The 11 Commandments of Bill Gates

I received a chain mail in my inbox. It is attributed to Bill Gates, but one wonders whether it is done so merely as an appeal to authority. I'm inclined to think that Bill Gates would make a press release. In any respect, I wanted to break down these '10 commandments', as I have previously done with Bill Gates advice on parenting. This advice is for youths - whom Gates might well look to with despair. Below I will critique his advice....which again....might not belong to him. 

Rule 1 : Life is not fair - get used to it! 

This is a silly assertion because it is justification for moral appeasement. If it were valid, then it would contradict his later statement that you are free because soldiers fought for your freedom. Clearly they would no have fought if Hitler was fair-minded, and you got used to him. This is the typical moral relativism or repression that you can expect from Conservatives. So what positive thing can we say instead? How about: That life is unfair, that you should fight for a system which actually protects your personal autonomy and gives you a rational framework for political discourse, and not an extortion racket controlled by lobbyists.

Rule 2 : The world doesn't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something. BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Having recognised that life is not fair; how about recognising that people's self-esteem is diminished by unfair systems which disempower and moreover support your means of survival in a modern economy. Yes, probably 70-80% of poeple in many Western economies have diminished self-esteem because we have state & religious education which advances ambivalent values, and in the process teach people that they are mindless animals. Conservatives expect you to achieve 'something' detached from means. Unless people get an education that prepares them for life, you cannot expect 'ends' because you are denying causation. A Conservative's ends are detached from rationality because they cannot conceive of them. They accept it on faith, and any evidence is just reason for them to repress facts, and deny responsibility. That's not to say that I support modern Liberals either, who offer unconditional love, and hold their emotions as the source of their claims. What we have to do is end this system of expropriating wealth and sanctioning unhealthy values through our purported 'representative democracy'. It is an extortion racket. Self-esteem is very important; our current political system destroys it. So support those who want to replace it with a rational system. See our website MeritocracyNow - our NZ advocacy. 

Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

I say never say never. It is however unlikely that in the current society that many, if any people, will make large sums coming out of school. Having said that, if you are going to do it, now is the time. At the end of the day, one should not heed dogmatic statements like this devoid of evidence or argument. Its the equivalent of a parent saying 'You will never amount to anything'. So Bill should not say it. There are child-CEOs around these days who have done exactly as he dispels - who have sold an iphone 'app' for millions whilst at school. The point ought to be - to be real - to respect facts - and to respect ideas that derive from facts, and respect your mind's capacity to determine the difference.  

Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

This is more Conservative dribble. The issue is not soft vs tough; the issue is rational vs irrational, legal vs illegal, moral vs immoral. One does not want to sanction any action which is going to cause injury to oneself, and in the long turn, not to others as well. Toughness implies compliance, subordination and tolerance. These are all unhealthy values. We need to engage our minds, and withdraw our sanction for idiotic people. We can do it on our terms though. So, if we don't like our employer, do as I do....resign along with the rest of the staff. In my case, it caused by employer to lose his job. Many teachers are hardly custodians of  positive values. After all, most of them live their entire life on government-sponsored welfare. 

Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: They called it opportunity.

Partially agree with this point. Many kids will spurn McDonalds because of image issues, i.e. What others thing. But the problem is, if Conservative parents are so anti-intellectual, that they fail to develop their child's minds, then their morally deficient children will subordinate their values to those of 'popular' society. So, on this point, the Conservative shoots themselves in the foot with their moral incoherence. McDonalds I would argue is a well-run business which will expose a child to a very successful business system. That is a value proposition, and a reason to stay there at least a few weeks. Thereafter its just about the money, or the time until you get another experience. That's your opportunity, aside from spending those mind-numbing hours flipping burgers to come up with your own 'better' business system.

Rule 6 : If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

This is more Conservative nonsense. Parents are the most important role models in a child's life. Given the legacy of perverted values in society; a legacy rich in extortion, collectivism, persecution (religious & collectivist), you have good reason to expect some residual impact on the descendants of those times; and those times are still with us. There are implications for bad parenting, and denial or detachment from that cause is part of the problem. Another problem is the modern Liberals purported solution to those problems. The modern Liberal preaches unconditional love, when we need conditional love. You get rewarded for the good; not in some hope of it. So I say, 'whine', but don't impose your values upon others, having already conceded that you have been imposed upon. That is contradictory, and in our anti-intellectual society, its enough to scare Conservatives into their current 'unempathetic' state of mind, which sadly, only makes them less thinking than they already were. This is the modern problem - a false choice.  

Rule 7 : Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were: So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Silly statement. Parents are 'boring' because they fail to offer a value proposition. i.e. They are either stating the bleeding obvious, they are not speaking in the context of the child's values, they are probably not offering an argument, merely giving directions, they are probably failing to engage the child's mind, so they are just a waste of time. Self-righteous parenting merely reinforces the cihld's lack of confidence in their capacity to live in contemporary society, so what do they do. Take advantage of their parents and seek stimulus in any drug, activity which gives them short-range stimulation. 

Rule 8 : Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. *This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

There is some truth to this, but actually, its not strictly good advice. You do not become a mouthpiece for your customers values. You don't subjugate your truth for your customers. Bill Gates would never have succeeded if he did that. Perhaps he has forgotten. The education system has been perverted by Liberals, so point taken. But life actually gives one the flexibility to take your time, but you do need to respect the rights of others to not support your existence. Even if they offer it, you don't want to place yourself in a position of depending on it, or morally feeling entitled to it, as the modern Liberal does. So this is a rather malevolent statement which does not represent the 'benevolence' of capitalism when it functions with a healthy philosophical theory of values. Conservatives often support capitalism; but they fail to offer a compatible value system, and so end up undermining capitalism. I am reminded of my grandfather. Aged 19yo, I asked him 'How do you manage to reconcile capitalism, which is based on trade - value for value or voluntary self-interest, with religion, which is based on altruism?' He could not answer, but apparently went to my father to complain. Conservatives do not want you to identify their cognitive dysfunction. They live on 'faith' because they have no compelling truth. Its an intellectual fraud they perpetrate; and they would sooner destroy the minds of their children (or invalidate them) rather than acknowledge that fact of reality. So much for self-esteem. Having said that Christianity spurns self and advances humility....so do not under-estimate the incompatibility of religion to your life as a human being. It was a system to control advanced by people who were evading their cognitive dysfunction. 

Rule 9 : Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. *Do that on your own time.

True enough, but governments dictate the nature of the education system, and competition is largely precluded. And that's unfair. Complain. Mind you, you can always fill those times doing productive things. I worked, traded stocks and studied philosophy. 

Rule 10 : Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

There is nothing wrong with TV. The issue is what you watch on TV. I tend to focus on intellectual content like documentaries, however comedy and other forms of entertainment serve a purpose. That is ultimately the standard - does it serve a purpose - is it a legitimate purpose. 

Rule 11 : Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.. 

Yes, but critique Conservative and Liberal idiots at your leisure. Do not sanction idiocy unless your career depends on it; and beyond the next pay cheque, it probably doesn't. 

If you can read this... Thank a Teacher.
If you can read this in English... Thank a Soldier!
And for life and everything else you have... Thank God!!.

If you understand my perspective, spread the wisdom, sign up to your MeritocracyNow campaign, and despair that your teachers, soldiers, nor (a non-existent) God will help you, but only rational, wide men like myself can give you the moral convictions to defeat the cult of senselessness permeating society. 

"Love him or hate him , he sure hits the nail on the head with this"

I don't love or hate Bill Gates. I just think he presents an opportunity cost; in the first instance by selling me a substandard operating system for 20 years, and then for offering as 'wisdom' the type of folklore wisdom that  precipitates wars. Rest assured that it will not be a CEO who directs society into the next century, because they are simply too pragmatic to advance a coherent framework of ideas. Which brings us to his 3rd advocacy - the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - a huge opportunity cost. Fortunately for us, it is he who is carrying the cost. Unlike the governments that you continue to sanction. Your vote for your political leaders is the equivalent of a 'power of attorney' for your politicians to steal and waste 30-70% of your nation's wealth. Why have they done to your sense of self-worth, that you feel compelled to serve them? 

The pseudo-science of media

There is a great deal of pseudo-science around which is posited by news media as real science. The Miami Herald blog in this latest 'Xmas Cheer' is a case in point. Cindy Krischer would have us believe that there is a higher thinking in 'positive thinking'. Let me unravel the confusion. But first read her article at her blog.

My response is:

Call me a 'hater' Cindy, or dare I say 'negative', but your blog is hogwash. People are stressed out because of the Xmas rush & shopping congestion. The notion that there is some value in repressing how you feel is pseudo-science. The appropriate response is to recognise the nature of any indignation. You call it 'hate', I call it people with 'narrow-minded' agendas. There is no hate involved.

How to get over it? Don't substitute others agendas or values for your own. Those people exist. The good news is that if you have good judgement, you don't have to marry them. But given that 50% of people get divorced, maybe they would steer a better course if they repudiated pseudo-science.

More broadly, unless we have more healthy social or institutional structures, i.e. like better education, government and corporate values, then we can expect to conflict or be confounded by unreasonable or concrete-bound thinkers. In this respect, your ideology is part of the problem.

Mind what you read

Have you noticed that people can be divided into categories. If you want a sense of how you might categorise people, consider the following groups:

1. Sense of reality: By that I mean people's perspective or how they relate to reality. People either have a subjective or an objective sense of reality, and this impacts on their attitudes. Consider them:
(a) Subjective: These people consider reality as a product of their consciousness, which has primacy. This means that they wish things which depart from reality, as if they had control of reality, or if their mind was divorced from reality. Examples are: The idea that what's right for you is right for you, what's right for me is right for me. This is of course a repudiation of science and objectivity, and people usually do this as a departure from judgement (external standards) or responsibility. I also note that this type of person is very selective about what they hear and read. They will only read material which agrees with their views, so this serves to keep the mirage alive. These people are people-orientated, because they would prefer to seek subjective validation from people whom they know are going to provide it, rather than validation from any achievement in fact.
(b) Objective: These people have a great respect for facts, an objective truth. They place facts above their own beliefs, which they attempt to reconcile with the facts. These people give primacy to the truth, and they have confidence in their ability to do so, so they are problem-solvers in this regard. They thus have the confidence of judging evidence from any perspective with impartiality.

People can display objectivity and subjectivity in different context as well. The reasons why people might do this are:
1. Fundamentality: People can have fundamental values which depart from more concrete premises which are difficult to refute. For this reason there can be some discomfort to attacking these if they don't reconcile with your concrete premises.
2. Compartmentalisation: Ask yourself how a politician can support competition in the private sector, but not support it in parliament. Contradiction, which they quarantine because it does not serve them.
3. Vulnerability: People will tend to be more concrete-bound, when they are in a stressful situation or feel vulnerable. This tends to pull them towards subjectivity, but it depends on the person.
4. Accountability: People who are ultimately held accountable tend to be more objective, but they can also preserve some subjectivity as well, e.g. Minimising their personal responsibility, pleading how sorry they are (insincerely), etc.

So the point I am making is that each of us has a perspective of reality that is shaped by our early experience. People build up a hierarchy of knowledge which is robust or shaky to the extent that it has firm structure, i.e. Coherence of ideas, correspondence to facts. Critical to this is clarity of definition and a great deal of evidence. We are of course born with very little evidence. We are also raised with embedded ideas derived from our parents, peers and broader society. It is not until 12 years of age, more or less, depending on our experience that we are able to challenge other people's ideas. Some people will not have a handle of their contradictions until they are in their 40s, others never learn. They instead evade being challenged or keep the company of people who similarly don't like to be challenged.

The problem is that people don't appreciate the value of challenging their embedded ideas until they do. Even then the value might not be readily apparent because they don't live in a vacuum. In a social context they can be alienated for holding a different value system. They too readily tolerant the status quo, in the process neglecting to reflect on the fact that they are affirming the status quo.

One cannot grow unless one challenges ideas. Synthesis is the basis of empiricism, but deductive reasoning requires differentiation. Unless we are prepared to differentiate ourselves from others there is limited scope for intellectual development. Instead science descends to groundless correlation, ideas are held out of context, and you end up with the modern science and parliament. In a sense, you asked for it.

Anyway, I would hope that people preserve a desire to read and analyse a broad body of literature; not just with that which they will agree with. If you read material you don't agree with, challenge it. Understand how the reader came to think that way. For instance, I am currently reading 'The Power of Now' by Eckhert Tolle. Everyone is talking about this book. It is well written, but I would suggest the book will drive you to repression, just as this type of material has done in Asia. That is not a reason to not read it...but rather to read the counter-arguments and more importantly to develop your own. Basically I don't read books anymore. My joy is in writing and pulling apart others arguments.

The nature of money and evil

Years ago people often said that ‘money (or the pursuit of it) is the root of all evil’. You don’t hear that so much these days. Some would argue its because we are more materialistic, or is it because we are just more enlightened? I think its just a practical way of living, but to give it some ethical justification its worth considering ‘what is the root of money?’
Money is a means of exchange that facilitates trade. Before we had money people had to barter for the things they wanted – causing a mismatch of wants. The divisibility, the portability and universally acceptance of money overcomes this constraint. Some would argue that had driven us to want to much, and in the race to achieve, we have lost sight of the ultimate value. So should we blame the bank or the manager of the money?
Money is a value traded for other value. Trade is inherently selfish since your prime concern is the satisfaction of personal wants – you offer a ‘value for value’. Of course you don’t mind if others benefit from trade, and trade would not proceed if they didn’t, but that does not change the fact that the trade is motivated by self-interest. This was Adam Smith’s conception of the ‘invisible hand’
Money is an inanimate object so it carries no moral significance – just as other inanimate objects like guns are not evil – they are merely tools that can be used by good or bad people.
I am currently reading a very good book – ‘Master Your Money Type’ by Jordan E. Goodman which highlights the psychology underpinning our attitudes to money. And the anti-materialism of religion and socialists grumbling about the ‘evils of money’ is highlighted as a reason for people developing destructive spending patterns. Consider the entrenched Catholicism of the Philippines where financial literacy is at a low point. People are generally self-indulgent and make little provision for the future. Its no surprise that they are poor. Might those attitudes towards money arise from the Catholic sentiments towards money – as the only Catholic countries that seem to buck the trend are Ireland and Chile. Well I would argue that attitudes to money are just one manifestation of it. But you cant argue people are all Catholic….everyone is a compromise because religion is such an anti-life set of values. Basically its about living a set of values divorced from your nature.
We all get it eventually – just some are more cynical about it – which is a matter of personal integrity. It is only in recent years that some Catholic countries have become more practical? Even the Philippines is changing. Reading from the Philippines’ Business Week Sept 7-8th 2007, Reverend Antonio Cecilio Pascual saids ‘Money per se is not evil’…that it ‘is actually our attitude with regard to money and the accumulation of material things that makes money evil’. Well I am not a religious man, but I can agree with that. Your attitude to anything (including money) is a moral judgement. All human action is based on a moral premise. The implication of this statement is that our motives are more critical than the goal.
The problem with religion is that it broadly offers no such guidance. Religion would have us believe selfishness and judging others is evil, and faith offers no value since it is merely acceptance without evidence, confidence or any sense of reality. If there were any sense of reality, you would be less virtuous. But neither am I in favour of a self-indulgent or fear-motivated attitude to money that places subjective values above the reality of human nature.
Rev Pascual perhaps lacks an understanding of philosophy because he makes no case for what types of motives are morally wrong and which are right, but that’s ok, the book above might fill in the gaps. He saids: “Education and knowledge nowadays are sought to outsmart, outpace, ‘out-knowledge’ one another so that one can be ‘successful’ as soon as possible and become rich as soon as possible” – the implication is of course that competition drives people to sin, so people loose a sense of prospective. I would argue that it’s a lack of their ability to think which develops as a response to collectivist philosophies like religion that call on humans to sacrifice their minds and values to the service of others and God. Why else would people try to impress others but because of a value system that places above self. That’s why they loose their sense of reality. Critical thinking is the gatekeeping mechanism that prevents contradictions from entering your mind. That is the basis of egoism and sound thinking, but that’s what religion poses is a threat. But really a true egoist does not define their value in terms of others standards – the superficial values of ‘non-self’ that the Reverend is concerned about.
He also says “How many parents actually try to seek good education for their children will actually become social workers and help a lot of poor people? To actually raise our kids so that they can help those in need?”. I did not think it was the parents role to decide what career a child should pursue, but you might ask why a great many clergy see imposing values on others as moral. Well since ‘fear’ is offered as a value in religion, so manipulation is a practical consequence. The sordid sex crimes in western orphanages being a case in point. But according to religion, these clergy are ‘only human’.
Next point: “Money is sinful….when it becomes an end in itself, when it is no longer just a means”. I would suggest that there is an always an end, and just the Reverend has failed to identify it. Any action is motivated by some thinking. In this instance I would suggest money serves the ‘means’ of impressing others, looking ‘successful’ in other people’s eyes. The paradox is of course is that religious undermines people’s mental efficacy, and thus makes them more beholden to what others think, and thus less likely to manage monetary matters effectively. It doesn’t help that ‘money is evil’.
Next point: “A lot of people become rich because they do not care about other people”…they ‘resort to sins to further accumulate money & power”. I don’t think money does isolate people – in fact successful people are usually very attentive to client/customer needs. Sometimes its superficial, and perceptions have primacy over real service, but surely religion which subjugates facts will only elevate this thinking. Look at the Philippines. Walk into any store and you get the empty expressions of respect like ‘Good morning Sir” that is intended to make you feel like a king, but ask them a question and you will have to repeat yourself 3 times…its not a dialect problem – they don’t listen to other Filipinos either. They treat the office or store as a playroom. It’s a testimony to their sense of reality – which is overwhelming social and not purposeful.

The philosophy of ketchism

I have a confession to make...I am sooo tight with money. I would rather wait 1 day in a queue or transferring planes rather than spend $200 on myself....but in defence when it comes to girlfriends...I'm just slightly better. I'm tempted to call this philosophy 'ketchism' after my ex-Japanese girlfriend called me 'ketchi' = Japanese for 'tight'. I was tempted to make this my philosophy, but really, on reflection, it has deeper roots than that. It has more to do with my sense of life, or sense of struggle. Afterall life was meant to be easy right? Well it hasn't been. Why else would a mining analyst, who should be earning $150K a year and living in Sydney, end up living in the Philippines on his savings. Well ok those career doors are closing to me, but the good news is that other doors are opening...yeh ok, there isn't much money in it, but the savings are great.
You might wonder where this sense of struggle comes from. Well I think its been entrenched in me for a long time. For a starters its well-known in the Philippines that Australians are tight with money. I can understand that...the origins of Australia were based on struggle, there was endless droughts so colonial Australia had alot of difficulty establishing an independent food supply. We had to depend on stockpiles or Mother England. And for a century more we very much looked to the English Empire...we looked to England to protect us, and then the USA. It took several decades before we became financially independent, not until we discovered gold and nothing else mattered :). But exploration is a risky business too, so little surprise that most of the money to finance activity had to come from England. Even today Australian mining companies are listing in England because Australians have an aversion to risk - now they have a problem investing in foreign lands. The English have no such aversion. So even today the sense of scarcity, tragedy and self-doubt persists in the Australian psyche. The anti-intellectualism of the nation is an extension of that on an epistemological level (PS: I dare say you wont hear that word from another Australian).
Contrast Australia with the USA where crops readily grew since water was plentiful. Americans are big on 'the grand symbolic' gesture. Whereas an Australian would be saying 'Whats the bloody big deal' or 'Why all the fuss?'. The other big element was my aspirational family upbringing which placed am emphasis on savings & investment...so I was always living for the future....and investing the proceeds. As a result since leaving school I have worked about 8 years (as an employee) and done little else productive for the balance of 8 years. I've spent most of that time investing and trading with my savings...was doing ok until my current GF dragged my attention off the markets. Written alot, not never put my mind to publishing. Its not that I dont like working...in some sense I'm always working...I could even show you a picture of me working, but in ernest I just couldn't stand working for 'dicks in finance'. So what was a critical analyst to do...but as he is trained to do...so I analysed and came to the conclusion that these 'dicks in finance' were not going to let me get ahead because I was good at what I do...and made them feel inadequate. Of course I'd prefer to invest millions and get fat commissions where I deserve them, but I'm tired of looking for it. When you meet more than a dozen 'dicks in finance' you start to see the pattern.
Now when I watch people and I observe how they think, I recognise that they approach life with a sense of 'tightness' or 'generosity', and I mean this not just with respect for money, but with respect to their broader value judgements as well. Well having grown up in Australia you might not be surprised to find out that no one ever showed any appreciation or recognition for what I did. Now I read the 'self improvement' books and they say you should praise 5x more than you criticise. I frankly reject this approach. I think this is what creates 'finance and other dicks' because they are unable to accept criticism. Thats one aspect...the other is a deluded (subjective) sense of reality. Thats what creates economic bubbles, and yes you can attribute those to financiers as well. These people actually think they are good because they appear successful to others, they work with Merril Lynch or something. They inflate market outlooks because thats what they profit from. They dont get generous bonuses unless the market expands...so little wonder the market is geared to expansion. If you are critical of the market outlook, you are a pariah, and quickly marginalised. But the other aspect is just how easy it is to make money when everything just keeps going up. You no longer have to be analytical, you just have to be a salesman. You have to sell it. That was another issue...I'd have thought people want to know the arguments for and against an investment. But thats not how 'dicks in finance' work. They write to convince irrespective of the merits because they get paid for raising money...and few people make money in falling markets as falling markets undermines confidence. Well this builds all manner of false economies which is beyond the scope of this post.
So I am a great believer in a balance of criticism and praise when and if they are deserved. But I've come to realise that few people truly have a sense of objective reality. They only hear criticism. There have been times I have made a statement 8-10x and its not been heard, but they will readily hear the bad news. I suspect when 'markets are climbing the wall of worry' breaking out of a downtrend, its the same thing.
Now the amazing thing about the Philippines is that people here are very generally very good at praising others, but they have their fair share of criticism as well. Now you might think that these people are surely great listeners, but paradoxically they are the worst. I used to think it was because they didn't get my accent, but thats not it. When I observe Filipinos talking to other Filipinos, they dont listen at all. So this drew my attention to flaws in the Filipino culture too. People here lack a sense of purpose, lack a sense of organised structure or discipline, they blow as the breeze takes them. Those that are more aspirational go overseas, and Christian guilt if not close family compell them to send half their savings home.
So that still leaves me still trying to find out where I belong...but I do love that I can buy an apartment here sooo cheap. Living here is not as cheap, but its not bad. Yep...I'm that tight.
PS: Refer to 'Tools for Life' for how to apply the Principles of Ketchism to your life.

Understanding the Japanese

Well what does it mean to be Japanese? Well you can always argue that they are all individuals, but I am speaking of the attributes that define them collective noun...generally speaking. I find them the most fascinating people because their behaviour is so unexpected some times, and thats what makes them interesting to me. My observations come from about 18 visits to Japan over the last 15 years, from 2 long relationships and a few less serious ones, teaching about 1500 Japanese students at Nova English School and also some business interaction. My perspective comes from abstract intgration more than purely empirical observation....so correct me if I'm over-generalising.
The attributes that stand out to me are:
1. Social identity: I doubt there is any othr culture as collectivist as the Japanese. They place a great deal of importance on being accepted in the group. Its not so much that they hate being alone, but being an outsider. The reason I believe is that values are social as well, so if you dont stand with others, you have no significance and others will frown upon you. Thats why they dont go out with prior plans to meet others, why they are so inclusive of others.
2. Generosity: The Japanese are amongst the most generous people I know, though I think its not the same reason as say Americans. I think Americans are generous because they have positive, bountiful lives, and share or give from a sense of goodwill, sometimes with a desire to be morally superior, or even for the sake of social networking. The Japanese do it out of a sense of obligation to their collective identity. If you are a stranger, they are not so generous, unless they are accustomed to, and welcome contact with foreigners, having had positive travel experiences.
3. Social values: The Japanese have very subjective values, the implication of which their thinking is 'each to his own', except to the extent that others values impinge on the happiness of others, and on that point they are very sensitive, but very tolerant. They would be insensed by a foreigner having a cellphone conversation on a phone or making any type of scene that breaks with the social harmony.
4. Shy: Japanese people are genrally very shy and exhibit alot of self-doubt. They are very sensitive to taking risks, to being shamed or humiliated. You will find them reluctant to speak English despite having good conversation skills, and reluctant to engage in any unfamilar interaction or activity, though keen to do something new involving social interaction.
4. Positive anxiety: Japanese people often exhibit what I would call a 'positive anxiety' in the sense that they feel compelled to do something, but often lack an outlet. They are amongst the least ambitious people I have meet. Even career-orientated men dont exhibit the personal sense of purpose or motivation that western people do. It seems more about success through others eyes, like a it was always a slap in the face to a father who expected nothing from them. Women are raised to be carers, with no career expectations, and considerable barriers to success, and all but the most competent women are likely to fail.
5. Spiritual: Japanese people are scared of ghosts in the Shinto tradition. They believe their ancestors remain in this life as spirits. They will leave salt crystals at the entry points of the house to ward off bad spirits. I've found all ASian cultures to be this way.
6. Self deprecating: The Japanese do not display alot of ego. They take criticism very politely and thoughtfully, though I think they are inclined to undermine the source unless there is a hint of personal redemption in the relationship. Listening thoughtfully is part of their virtue of tolerance.
7. Tolerant: The renouncement of personal value or standing is in fact how the Japanese feel valued. They find pride or virtue in sufferage...in pursuit of noble ideal.
8. Thoughtful: I found the Japanese to be very curious people, though without any great sense of personal purpose, it really seemed to lack personal momentum or depth...just polite conversation, and not something that they readily integrate into their life. They just respect that that is your space.
9. Organised: With the exception of the Koreans (who copied them), I think the Japanese are the most organised or institutionalised people on the planet. I think the virtues of good organisation were recognised by the Meiji Emperor, but I'm speculating. Regardless, Japanese governments, corporations and other organisations offer a range of activities to keep people busy, and alot of these carry with them a sense of social obligation, even compulsion, so attendance is high. Evading participation was particularly difficult when the Japanese were village based. It must be remembered that the 'social identity' stems from their village tradition and its only been in the last 50 years that Japan has opted for the more impersonal city life. But the corporation is really a modern substitute carrying many of the same traditions. And even in the cities there are still alot of people who respond to the traditions of the village, and even outsiders who want to join it.
10. Social status: The Japanese place alot of importance on status, as became apparent when I saw alot of teenage Japanese girls gawking at a rugby union team at the airport. Their first instinct is to ask for autographs to show their friends. Its a basis on which to elevate your standing with others. The importance of standing and harmony are related to this, and the desire to be well-regarded by others, to avoid conflict, it results in the tendency of the Japanese to be 'excessively nice'.

I'm sure I will find more attributes after reviewing my years of notes, but these are the core attributes that come from memory. Understand that there are a great many subtle expressions of these values which are defined by the context. I found there to be a strong difference between gender identities - and I say identities because I find that there are a great many feminine men in Asia. Men strike me as more arrogant, proud, dogmatic, whereas women are more conciliatory, appeasing, self-deprecating and easily contented. Men more self-indulgent and outrageous.

These are by necessity generalisations. I have meet young Japanese people who are more American than Americans. They will aggressively assert that Japan suxs and they want to live in America. I would suggest that such people have reflected negatively on their culture, sometimes only after having drawing something positive from other (usually western) societies.

Impact of commercialism of sport – and the internet on writing

I was watching a movie last night ‘Any Given Sunday’, the story about American football. In one of the scenes they were lamenting the commercialisation of sport and how that had impacted on football. The poignant line was “In the old days it was our concentration that mattered, now it’s them [the audiences].
This is a very apt description since it highlights the importance of ‘making exciting football’ to boost stadium attendance and TV ratings. That demands wins and compelling game play to excite the audience. Yes, its true, in the days of old, there was more soul in professional football. But we need only look at junior or amateur football to see that pride and personal efficacy are still the underlying basis for the game, as much as ‘the money’ might be pulling professional players and administrators in directions that they would not otherwise go, whether its:

1. The use of drugs to enhance performance
2. The misbehaviour of sporting stars off the field
3. The lack of consideration of the broader interests of players for the sake of earnings

In short, yes, the industry does place a heightened importance on money at the top of the league, but then their concern for money is likely to erode once they have enough, and then does it not become ‘just about football’ for everyone but the large stakeholders – the shareholders and executives with stock options.
At the junior level, the tendency of some parents to place undue pressure on their children to perform is not a new phenomena, and in fact has probably declined in recent years as parents become more aware through education. But some parents persist as they attend to live their own lives gregariously through the opportunities presented to their children. Why? They feel inhibited to perform in their own lives, that they feel compelled to shift their expectations to their children.
Is there any cultural malaise in sport. On the contrary, achievement in the field is still praised. Players have unions and managers to look after their interests, allowing them to focus on what they are good at.
Some argue that there is an excessive focus on sports in society, that other fields of professionalism like art, literature and scientific endeavours are not afforded the same level of interest given to sports. Well that’s certainly true if we look at the money involved, but then there are several important differences:
The art and literature world is not as professional as the sports sector, in the sense that the art world is still relatively self-indulgent until one reaches a high level of capability
The art and literature world embodies a smaller fraction of society. Growing up, probably 70% of people enjoy watching sport, and half of us play it. But perhaps only 10-15% of us read serious literature and 1-2% write it, and fewer still seek a career as a writer.

The interesting question is – Is the internet, with the advent of blogging, developing a greater level of interest in writing as a career choice? Well that remains to be seen, though its clear that many more people are writing because they feel they have a chance to expose their ideas to the broader world in a non-confronting way. Certainly the quality of many blogs and the commitment of many bloggers is surely not there, but t minimum the process is exposing them to a great many other writers, so we can see that this might be the basis for a growing industry – if not support for writing then surely support for reading. OK the seeds of professionalism are not there yet, as the quality and commitment to many blogs will attest, and its a steep learning curve for those that want greater exposure for their ideas. Already we see the impact of writers who capture the interests of readers. Look at the worldwide impact of H.K. Rowlings with ‘Harry Potter’ series. Clearly there is a market for literature for those that recognise the market, but I would suggest that a great many professional writers and artists are rather self-indulgent. The reason might be that no objective value is placed on such self-mastery, in the sense that there is a popular belief that any art is good art. Perhaps artists are missing the deeper expression of values. And I say that in the content of what is currently considered ‘art’ in the art world. What is the deeper sense of values invoked? What are we getting from a Monet that we aren’t getting from aboriginal rock art? Are they of the same calibre? As far as I can see there are 3 factors that underpin artistic value – whether we are talking sport, literature or art:

1. An expression of values – the more profound, the more valued; the more concrete, the less valued
2. Technical skill
3. Relevance to the lives of the audience

By that criteria, aboriginal art falls short of the Monet.
The last pertinent question to ask is why aren’t people inspired to write books like ‘Harry Potter’ or produce artwork like Monet. The reality is that some are – and the success of those examples is testimony to that. The problem however is that there is not enough of it. Few parents are preparing their kids for success. Parenting is another one of those areas where its supposed to come naturally, or might others rationalise, ‘if you’re old enough to have kids, then you’re old enough to look after them’. Personally I don’t think I was ready for kids until I was 35yo, though its hard to say given the less onerous provisioning for ‘baby’ parenting as opposed to ‘teenage’ parenting. So perhaps I could have had a child at 32yo and performed well. The reality is that little regard is given to parenting. Most parents teach the way that they were taught. Fortunately some parents are reading and learning how to be better parents, and increasingly the importance of parenting is being communicated through the media, eg. Dr Phil, Oprah and self improvement books. The lesson being missed fundamentally is structure and purpose. Parents are not giving adequate attention to the development of a child’s sense of purpose, and nor are they helping them to pursue that purpose by giving them a framework for growth. Its not about living your life through your child, or overtaking theirs, or pushing them into something they don’t want to do. Its about inspiring them to act in a certain way by demonstrating the value of a structured or systematic approach as opposed to a random, self-indulgent or haphazard approach. If that lesson is learned in childhood, and its value explicitly stated, then the value is retained, and achievement becomes a breeze. If its not fostered or its value not highlighted, then its easily lost when they leave the highly structured school environment, and they are vulnerable to failure. The later those lessons are taught, the harder they are to learn as we have become creates of bad habits.

Innovation in Accountability

The lie detector has featured in Hollywood movies as the indispensable tool for establishing whether a person is lying. The traditional polygraph measures cardiovascular & sweat gland activity to identify liars. The device however is not admissible as evidence in US courts.
A recent innovation invites defendants to subject themselves to brain scans on the premise that the level of brain activity in different parts of the brain to determine whether a person is lying or not. The device works on the premise that it takes a person more effort to develop a lie, since the lie is a departure from the facts of reality, and thus require facts to be created.
The problem however is that the results are likely to be subjected to the same flaws. Consider the following:

1. Brain activity is higher because the events being described were a long time ago, so a higher level of recall is required
2. Brain activity likely has different levels of efficicency in different people
3. Brain activity measured by such scans can only measure a miniature portion of actual brain function
4. A fictitious account of events might be simpler than the reality
5. The analyst of results can't account for exactly what the defendant is thinking about.

For these reasons, it appears the brain scan will be condemned to the same problems as the polygraph.

Whenever society wants to embrace honesty as an important standard of value, it would be better advised to not restrict it to harming others and court rooms, but recognise it as important principle in every aspect of life. Given the level of hypocrisy, two-faced values in society, and office politics, we have a long way to go before we recognise the primacy of truth or objective reality.

PS: These views represent the opinions of the author.

Australian people

Australia is one of the most attractive places to live - and Australians know it. Sadly its not everything to those people that know better. The problem is - it lacks people and thus lacks variety, and suffers from entrenched parochial values. This makes it a less interesting country for intellectuals like myself. There is a disparity in values between those that identify with the `outside` world and those that are intolerant of it. These relationships mean that some Australians have a deep interest and understanding of the outside world, and others no interest or relationship whatsoever. These parochial souls holiday on the Central Coast, maybe New Zealand and Bali.

In addition, it lacks the sophistication of larger markets like the US and Japan. In terms of intellectual discourse, the US is far richer. In Japan particularly, the large consumer base and government support for leading lead developments mean they apply technology. In contrast, the lack of population in Australia undermines prospects to apply technology, and it lacks financial support. Australian engineers and scientists are unloved and under-appreciated. Because there is no market for their services outside the construction of road, bridges and offshore oil platforms. Very little is exciting, cutting edge innovation. Australians are scratching themselves to be relevant by some standard of efficacy. We have a world-class mining industry, but thats not something Australians can relate to. We have great beaches and kangaroos, but there is no pride of achievement in that fact. We own Russel Crowe and Nicol Kidman, but they had to leave the country to achieve their success. For a fortunate few however, they have no social standards of value, and care little about such comparisons, preferring instead to live by their own standards of value, by their own judgement, rather than subjugating themselves to the standards of others. But that`s the few. But Australians have a fairly healthy self-esteem compared to their Asian neighbours. They have grown up in a relatively free country, so have a greater sense of personal identity. Again it depends on the person.

The pleasantness of the Australian landscape is measured in terms of the space, green landscape since it was tamed by early settlers, and the mild, dry climate, as well as world-class beaches. It was a continent conceived for recreation. Sadly it lacks the population to provide ready access to those treasures. Its neverthless culminated in Australians living an outdoor lifestyle.

As a consequence Australians are very relaxed. A great deal of them leaving a balanced life. Part of the country`s good fortune stems from the mineral wealth of the country. Even when global demand for minerals is slack, prices in $A terms remain high, helping to support their lifestyle. This all contributes to the sleepiness of the country. Despite this safety, Australians have the capacity to rise to any challenge in a crisis - just they are never tested. Those export revenues never fail, and being isolated from global conflicts, we are never really challenged. Terrorism remains someone elses bad dream.

Apart from that Australians vary a great deal, reflecting differing values and origins, remembering that Australia has a large population of immigrants, many of whom were born overseas. Unlike the US, these varied interests are not yet well-organised, unlike their US counterparts because of the small population. The exceptions are those ethic groups which have established politically active community support networks. The only traditional groups are Rotary, Freemasons, the various churches, etc.

There is a disparity in values and lifestyles between the rich and poor. Move around the prosperous districts and you`ll not see a better lot of people, generous and balanced. Move to another area and they are suspicious and safe.

Japanese people

There is no question about it - Japanese people are unique. I`ve spent 10years trying to understand them, and they still fascinate me. Whilst on some level everyone is an individual, everyone is also influenced by their culture. For this reason there are characteristic features that we can attribute to the Japanese, and still others that differentiate them from other groups in Japan and foreign countries. The purpose of this essay - work in progress - is to explore some of those attributes and to differentiate them from western and other Asian nations.

Japanese Attributes
I have explained the attributes that I regard as Japanese and why I believe it emerged:

1. Polite: The Japanese are recognised for their politeness. They seldom show an angry face or act with aggression, which contrasts with its militaristic past (WWII). This attribute stems from several sources: (a) Buddhist values affirming the importance of harmony, (b) Collectivist ethic upholding `social` harmony above selfish interests or expectations, (c) Cultural superiority arising out of the Meiji Period that saw the Japanese trying to catch up with the west in all facets of life. They wanted to be more civilised, and embodied those values they thought that represented.
2. Subjective: The Japanese have a very subjective view of reality. At a concrete level, the Japanese are very honest, as everyone is. Because they don`t hold themselves to achieve personal expectations as other cultures (because values are social), they don`t display self-righteousness. But their lack of individual thinking undermines their mental efficacy, so they have low self-esteem, so if they feel threatened by a conversation, they will evade. So capable of dishonesty, but women are not proactively so. Men can be proactively evasive, but not to the extent of westerners because they are less egoistic or goal-directed.
3. Values: The Japanese have social values rather than personal ones. This is their pride. They no longer have much respect for their authorities, but they still see themselves as filling a function in society and few question their role. It will normally take overburdened Japanese a trip overseas to change this loyalty. So harmony and commitment to social goals overides selfish personal goals and achievements. Its considered uncivilised to be aggressive, selfish or individualistic.
4. Thinking: The Japanese are very collectivist and the emphasis placed on harmony and the entrenched roles that everyone places in society mean that Japanese do not question these values or their social management system. Partly this reflects the fact that few Japanese travel overseas, and if they do it tends to be for short trips, and they form a negative view based on their values. Its only after longer stays that they start to appreciate the differences. Because the Japanese don`t like to distinguish themselves as individuals, they are not prone to reflect critically on others or ideas. They just want to get along. Rationality is not a Japanese virtue. For that reason they don`t analyse and thus understand the nature of the world. They seemingly know very little, even about their own country, because they are more interested in talk that unites them with others than differentiates themselves from others. They identify very superficially with others, never really understanding. Trying & appearing to be attentive is more polite.... but you need not achieve any understanding, or expect to understand. Relationships in Japan are long-standing, but they are safe rather than meaningful. eg. Marriage is called `domestic divorce` in Japan because partners often have no communication. Just they function as a couple, but there is no respect, affection, shared values. But the pseudo-relationship fills a security (financial) purpose offering comfort.
5. Compliant: The Japanese are for the most part very compliant. There is very little theft so people don`t mind leaving things around to be stolen. Teenagers are more defiant because of western influences, though its not strength of character, but rather a 2nd hand appeal for attention from their peers. Peer values override social values, as authority figures increasingly loose respect. The Japanese system had more respect when it appeared to work. It appeared to work more when there was less foreign influence. Every Japanese seems themselves as filling some function. `To be, is to be something`, and that implies they fill a social function, and thus identify with a certain group. They have a primary productive identity (eg. housewife, salaryman, office-lady, bureaucrat, executive) as well as incidental ones (eg. soccer player).
6. Safe: The Japanese are not ones to challenge themselves personally. They prefer to act through groups, and to rely on the group rather than challenge themselves. This is less threatening, since their lack of mental efficacy makes it validating. The illusion of efficacy is preserved if the group remains Japanese because they all accept it. Some Japanese will honestly state they believe their system can`t function with western influence, because its too ambitious & aggressive. They are right. Hence all the obstacles play to prevent western intervention. It strikes many western people that Japanese are like children, and its true. Women are raised to be `cute` as this is what they identify as `feminine`. Men are raised by women, so tend not to have strong masculine characters, as raising children was perceived as the wife`s role. There is a strong affirmation of respect for elders & authority, so childen don`t question it. There is no weakness in this formalised system - everyone feels compelled to comply. Children might not like doing to cram school, but they accept it because all their friends do as well. They are strongly reliant on authority for direction. Children are taken care of parents until they get married or are independent, thereafter many seek the security of corporate salarymen, offered security by the company. Slowly these dependence relationships are breaking, particularly for those unskilled workers unable to get lifetime employment or the conditions offered during the 1980s.
7. Pride: The Japanese are proud of their nation and its achievements. Few question this superiority complex until they go overseas. Superficial observation fills them with pride seeing all the Japanese name brands, but its based on ignorance of other nation`s dominance (eg. US) because they have little knowledge of their own country - let alone the foreign world. Because Japan is a big market, the focus is inward, so Japanese have a very superficial understanding of the outside world, apart from wealthy, English-speaking and business people with a Meiji-style curiosity about the outside world. Prolong stays overseas tend to leave Japanese feeling a little apathetic. They become lazy, loose focus because they are `free` from outside direction, as well as its safety since the west is a little hostile. In the west they get exposed to a critical, independent media, and also experience the easier lifestyle in the west. eg. Nice houses & gardens, bigger houses, uncrowded trains, uncongested roads, clean & beautiful beaches, but most of all - no social or peer pressures. They can feel free - to be themselves, but its not the safe existence they are accustomed to. Its a choice they have to make - freedom or safety. Visa restrictions tend to force them to accept safety, and if they have wealth, living in Japan isnt so bad.

Japanese Group Identities
Whilst living in Japan I have come to recognise avariety of cultural `identity` groups. Some of these groups are differentiated purely on superficial grounds like fashion. eg. Punk, gothic, militia, surf cultures, etc. For the most part these fashion statements reflect no diversity of values. The Japanese truly are superficial, particularly the young, and we see this in other countries as well.

Differentiating Japanese from foreign values
The Japanese don`t have a monopoly on these values, but in their entirety there is no country like it. South Korea has a similar political framework, as does Germany, but they have a more aggressive, egoistic ethic which makes it more confrontational. A great many collectivist countries exhibit the safety and concrete-bound values of Japan. Japan is Japan-centric, just as other large western cultures like the USA and EU are.
Because Japanese are so compliant to the social system and sacrifice their interests to collectivist goals, they have very little protection, but still the government maintains the illusion of well-being. People live in boxes, they work long hours, they think they are getting a pension. Its an illusion. Eventually Japan will collapse into a national emergency which will result in sweeping changes. At the moment there is no significant change, as the LDP splinters into a multiplicity of similiar parties. Eventually there will be a crisis and the Japanese people will vote for a very different entity - the opposition. But we have yet to see compelling leadership. Rest assured in a country as collectivist as Japan - it will be nationalist. They will attack foreign investment and influence in Japan.

The fundamental choice

Its apparent to me that everyone wants to believe they are right in some sense, whether they want to justify themselves to others (social perspective) or themselves (egoist perspective). We either have a social standard of value or a selfish one. Acceptance of social values or understanding of them. When we understand they become personal, integrated into our value system, and thus personal or selfish. People often hold the misconception that self-righteous people are selfish, but in fact this need not be the case. They can be motivated by delusion - a desire to convince themself that they are right, or a sense of personal integrity that should be congratulated. Reality will be the final arbiter.

The 2nd point is that we don`t confront moral issues as adults but as children. Morality confronts us as a practical set of values rather than an consistent and integrated set of explicit values. Most of us doubt even develop the latter as adults because there is no recognition of the role or importance of philosophy in society. Even a great many philosophers would conclude that philosophy offers people no practical insight.

Knowledge is a hierarchy - so the values we hold today are influenced by the values we held yesterday. On this point there are several premises to state:

1. Clearly its easier to betray, correct or adjust peripheral knowledge than core knowledge,
2. Its still easier to alter or accept changes in our understanding of facts as opposed to values which might contradict our understanding of the world, as opposed to our understanding of ourselves or human nature.
3. Its still easier to alter or accept changes in our understanding if we make the changes
4. Its still easier to alter or accept changes if you are younger because you are accustomed to learning and being taught
5. Its still easier to alter or accept changes in thinking if you are accustomed to being right, and have the confidence and preparedness that there is the possibility of you being right. ie. You have good self-esteem
6. Its still easier to alter or accept changes if you have an objective sense of reality, that is, you believe that reality exists independent of your consciousness, that the world is intelligible and you have the ability to know it.

Next we have to ask ourselves, of all these factors, which ones could possibly cause us to get off track. Some of us develop expectations (ie. standards of value) of greatness when we are young, some have them thrust upon them. Of those accepting them from a third party, they can accept them blindly, and rise to the challenge, they can resent them and reject them, or they can disagree with them. It takes some time for children to grasp the nature of the conflict - as its an intellectual issue - but some children will learn very young to reject certain values because they are blatantly contradictory to them. Nevertheless rejecting values (ie. Perhaps a belief in God) is not a positive set of values, merely a negation of what isn`t. Developing a positive set of values is a task few of us are equipped to deal with because we didn`t read philosophy. Some might conclude that they have read `bad philosophy`, but really there is no such thing if any set of ideas prompts you to question yourself. I`ve got alot of insights from reading bad philosophy. The great benefit of reading a great philosophy like Ayn Rand`s Objectivism (and its not perfect) is that it gave me an explicit set of values to analyse other philosophies. It gave me confidence to change, the efficacy to create, the courage to question, and pride. If I had read other philosophies first, I would have concluded like most other philosophers, that philosophy has nothing practical to contribute to society.

Unfortunately we don`t just develop or read philosophy when we turn 18yo, but rather we develop one implicitly as we age. We develop a philosophy through our childhood experiences, sometimes adjusting our ideas as we are exposed to new experiences. We are exposed to a variety of ideas through interaction with our parents, teachers, peers, the media, popular culture and various public authorities. These ideas can either reconcile or contradict what we know, and we have a choice about whether we accept or reject them as part of our `worldly` understanding. This process of course presupposes some trust in `the system` - the process of logic by which we develop own knowledge.

Unfortunately all of us are sabotaged to some extent by `poor thinking` and `poor experience`. Is a value judgement applicable here??? There is no such thing as a poor idea or experience. There are experiences and ideas which we are not prepared for - some which are life threatening, others which are favourable or benigh. As children, we learn from various teachers by exposure to ideas that we consider, and through positive example (meaning?).

Until we develop an explicit self-awareness, and become an engine of our own thinking, our standards of value are essentially social. A great many people retain this social view of existence into adulthood. A child is capable of retaining a unfetted preparedness to learn, to be honest and to have integrity, but they are not inclined to recognise its importance or value until they experience that in society.

Unfortunate our society is segregated by values, and as a derivative by wealth. That`s not to say that those that values accumulate wealth, but that income SHOULD reflect achievement in a broad sense??? Achievers inspire achievers, whilst people with poor values are surrounded by poor values. eg. Poor children are taught by uninspiring teachers. Thats not to suggest that good teachers should be forced to teach poor students, but rather that society should be structured such that reason is the standard of value, so that good values permeate down into every section of society. In feudal societies, wisdom was restricted to the monasteries. Today, values are more freely distributed, but that includes bad ideas. The good news is that we are more positively influenced by values consonant with our lives than we are hurt by negative values. The tragedy however is that:

1. Children are being raised in poor families with no standards of comparison of what constitutes good values. Without exposure to the value of books, they might never realise the value of them to their `practical existence`.
2. Bad parents are the product of poor parents - and by default a great many children are destined to become poor parents, if not criminal or otherwise unproductive dependents on society.

Delinquent children do not develop because of bad parenting - rather they arise because in the realm of values, one of the following happened:

1. They did not confront a fundamental choice that reshaped their values. They were not confronted because the event/experience was not stark enough. Contrasting experiences, the way we are treated, the way we treat others are confronting experiences.
2. They never developed a sense of efficacy in their judgement, so consideration of values is frightening to them. ie. Low self esteem and no respect for abstract thinking, rather a fear of the unknown
3. They never developed a personal sense of being valued, appreciated or virtuous. Is this important? Social.

I remember very little about my childhood, and its not surprising when I consider my process of thinking. Having become an analyst and studied subjects such as philosophy, its apparent to me that I extract the essence of information and discard the immaterial. Ideas either reinforce my thinking, or prompt me to change it. Inconclusive evidence is retained miraculously until it can be integrated. Childhood experiences are concrete-bound and not too different from adult experiences. I`m sure school was a special experience when I went the first time, but as an adult its very familiar. No value in reconsidering it, nor on reflecting on it. At least in the context of my current values. If I was to become a school teacher that could change. The experiences are not forgotten, but they are in deep storage. I hope.

More interesting to me is that I can reflect on the more abstract things that people said to me. I can remember the exact tree I passed on the freeway when my friend said to me `Andrew - I value your friendship. I really appreciate what you say because it makes sense to me`. Laughing, he saids to me, `I`ll probably do what the guys say, but what you say means more to me`. I think I recognised implicitly the importance of his words, perhaps understanding his affirmation of the idea that I was `impractical` but `morally virtuous`. Later I made a conscious effort to try to get along with people, but soon gave up when I determined that it didn`t fit with my values. That people valued the lies more than the facts.

Still earlier in my childhood, I learned an important lesson. Going from a public junior school where I was popular to a private high school where I was unpopular and chastised, I learned from the stark contrast that social values (or public opinion) was fickle. But I was not thinking deeply about values at this stage of my life. Rather I buried myself in the library and studied the sciences. It was by accident that I was introduced to philosophy. My work colleague selected his recommended book wisely `Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal` by Ayn Rand. I loved non-fiction, and the clarity of the ideas expressed in this book were like none I`d none I`d ever read - and thats true until this day. Perhaps others would interpret it cynically as an over-simplification, but I recognised her ideas as the essence, which could be applied to any specific context. My notes from this book were thicker than the original book as I dissected the ideas and attempted to consider their ramifications. Before reading that book I regarded philosophy as floating nonsense - divorced from the real world, and sadly that is exactly what a great deal of philosophy is like, including the philosophy taught at universities. the experience lead to her fictional classics.

The reason I ponder my childhood experiences is because we are taught about good and evil. But we are prepared for good or evil. That`s not to suggest that advocate determinism, but rather that the cause of evil or the development of bad values (ie. values not consonant with the nature of human beings) is not abstract philosophy, but child development. Its the environment in which we are raised that shapes our self-esteem. When people are clutching at straws, very human hierarchy of values prevent them from dealing with matters of self-expression and personal identity. When people are insecure, they are not prone to see the value of others opinion, but rather to evade it (out of fear) or to be defensively self-righteous (to undermine opposition). In this sense people confront important psychological choices before they confront moral questions. Despite the notion that we are a product of our environment, it is hopefully reality or the consequences of our actions that bring us back to honesty. Sadly, it is parents that often spare children (even other adults) exposure to the facts of reality. For instance:

1. Rather than telling insecure people that they shouldn`t be concerned with what other people think, that they should live by their own standards and values; a great many people would reinforce their values, ie. `Thats nonsense, you`re a lovely person`. Their intent is to spare them responsibility, but they make reality that more scarely, by following up their reassuring words with no telephone number or further content. Worst still are those that would create friendships and have no meaning associated with them.
2. Parents might stipulate the importance of being honest, but their sense of reality is highlighted when they evade a child`s knowledge of their contradictions. Rather than admit or concede an error, which might otherwise reinforce the importance of honesty and the keeping it real, they reinforce the idea that reality can be faked if only they don`t acknowledge it.
3. ...........I`ll think of other examples??

In conclusion, we need to invest in our children....but keep it real.

Happiness - how & where to find it?

It seems to be a lifelong goal for people to achieve a sense of happiness. The problem I have with the concept is that it depends on your expectations. ie. If you expect little, then happiness is easy, albeit no great achievement. As the saying goes, the struggle seems to make it worth it. If happiness lies in the achievement, presumably their is pride in knowing that we have grown from one point to another. There are several areas of our lives where people seek happiness, and how they might attempt to measure it:

1. Career - level of job satisfaction - not simply about how much money we make
2. Finances - how well we manage our finances
3. Relationships - how fulfilling our relationships are
4. Values - our level of mental efficacy and integrity

Clearly efficacy in area of these areas cannot be regarded as components of happiness, but rather opportunities to display an efficacy. We don`t need to be a great money-manager, since we can employ one, but in that case we need to be a great auditor of performance for those people we depend on, as well as having the skills and knowledge to choose a great accountant. Regardless of how we live, we need to apply a set of skills to our life. For this reason, happiness depends upon:

1. Purpose: Everyone needs a goal to motivate them if they are to display any sense of efficacy. No skill is developed spontaneously, but takes years of work, otherwise we don`t differentiate ourselves, and it doesn`t register as an achievement.
2. Achieving results: We have the choice of area for which we want to develop an expertise. Its important that we can demonstrate results in terms which contribute to a tangible improvement in our lives, eg. financial, relationships, lifestyle
3. Focus: We need to focus on one area, and it takes self-discipline and passion to focus on that area.
4. Preparation: Any achievement requires a strategy, research and planning to achieve our goals.
5. Relationships: Increasingly its important to develop relationships to help you achieve goals.

Thats all at this stage.