Diverse Topics Eccentric Chatters and Exploring Into Each Other's Minds.

[meiteoh 0]

This is the beauty about cultural studies - it is not a hard and fast rule & there are plenty of factors out there that affects cultural changes. :)

One can also argue that changing standards of beauty and social practices affects how women perceive the cheongsam and kebaya. Did you know that after the 60s, only GROs and cabaret dancers were seen wearing the kebaya? The same can be said for the cheongsam - if you look at Chinese fashion history, you'd noticed that the cheongsam was originally made to be very loose and not form fitting at all. It only became form fitting during the modern era and was popularized by Suzie Wong in her films. She was right about one thing; back then "decent" girls don't wear super tight outfits. It was akin to be naked.

Anyway, I would say yes and no to your question of us adopting a common culture. In actuality, we all already have some common cultural practice/stand (eg food, fashion, language, slang, way of life, etc, etc) yet we retain a number of cultural differences. Still, it is a genuine cause for concern in some aspects of culture. Your question has been brought up by linguists and language researchers. According to studies, several languages around the world die out each year because of this "common" culture. Personally, I think culture is ever changing and even when we think we have a common culture, we won't because there were always be a group out there that will insist on doing things differently. :)

[Apekjolly 0]

Hello. Heh heh. Sorry for “missing in action” lately. Reason? Lack of disposable time to do my own thing.

I've read through all meiteoh's posts and found them very educative. Her essays on those cultural things speak facts and truths which I cannot refute.

But ooops! I think she misunderstood me on one little statement that I made – the part which I said, “people who look good are in fact good and those who look bad do turn ou to be bad.”.

Okay, meiteoh, I didn't mean to say that beautiful people were good and ugly people were bad. I do know as a matter of fact that there are people who look beautiful and yet have ugly hearts, and vice versa.

But then, have you noticed that, for instance, there are good looking people who got an evil look in their face? And they do turn out to be really evil. Film directors are good at choosing candidates with such look to play the bad guys. So, it is possible to be handsomely or beautifully evil.

Personally I like the look of Obama. He looks honest and kind. But Palin gives me some qualm. She is beautiful, but I can't help catching a whiff of sinister look in her face. (Ssssh! ... don't tell her, or she'll kill me :P )

Anyway, I must clarify here I never imply that all people who look evil are evil; and all who look kind are kind. Nature do sometimes make mistakes by attaching the wrong look to the wrong person. Thus, there are good looking people who are evil.

But we must admit that nature is correct most of the times. More often than not, when a person looks evil, he or she does turn out to be evil. That's what makes me think gene is responsible and plays a fundamental role in a person's character.

Of course I cannot dispute the fact there are many other factors which can have a very powerful effect in changing a person's personality. This is especially so if we are talking about the cultural aspect of a social group.

By the way, meiteoh, let me deviate a bit: I notice that people seem to behave differently as an individual and as a group. For example, in a rock concert, an audience can go wild with emotion even to a trance-like state which could even result in fainting for some. But if only one person attends the same concert, I don't think the stimulus can drive him into the same state of behavior. This strange phenomenon also emerges in any other activity that involves big group of people like rallies, seminars, motivational or religious talks. What actually happens, meiteoh? Are you able to say something about it?

[meiteoh 0]

Wait, you never meant to imply it but you're saying this:

Anyway, I must clarify here I never imply that all people who look evil are evil; and all who look kind are kind. Nature do sometimes make mistakes by attaching the wrong look to the wrong person. Thus, there are good looking people who are evil.

But we must admit that nature is correct most of the times. More often than not, when a person looks evil, he or she does turn out to be evil. That's what makes me think gene is responsible and plays a fundamental role in a person's character.

Sorry la but my England must be really crappy coz it sounds like you're saying that if someone looks evil, they are evil or if someone looks kind are kind BUT in the previous statement, you said you never implied that. To me, that's a contradictory statement leh.

:P

Anyway, this is where I'm more incline to disagree on the genes affecting character bit. By your statement, you are in fact saying that it's our gene that is the foundation for our character and not environment per se; then why do we bother teaching morals & such to children? Why do we bother educating them? If people have lazy parents, they will turn out lazy? Aiii, that just sounds wrong, wei. Maybe, we should just encourage people who we deem to be morally upright (in fact what is morally upright and not?) to have more children?

To be honest, it's almost similar to what Hitler was promoting - the Aryan supremacy as well as what early scientists and anthropologist actually wrote. In fact, during the early 18th all to the 19th century, it was thought that Africans and Asians were idiotics and only capable of barbaric acts (because it was in their blood/nature), and that the white man was the civilised, morally upright race incapable of any evil. @_@ Call me an idealist but I like to think that people are born with a clean slate and without the knowledge of good or evil.

Ah...there is a technical term for it but I have forgotten. LOL! It has something to do with social group identity and behaviour. In a nutshell, people often seek to be part of a social group of some sorts - networking if you will. This forum can be seen as a social group of people who are attempting the arrangement and act of marriage. Most of us are strangers who somehow connect because there is something to connect about. The same can be said for people at rallies, seminars, and talks. We go to these places and be part of the crowd because we feel that we have something in common, eg disagreements, conflict, issues and such. The emotion and intensity of the situation can create or stimulate the mind into joining such a crowd for several reasons - 1) survival and 2) integration. The saying that "no man is an island" is true. Man is by far the most populous social creature on this earth; no one does well alone and if she/he says that they are happy alone, they are lying. We often feel a need to be part of something. That brings me to my next point - survival. Because man cannot survive alone (remember Lord of the Flies), they form groups - bigger groups, bigger numbers means less chances of being singled out for conflicts. So man bands together.

Over time, we still retain this instinct and carry it out even though we don't realize it; for example, if one is to disagree with the majority at a religious talk/seminar, they risk being ostracised or worse, acted upon violently so agree for agreement sake. It's a little like peer pressure - you're weird if you don't fit in or if you aren't like everyone else. This form of group behaviour isn't just limited to concerts and events but to life itself - all of us are expected to conform to certain societal rules, otherwise we're seen as outsiders. Think of reactions (in M'sia and other parts of Asia) towards things like cohabiting and never marrying (de facto relationships) or having children as partners but not as a husband-wife team.

[Apekjolly 0]

Just drop by for a while to say hello. I'll be back in here again soon.

By the way, meiteoh, I think I still haven't made myself crystal clear to you. Let me quote below one little paragraph from my previous post:

"Of course I cannot dispute the fact there are many other factors which can have a very powerful effect in changing a person's personality. This is especially so if we are talking about the cultural aspect of a social group. "

From what I said there you would be able to see that I do accept that nurture can also be a very influential factor in molding a person's character, what more to say if we are talking about molding a cultural group's behaviour.

Let's just say there is a dynamic inter-play between nurture and nature. But in terms of an ethnic group's customs and behaviour, I believe nurture has a stronger influence, but when it comes to individual's character, I think what a person is born with is the stronger element that sets him or her apart from the others. For example, siblings in a family may behave similarly in general behaviour or custom, but there would be some diffrences in personal behaviour between the individuals. So, these differences are what the individuals are born with.

[Apekjolly 0]

meiteoh,

Regarding the nurture-nature subject again, I wonder if I can say that we agree on the following points:

- that both upbringing and genes play very crucial roles in building a person's character

- that upbringing is the greater factor in nurturing cultural behavior of a social group.

- that the congenital blueprint a person is born with is the greater factor in determining the nuances of individual's idiosyncrasies.

However, I feel that there's yet another factor that we cannot ignore. You've dragged in names likeTed Bundy or Hitler into this nurture-nature polemic and implied that their oddities are more due to nurture than nature. Well, of course you're right in a sense, but then can we also include the possibility that such individuals might have also been born with some kind of abnormality which has nothing to do with genes nor upbringing?

What I mean is, out of the thousands of people who're born normal everyday, there could be some who are unfortunate enough to be born with a handicap of one kind or another. In other words, as what I have already mentioned before, nature does make mistakes sometimes; and when nature makes a mistake, a freak is created. Such freak can thence occur and manifest itself in the form a physical, mental, or behavioral handicap or disorder.

So, in the case of Ted Bundy, for example, he could have been born with a “behavioral freak” which makes him have an uncontrollable urge to kill girls. Of course, psychologists can attribute his murderous obsession to his childhood history. But that might only be a factor which helps to accentuate his abnormality.

Another aspect we should not forget is a person's mental condition. A person who develops a certain kind of behavior or thinking could be because he or she is suffering from some kind of brain damage. And a brain can be damaged in various degrees. A slightly damaged brain may only make a person behaves a bit odd while a seriously damaged one would make him very mad or very stupid.

[daddyo 0]

Apekjolly,

Hahaha! Still with it with the nature/nurture thingy. Ok... my 2 cents to add to the fire:

I think the nature/nurture debate will not cease till the end of time itself. I mean, there's no way to prove or disprove either theory.

Take Ted Bundy for instance. We all know that he grew up to be a serial killer with the life that he had but who can say that he will not be a serial killer all the same even if he grew up in a very good environment? We can't be sure that if Ted Bundy was born into a good family and brought up with all the proper care, he will not be a serial killer.

There's a serial killer in the UK, one Harold Shipman, convicted of killing at least 218 people with the total belived to be around 250! He is a Medical Doctor by profession and did not have a violent childhood. By all standards he grew up in a normal enviroment and his mother even favoured him. He was described as being confident and clever.

Harold's case is in stark contrast to Ted Bundy's case. Ted was a victim of abuse when young while Harold had no known abuse in childhood. Both turned out to be serial killers. Can this be a case of nature? Where it was in Harold's genetic makeup or some defects that drove him to kill without any rational, logical reasons?

Apekjolly's point of one's mental condition is also interesting. I do not really agree that being mentally unsound will cause some to kill. If you look closely, most mental unsound individuals do not really have a tendency to kill living beings. It's more a case of acting in a irrational way and being unable to control one's emotion leading him/her to be a danger to himself/herself as well as others around them.

Serial killers are different in that they cannot be said to be mentally unsound. It's more of a mental perversion. They are normal in all other sense except for this perversion that makes them want to kill people for reasons unfathomable to 'normal' individuals like ourselves. These killers plan and scheme their way to get the deed done. Mentally unsound individuals lack the ability to coherently plan and execute such a deed.

So are serial killers born or made? Can a 'normal' individual be nurtured in such a way that they become serial killers? Or are they born with a certain 'defect' in them that leads them to their ghastly deeds, regardless of the environment that they grew up in? But then again on the other side of the fence, can a person born with that 'defect' be in turn nurtured in such a way that they rid themselves of the urge to kill?

We may never know the answer unless there is a way to detect this so-called 'defect' and then exercise those nurturing programs to see if it can be reversed. Or we can time-travel back to when Ted Bundy was born and whisk him away and bring him up lovingly to see if he still kills or.... I am rambling away again so I'll just stop here. Hehe!

[meiteoh 0]

Apek, well, I can't say that I agree with you 100% on the whole "freak" theory but it doesn't mean that you're wrong. You could be right for all I know. I just feel and believe that people shouldn't just excuse their actions to "I was born like that" or "my genes made me this way" because of one thing. Of all the species living on this planet, the human is the only who has self-awareness and a choice over their actions. We are not animals who cannot think but do everything according to instinct. Personally, if Ted Bundy were in front of me and told me that he became a serial killer because of his childhood or any other things like some mental disease, I'd slap him silly because everyone has a choice, even those whom we think are mentally challenged. But yes, I see the context of your argument so lets agree to disagree on some points. Can? :P

Daddyo, serial killers are fascinating for me, to say the least. But yes, you said it better than I did. Serial killers have a different way of thinking of normal people like you and me. We don't wake up one morning and decide to plan to murder our next door neighbour. But even then, there is a thread of escalation for aggression in people. You can check out crimelibrary.com for more info & stories and analysis/es. A person like Shipman could do it because of a variety of reasons - according to researchers, and analysts, Shipman did it for reasons detailed here.

Some psychoanalysts speculate he hated older women, citing comments he made about the elderly being a drain on the health system.

Others feel he was re-creating his mother's death scene, in order to satisfy some deep masochistic need. His belief in his own superiority makes this questionable.

That fact that he left so many indelible clues indicates, some say, that Shipman desperately wanted to be discovered and stopped; that he was fighting a compulsion he simply could not control.

But the consensus seems to be that he felt he was so superior he could do whatever he wanted with no fear of discovery. Even this seems hard to comprehend — he had already been caught red-handed forging prescriptions and stockpiling drugs when he was hooked on pethedine.

Perhaps prosecutor Richard Henriques got it right when he said:

"He was exercising the ultimate power of controlling life and death, and repeated the act so often he must have found the drama of taking life to his taste.'

To be honest, he is not one of a kind. There is a name for people like him - angels of death - and they come in the form of nurses, caretakers, doctors and such. Examples are as below from the same site as above:

Dr. Michael Swango killed his patients because it gave him a thrill and a feeling of power; Beverley Allitt and Genene Jones, pediatric nurses, killed their young patients to get more attention for themselves; Dr. Marcel Petiot and Dr. H.H. Holmes killed for money; Dr. Josef Mengele killed for political beliefs, and so on.

Oh, here is a good article about the myths on serial killers. Perhaps that'll add more food for thought for this topic.

Anyway, I'm having a crappy day - food indigestion issues and stuff (the weather now is so crappy)...so apologies first if my arguments were a little on the "braindead" side.

[Apekjolly 0]

daddyo,

Hah hah! At last you have a face. Nevermind if it's a cartoon face. At least it gives us that human touch. But meiteoh's icon looks rather impersonal, don't you think so?

By the way, I just wanna clarify myself a bit here. When I talked about a mental disorder, I mean it to be all kinds of abnormality of the brain which gives rise to any kind of human character that is not normal. So, my intended meaning of a mental disorder is a disorder which can make a person extremely cruel, kind, stupid , intelligent and so on. That includes all kinds of perversion or obsession. Even a genius is a kind of mental disorder to me. So, some disorders maybe be beneficial while some may be destructive.

Oh ya, meiteoh has brought up a topic which is a very interesting and very important subject to me. And this subject could set off another round of hot debate among the three of us or anyone who cares to join in. Okay, the subject is about HUMAN'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE (a choice over actions) . Maybe I'll start the ball rolling in my next post as I don't have the time yet

[meiteoh 0]

It depends on what you mean by impersonal. If I were to tell you that that braid of roving is one of a kind, handdyed by myself, would you still think that it's impersonal? :P

[daddyo 0]

Hi all,

Seems like thread is slowing down. Apekjolly, really need you to jumpstart it again lar.

Oh, and about my avatar. Hehe.. I would say that it looks like a much younger and more handsome version of me.

Been busy attending a 3 days photography convention right here in KL! Hard to believe? Tell me about it! The convention ended yesterday and I'm still feeling that it was a bit surreal. Learnt heaps from the line up of both international and local photographers! What's the best thing of all - It was FREE!! Didn't have to pay a single cent and they even provided lunch on Saturday and Sunday.

What I found out during this convention was (topic related to this thread lar, so no worries) that they announced at the beginning that a grand prize worth RM9999 would be given out to the 'Most Outstanding Participant' at the end. How do you get to be most outstanding participant? You need to participate by asking questions and for that the speakers will give you a sticker for your question which you stick to your card and the person with the most stickers at the end will win.

After that, all hell broke loose. During question time (there were 400 participants) questions were being fired left, right and center at whomever was speaking. Most of the questions you can tell were just being asked for the sake of getting a sticker! No value to it at all!

This resulted in time being wasted fielding these 'crap' questions and I felt the the whole convention had been de-valued to a certain extend due to this. Make no mistake, I wanted the prize as badly as the next person there but I would not field questions that are useless just to get a sticker. I spared a thought for others attending the talks so as not to trip up the speakers with 'dumb' questions. And just how many times have you seen a Malaysian crowd jostling with each other just to get an opportunity to ask questions at talks and what's more - have questions for EVERY SINGLE session there is. What a mighty knowledgable crowd we run in! Looks like the K economy thingy is working well!

Here we are given a chance to pick the brains of some of the top photographers in their line and what do we get? A squandered opportunity just because of a prize. I wondered how we had come to this as a society? Greed and self-centredness takes priority. I practically see this everywhere. What has made today's society the way it is? Has values like courtesy, integrity and compassion no more place in our society? It's extremely visible with young people nowadays. What has led to this? Any ideas meiteoh?

[Apekjolly 0]

meiteoh,

Okay, now I get it.

Your icon is, I admit, indeed very, very personal. Before you revealed the secret of its meaning, I was not able to get its essence.

The situation reminds me an abstract art in which a beholder makes nothing out of it when he has not understood it's hidden message. Appreciation only sets when he finally figures out the picture.

By the way, that's quite a cute DIY item of yours.

daddyo,

About the behavior of those convention participants to attended, I have long observed such an attitude in us. That's why I try my best to be like you as far as possible - not to join others behaving like hungry dogs fighting over food. Are we really so desperate as to stoop so low like those canines in terms of behavior. Let me confess to you that there are times I feel ashamed to be a human being. Fortunately, as far as I know, there are no other live forms from other parts of the universe to watch and laugh at all kinds of idiotic behaviors of the human species.

By the way, let us not worry too much about this thread slowing down so long it doesn't eventually ends in a quiet death. I mean we can just take our sweet time and drop in here whenever we feel like to write and share our thoughts with some fellow humans.

As for me, if you don't see me in here, it means I haven't got the time. Writing is one of my hobbies. And this forum in an avenue for me to enjoy doing what I love. So, let us keep this thread alive for as long as possible.

[meiteoh 0]

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it dying - if the thread does slow down, it means we all have lives! :P

Apekjolly, thanks...it's alpaca wool, btw. I'm planning on spinning it into yarn but am waiting for my spinning equipment to arrive. Yes, apart from blogging & writing, my other love in life is related to yarn and fibres. B)

Daddyo, I dunno really. Half of me wants to say that it's because of upbringing & greed. The other half wants to blame it on Asian kiasu-ism which varies in intensity and degree in every individual. But just taking the point of "asking questions for the sake of asking it", did you realize that our education system (and ultimately our Asian culture) doesn't churn out thinkers but doers and followers? I am not too sure how experiences were for other people but when I was in school, disagreeing with the teacher was a sin, much or less asking a question. And in Australia, when I was doing my postgrad, I noticed that it was the same for the Chinese, Thai, Singaporean and M'sian. When I did ask a question, those ladies/guys would actually give me a stare-down as if I was being disrespectful or rude. =.= *sigh* Sometimes I think humans are sucky at what they do. Yes, it's one of those days...

[daddyo 0]

I do agree with meiteoh that our education system churns out more zombies than intellectual scholars. Recently I have discovered another trait in the younger generation that is much more worrying.

These youngsters are disrespectful and very self-centered. It's all about the 'me' mentality as in 'What's In It For Me?' kinda thinking. They may have the knowledge but they seem to have very little wisdom. You see these youngsters and you recognise them at once. They are dressed to the hilt with the latest brand and look on people with disdain. They think the are the most knowledgable people around and likes to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. It's not like I disagree cause I have my own point of view but rather more of a one-up-manship thing. Like I got in the last word or something like that.

They do not respect the elders and often brand them for being old-fashioned or label them as dinosaurs. They are ultra-kiasu. Just not the kind of people you would like to have around. This is becoming more common place and I have a theory - I call it the upper middle class working parents syndrome.

The parents of these brats are most likely upper middle class or elite people. The parents are way too busy working and chasing after material wealth. These parents are themselves bossy and snobby. The children pick up on these attributes. When they are growing up, they don't often see their parents and are usually left with a maid or caretaker.

These parents do not effectively impart decent values like courtesy or respect to their children mostly because of the way the behave in front of the children. They shout at the maid or nanny and boss them around, and generally have little patience for workers under them regardless of age. The children watches and learn. They may entertain friends and clients at their place sometimes and typically the children sees that their parents behave in one way in front of the clients or friends and then behave in an entirely different manner once the clients or friends leave. They children learns the meaning of hypocrisy and pick up the habit also.

Due to their busy schedule, these parents don't have much time to spend on their children so they feel guilty and they compensate with money or other material things. The children picks up on this bad habit of overspending and yearns for instant gratification rather than learning delayed gratification. Parents will also send these kids to study overseas as they deem overseas education to be better than local ones. Thus the child begins to see local as inferior.

So after they graduate and come out to society on their own, they would have become the typical disrespectful, snobbish and self-centred individuals we see everyday.

In conclusion - children learns more through observing how you behave rather than what you say or tell them. No too long ago, the term 'quality time' was heavily touted and was deemed the be all and end all solution for busy working parents and how to handle their kids. I would say that it is a complete failure. Kids do not understand 'quality time'. What they need is constant nurturing and guidance. You cannot just tell them that you need to respect the elders during your one hour 'quality time' and then behave in a totally opposite manners the rest of the time. You cannot teach integrity and honesty only during 'quality time' and the children sees you scheming and back-stabbing your co-workers and clients to get ahead the rest of the time.

I do not mean to say that the parents are bad characters to begin with. Often times they are decent people trying too hard to get ahead. The corporate world is ruthless. To survive you have to be aware and learn how to deal with all this. To get ahead, sometimes you need to be the 'weasel' and/or the 'shark' more often than you like to. The parents may not be such bad characters but behaving is such a manner so often will lead to the child being influenced.

So I believe in the saying that 'There is a price to pay for everything'. To have a good life with regards to having material wealth, I believe that this is the price that you pay - spoiled brats for children who have no respect for anyone but themselves and that includes the parents. Is the price too high to pay or can you bargain for a discount as in is there any way that you can have both material wealth and well-behaved children? What say you?

[Apekjolly 0]

meiteoh and daddyo,

I have read what you two said about the education system. In fact I have tons and tons of things to say on the topic. So much so until I don't know where to start and how to begin. But I'll come to it when I can find the time.

There is one thing I want to confess to you two though: That I'm not lucky enough to have attained an education as high as that of you two. Mine is only up to Form 5 level. At that time, it was called the Senior Cambridge. Well, we were dirt poor then, so I didn't go for further study. So, if my English is gibberish, please excuse me.

[beautifulgown 0]

apekjolly,

lately don't see your LONG and lo-so theory oh .. busy ah??

senior cambridge? <_< I think can guess how old are you liau lah!

ahh .. actually I also have a lot to say about our LOVELY and CLEVER education system, aiks .. but got no time to write my LONG lo-so theory here .. let me finish few report and write up within tis week, I will share my though here.

[Apekjolly 0]

Sometime ago, I said I would write something on "human's freedom of choice". So, here it goes:

FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

Are we really free to choose? It is easy to take for granted that what we decide to do every now and then is done out of our own free will. We encounter options and then we are free to choose which option to take. We can also choose to do good or bad, and the consequences of things to come are the products of our choices.

But are choices we make really done out of a free will? Are all the present state of beings in our life the consequences of our free will choices?

SHORT STORY

Let me share a short story about a friend of mine named Desmond, and his wife named Isah. Desmond once told me he married Isah all because of a chicken shit. I burst out laughing, but he looked me grimly in the eye and said he was not joking. Then he told me how it all happened.

The whole thing started when Desmond was in Form 5 in a sub-urban school. During a recess time one morning, he was walking to the school canteen when he accidentally stepped on a spat of chicken shit. His friends erupted into laughter and dispersed leaving him alone to face a flock of giggling girls who happened to pass by and saw what happened. One of the girls, who happened to be Isah, then handed him a sachet of tissue papers which he blushingly accepted.

The next day he handed out a ringgit to Isah to pay for her tissue papers, but she declined to take the money and jokingly told him to regard it as a prize he won for his super good luck.

From that day on, they became friends which gradually developed into ... well, need I say more? They eventually got married and lived happily ever after. My friend confessed to me that he was touched by Isah's kindness.

I tell you that story because I want ask you a question: Did Desmond choose to step on that chicken shit? He didn't, of course, but that was the starting point that led him to finally marry Isah, wasn't it? Of course he could still have chosen not to marry that Isah. But that's not the point here. The point is, if he had not stepped on that chicken shit, would he even be presented with an opportunity to choose not to marry Isah?

CHOICELESS CIRCUMSTANCES

There are many things in the world which are not the products of choices. For example, did you choose to be born in the first place? And after you were born, did you choose to be you?

Your overall characters such as the way you look, the way you behave, and the way you think, and of course the way you make choices, are, in one way or another, fashioned out by your genetic make-up, your family, your upbringing, your culture, your religion, your education, your environment, etc. Even something as ordinary as deciding whether to have a dinner at KFC or a seafood restaurant may also be the product of a set of factors collaborating to make you choose one decision over the other.

Take another scenario for instance: A boy is born in a ghetto. Then he grows up to be a criminal? Is that the vocation of his choice? What if the same kid is born in a luxurious estate to a wealthy family, would he still grow up to be a criminal?

INSTINCT

Animals' behaviors are driven by instinct. Anthropologists or psychologists would tell us that we still have a lot of animal in us; which explains why we behave like animals sometimes. Charles Darwin theorized that we have evolved from an ape-like creature. Thus, many of our instincts, like the way we react to threats, avoid dangers, fight for survival, are very similar to those of the animals. Thus, might it not be that our decisions and actions are also the products of instincts?

BRAIN MIND

Finally, let us use our brain to think about our brain. The brain makes the mind, and the mind makes choices. The operation of the brain is undertaken by the billions of its interconnected nerve cells. When neuroscientists delve into how the brain works, they discover that the choices a person makes is largely also determined by the brain chemistry and neurological programming. Thus, might it not be that the choices we make are actually the programmed response of our brain?

If we now put together all the factors which I have mentioned (factors that influence how we make choices) how much is left for a free will choice?

A question which you might want to ask me now is: Does it all mean that a person is not accountable for his actions? Or more precisely, is it justified to punish someone who has committed a crime?

I shall attempt to answer those questions based on my own opinion some other time. Meanwhile, anyone can have their say if they have anything to say on this topic.

[daddyo 0]

Wow! Apekjolly is gonna step on a lot of people's toes with this one! :P

Deep! But here's my opinion on the subject matter.

I think that free will or freedom of choice still exists and plays a rather big role in life.

While I do agree with apekjolly that a lot of factors to come into play when one makes a decision but I would think ULTIMATELY a person still has to choose what he/she wants to do.

Upbringing, one's environment and instincts do play a role in making decisions but far be it that one is dictated by them.

My Story:

When I was young, I was a real goody two shoes. I studied hard. I obeyed my parents and basically defined the standards of how a goody two shoes should be. All thanks to my very strict father. Imagine, my daily routine was go to school and come back. Do homework. Study. Watch TV a while and then sleep. Next day - repeat. I didn't even go out to town with friends or schoolmates even when I was in Form Four!! This is no joke! I hardly know the places in downtown KL! If I was ever in KL it was because I was with my parents on such trips.

After Form 3, I knew that I was not cut out to be studying science stream and so I told my dad that I would rather study in the Arts stream. My dad was not happy at all. Yes, I did get quite good results in my SRP and so he thought that all good students should be in the Science stream. Out of fear (mostly) and ignorance I followed my dad's choice. And I have regretted my decision ever since. I did have a choice at the point. Thing is I did not exercise the right to uphold it. If I had insisted, what could my dad had done? Disown me? He loved me dearly and would not do that! If only I had upheld my choice, I would have turned out much better. I am really more cut out for the Arts stream. If I had followed my dreams, I would have mastered the English language and I would have a lot of opportunities to go far from there.

So you see, even when the factors favoured my taking the science stream, it was not like I was not at all compelled to pick the arts stream. I knew the choice was clear but ULTIMATELY I made the mistake of choosing the science stream.

Another case was when I was dating my now wife. My father was not happy with my choice either. The things that we had to go through to stay together. This time I had a little bit more wisdom and I upheld my choice. My dad relented as all parents would eventually. The result? We are now a happy family and my dad has truly accepted my wife as part of the family and he is the one that is spoiling my daughter the most!

At the time of making the decision, it was not at all easy. I knew that by going against my father's wishes, I could doom myself and my wife to be blacklisted in his bad books forever. Trust me, you do not want to be in that list! But I was ready to face the consequences. I had discussed it with my wife (then gf) and we decided that we need no one's approval to be together and I made that choice to stick with her to the end. All other factors favoured me leaving her but still I made the hard decision and now I am glad I did. So ULTIMATELY one needs to choose one's path and no one can determine your life for you.

Even if you left all major decisions in your life to others, such as parents or whomever, that in itself is already a choice you have made, conciously or unconciously.

It's not like when we make any choices we are not aware of the alternative. We are aware and we have the ability to take the other path.

As in apekjolly's friend's case, after stepping onto that spat of chicken shit and meeting with his future wife, he had made his choice to accept the tissue, to befriend this girl, to further develop their friendship and ULTIMATELY to marry her. Who is to say that he could not have taken the other path at any one point during his friendship with Isah?

Of course in life, there is this one factor that will always be present and it is what makes our lives that much more interesting. That is the element of RANDOM OCCURENCE OF EVENTS. Example, how Desmond came to step onto that pile of organic waste.

[meiteoh 0]

It is at times like this that I miss my philosophy book. :)

I have a busy day ahead today so will reply this thread later, k? Got to do some dyeing!

[Apekjolly 0]

Just drop in here to say hello to daddyo and meiteoh. No time for lenghthy talk yet.

daddyo,

I know what you meant when you hinted that I could step on a lot of toes. And I think I know which kind of people you are referring to. This topic can be extremely sensitive if one is to read between the lines.

Anyway, I fully compromise with your say regarding freedom of choice.

meiteoh,

I nearly jumped out of my skin to read what you said you got to do. Cos I initially read the word "dyeing" without the "e". LOL!

[meiteoh 0]

Don't worry, it's a common mistake. :P

Will be back soon. A bit sibuk this week with my paints (dyEing) and knitting. XD

[Apekjolly 0]

daddyo,

Your observation on the deterioration of culture among our youths is very true. Our society seems to have lost all those fine traditional values of the yesteryears. It is a worrying trend, but then I wonder if it is an inevitable social change which is unstoppable just like a tide is unstoppable.

By the way, are you familiar with that so-called Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which advocates survival of the fittest? When I think of how people fight to survive and how they compete to outdo one another, it does seem to indicate that the essence of Darwin's theory is increasingly valid.

The human species has in fact take things a step further. To many people, life is no more about fighting just to survive. After having achieved the survival stage, they proceed to fight on to be the fittest by amassing wealth, power, and fame. And in their pursuit of these goals; the real values of life is either forgotten or trashed. As a result, one of the by-products of such a “kiasu” syndrome is, disrespectful youngsters. These youths maybe overflowing with buckets of knowledge. But wisdom? Not even a trickle.

[Apekjolly 0]

meiteoh,

Don't worry. Carry on with your dying. Ooops! I mean dyEing :P

[beautifulgown 0]

apekjolly,

add to your kiasu syndrome, those youngesters are kiasu and yet boi kia-si (never scare to death)!!

they never ever feel that they were wrong and never admit that they were wrong, however they will accuse people that they never understand them, why they cannot accept their freedom to do what they want??

there is a case which happened to my niece, wait until I have the time I will share here. She keeps on saying that why she doesn't have the freedom to choose what's life she wants, I told her she has but she has to choose it wisely and she says she cannot understand why her parents react as 'that'?

I ask her a question, do you know what's the meaning when people scold you 'bo ka si' (in hokkien)? they are not scolding you, however they are scolding your parents that why your parents never teach you good, she speechless. And yet she still not admit that she was wrong and she says since you people say I'm wrong, ok I'm wrong = she never admist she was wrong, isn't it?

[Apekjolly 0]

beautifulgown,

There are a hundred and one things which can influence the thinking of a person. What more to say the very impressionable mind of a youngster. Thus, the old would think that the young is "be kia si" while the young would think that the old is "lau thau nau". This is what generation gap is about. As for your niece case, she may have her reasons which we don't understand. Of course I'm not saying that the reasons that we don't understand are correct.

I knew a young man who always talked to me like he knew everything under the sun. But I just let him enjoy his egotism. There were times I nearly laughed myself to death at the stupid things he said, and yet he still thought that I had laughed because I was impressed by the amusing and inteligent things he said. I did try to tactfully sprinkle bits of corrective statement and wisdom into him every now and then. It worked somehow.

[beautifulgown 0]

Apekjolly,

I do agree your say. There are always have things to influence our thinkig but have you think of this .. why we are so easily been influenced by those things and people? does it shows that we are weak in mind?? or they are too perfect, thus we want to follow those perfect people's path?

Generation gap is always there, regardless in which century. By right in this century there shouldn't have generation gap and yet it still. To them they should follow this century's ways and for the parents who are still not 'open-minded' they still feel that those youngesters shouldn't do this and that, whose fault?

For my niece, if she has her own reasons which I don't understand then should I call her as god? god's followers always say that to themselves! nar .. nothing else beside she cannot control her own emotional towards another new guy, that's all, but she doesn't want to admit that she was wrong, however she keep on blaming people that why people all say she was wrong, which to her, she needs the freedom to choose what she wants.

I told my mum, is useless to scold her and say you are wrong by doing this and that, what you people need to know is to make her realise that she was wrong. I said to my niece, be responsible for your choice as it is your freedom to choose what you want.