Here

Labels: bye blogspot.

The students were all seated. The test papers were all distributed. Everyone sat in silent anticipation as the teacher walked carefully back to his desk.
He placed the remaining test scripts on his table and then checked his watch.

"Before you start, let me first warn you," his voice became slightly sterner at this point as he paused for effect, "I do not want to see anyone cheating in this test."

A final look at the watch. A concluding gesture. "All right, you may begin."

Instead of the tense silence and subsequent scribbling that the teacher expected, the moment he had sat himself down in the chair beside the table, the entire class had rosed from their seats and started to gather in groups, discussing how the questions should be answered.

It took a moment for him to recover, before he could exclaim, "Hey, I had just said I do not want to see anyone cheating in this test!"

Another teacher who was also in the classroom had burst into laughter at the scene. He smiled towards his fellow teacher, "When you say you do not want anyone to 'cheat', they take it that you mean they should not withhold what is good from anyone else. They would be cheating another person of something if they were to keep something to themselves alone."


This is actually a true story that was recounted to me by a lecturer who teaches cross-cultural missionary preparation. It happened in India, to a teacher who was attached at a school there for a short duration. On the surface, it is a good example to illustrate how it is necessary to be sensitive to the differences in cultures. Our actions and practices, though extended out of universally desired principles, may not and need not be the perfect model that suits a people. In appreciating a culture, it's important to balance between being too imposing or being blindly assimilated into it.

But on a deeper level, the more specific dimension that is addressed by the example is how 'cheating' is defined. While it may seem to be a unique way to think about 'cheating', I realise that if you take a step back to look at how we phrase what 'cheating' to mean, it can be stranger than how the students in the class had understood its meaning.

With the rigor and quality of the Singapore education system, 'cheating in a test' is an easily understood notion for Singaporeans. To break the term down, you are cheating in a test if you copy the answers off a friends' with/without his knowledge, if you make any form of communication with another test-taker with content relating to the test, if you refer to something like a piece of paper etc. Essentially, it's when you do not do it by yourself in that duration of the test.

What the term ultimately entails is individualism and a mihi solum (myself alone) attitude. Singapore's meritocratic system has no apologies about this, but if you look at the original definition of how 'cheating' is understood, its usually explained in the context of cheating a person. Relationships a key element in cheating. You cheat when you lie to a person. You cheat when you deprive a person of a right. When you cheat, you can go to the extent of breaking a person's trust, heart, soul and leave a scar which might only be eased after resentment or healed by grace.

The Singaporean understanding of "cheating" focuses on the individual's status in his community - "I do not want others to cheat me of what I am doing.", on the other hand, the students in India understood 'cheating' with a focus on the individual's contribution to the community - "I not going to deprive others of the knowledge that I have on this."

I know, it can be argued that if one cheats on a test, principally speaking, he is making others lose out too. But that is part of the point- its always "principally speaking", but never the principles themselves.


Another way of saying it is that there are very different ways of saying "It's not fair!"



"There is ony one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every othe sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a life, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness."
-- Baba, The Kite Runner

Labels: muse

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
- Genesis 50:15 – 18

When one takes a close look at the bible, Joseph's story did not really have as glorious an ending as it should. After being sold into slavery by his brothers due to jealousy, becoming a slave, being thrown into prison and eventually, being a man with authority only second to Pharaoh. Kept safe and taught much by God throughout, Joseph's story paints a portrait of divine providence.

Although it was not mentioned, throughout everything, Joseph had to bear with the burden of carrying a past. A past that was, to said it simply, hurtful (Gen 37:18-36). A sort of past that would probably linger back and forth with questions in moments of mental idleness, which being a slave and a prisoner allow quite a lot of.

Of course, Joseph had emerged from all his experience as a man who has thought deeply over the mystery of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. His gentle response in return to the brothers' plea reflected this-

But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
- Genesis 50:19 – 20

Such a response was shown due to his brothers' fear of Joseph's vengeance being unleashed on them after his father's death. Perhaps it was guilt or maybe it was out of fear of losing their lives, or the lives of they're family. But.. why must they think like this? Why did they have consider it in terms of a matter of debt?

I suggest that when Joseph wept, that might have been the question that he was yelling out in his head. He was not weeping because he was sorry for their state and sympathetic to their plight. He was possibly weeping because it meant that nothing was resolved. He wept because it showed that the relationship they had was still so stunted as if they were strangers. He wept because the burden of the past that he had to carry and go through had came back to strike him in a different form. He had wept because they were brothers. And yet...

And that was how Joseph's story had ended:/

At a Christian group retreat, the group I was with was doing this activity where you had to pick a card to answer the question written on it and choose someone else to answer it (Questions ranging from "How did you get your first crush?" to "Which book of the bible would you like to know better?") Mine was (at least I felt it is) a cliche - "What is the first thing you are going to ask Jesus when you are in heaven?"

My mind had raced through the dozens of the unanswered. Questions that could be picked in philosophy, history, evil, science, the human condition and although I eventually did say a question (one that was more personal to me), it occurred to me that actually, a question is not really the first thing that would be said.

I mean we always want to say something. The last word, a fitting legacy, a retirement speech, even a proper and clean handing over.

But in front of God, there would be "nothing" we can say.

Just like Joseph who had left many things unsaid, I guess its another way of showing that sometimes you really don't need to.


"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - George Orwell, Animal Farm

Labels: Life, muse

Peak-end rule.

This rule suggests that our judgement of how painful or pleasurable a past event is depends on how the experience was at its peak or end, instead of the more rational way of taking a net average of the pain or pleasure experienced over the entire duration.

Experiments have been conducted to prove this, but like any theory, the empirical evidence is better validated when examined through a life example than a lab report. In this case, a good life example is something called an ORD date.

Well, maybe it is not a perfect example. There are many other factors that would mar an NSF attempting a reflection. For instance, an ORD date prescribes not only a looking back, it also signals a looking forward (So what now?) And vocation and responsibilities-wise, sometimes there also is the need to ensure proper closures are made as you hand over duties to an understudy. And yes, of course it also is about some sort of liberation:P Ironically though, that makes it a good example because theories would work better once ceteris paribus is removed from the picture.

So we approach this theory with the knowledge that ORD -or for that matter, any experience similar to a indication that something has come to an end- does not exist in a vacuum. That in mind, we can note a few things that peak-end rule implies.

It means that we can go through a lot of pain at the start, but when the sweetness of things set in finally at the end it overwhelms us to the extent that it becomes a victory. This isn't very surprising actually since its largely accepted by people like sportsman. The pain doesn't matter anymore when you finally reach that finishing point. However, the rule is not a description of reaping fruits of victory. It applies to processes which might not have anything to do with a matter of input and output, or working at something - a school year, social dynamics in a group, a security operation, a relationship, a day at work- initial pain is okay, finally what happens is what I take note of anyway. Of course, the reverse of this works with equal potency.

It also means that we can invest energy and attention in blaming/rejoicing over something when we are not really considering the full issue. The focus was really only on what happened at the peak-end. Such investments can lead to situations that a lot of thought is spent on something not as significant because of how it had ended, and little thought spent over a series of events because things had ended on a low note.

On a broader level, it means that we are not wise enough to judge effectively how something really felt on the whole. Post-event evaluations we make would be biased to the situations faced near the end of things. And those one or two events at the end will probably not carry the full significance of the entire effect. To take a stretch, it's probably like asking the question what kind of person you would be/how things would turn out, if not for X. Such really cannot truly be answered because X already happened and the askance, however regretful it is, is based on a reality you have already been affected and changed by. It's also probably like what aWWI solider survivor had said in an interview in Band of Brothers before a Band of Brothers (WWII 10-part series show) episode was played, "If we were in other circumstances, we could have been good friends. But he was just doing his job, and I was doing my job, and in that context, we had no choice." (paraphrased) Let me sugest that when you combine both sentiments, you come close to the implication of the rule.

Finally-
"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, eventhe depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
- 1 Corinthians 2:10 - 11

There can be many things that bridges understanding, but anything that comes from man, while useful, is far from being the ultimate channel. Peak-end rule only reveals the weakness of man in being a finite being. There is more than just that.


If anything would make things clear, it won't be found in the wisdom of man, but the power of God.



"No, I don't feel lucky to be alive! I feel lucky I'm not dead. There's a difference." -- Mr Stoller, Breaking Away

Labels: Life, muse

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---