Personal Assessment

I've been doing lots of meta-cognition in the past few days, and I've been really interested in sociology (how to persuade people etcetera) and how people think. I hoped that by understanding what causes certain reactions in me, I can influence my decision-making to be less biased against others, and more neutral (less charged with emotions). Even though nothing went according to plan, but I ended up discovering some things about myself.

1) A free personality test that I took on-line tells me that I am of the personality type ENTP, in accordance to the "Jung Typology test". It tells me that I am an inventor. I got curious about the test and looked for other personality types, and found that I could easily categorise people into those categories. I am also shocked at how accurate the description of my personality type is in relation to me. How can something so deceptively simple apply to so many people yet still stay true? I am dumbfounded.

Website: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

2) I realised that my thinking is powered by mostly 'what ifs'. An advantage of this would be that I can quickly explore every possibility in any situation, but a disadvantage would be to choose the wrong scenarios in exams and think too far ahead in terms of answers, which will probably lead to the wrong answer. This is not very beneficial, but a trait nonetheless, thus I shall not attempt to entirely eradicate this feature of my thinking, but instead provide a mental note to not think too far ahead in exams.

3) I perform leadership roles better when under stress (a tight deadline). It is important to note the discovery that my "stress mode" (the manner in which I behave under stress) is similar to the INTJ personality type, without the planning. This means that I do everything systematically (instead of trying to find multiple ways to solve the problem, as usual) and have backup plans in case of anything. An example: There's 5 questions left in the exam and I have 10 minutes left. I rush through the questions, see which questions are easier and do them first. If a question is more difficult than expected, abandon that question for another.

I found out more about the Myers-Briggs test, and it is really interesting. Though the formulas for calculation (or the full test) have not been released onto the web (the full test requires finances), I noticed that the answers to questions relate to a single category in the simplified version of the test. I assume that the test must be a kind of quantitative assessment, seeing that all of the questions are Yes/No questions.

Dear Reader, you should really try the test. You might discover a thing or two about yourself that you never knew!

Normality in Singapore

Why is Singapore still resistant to the gay rights movement?

To start the post, I will define normal. Normality is defined by what society deems is normal and what is not. What we find irrational or hard to accept is not normal. Everything out of clearly defined lines in society is unacceptable and thus abnormal.

Then we must answer the question: Where does normal come from? It starts from the very beginning. Culture, defined by the wisest in every civilisation, stood unchallenged for many years, probably centuries. Over time, it evolved into tradition; if left alone long enough, into what is known as the normal. Defying the tradition is unthinkable as it can be seen as defying the wishes of the wiser ancestors and thousands of years of tradition, thus risking being seen as arrogant or stupid. No one dares to defy tradition (which is the normal).

However, if normal comes from culture, which comes from the ancestors, then (to put it bluntly) isn't normal created by a bunch of cavemen? How can we, as a civilisation, still follow the normal if we now know its provenance? I think that part of the reason why we are still applying the stereotypical roles (thus sexism and racism) in the modern world is because we as humans are resistant to change. Being resistant to change, we are not as likely to defy the normal.

Moreover, change in Asian societies is more difficult. Asian societies are renowned for the conservativeness of their people (especially their ladies) and Singapore is an Asian society. Singapore is made up of different ethnic groups, with the main one being the Chinese ethnic group, making it all the more difficult for norms to change in Singapore.

Singaporeans need to try and accept something out of the norm. I will be waiting for that day when a crippled child or homosexual walks down the street, and no one stares. I hope I won't be waiting forever, although it seems likely that I will.

P.S. I'm not gay.

Abolishment of death penalty?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty?page=1

While browsing through Amnesty International, a humanitarian organisation, I stumbled upon this part of the website. Ah, that's fine, a human rights organisation opposing unjustified killings. I read on, and was slightly disgruntled by the stand that the organisation takes: "Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".

I do not agree with this stand to a degree. "Regardless of the nature of the crime". What if it was a psychotic mass-murderer, or the head of a world-wide criminal organisation, responsible for ruining thousands of lives? Think of all the pain that they have caused, all of the violations of other people's human rights, look the criminals in their eyes, and tell them that they deserve to live. Would you oppose the death penalty in those cases? I think not.

Having lived in Singapore from birth, I have experienced the results of strict law enforcement in a country. I have NEVER seen a crime in progress or been affected by any crime. Fact is, Singapore's crime rate remains low compared to other countries partly because of the strict laws enforced, and the punishments meted out. Other reasons include the almost non-corrupt judicial system and the small size of the country (making it extremely difficult for criminals to hide). Besides, why would you be given a death sentence if you deserve to be forgiven? Commit a crime of your own accord and you deserve no better than loan sharks or drug runners.

Then again, the death sentence can be abused to the criminal's advantage. Due to the corrupt justice systems in some countries, death sentences are brought upon the innocent, scapegoats for someone else's crimes. Because death is permanent, the case will not be looked into any more and the guilty will be acquitted. This is the sole reason why I may be (slightly) against the gallows.

If I were a minister of Singapore, I would support the death penalty. Not only does it keep Singapore safe, it is not as humiliating as public caning in schools or as cruel as being stoned to death. What about basic human rights, the denial to life? You may have human rights, but not a single person has the right ruin other people's lives and get away with it.