Six degrees of expatriation/ Maida Pineda

Part of understanding ourselves, as Singaporeans, is to understand how others — tourists or expats — view us.

I enjoyed this book written by Maida Pineda (themaidastouch.blogspot.com), a Filipino food writer who decided to live in Singapore to experience new perspectives.

There’s a certain pride in reading about the plus side of Singapore. It’s a reminder to readers like me, who have lived here all our lives, of what we may take for granted sometimes: the efficiency, that “things just work”.

On that same footing, it’s also a reminder of the ungracious side of Singaporeans. P51.

And also what we may be missing out. Like the perception (perhaps true to large extent) that we don’t smile. I find it hard to smile to total strangers in random situations. It’s a city dweller’s defensive posture, I feel.

But there’s the part about how Singaporeans live hard life, from the author’s perspective:
P39. “In the past, I wondered why Singaporeans riding the MRT didn’t smile a lot. Then, as I was going through this period in my life, I realized how tough life was for them. There was no life outside of work. I barely saw the sun or anything beautiful. I spent most of my waking hours in front of the computer, and I was not making meaningful relationships… … I became so immersed in the Singaporeans lifestyle. My life became routine…”

Though, the context of what Maida was describing (about her work) seemed to me like she was overworked and underpaid, in a company that valued output and profits more than human resource development. Which I guess, the “Singaporean Life”, that is routine and mundane and which sucks up one’s waking and sleeping hours, is then true.

Some observations seemed uncommon to me, but which Maida says is a frequent occurrence to her:
P49. Not uncommon to see mothers fight with the kids to play handheld games, on the MRT.

P56. an encounter with a group of retirees, who engaged in conversation with her after she initiated the move to talk. I think Singaporeans are like that. If we find that you are a guest in our country, we tend to be more accommodating. But being accommodating to fellow Singaporeans would require more warm-up contact time, and also the setting. Trying to engage in conversation with a total stranger somehow brings to mind if the other person is up to no good.

The book comes in two parts. First is her direct experiences and observations of living in Singapore. The second are stories from other expats in Singapore.

P93. Perspective from an American expat: “You need to find a niche to make friends, you need to find your hook, be it golf, flower-arranging etc. You need to find whatever it takes.”

Some accounts of the expat’s lives and actions puzzle me. For instance, one professed to have a need to watch her expenses by taking public transport. But at the same time, the expat admitted getting a dishwasher (she lives alone) was an indulgence for her reluctance to wash dishes.

In the Epilogue, she relates how a working trip to Denver made her realise the extent she has assimilated the (in her view) the Singaporean lifestyle. That while there are things which may seem like negative (e.g. We don’t smile readily) there are other aspects that make up for it (food, cultural diversity, safety).

“It is in leaving and taking frequent trips overseas that one appreciates Singapore more”.

I totally, totally agree with that.

The right decision

ISBN: 9780071614191

Nice one. A book for non-mathematicians. The approach of the book is more on logical and rational thinking rather than number-crunching.

Although, I think this book will either increase your confidence in your decision-making abilities, or make you more depressed or worried because you keep getting the quizzes wrong!

Or you could argue the reasoning over the preferred solution is wrong.

But making a decision, when options are presented to you, is one thing. The book does just that – present you options to choose. useful exercise to develop a discipline in rationality. Though in real life, it’s also about being able to develop creative solutions rather than just make/ choose the most rationale decisions.

I was also made even more aware that decision-making is easier when emotions are left out of the equation. For instance, there’s a question on whether the groom should go with the wife’s interest, or the parents, or just choose the groom’s when it came to planning a wedding. The rationale decision was to go with the wife, since she’s the person the groom will have to live with. But again, reality would depend on what you, the groom, will ultimately accept as a long term gain. It could be also giving time and explaining to the parents. Or the wife.

As I understand it:
- recognise the need to make a decision
- determine the options and alternatives and probably outcomes (P39. there are basically two types of decisions: where you can be certain of the outcome when you select an alternative, and where you can only estimate the probability of outcomes).
- there are 4 major decision criteria in decision theory: admissibility criterion (eliminate the improbable ones or those with lowest payoff), Minimax (the least-worse of the outcomes), Bayes criterion (the outcome with the greatest long-term gain/ expected value), Maximax criterion (choosing the best from positive outcomes).

The right decisions also depend on the right information.

I thought this book is really about “being conscious about one’s decisions”. For what is a correct decision depends on perspectives. But the book deals with the need to make decisions in situations that involves a lesser degree of subjectivity (i.e. Personal values and emotions) and more of achieving logical and rational outcomes.

Of course, no guide can allow us to predict everything with certainty. What this book does is allow us to approach decision making, and hence articulate it if necessary, in a rational manner.

A third of the book, the last part, is on quizzes, to reinforce learning.

p11/ 14. Decision Theory only deals with alternatives that can be selected (not make bets on the impossible). It evaluates decisions/ choices based on a number of “rational criteria”.

I think we apply aspects of decision theory, but may not be conscious about it.

Consider:
Payoffs vs compromises
Personal values
Long term vs short term goals
Immediate returns vs future (can work both ways; exercise on what would you do if you were Edison: build a stock price printer that has immediate demand but payoff is less than potential returns of a yet to be invented light blub?)
Probability of success/ outcomes?

Chapters contain “thought exercises” based on actual or hypothetical examples like:
- being Leslie Groves, the US general in charge of building the atomic bomb, on whether to hire a popular but left-winged scientist or a personally brilliant one?
Choosing a PhD thesis supervisor: a very tough one and likely unpleasant experience but has proven track record of producing PhD students; an upcoming researcher whose findings may be a nobel prize winner; or a supervisor you can connect with and likely to have good experience with PhD program but track record is less certain

P74. Bayes’ Criterion: select alternative that has biggest payoff in the long term. Long term gained involves math concept of expected value. P77. Computing the long term average gain, “expected value”, which involves knowing the probability of outcomes and the associated payoffs.

P87. Maximax criterion. For situations where one should throw caution to the wind (provided you also can identify correctly this is the situation) and choosing the alternative that gets the most out of the decision.

P98. Inadmissible situations should be avoided.

P99. Bayes’ Criterion – for recurring situations. Though author qualifies situations like whether to use Atom Bomb is, while one-time, considered a unique situation but with recurring probability.
- Minimax decisions: characterised by a disaster we wish to protect against (i.e. Minimise worse case scenarios)
- Maximax decisions: for optimistic (e.g. payoffs is so huge) or pessimistic (only option is to win).

P103. Suggested approach for gray areas/ hard to tell situations:
- Layout all alternatives and try to assess the associated rewards and risks.
- Eliminate inadmissible alternatives
- Then consider if it is a Minimax situations (i.e. Is this a disaster avoidance situation? “when a disaster looms it’s not a faint cloud on the horizon but a thunderhead”)
- if not, then choose the alternative and ask what if the outcome don’t work out? If answer is acceptable, then take it.

P51. On game theory; learning from WWI and WWII; Treaty of Versailles and later actions by victorious Allies: “Imposed punishment in just measure for a deserved crime stands a good chance of achieving the goal; a vindicative solution involving excessive punishment leaves a residue that the passage of time fails to erase”.

P100. Winston Churchill reportedly said that if you’re not a liberal at age 20, you haven’t got a heart. But if you’re not a conservative at age 40 you haven’t got a brain.

Why we run: a natural history/ Bernd Heinrich

ISBN: 0060958707

Epilogue: “If modern runners were drawn around a campfire in a warm African night, they would, like any Bushman, poke the embers and relive the run all the way to the finish line and beyond. That’s what I’ve tried to do here.”

Adrian recommended this book to me. An autobiographical account of a runner, who’s also a biologist. The book is interspersed with personal anecdotal experiences of his introduction to the world of ultramarathon running, his childhood, his training, his scientific training and understanding about the human condition thorough comparisons with insects, birds and mammals.

Hawk Moths and Pronghorn Antelopes and long distance running.

P65. “The distance runner must fairly float along the ground, and sometimes for hours on end. Ideally, he has light, thin bones and long, thinly muscled limbs, like a bird. The key to the distance runner’s performance is to supply his fat-burning muscles with a sustained supply of oxygen…” consequently that requires a large support system: heart that can pump large volumes, large arteries, large fuel depots in muscles, the liver…

Mitochondria: microscopic power units with batteries of enzymes that covert fuel and oxygen to energy, used by muscles for contraction.

Muscles needed by Sprinters and throwers do not need Mitochondria and such support systems for oxygen delivery.

P66. Blood, oxygen, Hemoglobin and Myoglobin.

P73. “Gems or generalisations?”

P83. On the individual ability to get more aerobic work out of the same volume of oxygen taken in. “… it turns out that what you have is less important than what you do with it.”

P86. Champion distance runners may have traits inherited from the maternal line.

P97. Insect wings have no muscle; the flight muscles are inside the body, e.g. Thorax (contrast this with mammals like birds).

P124. “Play serves a vital function in many animals. It serves the ultimate function of practice, and it is motivated by pleasure. Pleasure is the proximate mechanism for achieving many ultimate benefits.”

P136. On camels not being fast runners over short distances. “… they provide us with a lesson: slow and steady wins the race.”
*

The book starts off a little slow, in that he described the scenes from one of his practice run. I thought it odd for a book to start like that. But maybe that was the point. Running is as much about conscious act of running, as well as observing and appreciating life that is around us.

I could be overanalysing it of course, but this book is definitely philosophical book several levels. Running is a mental game, as the book explains several time. Runners ultimately compete against themselves.

Having run in my youth (though not marathon) I could relate to his experiences. Especially his blow-by-blow, step-by-painful-step of his best race.

This book made me want to pick up running again. And gives one the feeling that “we can”.

Chpt 16, his views and approach on Diet, for ultramarathon races.

P255 “After all, two sets of numbers designating birth and death dates say little about a person. It is the in-between that matters”.

Bicycles: Love poems

9780061726491

Freakonomics

P21 “There are three basic flavours of incentives: economic, social, and moral.”

P44. Paul Feldman’s bagel business: insights to white-collar crime and the nature/ honesty of people.

P58. Stetson Kennedy and his crusade against the Ku Klux Klan; using the Superman radio show to trivialise and mock the secrecy and myth of the KKK. The case of information being power.

P120 – 144. Analyses the probable reasons for decrease in US crime rates: Innovative policing strategies (no), increase reliance on prisons (no), lower profits in crack/ cocaine market (yes), Ageing population (no), tougher gun control laws (no), strong economy (no), increase in number of police (yes), capital punishment (no). Adds that legalized abortion — or rather the choice for poor/ disadvantage/ women or those reluctant to have a child– is the biggest contributor to crime decrease.

P123. Citing the difference between correlation and causality. I.e. Just because data suggests a correlation does not mean one is the cause for another.

P126. Causality can be shown by using test cases (random sampling, or controlled tests)

P139. Legalized abortion led to less unwanted children; unwanted children tends to adopt life of crime.

147. On parenting; swimming pools and guns. That data show far higher chance of a child drowning in swimming pools than being killed by guns (present in the homes). and why parents think the latter is a higher danger.

P152. Cites Peter Sandman, a “self-described ‘risk communications consultant”. His equation for defining risk: Risk = Hazard + Outrage. Hazard high; Outrage low = People under-react. Hazard low; Outrage high = People over-react.

P154. says long line of research shows genes account for at least 50% of personality and abilities.

P174. Strong correlation with school test scores: Highly educated parents, child’s parents have high socioeconomic status, mother was 30 or older at the time of the first child, child has low birth rate (negative correlation), parents speak English at home, child is adopted, parents are highly involved in PTA, child has many books at home. But authors caution against drawing causality. E.g. The presence of books at home doesn’t automatically lead to better scores. Probably related to the higher educated parents propensity to read.

Factors with weak correlations: family is intact, moving to better neighbourhood, non-working mothers up to kindergarten age, attending Head Start (preschool for poorer kids), regular outings to museums, child is regularly spanked, frequent watching of TV, parents reading to child nearly everyday.

P176. Suggests genetics are a major contributor of school performance, but parental influence (presence of books at home etc) also plays a part.