personal questions

G201

h.c: so greg, on a scale of 0 to 10, how anal are you?

huh, zero to ten? thats like 11 datum points...normally its like 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. 1 to 3 is easy and at least the middle of 1 to 5 is a "3". but the midpoint of 0 to 10 is 5.5. would you accept a decimal answer? its so hard to visualise an 11. what if i feel that im only three quarters to completely anal? thats like eight-point-something. how to calculate? why your scale so weird one?

h.c:  just say 11 la. (*)@#^

the secrets to great-looking skin

1. sleep early
2. exercise regularly
3. eat lots of fruits and veggies
4. dont smoke
5. do your tutorials
6. SK-III Turbo

seven years ago

when i was fifteen my english teacher randomly asked me, "gregory, what are you thinking about?" naturally, i responded with a shrug, coupled with a smile to discourage any troublesome follow-up questions. she replied anyway, "i find it quite peculiar: you look like you're always far away, thinking about something deep and interesting...," and it struck me at that point that this woman could actually be on to something--its possible she could be smarter than she looks. but then she quickly negated that by continuing "but it turns thats not the case. apparently you were just daydreaming..."

whats the difference? wow, i mean, that actually hurt real bad. sadfase.

months later she asked me about a good friend of mine, a friend who was known in school for many reasons of notoriety, albeit through little fault of his own. im sure most would disagree with my perception of little, but whatever. the fact that i was his only friend quickly served to pique her interest again: "gregory, actually why are you his friend? i dont mean this in a negative way--im just interested...what do you see in him?" i did not realise i was expected to have a reason. rather than admit i didnt know the answer i instead gave her an expression that implied i didnt understand her question. and i succeeded in brushing her off with a confused look.

but i could not shake off the question, which in comparison to the questioner, i honestly had more respect for. i tried going back to it, though, several times, and i kept coming to the conclusion that it could have been due my having a good heart that i liked someone who was generally unlikeable. i could not accept this conclusion and i stopped trying to find an answer, an effort i bolstered with the remembrance of the annoying person who actually put this question on my plate.

seven years later i am thinking about the one quality in people that truly moves me the most. easily, things like physical appearance, money and power fall off the table. my recent interest in personality study directed my attention towards competence and kind-heartedness, two qualities that to me have zero correlation--possibly due to mutual exclusivity--but alarmingly strong weight on my scales. i had terrible difficulty answering the question "which do you value more in a person?" on one hand i considered competence: the mental, emotional and physical capacity to meet or exceed expectations in the professional and intellectual fields. this can be expected to be the sole deciding factor employed by some people like myself. and being the person that i am, i could never respect someone who was less competent than i was. never. on the other hand, complete incompetence can be completely countermeasured by benevolence; i could never disrespect a kind-hearted person either. never. because no matter how competent i am, no matter how efficient i am, no matter how good i am at making things run better, or how far i can see into the future, i see my lack of benevolence as an indicator of my imperfection, ie, i can never be completely competent while being so clearly lacking in a similarly important area. there is no way i can choose competence over benevolence, and vice versa. 

and because good things always come in threes, i searched for a third and it quickly came to my mind that i value honesty--not merely virtuousness to others, but also truthfulness to self, which on a side note, i feel to be paramount. this webpage is an homage to selftruth after all. one cannot be honest to others while being dishonest to oneself. honesty is thus one of the three Great qualities.

and upon this awesome discovery i was disappointed to realise that i could not apply all of them to my good friend. this conclusion, though amazing, could not answer that seven year old question, and soon i was no longer amazed.

i found that these three qualities, though very strong, are actually anchor points of a person's reliability. i would not have come to this conclusion had i not written that post days ago. few people on this earth are simultaneously competent, benevolent and honest, but this just means few people are perfect. but if you can somehow appraise (consciously or subconsciously) each and every one of the three regarding a certain someone and sum them up, you would still end up with a reasonable valuation of his or her reliability.

eureka moment: RELIABILITY = TRUSTWORTHINESS.

in the world of finance, trust has no meaning. a bank would never lend a bankrupt money. a bank would never issue you a loan if you do not first put up collateral. a bank would never collect that loan without interest. a bank would never care if your mother told them you are competent, benevolent and honest. thankfully people arent banks. people would care. i would.

i realised that eight years ago when i first met him that i had already evaluated him and found him to be extremely distrustful of people. this fact eluded me for seven years because this evaluation, i only today realise, was a subconscious effort. his misanthropy was and still is one-of-a-kind. i must have seen it as a challenge, that if i could gain his trust, i would have proven to my self what my subconscious was desperate to experience: that i am trustworthy--that i am of those three things.

and i did gain his trust. we did become bestest friends. and though he trusts me to this day, though i probably might be a trustworthy person, i do not feel like a trustworthy person.

because the only reason i trust him today, is because he trusted me first, seven years ago, when he shouldnt have.

"HUAT ARH!!!!!!!!"

best line ever.

rules part deux

1. the rate of progress of success in any group is seated in the ability of its leader(s) to discover the most efficient method
2. some people appear to be more intelligent than the rest
3. these people are bound to step up and lead in a group that has drive for said success
4. enforcement of the most efficient method requires that the less intelligent obey the leaders
5. hierarchy of command is sacrosanct to such enforcement, thus rules are made
6. many rules are created to address specific aspects of group activity in order to optimise the usage of group-owned resources for the sake of a group-shared vision
7. excessive rule creation is symptomatic of leadership that is obsessive in nature; however well intended such obsession is...
8. it is tantamount to oppression of a higher class upon a lower class,
9. a failure of man that is not caused by the concept of rules but simply revealed by its large scale employment
10. likelihood of psychological revolution to occur is a function of the number of rules sanctioned and the intelligence of individuals constrained by those rules--it is a matter of time.
11. intelligent subordinates begin to question the rationale of some rules and upon analysis discover them to be ironically, but assuredly irrational.
12. the discovery of one bad rule encourages the scrutiny of another, and another, and yet another...
13. until it is realised that most rules are bad, insofar as they place in higher priority a small progress for the group at the disproportionate expense of the individual constrained by those rules
14. the revelation that not all rules are equal posit the possibility that rules cannot be absolute, derived from the premise that man-made rules are made by man (5.) and that man is far from perfect (9.)
15. by extension, rules are only as fit as the creator of those rules
16. and since a fit creator may make unfit decisions
17. all rules must be scrutinised by the individual regardless of the level of his own intelligence with regard to the leaders'. ie, no matter how stupid you think you are or how smart you think your leader is, skepticism pays.
18. such scrutiny should be performed to produce at minimum, sound raisons d'etre for those rules.
19. if said rationale may be achieved through other means, then the rule may be disregarded, for it is an incompetent rule. if no better means may be found, then the rule, though bad, is rightful in existence, and should be followed.
20. disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain
21. complete regard for rules will indefinitely yield group gain, at definite personal cost
22. complete disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain at definite and great group cost 
23. thus the fairest position for both person and group is to minimise all costs--by way of choosing which rules to follow and which rules to disregard
24. minimisation is a feat for the intelligent; fairness is a feat for the ethical
25. so while all rules are bendable, only some people are fit to bend them 

do you have faith in your own intelligence and ethic, or do you trust somebody else to be able to better decide what is good for you and good for the world?