https://samic.org/ Samic Journal En Samic Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000 https://samic.org/journal/rss/blogtop.jpg https://samic.org/ https://samic.org/journal/74 I have many reasons why collectivism is a failed system that should be avoided in this day and age, but I'm not going to elaborate on that here. What I want to focus on is individualism. Individualism means each person should have the freedom and ability to live their own life, make their own choices, and take responsibility for themselves. In relation to others, individualism teaches that each person should be able to operate as an independent, autonomous cell. Each person should be able to function independently and without dependence on any other person. This is very good and very healthy (and again, I'm going to skip over why that is).
The problem starts when people try to define independence as “every person should function independently and without dependence on any other person”. The difference in this definition is the difference between having the potential and acting on it.
To give a good analogy here, consider that you have the ability to provide and cook food at your house on your own. This is independence, meaning that you don't rely on anyone to provide food for you. But this doesn't mean that you always have to do that, or that you should never eat at a friend's house! On the contrary, you can even eat at your friend's house every single day and still keep your food independence (assuming it’s mutual!). The reason you would do that is because there are benefits to sharing food with friends. We can have a much better time when we sit together, talk, laugh, and eat. Each person at that table does have the ability to provide and cook food on their own, but they all choose to share this food and time together because it brings them so much joy. This doesn't take away independence. It keeps the independence, while enjoying other benefits.
It is very common to teach people that they should be independent when they become 18, separate from their parents, and live on their own. This is not right. What should be preached is that people should be able to be independent when they become 18, should be able to separate from their parents, and should be able to live on their own. Not necessarily doing that, but having the potential to do that. (what people should do is obviously what is best for them at any moment and in any situation, meaning what brings them the most benefit.)
But because we create this incorrect definition of independence, we push people toward living in separate cells and operating individually, not together. The result is what we see a lot in current western society: individual people living alone, independently, but alone.
And here’s where independence becomes related to pets! Many of these lonely people think to themselves, “Why am I so lonely?” So they usually try to solve it by bringing in a pet. Then they say things like: “This pet is like family”, “It’s like my child”. No, it is not! A pet can give comfort, routine, and affection, but it cannot fully replace human connection. A pet does not challenge us as an equal. It does not negotiate with us, disagree with us in a human way, or force us to grow through the normal frictions of peer relationships. (forget the fact that keeping a pet is technically an abduction! That’s why they keep the doors closed and use a leash!)
They are trying to solve the problem of loneliness by creating this controlled connection with a pet because they fear that having a deeper, eye-to-eye-level connection with an actual peer can take away their independence. But that pet is not the actual connection that humans need. It's a master-slave relationship. We order the pet around and manage it however we want. That's not a healthy relationship for humans.
People should be able to work together, live together, function as a group, deal with all the frictions that comes with it, work through those frictions, solve them, and create stronger healthy relationships. Because the joy and benefit of togetherness are what we all ultimately need and desire.

::samic::

]]> https://samic.org/journal/74 https://samic.org/journal/73 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::

]]> https://samic.org/journal/73 https://samic.org/journal/72 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

]]> https://samic.org/journal/72 https://samic.org/journal/69 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::]]> https://samic.org/journal/69 https://samic.org/journal/68 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::]]> https://samic.org/journal/68