Ian On The Red Dot

I still can’t get over what happened in the course of the game “I Love Bees” and what was achieved. Especially that relay challenge.

I was sitting in my office when I started thinking about my university orientation games. A few years ago, there was a lot of noise made about a bunch of university students rushing onto a pedestrian crossing and doing some juvenile cheer. That incident is actually quite representative of the games we play during orientation.

The standard orientation programme when it comes to games is to divide the people participating into groups and get them to run from station to station where each station would have some random challenge they would have to accomplish or some game where they would have to compete with another group. There would also be the occasional mass game for everyone in the programme.

I was part of a few committees for such programmes and the aim for us when planning the games was to facilitate bonding between people in their respective groups and allow them to have fun. That was it. We tried our best but whether people built lasting friendships from the few days of camp depended a lot more on what happened after those few days then whatever we planned for them to do during it.

The allocation of the members to a group was also rather arbitrary and sometimes it was a matter of the organisers wanting to put the eye candy into their own group.

The thing is what if we adopted the model of an Alternate Reality Game like “I Love Bees” and adapt it to plan an orientation programme for our freshies. It is probably going to be a bit more work but I think there are a lot of advantages.

Firstly, I think it would be fun.

Second, I think if executed properly, the whole game can definitely be more challenging than the station games we play. In fact, one of the chief complains we hear is that such station games are usually childish.

Thirdly, I think such a game would build a greater sense of community between the participants. Instead of just focusing on a group of participants, the community will be of all the participants.

Fourthly, it allows people to form their own groups which seems to be a natural process that happens in the course of the game “I Love Bees”. I’m not really sure the science behind the formation of such groups, but I think it has to do with basically people with similar interests coming together yet each of them has a different skill set that can enhance the group. I think the natural formation of such groups within the ARG will be more beneficial than the arbitrary allocation of people into groups.

Finally, I think such an ARG-modelled orientation programme will actually teach our university students skill sets that can help them thrive in university and introduce to them the tools they can use to communicate and collaborate effectively. Imagine an ARG like “I Love Bees” played as an orientation game.

After the game, the participants know the strengths and skill sets of a group of people in university when it comes to seaching for information, putting them together and analyzing them. Next time when an individual is hit with a piece of data that he/she cannot understand, that individual already knows a larger pool of people they can turn to and actually know who might be better suited to the task. Also, it might help encourage a culture when something is not known, that it is put out for the whole university to help search for info, collate and interpret them.

Finally, about the title of the post. I think most university students will recognise it as a cheer done at such orientation programmes. In fact, it was the cheer done by the bunch of students at the pedestrian crossing.

If Valley VCs are like the mob, then I’m glad that we got the government looking out for us.  Now if only they will make us an offer we can’t refuse.

I recently finished reading a case study done by Jane on the game “I Love Bees“. This case study introduced to me certain aspects of the concept of collective intelligence that I never knew existed and I couldn’t help wonder about certain stuff.

During my schooling days, there was a concerted drive to encourage and increase class participation. One of the problems we had then was the putting up of hands in the sense that very few people did so to contribute an answer or ask a question. I guess there was also this strong sense of face and no one wanted to ask a dumb question or offer the wrong answer.

There was always this sense though that if more of us had dared to ask the ‘dumb’ question or give the ‘wrong’ answer, all of us would have learnt more. Jane talks about this when she shares what one of the players of the game said, “There’re a lot of trees to bark up the wrong way before hitting on anything.”

I wonder whether because of our national consciousness to constantly seek for results that innovation suffers because we do not allow ourselves to bark up the wrong trees.

I’m not sure about the students currently in our education system, but I hope things have changed so that they can grow more than we did in the classroom and become more than passive sponges.

Jane also goes on and shares about how everyone in the game contributed in their own way with their own skill sets and played a part in the increasing the collective intelligence – the game empowered players of all skill levels, natural abilities, inclinations and interests to achieve success. I think in the Singapore context, the education system has tried to evolve to provide such a framework for our students where all of them are empowered to succeed and not just those streamed to the gifted, special and express programmes.

The thing that struck me in context of the above was the players of the different skill sets were brought together by the game to achieve success together. In the Singapore context, I can’t help but have the feeling that although now more of us are empowered to succeed, it is more of individual success and not group success.

One reason why I have this feeling is because of my university experiences. There was a tendency for people ( who weren’t friends but only course mates ) to only share their knowledge if you explicitly ask them and they would only offer as little as possible. There was no open mutual sharing of knowledge within the people of a course except between those who were friends and that is a small subset.

I think this is because of our famous kiasu mentality where we always just want the best for ourselves and we believe that in order for one to succeed, another must do worst. Our overemphasis on grades and ranking does not help change this mentality.

Another thing I noticed about my university days is that there was a tendency for people not to put in effort (or keep it at a minimum) during group work. The focus in any semester were the modules where you’re individually graded. If people could, there was a tendency to contribute as little as possible to the group project in terms of time, ideas and energy. Things weren’t so bad if you did a project with friends, but with course-mates there was this sense of guarding oneself from being taken advantage of.

I was trying to solve a coding problem at work today and as usual I searched all the open repositories of information. And a thought struck me about the contribution of Singaporeans into the open source community. Again, I couldn’t help but think most of us are just passive consumers or maybe I’m just superimposing my own guilt of just being a sponge in this area.

The thing is I think most of us do not just want to consume. I believe even on the net, despite the increase in people blogging and user-generated social media, there is still the fear of putting up the hand in certain contexts.

And so back to the question in my title. Can we be collectively intelligent? Are we collectively dumb? Can Singaporeans come together and solve a game like “I Love Bees”. Would we be like what we always joke about in kungfu movies? The kind of “masters” that teach only 9 movies and keep the 10th killer one so that we still have a trump card. Do we have the skill sets to search, collect and analyze information as a group independent of some guiding hand?

This I believe is an important question especially in light of the MDA’s $500 million fund to drive the development of an IDM hub because I believe that even though each team will be working on their own project, the success of all the teams really depend on how much all of us as a community come together and help each other. Maybe instead of the teams seeing themselves as independent entities racing towards a prize, they can see themselves as part of a bigger collective reaching out for a common goal.

How about a wiki where all the startups involved with the fund can contribute their experiences, share their roadblocks and solve them together?

Will we be open to share ideas and not be afraid they get stolen? Will we be receptive to other people’s contributions? Do we all know how to share without coming across overly critical resulting in communication breakdowns? Do we know how to share without being smug? Do we know how to create our own channels for collaboration?

So are we collectively dumb? Can we be collectively intelligent? I don’t know. But I can’t help but imagine the possibilities if we could all come together the way those players did. Honestly, what they did is amazing and it blows the mind.

Was on the train home one day when I noticed the army’s recruitment advertisements. I have been seeing them around a lot but only that day did I really take note what was being said on the adverts.

I didn’t have my camera with me so I had to wait for a few days later before I managed to board a train with the adverts and take their pictures. I didn’t have much time to take good shots because the people sitting below the adverts were eyeing me with great suspicion.

Anyway, the advert below is for a scholarship to our local universities.

The tag line for the above advert is:

One thing I remember hearing a lot when I was still part of the Singapore education system was this question on the Singaporean identity. Do we have an identity? How can we nurture an identity? And so on and so on.

One aspect of the Singaporean identity is pragmatism. Well, that is my answer to the question anyway. Not very romantic.

I also remember Minister Mentor sharing an anecdote about how he noticed during the riots in the early days of Singapore history, people would take in their possessions into their homes to ensure they were protected. I can’t remember what those possessions are but I think motorcycles might have been involved. And that is why HDB was important. Give the people homes they actually owned and they might riot less because no one wants to risk something they owned being damaged.

And so why do we do National Service? Why would we want to fight for Singapore? Because for better or worse, whether we like it or not, most of us have our lives here. We are rooted here by circumstances.

I for one believe that if all Singaporeans have the ability to just pack up and shift their life to another place of their choice with no loss in quality of life or significant material and financial loss then a significant number of us would do so. Especially if there was a war. I’m saying if most of us could, we would run instead of stay and fight and probably die. Sad. But true.

But not all of us can just pack up and go. Only the rich. Which isn’t most of us.

But the rich of course, being rich won’t want their stuff to be lost so easily (I’m being presumptuous here because I don’t have personal insight to their mind). So they would need people to stay and fight, just for that chance nothing much will be lost if anything is ever lost.

And so, give the people enough such that they won’t play punk in their own country, but not too much so they can leave this country.

Maybe that is why a growing poorer middle class is so damn attractive.

A significant portion of economic theory is built on the notion that human beings are all rational and will strive to maximise their utility. Of course, the actions that they take to maximise that utility need not necessarily be considered to be rational by anyone else beyond themselves. And the desire which is to be met also need not be rational in the first place.

It’s like chasing a girl. For some inexplicable reason you fall for someone. The desire is to win her heart. None of your guy friends can understand what you see in her. She isn’t the nicest, smartest or prettiest girl. But your desire is real. And you do whatever you can to win her heart. And like most girls can probably attest to, a fair number of guys are rather inept at chasing the opposite sex, doing stuff which actually decreases the chances of any relationship from happening. But in the mind of the guy, whatever he is doing is probably very well justified in the grand scheme of winning the girl’s heart. And no one can understand the guy’s actions.

When I get into a car, I’ll always wear a seatbelt. My dad is the one driving and I trust him that we won’t get into any accidents. I trust him to be a safe driver and from experiences I know he is a good driver. But we still use the seatbelts because shit does happen and there is never a shortage of drunk or bad drivers.

When I go out with my friends to club and we stay till quite late, we all try to make sure we at least plan our return trips so that the girls are sent home first. Yes, Singapore is safe. But all you need is one guy to do something once.

We can always trust ourselves to do the right thing (for ourselves at least and if we are seriously enlightened for everyone in general). But we can never trust what is in the minds of the people around us. Their concept of right, rational and a lot of other stuff are probably different and sometimes even downright crazy.

And so, on the first week of March, I’m going to dress up in green, and prepare for government chalet with free food, not needing to worry about my hair or what to wear.

Because honestly, you always need a seatbelt so that when the shit hits the fan, you got some form of protection.

Nothing has changed.

With great presumption on my part and reverence to George Carlin, partly inspired by the always insightful and funny Molly Meek, here is

“Seven Words They Don’t Want You To Say on Sg Blogosphere”.

1.    Accountability

2.    Anonymity

3.    Elitist

4.    Freedom

5.    Opposition

6.    Regressive

7.    Welfare

Coleman Yee muses about whether virtual worlds are the future of the Internet. I totally agree with Walter’s comment. I also wonder if its the same Bak Kut Teh store that my gf and I enjoyed sometime ago.

Anyway, here is a link to GetAFirstLife, a site parodying Second Life.

On the concept of “experiential vs informational”, here is an article about how people’s interaction with virtual worlds fall between the two extremes of “Augmentation versus Immersion“. The terms might be different but I think the dichotomy is the same.

Via Seth Godin, learnt of this story.  This is what Singapore needs instead of more campaigns – People to take ownership of the image of their country.