Pakistani Bloggers

June 29, 2011

Kermiphobia


We all have phobias. Right? I have and have had for years a love-hate relationship with Jim Henson's Muppets and Sesame Street. I loved the show growing up, and my favourite channel was the Kermit Channel (the takes they did on the Fine Young Cannibals' 'She Drives me Crazy' and Surfari's 'Wipeout' were amazing, not to mention Manamana!). I always thought Oscar the Grouch had the ultimate bachelor's life, that Bert was a banana, that Miss Piggy was gross and that Big Bird was a girl. Yet, the Cookie Monster, that purple Count von Count, Snuffleuppagus and the rest of the crew kept me up at night. Indeed, one of the earliest nightmares I have is of Big Bird in a terrorist's bandana jumping out of the screen at the cinema and machine gunning my friends and I. And strangely, this is before I even knew what a terrorist was (subliminal messages ARE that powerful).
Why do I have this irrational fear? Because Muppets have NO EYELIDS. They don't blink. Their eyes bulge out (which is a characteristic they share with fish, of whom I also am slightly afraid). In fact, what I dread the most is being locked into Jim Henson's warehouse at night. All the muppets are staring at me like zombies, like they'll come to life any minute. Imagine that, and you won't be so quick to laugh at me.
The reason this came up all of a sudden is because the other day, my friend came to uni wearing a Cookie Monster shirt. And there they were, those HUGE goggly eyeballs. Now I was in a pickle. I'm trying to become a better Muslim and hence try to lower my gaze when talking to members of the opposite sex, in accordance with the Quranic injunction. But the problem is, everytime I'd look down, the Cookie Monster would stare back at me…with those eyes. So I'd look back up. Then down again, and so on. Now, my friend wears that shirt just to piss me off. In an effort to prove to me that my fear of muppets is irrational, she sent me this video:
Okay. So that's ONE video with a Muppet with eyelids. An EXCEPTION to the rule. Besides, if this video convinced me that my fear was irrational, my fear wouldn't be so irrational after all. Duh. And blind or not, I don't like Andrea Bocelli.

June 23, 2011

If I Were a Superhero...

Compiled by 2 friends (Raja Samir and Bilal Hasan) and I,

If I were the Hulk:
  1. Despite the remonstrations of the censors, all pieces of my clothing would rip when I'd go green,
  2. I would do steroids just to see what would happen,
  3. Chuck Norris would take lessons from me,
  4. My turn-ons on Shaadi.com would include Gamma radiation, bad drivers and people who ask too many questions (Geddit?)
  5. I would be the Old Spice guy,
  6. I'd roller skate on Hummers,
  7. I'd be a pretty crappy spy.
If I were Superman:
  1. My underwear would be on the INSIDE,
  2. Red and blue would be the colours of my sidekick (I'll see if I can borrow that pimple-faced Robin) and I'd wear green and silver instead (so there's no mixup over who's alpha male),
  3. Ironman would be my ride even though we both know I very well know how to fly,
  4. Bahadurabad's mashoor gola ganda would be my Kryptonite (even a superhero can contract Hepatitis),
  5. Too avoid any confusion and awkward glances, I'd replace the 'S' with its full form, Stare-and-scream-idiocies-like-it's-a-bird! (How will I fit it all on my shirt? Look, it's a fist!)
  6. I'd lobby to get planes banned. Darn roadhogs.

June 19, 2011

The First and Last Human on Earth

I have an embarrassing, blasphemous confession to make. Ever since I could spell the word 'paranoid' I've had the nagging suspicion that I live in a Truman Show-like world, where I am Jim Carrey. Yes, I know it's egocentric and narcissistic enough to make even Trump barf. But there you have it, a part of me still believes that this whole world is some big coverup that would make the whole 'Jews-control-everything' conspiracy look as simple as executing a raid on a fort guarded by drunk cripples. Although such deviant what-ifs aren't playing hookey as freely in my mind as they did when I was a kid (one gets boring and forces oneself to conform when one gets older), they still occasionally bother me at the back of my mind. I have many theories, each more outrageous than the next to explain my paranoia:
a) Everybody is a bug-eyed alien and I'm the only human being in the whole wide world. History, the William-Kate wedding, the Cricket World Cup, my university, science, religion and everything else has all been set up by these aliens as a science experiment in which I'm the Guinea Pig (when people die, they don't die but retire from this experiment and are compensated by the government of their home plant Quazgaar with big pensions and country estates in the scenic plains of Shozhwink),
b) there really is such a thing as the Matrix,
c) the Truman Show theory,
d) the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy paradigm, where the world is an organic computer program being executed by mice, the most intelligent beings in the universe in order to discover the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything,
e) I'm dreaming. What's worse, it's not even my dream,
f) I'm tripping on acid.

The (sensible?) part of me tells me that I'm being ridiculous and that it's all a figment of my imagination, but then that tiny part of me, who oddly sounds like Dave Chappelle pipes up, "That's what they WANT you to think..."
Of course, I've got all the weaker points settled (how would the aliens know when to change into human form immediately if I go somewhere randomly without announcement? If they have the technology to set up this earth, they OBVIOUSLY have Supersonic Hyperdrive Ominspecific sensors to warn and give them ample time to prepare for the unexpected imminent arrival of subject 1.
Sometimes I feel so alone because of this. I know it sounds ridiculous, but how do I know all this isn't a big lie? The problem with this conundrum is that you can't prove in anyway that any of these possibilities aren't real. One can't rule out something until one has disproved it. This huge scam is protected by it's very absurdity.
Maybe these (imaginary?) worlds I've cooked up are a by-product of a hyperactive imagination. Maybe I need to quit watching so many movies and reading so many sci-fi books. Maybe I need a sedative. Maybe I need to get pinched to wake up from this dream/nightmare. maybe a pinch isn't enough to wake me and more extreme stimulation is needed. Where's that knife…SOMEBODY GET ME OUTTA HERE!!!! *obsessively starts looking over shoulder, searching every nook and cranny of the house for bugs and hidden webcams*

June 6, 2011

The Makings of a Dexter (of Laboratory fame, not the TV Serial Killer)


Disclaimer: If you are/were a classmate of mine, I am not, I repeat, I am NOT writing this as a justification of my academic career or 'to help me sleep better at night'. Not that you'll believe me, of course.
Also, this article does not discuss important requirements for intelligence like emotional and mental stability so don't hate on me for that.

“XYZ is sooo smart”

If I had a gum-ball for every time I've heard that, I'd have died of hyperglycemic shock by now (sorry, little doctor humour there). But what do we mean when we call someone smart? What empirical tests to we run to decide if somebody is smart or not? Well, we mainly judge someone's 'smartness' by his/her score in tests like school exams and the SAT and occasionally by his/her ability to answer teachers' questions in class. But everyone agrees that although tests are the best method to gauge somebody's 'smartness', they are limited in scope. A test is made by a human being. Which is a problem right there; the test is limited by the 'intelligence' of the examiner. One way to overcome this is to have an examining board make the paper, so your career doesn't rest on the vagaries of one man/woman. But problems remain. Studies have shown no correlation between test scores and the usual indices of success. Google it lazy bones, I'm not citing all my sources.
Notice how I use the word 'smartness' throughout my post but refer to the examiner's 'intelligence'. That was on purpose. I differentiate between the two. See, I have a few theories on 'intelligence'. 'Smartness' is a subset of intelligence, in my humble opinion. 'Smartness' is a unique combination of 90% book-smartness and the remaining 10% being variably divided between street-smartness and creativity. This is the kind of person XYZ is. Our tests are 90% recall from the books and the remaining 10% require you to have the two other characteristics I've mentioned. Of course, this is assuming there are no 'past papers' and repeat questions from these in the test, which would further increase the book-smartness percentage.
Book-smartness, Street-smartness and creativity are what I believe to be the three facets of intelligence.
So what do these three terms mean?

Book-smartness: What the archetype nerd has. Yes, I know the archetype nerd only exists in the movies and that they don't really wear suspenders, get atomic wedgies, or their heads flushed in the toilets by bullies in real life. But urban legends are heavily distorted facts, like the one about swallowing a fruit seed and a plant growing from your crap (Fact: crap is a fertilizer. Fiction: the acid and lack of a million other things in your stomach will stop the seed from growing there), or the one about how saying 'pig' will rescind 40 prayers of yours (Fact: Pig is a naughty word. Fiction: You won't believe some of the lies elders tell kids).
Basically, if you have a photographic memory and can memories countless facts, then you're book-smart. In fact, you'll ace all the medical school tests. Which is not to demean book-smartness. Facts are important and there are some that must be committed to memory. But book-smart people tend to store all these tidbits in their brain's short-term memory compartment. To commit them to the long-term section is what is important. Most of the facts you learn are like the tide, they're there for a short period of time, but they gradually fade back into oblivion (excuse my poetic analogy).
This brings me to another theory I have regarding memory. When memorizing something, in order to commit it to your long term memory, you will try to come up with a mnemonic (the less successful method) or you'll try to relate it to something you already know (the more successful method). Taking the example of what I'm studying in Med school these days, if I am trying to memories the names of the blood vessels supplying the bladder, prostate and urethra (that's your pee pipe), I can come up with a mnemonic for it, but chances are I'll forget in a few years what a few of the letters in the mnemonic stand for. Or I can relate it to pre-existing knowledge that I have gained over my schooling years. In 13 years of schooling, there is some biology that I've done repetitively. For example, I've done the fact that your crap-hole is called the anus and above that is the rectum. So using this knowledge, I can remember that since the bladder is at the same level as and next to the rectum in males, one of the arteries supplying part of the bladder and urethra is the rectal artery. Now, someone who did not take biology in school but entered med school would have a much tougher time learning this piece of information. I have had 13 years of studying this, so my basics are quite strong. However, 5 years of med school requires me to digest whole textbooks of information, with little or no repetition, which means most of the info is in my short-term memory and I will forget it after med school. However, if medical school was say another 20 years with a lot of repetition, I wouldn't forget anything. Proof from my life is Mathematics. I took further math in my A' Levels. A year out of high school, and I've forgotten virtually everything in a subject I got an A in. I haven't forgotten addition, subtraction, simple differentiation and integration because practice makes perfect, but all the advanced stuff I learnt in further math I've forgotten.
My point being, book-smartness alone can only get you so far.

Street-smartness: I don't literally mean knowing how to deal with punks who infringe on your turf (that's always a plus though) but having presence of mind and decision-making powers. You can have all the knowledge and creativity up there, but when you're in a tight spot, you need to have the ability to connect the dots, come up with a plan and put it to action within a very short timespan. But you still need book-smartness to have the basic knowledge to come up with a plan that actually works, and creativity so you can deal with any outlandish situation. A good way to test this in people is to hang them upside down from the ceiling, make them slowly descend toward a tank of piranhas, giving them only a razor and a rope to use to escape.

Creativity: Books will have problem sets. A book-smart person will memorize these problem sets and pray that in real life, he only comes across the problems his/her textbooks have described. If only life were that easy. Creativity, innovation and initiative is the final piece of the puzzle. You need this to deal with new situations. Converting the formulae for energy conversion to the workings of a hydroelectric dam requires creativity.

These are what Noble Prize winners are made of (NOT that that's the golden standard of intelligence!)

June 1, 2011

The Bogeyman Syndrome


In Monty Python's movie 'Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail' (set in medieval times ;) ), there's one part (whose link I've placed above) where King Arthur chances upon a village whose residents are about to burn a 'witch'. It's in humourous vein but I think it highlights something I've noticed in our society, our fascination and gullibility for all things paranormal. Unfortunately, many people (definitely in the subcontinent; don't know what it's like abroad) have a habit of immediately ascribing anything we don't understand to the other world. It's strange how logic and all semblance of common sense goes flying out the window the minute we come across success stories of fortune-tellers, palm readers and other people in the business of making 'predictions'. It's exactly how in the olden times when people didn't understand why the phenomenon of lightning occurred, they ascribed it to the anger of the gods (which makes me wonder about the whole lightning never strikes twice at the same place saying :P). I like to call it the 'Bogeyman Syndrome' because it's exactly like the case of the four-year old who hears noises at night and ascribes them to the monster under his/her bed.
Now don't get me wrong; as a Muslim, I do believe in the supernatural, the Aalim-ul-Ghaib (realm of the Unseen). I also do believe, as hadith tell us, that certain natural phenomenon do have supernatural correlation. For example, Sahih Muslim reports:
Abdullah. Ibn ‘Abbas reported: A person from the Ansar who was amongst the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) reported to me: As we were sitting during the night with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling light. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: What did you say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position), but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been born and a great man had died, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: (These meteors) are shot neither at the death of anyone nor on the birth of anyone. Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, issues Command when He decides to do a thing. Then (the Angels) supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in the heaven of this world. Then those who are near the supporters of the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne: What your Lord has said? And they accordingly inform them what He says. Then the dwellers of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches the heaven of the world. In this process of transmission (the jinn snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with meteors. If they narrate only which they manage to snatch that is correct but they alloy it with lies and make additions to it.
I also do believe that the Jinns have powers that we humans don't (e.g. The case of the retrieval of the throne of the Queen of Sheba by a Jinn in the service of Hadrat Suleman AS). I also believe that the Jinns have access to knowledge that we don't. This is evident in the above hadith as well as the following one:
`Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: Some people asked the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about soothsayers. He (PBUH) said, "They are of no account.'' Upon this they said to him, "O Messenger of Allah! But they sometimes make true predictions.'' Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "That is a word pertaining to truth which a jinn snatches (from the angels) and whispers into the ears of his friend (the soothsayers) who will then mix more than a hundred lies with it.''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
My friend (coincidentally, now a source of my recent blogpost ideas) gave me this example:
In India, 10000 years ago there was a Brahmin astrologer called the Maharishi Bhrigu who penned the Bhrigu Samhita, a compilation that contains predictions on the current and future lives of people. They were written on palm-leafs but most were destroyed when the Muslims invaded India. Of the few that are left, the only authentic ones are said to be with some Brahmins at Hoshiyarpur. In my research, I only chanced upon 2 western accounts of the predictions in them. The rest were accounts from believers in the predictions, and therefore cannot be treated as neutral accounts.
Here are the 2 western accounts:
In the accounts, all the true predictions are actually of the past and therefore, available to any resourceful person. Then the money demand at the end makes them all the more suspicious. Also, since most of the palm leafs were destroyed, leaving the remaining few in the hands of a few individuals, it makes it all the more difficult to verify claims. Remember, the Jews and Christians kept their holy books in the hands of the clergy alone and inaccessible to the public (the christians kept the Bible in Latin before Martin Luther's influential German translation made it available to the common man. The Torah is still in the hands of the Rabbis and many Jews only see it at special occasions like Bar Mitzvahs).
I'm sure by now I've got you pretty riled up against me, especially if you believe in the Bhrigu Samhita. Believe me, it is NOT my intention to insult and offend you. I respect your beliefs. Indeed as I stated earlier, since I do believe in the supernatural, it is entirely possible that the Bhrigu Samhita's predictions are of supernatural origin. However, the point I'm trying to drive home here is the fact that in most 'supernatural' cases that our hyperactive imaginations get over-awed by, usually have simple explanations. Case in point: the story widely reported in the media a few years ago of a girl who desecrated the Holy Quran and became a monkey. Muslims everywhere were talking about how this was the clinching proof of Islam as the correct religion. When it was discovered that it was all a bunch of kids good who were good with Photoshop pulling a prank...awwwkwarrrd.
There was this colour quiz I once took (along with a couple of friends) where you pick 2 colours and it 'reveals' your personality. Initially I was shocked with the extremely accurate results. Then I compared them with my friends and some things began to unravel. Our results had some common elements. For example, everyone was told they were a mixture of introvert and extrovert. Almost all of us were told we found pleasure through sexual activity (No s***). What has to be noted here is the fact that half the trick is before you give the test. If you do believe that they will work, then whatever the results tell you, you'll search through your previous life experiences and remember one where the results were proved right, even if that trait isn't yours. The opposite will happen if you disbelieve pre-test. This, coupled with the fact that these 'predictions' about your personality are generally quite vague, makes such test all the more amenable to our minds. Having said that, the psychologists behind these tests know their stuff and have done their homework. There is some truth to these tests. But as we are swayed by the apparent power and 'accuracy' of these tests, we forget that they have limitations and aren't the final word on who we are.
To summarise, I do believe that such paranormal phenomenon are plausible. In fact, as a student of science, it would be extremely arrogant and premature of me to deny the possibility of this as there is a large body of semi-evidence for it (by which I mean a lot of anecdotal evidence, as it is quite naturally difficult to carry out a systematic scientific study on the matter) and little against it. But before attributing an improbable event to the supernatural, we must eliminate all other more probable 'this-world' causes. Here are a few:
  1. The Law of Averages: This states that a highly improbable event in isolation is actually highly probable, and can take place in the history of mankind at least once, given the huge lengths of time and number of people involved. The media will take these highly improbable events when they do occur and parade and exaggerate them, since they need to make the news. Since, we implicitly accept the news as authentic, it becomes difficult for us to look at what is reported clearly.
  2. Hoaxes: Bad people exist. So do idiots. The bad people want to make a quick buck off the idiots. Remember the Piltdown Man? A hoax at a time when people were desperately looking for and thus were open (give the zeitgeist of the time) to any evidence to prove Darwinian evolution. Then there were the Hitler diaries after World War 2 when people wanted to know what wen through the mind of the man who was behind that major world event. I tell you, when people want something, there will be a conman out there to give it to them.
 
Copyright © 2010 Faysy's blog. All rights reserved.
Blogger Template by