The background to this post is here. So anyway, today I finally got around to taking my little girl for the IQ test.
I didn't tell her that she would be going for a test. I just told her that I was taking her somewhere to play some games. When she asked me what kind of games, I just told her, "Oh, puzzles. Many different kinds of puzzles. They're really fun!".
At the clinic, the psychologist had a brief discussion with me and my wife, and then asked us to leave our daughter behind and come back in 90 minutes. We went off to do some shopping. When we came back, my daughter had completed her IQ test and happily announced to us that the puzzles were really fun and she had enjoyed herself.
We asked the psychologist how my daughter had done. The psychologist said that she couldn't give a definitive answer yet - she had to do some analysis and compute the scores first. However, the rough estimate was that my daughter was well above average on an overall basis, and probably in the gifted range for verbal reasoning, but perhaps not in the gifted range for other areas.
I know the technical term for this. It's "asynchronous development". Human intelligence isn't a single attribute - instead there are about eight different types of human intelligences. For example, a person may be gifted in logic; but average in interpersonal intelligence; and poor in his linguistic intelligence.
Asynchronous development is the term to describe people who are unevenly gifted. The psychologist's comments indicate that my daughter is linguistically gifted - her natural ability to communicate, analyse, reason and express herself by using language is very high - but that she isn't gifted in all other areas.
I guess she takes after her daddy. I know that as a child, I learned to speak, read and write well at an unusually early age (those were my first steps towards becoming, at different times in my life, a top law student; a published poet; a nationally prominent blogger; a litigation lawyer and a writer for the SAF). But at the same time, I also know that I was never smart in the way that my big brother is EQ-smart with people; nor in the way that my other brother is smart with visual images and artistic ideas.
Anyway, it will take some time for the full report on my daughter's IQ to be produced (because the clinic is temporarily closing down for the Christmas and New Year holidays).
I like to think that everyone has a special talent in something, and that the only big difference is that some of us have discovered our gifts, and the rest of us have not. Of course, as a parent, I am particularly interested in helping my own children fulfill their potential.
Gadis Bispak Imut
Tampilkan postingan dengan label psychology. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label psychology. Tampilkan semua postingan
Conspicuous Consumption And The Growth of Human Beings
An interesting ST Forum letter:
Leaving aside economics for a moment, it's interesting to turn to psychology and consider Abraham Maslow's triangle of needs. In brief, Maslow says that human motivations are hierarchical. It's only when an individual has satisfied his lower needs that his attention turns towards his higher needs:
One day, you might still become more than your car, your condo, your clothes and your credit cards. But first you will have to climb past Level 4. Good luck.
Gadis Bispak Imut
ST Jan 2, 2008The term "conspicuous consumption" was first coined in a book entitled The Theory of the Leisure Class. It refers to the expenditure of money or other resources for the sake of displaying a higher status than others. A simple example would be the purchase of an expensive branded watch, when one could have purchased a cheaper alternative that works just as well.
Flashy yuppies paint themselves into a corner
MANY young Singaporeans, gainfully employed in a booming economy, have expressed anxiety about building a large enough nest egg for a comfortable retirement. This is rather disturbing.
The reasons are not hard to trace, though, if one steps back and observes the lifestyles of these so-called 'yuppies' who hold lucrative jobs that promise much.
Today, Singaporeans' consumption habits more or less mirror those of Americans who have traditionally been consummate spenders. And like Americans, many Singaporeans discount the future in order to consume today. They are hooked on what sociologist Thorstein Veblen termed 'conspicuous consumption', which used to be the affliction of the rich.
To be sure, they get a lot of help in this respect. Crowded malls for drop-dead shopping with foodcourts to give respite to continue shopping; colourful full-page ads that tell you how good you look in that suit, how macho it would be behind the wheel of that new BMW, or hey, wouldn't that DaVinci sofa look great in our living room?
...... Keeping up with the Joneses has given way to keener appetites: affordable luxury; living well with a vengeance; we have it, let's flaunt it; you can't take it with you; and the rest. All of which keeps the cash register ringing and, of course, an unhealthy growth in credit card debt.
One can argue that consumption is normal desire made possible by a successful economy. But if you think about it, how much do you really need?
........ What one sees is an ethos of consumption that really did not exist a couple of generations ago, when the norms of the lower class and middle class dictated thrift and austerity, living within one's means, saving for the future and for one's children, and not being conspicuous, really, about anything.
The picture looks different now and it's not pretty. Overindulging Singaporeans are in a predicament of their own making and they must, for the sake of their retirement, find a way out unaided - and the sooner the better.
New year resolution, anyone?
Philip Lee Seck Kay
Leaving aside economics for a moment, it's interesting to turn to psychology and consider Abraham Maslow's triangle of needs. In brief, Maslow says that human motivations are hierarchical. It's only when an individual has satisfied his lower needs that his attention turns towards his higher needs:
In a developed, highly consumerist society, we might say that a large proportion of individuals are getting stuck at Level 4. At this stage, they are driven by their need for social status and their desire for respect. In turn, their lifestyle develops into one of conspicuous consumption, whereby they constantly seek to acquire more material items so as to display their wealth to others.
Level 5, of course, is where life gets really interesting. Here, individuals start flowering into their uniquely best selves. It is at this self-actualisation stage that a person becomes filled with a desire to realize all of his potential to become an effective, creative, mature human being. "What a man can be, he must be", is one way Maslow expressed it. He also described self-actualisation as follows:
"an episode or spurt in which the powers of the person come together in a particularly and intensely enjoyable way, and in which he is more integrated and less split, more open for experience, more idiosyncratic, more perfectly expressive or spontaneous, or fully functioning, more creative, more humorous more ego-transcending, more independent of his lower needs, etc. He becomes in these episodes more truly himself, more perfectly actualising his potentialities, closer to the core of his being, more fully human. Not only are these his happiest and most thrilling moments, but they are also moments of greatest maturity, individuation, fulfilment - in a word, his healthiest moments."Maslow predicts that the large majority of human beings will never get past Level 4. In other words, few people are truly self-actualising. If your focus in life is still on conspicuous consumption, then you are not a self-actualiser and you are a lesser being than you could be - and you aren't even heading in the right direction.
One day, you might still become more than your car, your condo, your clothes and your credit cards. But first you will have to climb past Level 4. Good luck.
Gadis Bispak Imut
Illusions for the Weekend
I found this on the Herald Sun: THE Right Brain vs Left Brain test ... do you see the dancer turning clockwise or anti-clockwise?I see the woman as turning clockwise, and I can't change her direction.
If clockwise, then you use more of the right side of the brain and vice versa.
Most of us would see the dancer turning anti-clockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it.
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic / detail oriented / facts rule / words and language / present and past / math and science / can comprehend /
knowing / acknowledges order / pattern perception / knows object name / reality based / forms strategies / practical / safe
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling / "big picture" oriented / imagination rules / symbols and images / present and future / philosophy & religion / can "get it" (i.e. meaning) / believes / appreciates / spatial perception / knows object function / fantasy based / presents possibilities / impetuous /risk taking.
Gadis Bispak Imut
The Limits of Reality & Belief
LifeHack.Org is a very well-known blog on personal productivity. According to Technorati, it is the 38th most popular blog in the world. Recently it featured one of my old posts - How to Write Down Your Goals.This is a nice surprise. So today I shall write something more on the topic of personal development. Naturally, this is presented from Mr Wang's favourite TAR perspective.
As you know by now, your thoughts create your reality. After all, everything you have ever known or believed about the universe or your own life is just precisely that - knowledge and belief. These are mental states - the products of your own thoughts and consciousness. And these mental states are changeable.
Effectively, your mind is your universe. Change your mind, and you change your _________.
Not all your thoughts have equal power to affect your reality. For example, suppose you think a random, fleeting thought about something inconsequential to you. The thought goes away and never comes back again. This thought will have very, very little power to change anything to a discernible extent in your reality.
In contrast, a thought which recurs constantly, is attached to strong emotion and consistently held in your consciousness over time will play a much bigger role in creating your reality. A convenient word for such a thought is "belief". If such a thought is linked to other mutually supporting thoughts, then together they will constitute a "belief system".
The deeper a belief is, and the stronger a belief system is, the greater the effect on your reality.
The most deeply-held beliefs that a person has, are not even recognisable to himself as "beliefs". He simply assumes that the belief is just "reality".
Some of your beliefs serve you well. Your teachers and parents may have tried to instil them in you. For example, if they raised you to be a confident person, essentially they instilled you a strong belief in yourself.
Some of your beliefs do not serve you well. They may once have served a useful purpose, but they could have outlived that purpose. If they now obstruct you from further growth and happiness, then they are known as "limiting beliefs".
The first step in dealing with a limiting belief is to identify it. This is not necessarily an easy task. As I had mentioned earlier, a deeply-held belief may not even be recognisable to the person himself as a "belief". He will tend to assume that his limiting belief is just reality.
Think of an area of your life that you'd like to improve, or some personal issue that you'd like to resolve, or some goal that you'd like to achieve .... but which you believe you cannot. Why not? What are the limiting beliefs holding you back? This checklist may be helpful.
Which of the above beliefs apply to you? Remember - these limiting beliefs may indeed be "true". But what's "true" in your reality is simply the reality you've created with your own thoughts. Change your thoughts, and your reality must __________."I am too young."
"I am too old."
"I am under-qualified."
"I am over-qualified."
"I am a woman."
"I am a man."
"I am not healthy enough."
"I don't have time."
"I don't have money."
"I don't have the opportunity."
"I don't have the luck."
"I don't have the support."
"I don't have the skill."
"I don't have the discipline."
"I don't have the tools."
"My boss will not agree."
"My parents will not agree."
"My teacher will not agree."
"My spouse will not agree."
"The government will not agree."
"I am lazy."
"I am stupid."
"I am incompetent."
"I am shy."
"I am weak."
"I am just an ordinary, average person."
Gadis Bispak Imut
Thoughts And The Reality of Pets & Children
So while we're still on the topic of thoughts affecting reality, let's turn our attention to our animal friends. Do you have a pet dog or cat? Would you like it to be smarter? Just start believing that it is smarter, and it will immediately start becoming smarter.What? You don't believe Mr Wang? Let me make an even more grandiose claim. This "thought-affects-reality" method will work even for your pet hamster. Start believing that it is a smart little rodent, and its IQ will also expand.
Yes, this has been scientifically verified for rodents. In a famous experiment, a group of graduate students were given some rats and were told that these rats had been specially bred for their superior intelligence, especially for their "navigational" ability. Another group of students were given some other rats and were told that these rats had been specially bred for their stupidity.
All the students were then asked to train their respective rats to figure their way out of mazes. True enough, the supposedly "smart" rats ended up performing much better than the "stupid" rats. Most of the "stupid" rats did not even manage to make it past the start line in the maze.
Of course, the truth was that none of the rats had been specially bred for anything. All the rats had been randomly chosen for this experiment. They were "equal" rats. However, the (objectively false) belief that certain rats were smart led to the superior performance of those rats. The (objectively false) belief that certain rats were stupid led to the inferior performance of those rats.
Another simple example of thought affecting reality.
"Mr Wang, that's amazing," you say. "But are you sure it works for dogs and cats?"
Well, actually I don't know of any such experiments involving dogs or cats. After Robert Rosenthal finished his rat experiment, he skipped the dogs and cats and went on directly to human children.
In a school environment, teachers were, in effect, tricked into believing that certain children had been tested, and had already been proven, to be smarter than the other children. All other variables were controlled for. Eight months later, due to the teachers' false beliefs, the supposedly "smarter" children indeed turned out to be smarter. Despite having the same teachers and the same classroom lessons and the same school environment, the supposedly "smarter" children showed more intellectual gain on their IQ tests than the other children. In some cases they showed about twice as much improvement as the other children:
Here's the simple, practical summary. If you want your children to be smart, start believing that they are smart. If you want your children to be stupid, start believing that they are stupid. Whatever you choose to believe about your children, will come true."All of the children in the study were administered a nonverbal test of intelligence, which was disguised as a test that would predict intellectual "blooming." The test was labeled "The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition."
There were 18 classrooms in the school, three at each of the six grade levels. Within each grade level, the three classrooms were composed of children with above-average ability, average ability, and below-average ability, respectively. Within each of the 18 classrooms, approximately 20% of the children were chosen at random to form the experimental group. The teachers of these children were told that their scores on the "Test of Inflected Acquisition" indicated they would show surprising gains in intellectual competence during the next 8 months of school.
The only difference between the experimental group and the control group children, then, was in the minds of the teachers.
At the end of the school year, 8 months later, all the children were retested with the same test of intelligence. Overall, the children from whom the teachers had been led to expect greater intellectual gain showed a significantly greater gain than did the children of the control group, thereby supporting the "Pygmalion" hypothesis." Link.
Now, Mr Wang invites you to consider this. If your beliefs about another person, or even a rat, can already affect his/its mental abilities, how would your beliefs about yourself affect ..... your own mental abilities?
Gadis Bispak Imut
Mindhacker 101
A number of readers have emailed me to ask that I blog more about mindhacking. Separately, I have noticed that some of my readers seem to be fervent Buddhists (see readers comments' over here). So today I will blog about mindhacking, and inject some Buddhist perspectives into it. As our starting point, we'll use karma, as explained in Buddhism. If you think that karma is superstitition or hogwash, this is not a post for you and you can stop reading right about here (because the rest of the post is predicated on the basis that the Buddhist explanation of karma is correct).
For the rest of you, let's proceed.
Buddhism tells us everything in the universe comes into being purely as a result of the combination of causes and conditions. In other words, there are natural causal laws that operate throughout the universe.
Karma is just one of those natural causal laws. The distinguishing feature is that karma is based on intention. For example, suppose you drive a car and knock someone down. The karmic consequences depend on your state of mind. Did you accidentally knock him down, or were you deliberately plotting to kill him? The physical effect - a dead man - may be the same, but the karmic consequences will be very different.
Buddhism tells us that there is no escaping karma. It is not something that operates only from Monday to Friday; it does not close shop or stop work after 6 pm. Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.
Let me say that again, because the point is very important - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. Everything happening in your life now is the consequence of some combination of thoughts and intentions you have had, sometime in your past.
It is a universal law, you see. Even death is not an escape. Accumulated karma that hasn't fully expressed itself in this lifetime will simply follow you into the next.
Actions (or more precisely, deliberate actions) can, in Buddhism, be broadly categorised into three groups. There are positive or virtuous actions (which will lead to positive and desirable consequences, such as experiences of happiness). There are negative or nonvirtuous actions (which will lead to suffering and pain). Then there are actions which are neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous (these lead to neutral feelings and experiences).
Buddhism understands that the average mortal has little control over his mind. Intellectually, we may know that it is a good time to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful etc etc. In reality, we find it difficult to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful all the time, or even some of the time.
Thus Buddhism teaches a systematic process towards enlightenment. The earlier steps of the process focus on guarding our body, speech and mind from engaging in negative actions (for example, lying, stealing etc).
At this point in time, we'll stop to look at the basic proposition again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.
For example, if you are a kind, loving person who constantly thinks kind, loving thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those kind, loving thoughts. If you are an angry, violent person who constantly thinks angry, violent thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those angry, violent thoughts.
Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. The universe will always ensure that.
Now suppose you are a perfectly "average" person, with an average family, an average job, average wealth, average health, average sex life, average friends, an average home, with an average everything, and if you were asked to honestly describe yourself, you would say:
"I am quite an ordinary person, with average levels of ability, my luck is neither very good nor very bad, and I expect to have an average number of successes and failures in my life. I suppose I can't say that my life as a disaster, but of course I am not particularly happy or I don't feel completely fulfilled either."
"I am a highly successful person, furthermore I am extremely lucky, I am always in the right place at the right time. I have outstanding ability, I have a wonderful family, I am a happy person, everything is always working out fine for me, in fact, better than I expected. I'm really grateful for all the good things I have, and I feel blessed."Now, let's go back to the basic Buddhist propositions again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. This is a universal law of cause and effect. Your thoughts and intentions are the cause of everything that happens in your life. The karmic consequences of your thoughts will always be delivered into your life. Because the universe will always ensure that.
How would your life change, if you held on to that new set of thoughts described above?
Gadis Bispak Imut
In Search of Higher Purpose
A number of readers have written to ask how they should go about finding their Purpose in life.This question has several implicit assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that each person DOES have a Purpose in life.
Secondly, it is assumed that the Purpose ought to be discoverable now or in the near future, as opposed to, say, at a much later stage in life.
Thirdly, it is assumed that each person only has ONE purpose.
Of course, none of these assumptions are necessarily true. For example, it may well be that the Universe hasn’t assigned a specific Purpose to you that you are supposed to discover – instead you'll have to choose your own Purpose and stick to it.
Or it may well be that you do have a Purpose assigned to you by a Higher Power, but this Purpose will unfold itself to you not now, not tomorrow, but 5, 10, 15 or 20 years later, when the time is right.
Or it may well be that you could have several different Purposes at any given time, or alternatively you could have a Purpose at a particular time, and another Purpose at another time in your life.
Now let’s look at all this in a practical way, by revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
People wondering about their Purpose in life are actually wondering what they should be doing at Level 5, when they get there.
But maybe they should get there first, that is, climb right up into Level 5, and then their Purpose (or Purposes) will become clear to them.
In other words, take care of your Level 1 – 4 needs first, and then (and only then) may your Level 5 needs become crystal clear to you.
Remember, Maslow’s needs are hierarchical. A person facing big challenges at Level 1 would be unclear about Levels 2 or 3. A person who is facing big challenges at Levels 2 or 3 would be unclear about Level 4.
And to be clear what you want at Level 5, perhaps what you need to do is to fully address your Level 1 to 4 needs.
Consider for example, Gautama Buddha, who was once a prince. As a prince, he had power, respect, authority, riches, royal luxuries, palaces, guards, servants and furthermore, parents who loved him so much that they did not want to know him to know that pain, suffering or death existed.
In other words, Gautama Buddha had just about everything that anyone could want, at Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4.
And that, perhaps, was why he was eventually able to launch into such a determined, inspired effrt into satisfying his Level 5 need (in his case, the need to understand the ultimate meanings of life).
And eventually he attained Enlightenment – but that is not the point of my post. The point of my point is – perhaps you can discover your Purpose only after satisfying your every other lesser purpose, goal, desire or ambition first.
And then your Purpose – the one with the capital P – may finally unfold itself to you.
Gadis Bispak Imut
How To Touch The Face of God
I realise that my last post may have been a little too esoteric for some. Someone described that post as being "occultish and mystical".
So for today, I am sticking to more conventional ground (otherwise I may be accused of being a member of some cult). Today, we'll just learn how to touch God's face.
I say that this topic is entirely conventional, because it is entirely based on the work of a very well-known psychologist. He's so well-known that he appears in every standard textbook prescribed for undergrads taking Psychology 101. Many generations of NUS students would have studied him, for he is quite an important exam question.
Yes, we're talking about none other than Abraham Maslow.
Maslow's interest was in human motivations (what do people want? why do they want it?) and he is best-known for his hierarchy of needs (see above). Briefly, human needs are categorised into five levels. Only when you have satisfied your needs at one level, will you start being interested in satisfying your needs at the next level.
The lowest level of needs are physiological. They are your needs for air, food, water and so on. Once those needs are satisfied, you will become interested in fulfilling your next level of needs - for physical safety and security. After that, you will become interested in the 3rd level of needs, represented by your need for love and belonging (for example, friends and family).
The fourth level of need will be for self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and other people's respect. At this level, you may feel motivated to try to gain people's respect, by pursing conventional symbols of success and status (eg in Singapore, this could be the infamous 5 C's).
The first four levels are known as "deficit needs". In other words, they represent the lack of something. Once you have obtained enough of that thing, your need disapppears. For example, suppose you are very hungry. You then are motivated to get food. However, when you have eaten enough to feel full, you will not want food any more (not at least for a few hours).
The fifth level of need is quite different. This is the level of self-actualisation, which is not a "deficit need". Instead Maslow calls it a "being need" or "growth need". If your first four levels are satisfied and you come to your fifth level, you will seek to fulfill your "growth needs". How exactly a person will seek to do so, will vary from person to person - Maslow describes it as follows:
Gadis Bispak Imut
So for today, I am sticking to more conventional ground (otherwise I may be accused of being a member of some cult). Today, we'll just learn how to touch God's face.
I say that this topic is entirely conventional, because it is entirely based on the work of a very well-known psychologist. He's so well-known that he appears in every standard textbook prescribed for undergrads taking Psychology 101. Many generations of NUS students would have studied him, for he is quite an important exam question.
Yes, we're talking about none other than Abraham Maslow.
Maslow's interest was in human motivations (what do people want? why do they want it?) and he is best-known for his hierarchy of needs (see above). Briefly, human needs are categorised into five levels. Only when you have satisfied your needs at one level, will you start being interested in satisfying your needs at the next level.
The lowest level of needs are physiological. They are your needs for air, food, water and so on. Once those needs are satisfied, you will become interested in fulfilling your next level of needs - for physical safety and security. After that, you will become interested in the 3rd level of needs, represented by your need for love and belonging (for example, friends and family).
The fourth level of need will be for self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and other people's respect. At this level, you may feel motivated to try to gain people's respect, by pursing conventional symbols of success and status (eg in Singapore, this could be the infamous 5 C's).
The first four levels are known as "deficit needs". In other words, they represent the lack of something. Once you have obtained enough of that thing, your need disapppears. For example, suppose you are very hungry. You then are motivated to get food. However, when you have eaten enough to feel full, you will not want food any more (not at least for a few hours).
The fifth level of need is quite different. This is the level of self-actualisation, which is not a "deficit need". Instead Maslow calls it a "being need" or "growth need". If your first four levels are satisfied and you come to your fifth level, you will seek to fulfill your "growth needs". How exactly a person will seek to do so, will vary from person to person - Maslow describes it as follows:
"A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write., if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualisation ... It refers to man's desire for self-fulfilment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualised in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming".The thing about growth needs is that they will never be satisfied. You will always want more and more and more. You will always want to grow. It is the desire to fulfil your full potential. An extract from Wikipedia:
Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is. Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
In short, self-actualization is reaching one's fullest potential.
Only a small proportion of the general population are believed to be at the 5th level. If you like, you could say that Maslow sees self-actualisers as representing the most-highly evolved, the most developed, members of the human race.
Maslow also thought that although just about everyone has the potential to get there, most simply will not. The reason is that most people are unaware of their potential, or have been conditioned by society to believe that they are "mediocre" or "average".
Another Maslow quotation, to make this clear:
"There seems no intrinsic reason why everyone shouldn't be (self-actualising). Apparently every baby has possibilities for self-actualisation, but most get it knocked out of them ...I think of the self-actualising man not as an ordinary man with something added, but rather as the ordinary man with nothing taken away."
I mentioned touching the face of God. Where does that come in?
Well, according to Maslow, self-actualising people can be further categorised into two groups. He calls them the peakers and the non-peakers. The peakers are the self-actualising people who have peak experiences.
What are peak experiences? Read for yourself - here and here. Essentially, they are quasi-spritual, or mystical, or religious experiences, far beyond the ordinary. (In most reported cases, these peak experiences do not last very long, not more than a few minutes). I call this "touching the face of God". Here's a brief extract from the account of one individual, Osho, who had a peak experience in 1953:
"And the last day the presence of a totally new energy, a new light and new delight, became so intense that it was almost unbearable -- as if I was exploding, as if I was going mad with blissfulness. The new generation in the West has the right word for it -- I was blissed out, stoned.
It was impossible to make any sense out of it, what was happening. It was a very non-sense world -- difficult to figure it out, difficult to manage in categories, difficult to use words, languages, explanations. All scriptures appeared dead and all the words that have been used for this experience looked very pale, anaemic. This was so alive. It was like a tidal wave of bliss.
The whole day was strange, stunning, and it was a shattering experience. The past was disappearing, as if it had never belonged to me, as if I had read about it somewhere, as if I had dreamed about it, as if it was somebody else's story I have heard and somebody told it to me. I was becoming loose from my past, I was being uprooted from my history, I was losing my autobiography. I was becoming a non-being, what Buddha calls anatta. Boundaries were disappearing, distinctions were disappearing.
Mind was disappearing; it was millions of miles away. It was difficult to catch hold of it, it was rushing farther and farther away, and there was no urge to keep it close. I was simply indifferent about it all. It was okay. There was no urge to remain continuous with the past."
Or in Maslow's words:
"The power of the peak experience could permanently affect one's attitude toward life. A single glimpse of heaven is enough to confirm its existence even if it is never experienced again."
Peak experiences aren't as rare as you might think. They also come in varying degrees of intensity. A belief in "God" isn't an essential pre-requisite for touching God's face, either.
If you go and think about it, Buddha's enlightenment under the bodhi tree would, in Maslow's terminology, be an unusually intense peak experience. Subsequently, it became a plateau experience (Maslow's term again) whereby the experience becomes permanent and continues indefinitely (in Buddha's case, for the rest of his human lifetime).
Maybe you too would like to touch the face of God, if only briefly. If so, well then, hurry up, climb through Maslow's hierarcy of needs, and go to Level 5. Don't waste time being mediocre. Go and become everything you were supposed to become.
Gadis Bispak Imut
Can Success Be Easy?
Well, of course. If you bother to find out how.Mr Wang's methods are somewhat unorthodox. If he told you all about them, you'd think he's crazy. So he will be very careful about what he tells you. Take note - what you read about here today is merely a watered-down version of Mr Wang's unorthodox methods.
Mr Wang is a mindhacker. He didn't come up with that term himself. Mindhacker is the term that another blogger, Alvin Soon, once used to describe Mr Wang. It is an apt term.
Alvin Soon is a qualified neurolinguistics programming coach, who has used NLP to, among many other things, cure his clients' phobias (for example, of heights, public speaking etc). So Alvin Soon is quite an expert, quite a professional, at mindhacking too. Heheh, but Alvin knows that Mr Wang still has a trick or two to teach Alvin.
By mindhacking, I am referring to a collection of methods, techniques and processes whereby you will alter the way you think. One such method is meditation. Another method is hypnosis. Another method is NLP. There are others - some are esoteric and strange, and some are very simple and straightforward, such as writing down all your goals twice a day, every day, day after day after day, until they have been imprinted onto your subconscious.
Since the topic is vast, I can't address it in any real depth here. The applications are just as diverse. For example, one hypnotherapist I know helps her clients to quit smoking by hypnotising them to believe that cigarettes are vile and disgusting. When the client sticks a cigarette into his mouth, he immediately feels like throwing up (and in a 100% genuine physiological reaction, he WILL throw up, if he doesn't take that cigarette out of his mouth). Very quickly, the client will succeed in quitting his smoking habit.
Once you realise how malleable the human mind is, you will begin to see the endless possibilities. Life becomes vastly easier, if you can master just one or two mindhacking techniques and use them regularly. For example, suppose that you hate maths. If you could actually hypnotise yourself into loving maths, being excited and thrilled by formulae, equations and so on, aha ..... you'll see how very easy it could be, to succeed in doing well in maths. You just won't be able to keep yourself away from your maths textbook.
To better understand mindhacking, you must first understand that what we normally think of as objective reality, is actually highly subjective. What you think that the world is like, is mainly a result of what you think. What you believe that your circumstances are, is mainly a result of what you believe.
If you still do not understand that reality is very subjective, simply consider how different persons, placed in identical circumstances, can hold very different opinions about those circumstances. For example, two employees, X and Y, could be employed to do exactly the same kind of job in Company Q. They have the same pay, the same boss, the same colleagues and the same working conditions. X loves the job passionately and feels utterly fulfilled at the end of each workday. But Y hates the job bitterly and can't stop complaining about it.
Or two NSFs, A and B, are platoon mates in the same SAF unit, P. They are of the same rank and the same vocation, and their meals, pay, training, living conditions etc are identical. A thinks that army life is quite fun, exciting and adventurous, and he thoroughly enjoys the friendship and camaraderie of being with his army buddies everyday - these are the best days of his life. B, on the other hand, is so depressed about army life that he is secretly comtemplating suicide.
In truth, the job in Company Q is neither good nor bad, until someone thinks it is. Life in SAF Unit P is neither good nor bad, until someone thinks it is. Nothing in the world actually is, until someone thinks it is. That is why Prince Siddharta, you see, was trying to tell you that reality is just one big illusion. Albert Einstein agreed.
Now, if you are a mindhacker, you will learn the arcane arts of tinkering with your own mind. You will consciously choose the kind of thoughts and beliefs you want to have, and then you will penetrate into the deeper levels of your own consciousness, and you will plant those thoughts and beliefs there. And then you will be ready to play with that big illusion known as reality.
For example, if you are working in Company Q, you could hack your own mind and plant a mindset like X's, deep into your own head - and everyday, it will be a joy for you to go to work. If you are an NSF posted to SAF Unit P, you could hack your own mind and plant a mindset like A's,. into your own head - and everyday, life in the SAF will be fun, the most memorable days of your life.
Wherever you go in life, whatever you do, you could just keep hacking your mind, and planting whatever you want, into the deeper parts of your consciousness. You will truly believe that Company Q is a great place to work. You will truly believe that SAF Unit P is a marvellous place. You will truly believe that cigarettes are nauseating. You will truly believe maths is fascinating and exciting. And as far as you're concerned, all these things will truly be that way.
(A brief digression. If you truly believe that Jesus is your saviour and your path to eternal life after death, that's probably going to work too. But that is a topic for another day).
Of course, the first limitation is how good you are at mindhacking. It does take practice. If you are not very good, you may not be able to plant certain thoughts too deeply. For example, just as you may not succeed in ridding yourself of a fear of public speaking, you may not be able to create in yourself the belief that army life is enjoyable - even though there are clearly some people who love public speaking, and some people who love army life.
But as you grow more and more adept at mindhacking, your ability to consciously change your beliefs will grow. Whatever situation you find yourself in, you will have greater and greater ability to consciously select the optimal thought patterns for your situation.
Remember - there are all kinds of people in the world. Some enjoy climbing cold, hazardous mountains or running marathons. Some fearlessly give public speeches even to 10,000 people. Some love the challenge of studying for the most difficult exams. Some are calm, focused and good-humoured even under stressful working conditions. Some are very skilful and confident about dealing with the most difficult clients, bosses or colleagues.
So if you ever have to climb a mountain, run a marathon, give a public speech, study for difficult exams, work under stressful conditions, deal with difficult people, whatever else ....... all you have to do is steal the relevant mindset, and go deep, deep, deep into your own brain, and plant it there. You can do it, if you know mindhacking.
And yes, success will come more and more easily then - whatever you want to succeed in.
+++++++++++++++
This post is dedicated to PC, who knows the reason why. Go bend reality, my friend.
++++++++++++
Gadis Bispak Imut
Why Mr Wang Upsets People
I love psychology. I think that it is a fascinating subject. One of my favourite daydreams is to make a lot of money, retire at 40 and then go study for a psychology degree. Just for the fun of it. It was during my DPP days that my interest in psychology first developed. I dealt with criminals every day. Many criminals are mentally ill or psychologically impaired. So quite often I would get to read all their psychiatric reports.
These days, my interest has veered away from abnormal psychology, into positive psychology. I'm also quite interested in the study of personality - for example, the Myers-Briggs system. The Myer-Briggs system is one of those very multi-faceted things. You think you've got it all figured out, but every time you come back to it, you discover something new. Either about yourself, or the people around you.
Recently, I have been thinking about the most common ways I upset people, and the kinds of people who are most easily upset by me. You can analyse it in terms of personality. The category of people I upset most easily are the Guardians (the SJ family, meaning the ISFJs, ESFJs, ISTJs and ESTJs). Unfortunately the Guardians are quite common - they comprise about 40 to 45% of the population. Whereas my own category - the Rationals - are estimated at 5 to 7%. So I'm outnumbered.
Why would conflicts arise between the Rationals and the Guardians? Essentially, Guardians are defenders of the status quo. They like things to stay the same. They seek to conform, they follow rules, they administer procedures, they respect tradition, they are the loyal, practical workers, the round pegs in the round holes, the reliable little cogs in the wheels that keep the world turning. Here, for example, is Keirsey's description of Supervisor Guardians (one of the sub-categories):
Supervisor Guardians are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and they can be quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark-or else face the consequences ...
The Rationals, on the other hand, are the change agents of the world. They are constantly exploring new ideas. They are the inventors and the innovators. They have an intuitive understanding of complex systems and are constantly driven to create improvements. Preserving what is, is of no interest to Rationals, because their powers of imagination tell them about what could be, and they see that things usually can be a lot better. Here for example is Keirsey's description of the Mastermind (one of the Rational sub-categories, aka INTJs, which is my personality type):Like all the Guardians, Supervisors worry a good deal about society falling apart, morality decaying, standards being undermined, traditions being lost, and they do all they can to preserve and to extend the institutions that embody social order. Supervisors are so in tune with the established institutions and ways of behaving within those institutions, that they have a hard time understanding those who might wish to abandon or radically change them.
To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds.You can pretty much predict how a typical Rational-vs- Guardian disagreement would arise.
First, there would be a System. Rationals are naturally gifted at understanding systems, so they know how to step out of the System, look at it from different perspectives, and see how everything fits together. As the Rational's mind is always geared towards making improvements, he immediately zooms in on the flaws in the System and says, "This is bad, that is out-dated, this is irrational, that is wrong. All of these things must change - how can we allow this situation to continue?!". Because the Rational is both analytical and creative, he has no problems pointing out the flaws AND proposing a dozen new ideas to fix the flaws.
Then the Guardians get upset. Guardians don't like change. They are comfortable with what is, and they are afraid of what could be. They get angry with the Rationals and wish that the Rationals would just go away. For example, they might say, "Oh if you are so unhappy with Singapore, why don't you just leave and don't come back." Guardians are also loyal, dedicated followers, and they view the Rationals' ideas for improvement as disrespectful to the establishment and to tradition. So for example, the Guardians might say: "How dare you criticise the PAP? They have done so much for us, in the past 40 years."
Guardians desperately want the system to stay the same; so in a debate, they will keep making any argument they can, to keep the system the same, whether or not they really believe in that particular argument. For example, in order to keep homosexuality criminalised, they will argue that it is "unreasonable", "uncivilised", "unnatural", "worsening the aging population", "psychologically disordered", "immoral", "makes me afraid of getting raped by a man", "abnormal", "disgusting", "the law says it's wrong, so it must be wrong", "it disgusts me even if it happens in private and I don't know about it", and finally, even "I am entitled to be irrational in my hate for gays".
Another example is Edmund Khoo's letter. You can see that Edmund's overpowering motivation is to support Lee Hsien Loong. As I've mentioned, on that particular topic, it's possible to support or not support PM Lee, but whatever side a Rational takes, it will be on a rational basis. A Guardian, however, is more likely to take a position first (and as a result of his loyalty tendencies, he will tend to support the incumbent), and then simply make as many arguments as he can possibly think of, to support his leader (whether or not the arguments actually make sense).
I've generalised a lot. But if you read my blog and the comments, you'll note that very often, when readers disagree with me, the Rational-Guardian pattern seems to be at work. Guardians endlessly seek to guard the System from change; while Rationals endlessly seek to change the System to make it better. I, as INTJ, would be the Rational, while most of my regular critics, I suspect, are Guardians (the SF family).
These are the subtle patterns in our minds, the natural processes in our different brains that govern how we think and feel about approximately anything. Psychology is sooooo interesting.
Gadis Bispak Imut
Psychometrics at Work
How interesting.Business Times - 05 Mar 2007I previously took one of these psychometric tests. My then-employer did not use these tests to screen potential hires. Instead the tests were used to identify the strengths of all senior managers and all high-potential employees.
Psychometrics picking up steam among firms
Some use the tests to ensure candidates fit their corporate culture
By OH BOON PING
FEW local organisations now use psychometric tests to recruit staff - but that could change.
'I believe it will slowly pick up among smaller firms,' says GMP Group chief executive Annie Yap. 'Plus, firms are trying to cut down on the number of wrong hires, which can be quite costly. A psychometric test can help reduce that.'
Similarly, Alex Lee, general manager of SHL Group, which administers psychometric tests, says Singapore companies that have expanded overseas have grown more aware of psychometric techniques.
The tests are said to measure a candidate's suitability for a job by assessing their personality traits and other qualities. Some companies use the tests to ensure candidates fit their corporate culture and have the aptitude to succeed.
According to both consultants, the tests are generally used by bigger companies like multinationals, which adopt a scientific approach to recruitment.
'These big corporations often look for certain personality traits and emotional quotient, besides educational qualifications and experience,' says Ms Yap.
GMP says the tests can pick up traits such as leadership qualities, which are crucial for strategic roles. The company has been using psychometrics tests for the past decade and found them a useful supplement to interviews and other screening. Other organisations known to have used psychometrics for recruitment include the civil service and big names like DHL International.
The test we took was the Gallup Strengthsfinder. I really like the underlying philosophy of this system. Its whole idea is to focus on the person's strengths, and not his weaknesses.
Gallup's extensive research on highly successful people had led to the following conclusion. Highly successful people do not become highly successful by overcoming their natural weaknesses. Instead they become highly successful by developing their natural strengths.
For example, Beethoven was successful not because he was good in sports, but because he was great in music. Maradona was successful not because he was good in music, but because he was great in sports.
Going by Gallup's philosophy, what should we do if we had a young Beethoven and a young Maradona today? We should encourage the Beethoven to pursue music, and the Maradona to pursue sports. Sounds rather obvious, actually.
However, in Singapore, the problem is that we would penalise both Beethoven and Maradona, for being bad in Chinese. Next, we would send them into NS to be riflemen. After that, we would make them study life sciences, to support the government's latest economic drive.
Anyway, back to Gallup. For organisations, the correct strategy is firstly to identify the natural strengths of their key employees. Secondly, you encourage them to be aware of their strengths and develop them. Thirdly, you move them into positions, roles and projects where they have maximum opportunities to use their natural strengths.
I still remember my psychometric results. My top five themes were Intellection, Achiever, Strategic, Ideation and Learner. In brief, I think deep; deliver results; strategise well; produce creative ideas; and absorb new concepts like a sponge. My psychologist remarked that these are ideal traits for a future CEO in a dynamic, innovation-driven industry. Heheh.
Every individual has different strengths. For example if your top five themes were Command, Discipline, Strategic, Responsibility and Competition, you would have the natural makings of a great military leader. (War would be the ultimate competitive situation).
Gadis Bispak Imut
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)