stopped to get the cup of coffee, had picked up the lady who was going to shopping, and had missed getting an earlier cab.
The taxi had to stop for a man crossing the street, who had left for work five minutes later than he normally did, because he forgot to set off his alarm.

While that man, late for work, was crossing the street, Daisy had finished rehearsing, and was taking a shower.
And while Daisy was showering, the taxi was waiting outside a boutique for the woman to pick up a package, which hadn't been wrapped yet, because the girl who was supposed to wrap it had broken up with her boyfriend the night before, and forgot.
When the package was wrapped, the woman, who was back in the cab, was blocked by a delivery truck, all the while Daisy was getting dressed.
The delivery truck pulled away and the taxi was able to move, while Daisy, the last to be dressed, waited for one of her friends, who had broken a shoelace.
While the taxi was stopped, waiting for a traffic light, Daisy and her friend came out the back of the theater.

And if only one thing had happened differently: if that shoelace hadn't broken; or that delivery truck had moved moments earlier; or that package had been wrapped and ready, because the girl hadn't broken up with her boyfriend; or that man had set his alarm and got up five minutes earlier; or that taxi driver hadn't stopped for a cup of coffee; or that woman had remembered her coat, and got into an earlier cab, Daisy and her friend would've crossed the street, and the taxi would've driven by.

But life being what it is - a series of intersecting lives and incidents, out of anyone's control - that taxi did not go by, and that driver was momentarily distracted, and that taxi hit Daisy, and her leg was crushed.


-Benjamin Button

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Macbook Wheel

Filed under: by: wj

I laughed like hell when I saw this. Hope Techvixen will see this.

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

TwIsTeR Insights: Credit Crunch Explained in Simple Terms

Filed under: by: wj

Stupid bubble. Stupid liquidity crisis.


ImageHost.org

TwIsTeR Insights: The Joy of Sex Talk (or Nature vs Society part 2)

Filed under: by: wj

Saw this on Sunday Times(8 March 2009) by Chua Mui Hoong. Brilliant article that kinda replies on the topic of Nature vs Society, especially in the roles of sex between sexes. Liza, i hope you are reading this.

She writes:


The joy of sex talk - Remember that old saw 'Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love?' Well, it's here to stay.

As you read this on a Sunday morning, chances are you've come across conversations like these in your life, or been told of such exchanges:

She: You don't love me anymore. We never talk.
He: You talk all the time. We never have sex. You don't love me anymore.
She: I'm not in the mood for sex when I feel you don't love me.
He: I want to have sex with you all the time, isn't that proof that I love you?
She: See! You can only think about sex. You don't love me as a person anymore.
He wants sex to feel loved, she needs to feel loved to feel like having sex.

We say such differences spring from the gender gap. Men are from Mars, women from Venus. In the eternal conundrum that is the dance between male and female, there are many theories as to why the sexes differ in modes of communication, in the way they love and in their approach to sexual bonding.

Is it social conditioning? Evolutionary biology - where evolutionary pressures conspire to shape the behaviour of men and women over the centuries? Or are such differences hard-wired into the brain? I did my usual 'research' on topics like these: I read perfunctorily. I talk to friends. I consult myself.

A fascinating book, The Female Brain, by neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine, sums up recent research on this topic. According to her, brains of men and women are hard-wired differently and respond differently to hormonal and chemical changes, and these differences affect the way the sexes respond. When it comes to sex, the area in male brains devoted to sex is three times as large as a woman's. Enough said.
Studies of the prairie vole, small furry animals said to belong to the 3 per cent of species of mammals which are monogamous in habit (the percentage apparently includes humans), help shed light on the brain chemistry in love.

Prairie voles get into a frenzy of non-stop mating for 24 hours when they meet - and then bond for life, nesting together and raising their young together.

Scientists say mating releases two key hormones influencing social behaviour - oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is well-known among readers of women's magazines as the 'bonding' hormone. When under stress, women gather in groups and talk things out. When I go through an emotional upheaval, I call close friends for breakfast, dinner or supper, and inflict the hows, tos and wherefores of my situation on sympathetic ears. (I do the same for my friends.) Never mind that all that talking doesn't solve anything. The bonding releases oxytocin and makes us feel better able to cope.

Men don't have that kind of patience. A friend went to meet a childhood buddy who had just gone through a divorce. He told the grieving husband: 'I give you 15 minutes to moan. After that, get on with your life.' Then they went on to talk about school days and guy stuff. Apparently it's considered acceptable to make your friend condense his misery into 15 minutes flat. And then expect lifestyle changes to be made, problems solved. 'Otherwise, don't call me next time.'

When my former schoolmate wanted to talk about her boyfriend problems, we met for lunch, stayed for tea, then had dinner. We were together for eight hours. We had a great time and left cheerful, rejuvenated - and no nearer a solution. Oxytocin makes women feel bonded, secure, loved, making them more inclined to feel sexual. In other words, they are in the mood when they feel loved.

Men's social attachment however is influenced by vasopressin, a hormone that boosts a man's energy, attention and aggression. Sex releases vast amounts of vasopressin in males, triggering pleasure centres in the brain, and strengthening attachment to the female engaged in the activity. In other words, sex makes him feel more loving. Thus the dictum about a woman needing to feel loved before she wants sex, and a man needing sex to feel and express love may be grounded in brain chemistry, fuelled by the different actions of brain chemicals.

Studies of prairie voles show that sex releases oxytocin and vasopressins in males. Oxytocin makes him recognise and feel bonded to one particular female (and not just any female he has sex with). Knock off that gene and the creature forgets not only who its partner is, but also who its friends are. Oxytocin and vasopressin both activate the pleasure chemical dopamine, which sets off a positive feedback loop - whereby more coupling with one particular partner releases more of the hormones which activate the brain's pleasure centre - bonding the pair strongly for life.

Scientist speculate that a similar biochemistry loop of love takes place in humans. In fact, some scientists think there is a 'monogamy gene' for men. Prairie voles which are monogamous, have a tiny piece of DNA other varieties of voles lack. When the montane vole - a different species of voles with multiple partners - is injected with this missing gene, it suddenly turns into a devoted partner, and spends more time frolicking with its offspring. Such genetically modified voles are less inclined to run off with a younger female.

Might the same be true of human males? Could the propensity for monogamy be - at least in part - genetically determined? If so, women might want to ask for a DNA test for their men to ascertain if they have enough of the requisite vasopressin gene. With bewildering theories on gender gaps, what's a man and woman to do, in the daily communication battlezone?

In the interest of preserving gender harmony, let's just consider the important facts: Men's sex centres are three times the size of women's. When men have sex, they feel bonded and relaxed - the way women do when they talk to their friends.
Why, women should just see sex with their husbands as similar to a good heart-to-heart talk with their girlfriends: As a (male) form of communication.

She: I'm really tired. I need a cuddle and a heart-to-heart talk to de-stress.
He: Sure, let's cuddle and talk my way. Then we'll talk your way.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Music to the Ears

Filed under: by: wj

Piano pieces by padawan 2. I'm so proud of her.




TwIsTeR Ramblings: Finance and Economics (or 2 Idiots Trying to Act Smart.)

Filed under: by: wj

Im too tired to blog nowadays. Especially after the stone cold stunner of Liza's comments on my post of Nature vs Society (and brilliant ones at that):P. I was going to give a finance post, but man, im too freaking lazy. So instead, I copied paste from desmond's note as we discuss on various financial aspects in a prim and proper way. In other words... 2 idiots trying to act smart. Enjoy.

Desmond's note:

Be it bonds, funds or anything that is sold by banks or institutions, how much do you know about it. Even the money market fund or our banks could be vulnerable.(have you ever thought of it)

Taking insights in the Madoff and now standford ponzi scheme, of what scales are local issues such as sunshine empire.. Fixed Deposits are structured deposits are getting so complex, that risk is taken off the balance sheet and borne by investors such as us, suckers.. While they intelligently keep the investment fees, brokerage fees and fund management fees.(Arbitrage) The clauses state that any small exposure of section11 for a structured deposit, could render the fund worthless(eg. Lehman Bros). The prospectus doesnt even give full details of the companies invested, only the sector. Yup, banks are too big to fail! So without knowledge in the banking and finance, securities or investment sectors, we are all just making the rich richer and safer. Where is the ethics of the finance sectors that we trust so much, should we just revert back into putting our $ into Milo tins?(not promoting Nestle)

Its true that only in crises that we observe the full effects of the risk or schemes.. Only at such times are regulators able to fish out crucial loopholes and compare them with benchmark indexes, question their credibility and freeze their assets. Its always a fight between regulation and financial innovation. Talking about the lag, money and bonuses still leads the way up front, after that, RUN FAST!

Its a game of bluff-Bluff or be fooled. So its not dont invest, if you dunno wtf you investing in, dont! just bloody heck ask someone who knows la, zzz (third person)

PS. I wonder if I can find a banking job after posting this, haha.. Prob update with more figures later.


Tay Wenjie at 5:13pm February 20
no way you are getting a job for this man... this is obvious lor... u haven't realli said anithing insightful other than the lure and consequence of a bubble economy. Investors are not suckers... should everyone start being risk adverse and keeping money in tin cans, our global economy will not be even close to the standard we are in, liquidity crunch notwithstanding.

Ethics in finance is like art, you have rely on what you believe is right and wrong. What is unethical to you, is perfectly lawful business to another. Therefore, one can argue that its makes perfect business sense to maximise the profits, otherwise don't get involved in finance. While Im not supporting dubious schemes such as Standford Ponzi or Sunshine Empire MLM, Im just saying it would be downright silly to judge other forms of investment just based on the 1 or 2 rotten apples.
Ronnie Chan at 7:13pm February 20
Probably I'll just put some of my thoughts on this issue here too. The biggest problem is the issue of risk and reward. Probably when times were good, no one bothered about risk, only the reward. Now that times are bad, people tend to focus on risk and not reward. That's why you can see the stock indexes in free fall.

The problem with ethics is usually the gray area where the law doesn't cover. With respect to the law-ethics divide, i'll leave you a quote from my text on ethics.

"When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken" - Benjamin Disraeli
Desmond Ng at 11:00am February 21
cool, juz more to write about =)
I oso wan to prepare a doc to compare all the different policies, and to what extend each better or minimal impact
Desmond Ng at 11:44am February 21
Ron and WJ, the ethics part was to contrast between knowledge and playing on the arbitrage risk free return which the financial system creates as profits everytime a person invests.
Which leads to WJ point- if we do not pump in liquidity, how will we grow. free-banking theory? hmmm..

Not that investors are suckers, but we are just playing on a global gambling table.(no link to IR). If we do not calculate our risk, not mathematically, but by not doing our homework, we are gambling! We might as well play scissors, papers, stone. 33% chance its a draw, 33% chance win, 33% chance lose. Assumed under normal situations and no psychology or fixed pattern observed.

'judge other forms of investment just based on the 1 or 2 rotten apples'
there exists every oppurtunity to tamper results, balance sheet restructuring, different performance measures, worse, scam. Such can be minimized to the minimum, just how?
Evidence:Nick Leeson 827m pounds losses (barings bank 1995)
-Hmmm, law? To be cont..
Desmond Ng at 12:00pm February 21
Ron, behavioral finance, market over and under reaction leads to opportunities for contrarian and momentum strategy depending if the asset has been over or under priced. Through Efficient market hypothesis, the market should accurately reflect the states of the publicly available situation and self correct through competition. Fear exist just so that the risk we take is more and higher future returns, so we are indeed compensated. Other than naked short selling, haha..
Damn, I lack the law part for argument. But too much twisting on procedures, even money laundering. And its crazy debating with lawyers. We can link it to crime* instead for the discussion.

My stand is still defensive on the investors point of view as victims of the financial system.

Cool, direct application of knowledge. But all we stated so far is of a systematic and economic viewpoint. Damn hard to use direct Finance concepts in an argument.

Tay Wenjie at 12:45am February 22
Well... Finance is a subset to economics... so nothing wrong there...

Here is the thing... The argument for free market forces in linking to the Efficient Market Hypothesis is severely flawed due to numerous factors. Many of these factors are based on human error and judgement, and the intervention of regulation. A good example is the 700+ billion US$ economic stimulus package in an effort to help (directly or indirectly) failing banks. The interesting thing abt crisis is that it streamlines the economy of a country, making it more efficient through a financial survival-of-the-fittest type of environment. If perhaps the banks were allowed to fail, perhaps that would streamline the already-frail banking industry to be more resistant to future bank runs or liquidity crisis.

In truth, there is no real right or wrong answers, just unproven theories until someone has the balls to test them out.

Tay Wenjie at 12:59am February 22
To the part about gambling, it is simple. If you dont do your homework, you will take on unnecessary risk, and you have to be willing to pay the price. You also have to accept the reality of the situation of the economy.
In truth, nothing dealing with big money is realli perfect in the ethical sense, bt the advancement of technology combined with the strict policing of trades has lowered the usage of money scams, accounting fraud and dubious schemes. True, they do exist, some even to large scale. But from what ive seen, most firms have actually left the fraud or scheme worse off when they went into it (see Enron fraud). Perhaps the best type of free market policy is to allow market forces to operate under the watchful eyes of the law.
If you ask me, to introduce ethics into financial world is equivalent to playing a piano to a bull. The concerns of ethics has to be upheld by policymakers and enforcers, but the actual traders will always feel that money-making is their right.
Desmond Ng at 7:57pm February 22
Crises are different from market correction, being more of systemic risk. Survivor of fittest, over-competition, induces more profiteering leading to greed and financial innovation for the wrong reasons. Letting the banks fail would be as good as our money being hedges for bank losses.

Well, not really into nationalisation of banks, but if there would really be greater availability of risk free deposits, sets the clear difference between them and investment banks. The investment banks would have to offer higher interest, to compensate the risk taken. But the policy makers would have to rake their brains earning the required returns, and clearing short term demand for withdrawal. Would also greatly slow down the development of the banking sector.

Den again, are we growing TOO rapidly beyond control? We take steps controlling money supply. Hmmm, how does a govt control growth? taxes too obvious, haha..

*Ethics-Finance, where $ involved, just no ethics, concluded, haiz..

Tay Wenjie at 11:23pm February 22
When banks fail, there will be loss of jobs, money, angry customers, etc. But that as opposed to trying to keep banks who had made poor business decisions afloat? Banks are businesses still, we have to remb that. So if poorly run banks are repeatedly resuscitated by govt funds, wont that suck out more of the people's money as compared to the hedges? Its a painful but necessary in my opinion.
The thing about crisis is that is does streamline the economy, making it more efficient. Poor performance workers are retrenched, prices are lowered, poorly run businesses fail, which leads to a drop in that 'over-competition' u mentioned. The best companies emerge, generally reinstating consumer confidence and a recovery in the economy in general.So, in a way, an economic crisis is a form of market correction, if govts would just let it. True, profiteering does exist in a greater extent, but it is not as if the country's enforcement agencies suddenly disappears.
Desmond Ng at 1:38pm February 23
Cool, you should read up on islamic banking. Try 'Revving the Islamic Finance Growth Engine by Karyn Wang'. We cannot assume govt money=people's money. Yup, its taxes, but directly affected. We can just move or just take PR for example.

Mergers and acquisitions, haha, damn, skipped that lect, lol.. KK, i got half of the stuff up, so i will re-draft den discuss again. At least facebook has some uses, lol

Tay Wenjie at 8:40pm February 23
Well, even if govt money does not = people's money, a bankrupt govt will mean bad news to the people. There are discrepancies in terms of definitions, but for the sake of this discussion, i dont think the details are realli necessary.

Cool, look forward to it... tho I prob shld spend more time studying n less time going facebook and replying your crap..
Desmond Ng at 11:25pm February 23
Haha, to start a journal, you gotta have a starting point to work towards ma =)
Desmond Ng at 11:17am February 24
Just a last note. There is absolutely nothing wrong with securitisation leading to the current sub prime induced credit crunch to recession.
Securitisation, the process is in simply termed moving of assets off balance sheet for the banks. Well, technically, there is no wrong between sharing of risk with insurance companies on toxic debts, rating of agencies who risk their reputation and consumers who share the risk with banks for higher returns. BUT, they are now, transferring risk and NOT sharing risk. So when the sub-prime hit, someone must fail/fall. If not the banks, not the insurance companies, not the agencies, and obviously not STUPID consumers like us, who does the debt go to? Innocently, the government, lol.. Too big to fail, or doomed to fail.



Im not going to say who is right and who is wrong. I think both of us have too little knowledge on the subject. So it is really trying to act smart.

TwIsTeR's Ramblings: Cool shit

Filed under: by: wj




Awesome Drummers - Funny home videos are a click away

Twister Ramblings: Nature vs Society

Filed under: by: wj

Our body is a miraculous thing. Every action, every thought, every emotion created by the synergy and efficiency of cells. It is like gigantic jigsaw puzzle of a million, trillion pieces assembled together to reveal a brilliant masterpiece.If there is any miracle required for proof of God, our very own body, capable of great acts and thoughts, is, to me, proof enough.

Our body and, in extension, our nature is built to survive despite the surroundings. Nature has given our bodies the ability to adapt to our surroundings. Yet, as our society changes in a blinding pace, our natural instincts, created or evolved to help us survive, has become a hindrance instead. Our nature has failed to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

Case in point: Why is it there is a huge number of obese people in developed countries? The evidence is staggering, the more developed a nation is, the greater the number of overweight people. Why is that so? The obvious answer would be the impact of a life in luxury, the increase in rich food available due to wealth and the lack of exercise due to exceedingly busy schedules. Yet, here is the strange thing. These educated people continue to eat themselves to death, even in full knowledge that it is harmful to their health. Why? We cannot claim that eating is an obsession (although in some cases it really is) since eating is considered a necessity for survival.

The powerful urge to eat stems from our instinctual desire to store nutrients. Back in men's early days, food was scarce, and dependent on game and gathering. This scarcity has cause our bodies to adapt, storing excess nutrients as fat in case of times of need. Fast forward to the present, this characteristic hasn't changed much. And as we gulp down our food to prepare for the starvation that never comes, our body gets larger horizontally.

Why is is that men are more likely commit adultery? A theory put forth by Teng Soong is that men are naturally polygamous while women are monogamous. The reason for the difference also seem to lie in our roots. In the past, when men were the hunters and women were the nurturers, the survival rate of hunting and gathering while exposed to prehistoric animals of gargantuan size and harsh climate is significantly low. Lets say at 25%. This meant that the number of men to women is at the ratio of 1 is to 4. Men had to be polygamous in order for the species to survive and reproduce, while women stayed largely monogamous. Again, the impact of this in current society can be seen in the large number of divorces, adultery, or slow-growing or declining population in developed countries like Germany or Japan.

Here is another interesting example. Question: Why is it that that we have a higher propensity to consume when we have a higher income? Why is it that people will manage to spend away millions of dollars after just winning the lottery in just a few days? These are not isolated incidents, but consistent throughout since the study of economics. To put the question closer to home: Why is it we spend more money on the days we receive our paychecks, or within the week in anticipation of receiving our pay?

According to Teng, one theory is that in the days of rampant food scarcity, the sole form of resource to men was food. And since technology to preserve food was not developed yet, the best thing we can do is to engorge ourselves, relying on our own body fat as a form of storage as explained by the first example. In current society, the form of resource has changed but not that primal instinct to indulge ourselves when the resource is present.

As we ponder on these examples, it is important to note that the separation from these instincts are what separates us from animals. We have to consider for ourselves the consequences, be it in our own ethics, health and other factors.

Lets discuss. Should we abandon our instincts completely? Or is there perhaps some room for compromise? Can we adjust society to suit these instincts, or should we just hold firm?
Do you have any other examples of Nature vs Society that you care to share? What are your thoughts to the matter?


How do geese know when to fly to the sun? Who tells them the seasons? How do we, humans know when it is time to move on? As with the migrant birds, so surely with us, there is a voice within if only we would listen to it, that tells us certainly when to go forth into the unknown.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross


Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey "people" .People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war.... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest....

C.S. Lewis


Instinct is intelligence incapable of self-consciousness.

John Sterling


The instinct of nearly all societies is to lock up anybody who is truly free. First, society begins by trying to beat you up. If this fails, they try to poison you. If this fails too, the finish by loading honors on your head.

Jean Cocteau