Samic Journal

You sent a meme!

You've probably sent an Internet meme to someone. (and maybe that's why they've referred you to this page!) And you think: that doesn't seem like a bad thing! After all, "It's just a quick laugh"! But I'm going to argue that not only there is almost no benefit in sending (or reading) memes, but there's actual harm. Sending memes are harmful!
Let's take a closer look at memes. They are usually trying to frame an observation into a witty generalization to consequently achieving an agreement. This agreement barely provokes a sense of satisfaction. And this satisfaction feeds the reader and even encourages a redistribution. In other words, meme creators use a simple observation that is well known and try to generalize it so that anyone can empathize with the ridiculousness. It can be based on something incredibly simple such as the fact that most people have an issue with their age; So the meme points out how people ten years younger than you, don't have a memory of a particular event! It's usually that simple. By creating this generalization, a form of agreement appears in the reader's mind, like: "Yes, that is true! Oh, these young people have no idea what our generation went through!"
It seems the context is unbelievably shallow, and there's almost nothing to gain from a meme. This is the argument about "not having any benefits." Nobody has ever "learned" anything from a meme. Not that the only usefulness of a context is in learning, but I'm trying to emphasize how little you gain.
Some people think it's all for fun. But, I disagree. The level of fun in a meme is so insignificant that it rarely creates a smile, let alone a burst of laughter! I'm all for a good laugh, but I've never seen a meme that can create one! A "good" laugh should change your mood significantly, and hopefully makes you laugh out loud. I don't think you've ever really laughed out loud from a meme!
But memes do create a sense of satisfaction. It's a small dose of dopamine that creates a minuscule sense of happiness. Is there any harm from that? I believe yes! If I give you a small piece of potato chips every ten minutes, you'd feel a constant sense of "good taste." But the problem is that you'd be probably full for a proper meal. When it comes to dinner time, you don't want to eat because you have already eaten five bags of chips! It's the same phenomenon with memes. When you subject yourself to a constant flow of memes, you are getting tiny doses of dopamine for a long duration of time. This creates a sense of "fullness" that, in my view, can prevent you from a meaningful way to satisfaction. In other words, I believe if you had not consumed these microscopic portions of happiness, you'd eventually become motivated to actually work towards an "actual" sense of happiness. "What is happiness" is another question, but whether you find happiness in cooking, playing, learning, meeting a friend, or helping someone, is the subject for another thought.
In short, my argument is that memes not only do not create any benefits, but they can also actually harm you and stop you from reaching a more meaningful thing that has been probably waiting for your attention for many years!

::samic::

How we create anxiety

1. Manufacturing a catastrophe from an event
2. Jumping from a slight chance or possibility to something that is definite
3. Changing the likelihood of the events (5% or 100%?)
4. Changing the level and severity of the (possible) pain
5. Over-generalization
6. Just looking at the worst-case scenario
7. Thinking that everything will stay this way forever
8. Thinking that there is no way to correct things in future
9. Being too sensitive
10. Desire to have everything
11. Being in competition or comparison with others
12. High expectations from self or others
13. Reacting first instead of thinking and then responding
14. Not having a goal or strategy
15. Feelings of not being able to face and solve problems
16. Expectation of good out of everyone
17. Staying in the past or the future
18. Trying to satisfy needs regardless of the reality
19. Avoiding, instead of solving the problems
20. Not accepting responsibility
21. Perfectionism
22. A binary view of everything (everything is either good or bad)
23. Not employing a rational mind and logic for solving problems
24. Fear of any risk
25. Desire for having control of the situation and/or others
26. Thinking that bad things will happen again
27. Feelings of helplessness
28. Always thinking of “What if ...”, or “I wish ...”
29. Self-deception
30. An unreal and inaccurate report of events

Everything wrong with universities and how to fix them in 5 minutes!

I’ve been a student in different universities for so many years now. These universities were in different cities and even countries but more or less, they operate the same way.
I think there are fundamental problems with how universities work.
People need education and the universities provide that. But the learning and the knowledge acquired needs to be accessed too. And that part is also done by the universities. I think one of the fundamental problems lies here.
We can all agree that the universities are a form of business when we get to the bottom of it. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. People provide a service in exchange for money. That’s very normal in the market. But they operate in a way that is not similar to any other businesses.
If for example you hire an electrician, you pay that person for a service. You are the customer and you are the boss. You can fire the person if you were not satisfied with the service. You can easily switch to another electrician. When it comes to business, you don’t care what does the electrician think about you.
In universities, though, the story is a little different. The student pays for a class. He is essentially paying the teacher for a service. But at the same time, the teacher has to evaluate the student and give grades. At first, it seems like since the student is paying the money, he is the boss. But in reality, since the student depends on the teacher’s evaluation, he doesn't have the powers of a boss.
And with this, begins a malfunctioning business interaction which starts with teachers that don’t do an acceptable job. Please don’t tell me that the students have the power to change a teacher. Being in different universities for so many years, has proved to me the opposite. I can give you tens of examples but let me tell you about one situation that I saw just two semesters ago. I was in a class with a teacher with terrible performance. At one point it became too obvious to him and everyone else that no one was satisfied with the way he was trying to teach the material. Then, something strange happened. He turned to the class and said: “Do you think the university cares about how I teach? I bring funds and grants and the university gets 50% of that. Teaching is not even remotely my main job here.”
The truth is, he is absolutely right. Which also brings us to the other part of the problem: Research done in universities.
People need research advances and for some reason they decided to go for researchers already in universities. They pay money for research. The universities get a big portion of it like a godfather protecting a mob. Researchers do the research and get a cut and everyone is happy. Except the students. Because now the universities prefer to hire someone that can bring big money for research and do a mediocre teaching job. I have seen so many of such situations that I think it’s the default now.
With all these, let’s go into my proposal. I think the solution is to break the universities into three institutions.
The first, is just a research center. In other words, if an institution is in the business of education, they should be prohibited from getting money for conducting research too. Of course the same teachers and researchers can work in both institutions but it should be like a second job with no connections whatsoever.
Next, the universities should be limited to teaching and teaching only. They would just hold classes for whatever subject there’s demand for.
And finally, a new institution should be formed that is solely in charge of evaluation.
To run through the whole setup, here’s how a new student goes through the system. First, he goes to the evaluation institution and asks for the requirements to get a degree in some field. They provide him with a list of courses. He can then go to any universities and sign up for as little or as many classes as he wishes. Whenever he feels ready for the test, he goes back to the evaluation center and takes an exam for that course. The evaluation center grades the exam and gives a certificate for passing that course. After passing all the required courses, the evaluation center issues a degree.
There are some results that come from this setup.
• The evaluation center would not care or even ask how you learned the material.
• The student can decide what teaching center to use.
• Since the student is taking single courses, he will be the boss. If a teacher doesn’t do a good job, he’ll be sacked or the student can easily switch to another teaching center.
• Teaching centers will compete to provide better classes and superior learning experience.
• There can be even online classes or home study materials.
• This setup will put the power back in the hands of the customers.
• It provides competition in service providers which leads to better education and less lock-in systems with high tuition.
Everything would be great but there remains only one problem.
Since this is a top-bottom solution, I don’t think it would be ever implemented.

::samic::

Delivering(:) an English tale

“Delivering an English tale”. I can assure you I haven't given birth to some weird English baby with a tail! It's just a “story” about the “English language”.
English language is like telegram. You'll get some degree of information from each message but any definite conclusion should wait for a detailed explanation.
They tell you a sentence, then you need to either guess what it means or they need to tell you the appropriate meaning of each word for that situation!
Meaning of the words are situation-dependent!
I think some people were concerned with the size of the dictionaries and they decided to recycle the words. There's a new concept? No need for a new word! Just open the dictionary and use a random word for this new situation.
Take the word “Deliver”. It can be about many different actions. You can deliver the mail. You can deliver a message. You can deliver a baby!
What?! How are these acts similar?!
For one, there isn't going to be any pains when you deliver a message. Unless! You tell a father: “Your 16 years old daughter just delivered my baby”! There might be some pains associated with delivering “that” message! But that's an exception rather than a general rule. People don't usually “deliver” a punch to your face when you deliver a message. You say: “Hey John, boss said there is going to be a meeting at 4”. He says: “Thanks”! See? There isn't any pains. Definitely no screaming! No blood whatsoever!
The same is true about delivering the mail. No pain there either. How are these acts similar? Imagine the doctor delivers a baby and hands it over to the father and then says “Could you please sign here?”. Or, if there isn't any father and the mother can't hold the baby, he puts a note: “A delivery was attempted but a recipient was not present. We will try redelivering tomorrow! After three tries you need to pick up your baby at the post office”. No it doesn't work that way.
The same is true the other way around: “Honey, a mail was delivered today. It's yours.” versus “Honey, a baby was delivered today. I'm quite sure it's yours!” No. It doesn't work that way.
Coming to think of it, delivering a speech can be a little painful. Like this!
I’ve invented a scale. From 0 to 10. It's called “How painful delivering stuff is”.
Delivering a baby is a 10. Delivering a mail is usually a 0. Specially since they just drop it at the door, knock and escape. Delivering a speech can be a 2 or 3. Maybe it depends on the situation. Also if you’re part of the Toastmasters or not.
A court can “deliver” a verdict too. That's sometimes painful. It depends on why you're in the court in the first place. It can be a 0 or maybe a 7 or 8.
This scale can a be a help to “deliver” a visual concept about “pains of delivering”.
It certainly “delivers” on its promise!
There are so many possibilities here and we can't do anything about it.
Maybe we should just pray: May God “deliver” us from the pains of “deliver”.

::samic::

A mentor for the most philosophical dilemma

I’ve had an unconventional mentor in my life. Someone who has answered many of my questions, but, never in-person.
It started with what I call the most philosophical dilemma of all time! It was my high school years and I had many questions about many things but this problem seemed the most unsolvable to me.
Here’s the question: What can be the basis for any decision making process?
In another word, what’s the reference for finding the best action in any situation?
It may not seem like a very hard question at first but it sure is a very fundamental one. Think about it. Let’s say you have a decision to make. Something very important. Like adopting a baby. How do you decide if that’s the right thing to do?
People use different decision making systems.
Some, rely solely on logic and reasoning.
Some, rely on asking other people’s opinion. Maybe friends or family.
If you’re a very religious person, you may seek the help of a religious figure like your priest.
In eastern cultures, some people seek advise from the elders. They reason that these people have seen everything and know the answers.
Some people go to tradition to find out what is customary or what does the society expect.
Or, you may seek the answer from the within.
Maybe you rely on your feelings. What do I feel like I should do?
Some, rely on their instincts. They do the first thing they like.
And there are many other references too. But which one is right? Which one is correct? You have to answer this, before making any decisions in your life.
The challenge though, is that like any genuine philosophical question, this one doesn’t have a clear answer either. The problem is, to choose between one of these decision-making systems, you need to make a “decision”! And that’s a paradox. If you start “reasoning” which one is better, you’ve already chosen the “method of reasoning” as the winner! It’s like if I participate in a tournament and my mom is the referee. I’d say there’s a good chance that I win!
So what should we do?
It’s still debatable but maybe we can compare the people who follow each of these systems. Fortunately there are millions of people in each of these camps! I have seen many of them but never crossed someone who had a well-developed worldview based on one of these systems. Most people seemed jumping from one to another whenever they had to make a decision.
That was until I saw my unconventional mentor. His name is Dr. Holakouee. A sociologist, economist, psychologist who had a TV show where he sit and answered callers questions.
What was different about him was that he was promoting a well-established and well-thought worldview based on logic, reasoning and science. His worldview didn’t have any contradictions or inconsistencies. What I saw in him was a decision-making system that either had answers for any problem or could propose a logical way to find the answer. That system seemed to work unexceptionally and reliably good.
You may call me biased but I decided that this is the answer!
Since then, I’ve have listened to hundreds of hours of him talking about different stuff and even today, I listen about 2-8 hours per week and I still learn new things. I’m proud to call him my mentor for my life and I hope some day I can do even a fraction of what he has done for me, for someone else.

::samic::