Friday, October 26, 2007



The eckzams are over and I've gotten back my new comp and my results.

The first is good, the second is good, the third is bad.

Needless to say, a blooming 18 points for my L1R5 wasn't exactly the pride and joy of life for my mum. She flipped out, telling me that I always tell her I'll work harder and study during the holidays and produce better results because I'm not satisfied.

Yeah, because if I tell her I'll slack, goof off, drop out of school because my lifelong dream is to be a wandering Hobo, she'll be really elated. By which I mean she will shoot me.

Not that, of course, I'm anything near happy that I have a wonderful 18 points. Some people like to take comfort in the fact that the exams are hard and they did pretty well compared to others yada yada yada foogerboogerblah.

My mum asked why people can get 6 points. I tell her they're PRCs. She asks me what's the difference between them and me. I almost reply that they're gay, retarded, lack any shred of common sense whatsoever and have absolutely no purpose in life except to devour books and regurgitate them. Naturally, I changed my answer a slight bit to I dunno and I'm lazy. Which is standard typical answer a. Standard typical answer b is I'll work harder.

Since saying anything else than doesn't directly mention that I'm lazy / unmotivated / a slacker is completely unacceptable, I have resorted to the age-old method of insulting myself, only for her to tell me that I'm not dumb and that I should work harder because I can be first if I only studied harder and put it more effort. Of course, since this is the Singaporean education system, what she means is stay in my room, study all day and end up looking like an anorexic vampire. Which will undoubtedbly be the highlight of my life. A 6 pointer, with no social life and no people skills. I am sure I will succeed. As a doorstop.

Was talking to Gabriel (CheeKueh) on MSN just now about EMD. Since the lucky boy's birthday falls on EMD, we're treating him a ticket which is only fair because of what he taught us during LTC. Looking back, what the SLs taught us is pretty much the only thing relevant to Leadership. Since the rest of the camp was Survivor:: LTC, involving wading through elephant crap, climbing moutains, obstacle courses, dining with resident flies and surviving in a jungle by recognizing and utilizing the environment. I failed the last 'challenge' due to my glasses being devoured by elephant-crap-water and consequently couldn't see and/or recognize any of the plants and thingies pointed out by the jolly fat uncle (Not Santa). Needless to say, I am still helpless in a jungle and would probably be eaten by squirrels. Squirrels that are black, lanky, and have a long black tail. And look more like panthers actually.

I'm worried about the current JLs and SLs. They're a mess. Not that I move to claim that PSB is the be-all-end-all leadership organization. But it is with 100% honesty and 0% biasness that I must say that the PSLs achieve far more than the JLs.

Naturally, this shouldn't be the case. The PSLS/SPSLS should be equal to the JLs/SLs in terms of status. Which, according to popular and misguided belief, is the current status quo. Except working behind the scenes, we know who pulls whose and what strings. And the SPSLs are the puppeteers.

I am not power drunk of course. Merely stating facts.

I wonder why Ms Tang didn't want doublers, meaning SPSL and SL. If I were given the choice, I would rather have doublers than give black shirt status to people who quite obviously are what I call See Em Eye. I don't see the point of giving the chance to people who can't do the job. I mean, if they are enthusiastic about it, then meh, maybe it's feasible. But it's not like the moral and momentum of the SLs is SKYHIGH Senior! is it. I don't mean to condescend the SLs or JLs, but just hopefully provide what is my view of the current situation.

I think the Leadership Boards in VS need to start rebirthing, redefining and reinventing themselves. Like Prefects who volunteer to help out in so and so initiatives, but instead rush home to play MapleStory or do some other important stuff like Traffic Duty or something like that. Or Monitors who are slack, useless, contribute nothing to the discussion and instead make stupid, irrelevant comments that derail everyone.

And when I move to exclude the people from future meetings, I'm cruel and sadistic. Because getting the job done by purging the weaknesses is far inferior compared to getting nothing done because I'm all nice and shit. Truly, I've always wanted useless leaders.

I just never saw the point in bringing up people who don't want to be leaders, can't be leaders, or say that they want to be, but don't move to act like one. What's the point of sacrificing so much time and energy to go and cultivate these people, who will never be as good. I understand that there should be effort put into helping these people, and I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just stating that just because I don't doesn't mean I'm an evil tyrannical nutcase.

If I have a horse and a cow pulling a race-cart, and both of them fall down, I'm sure as hell concentrating on the horse. Because the horse does the work. The cow helps, but what infinitesimal amount is actually contributed? Similarly, having others to help the weaker ones is good. But I believe that concentration on the better ones is more important for success. Contrary to what most people think, better people aren't going to improve naturally. Buddha's not going to come along and bonk them with the branch of enlightenment. And neither is Jesus going to throw down ten tablets of wisdom. Someone has to help them tap their greater potential, rather than let it go to waste.

What people need are a (perceptively) small group of leaders who are self-motivated, capable and self-empowered, a small group of 100% ( Alpha ), as compared to a bigger group of 75%
( Beta ). Alpha might not be able to do somethings Beta can. But Beta cannot do a LOT of things Alpha can. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. 6 people in Alpha ( theoretically 600% ) can beat 8 people in Beta ( Also theoretically 600% ). Simply because Alpha will be able to plan, coordinate and executer faster than Beta, due to the superior efficiency. Alpha might lack numbers, but Beta lacks the efficiency. If you ask me, superior efficiency trounces superior numbers any day. Quality over Quantity.

But wait. Consider this: As the Theoretical Efficiency increases (Aka the Percentage), the difference in numbers also increases.

Alpha Beta Difference ( Beta - Alpha )
600%: [6] [8] [2]
900%: [9] [12] [3]
1200%: [12] [16] [4]

As you can see, the difference in the number of people required in groups Alpha and Beta increases as Percentage increases. The relatively brainless formula for the difference is just :

[EfficiencyPercentage] / [ 300 ]

For the respective 100% and 75% theoretical percentages, of course.

So it's quite clear, that sooner or later, the number of people in Alpha can be almost half that of Beta.

At this point wouldn't Beta overwhelm Alpha? Quantity over Quality after a certain point?

Not really. For one, we have to consider that greater quantity means more communication, which means more potential problems. Also, there is what Chemistry has ingrained into me, the Limiting Reactant or the particular amount of a certain substance that limits the amount of reaction. In this case, people.

Given a class outing to plan, which is a relatively simple thing to do. It takes...let us say 900% to plan a class outing ( which is just way too much really ). Looking at Alpha, it'll take 9 people, out of a possible 40. Beta would take us 12 people out of 40. I dunno, but if it takes 12 people to plan a class outing then there's something wrong with that class actually. Perhaps they should do something simpler and more effective. Like not going.

So, in situations where smaller amounts of people are needed, or smaller Theoretical percentages are required, Alpha definitely has the advantage. Less people means easier communication, better jobscopes. Overwork? Alpha's 100% darling.

But what if a situation arises where massive amounts of people are needed / massive amounts of Theoretical Percentages are required. Wouldn't Beta be better here.

Well, not necessarily. Alpha and Beta are not mutually exclusive. It's not as if one exists and the other cannot. So, in this case, we have Alpha AND Beta existing Together. What does this mean?

Simple.

Without boring you guys with calculations, Alpha should be the first pick. Why not, since they are the first priority leaders. Only after there are no more Alpha'ians, should Beta'ians be taken in. So, we actually have Alpha'ians leading mostly, while Beta'ians follow and learn. If a Beta'ian is truly good, then the potential will be noticed, and thus he might be considered, or should be considered rather, an Alpha'ian.

Basically, I'm promoting the idea of Alpha leaders leading 99% of the time, with Beta leaders following behind to learn from the Alpha'ians. In this way, the Alpha'ians will be able to improve faster, while the Beta'ians aren't left out completely. Plus, we must always remember that Alpha'ians and Beta'ians can talk, and learn from each other.

The other 1% where Alpha should not lead? Oh, simple. That's just when the Alpha'ians have been completely used up for a certain project, leaving only Beta'ians. Not that this should happen, since Alpha'ians should always be kept partially in reserve, just in case, as well as the promote more Beta'ians being able to learn.

I really think that this is how we'd achieve maximum efficiency. Alpha leaders should lead, because they are the better ones, and to not tap their potential is akin to telling the second place national runner in Singapore's Olympic Team *Snort* that he will compete because it's his chance to prove himself. By tapping Beta potential, yes you are helping the Beta'ians. But Alpha'ians have more potential and better leadership qualities. Thus, the Beta'ians should learn from them, by letting Alpha'ians lead. If we truly want maximum efficiency, then maximum utilization of Alpha'ians is the way to go. All that crap about equality and equal opportunities is quite stupid. It's basically giving help to people who can't make it, or don't want to make it, thus wasting time and effort that could have been put into Alpha'ian Growth.

So in summary: I believe in high-percentage tapping of the Alpha'ians' potential, to ensure high quality of work. Beta'ians should be given a chance to lead occasionally, just to ensure that they have opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills and possible improvement to Alpha status. Also, this should be implemented to appease Singapore's conservative policy of equality. It promotes almost maximum output with minimal input, (Using Alphas) while not ignoring the other contributing factors ( Betas ) , In this manner, the overall standard of work is improved, and the drive to succeed will be greater in people who truly desire it. This is real life, not a society where the suicidal are forced to live, and the leaders denied their fair opportunity.

That's what I believe in. Especially since people like to give Beta'ians leading opportunities, then wonder why they don't perform as well as Alpha'ians. If you want better quality, then use Alpha'ians. Stupid bitches.