28 February 2015

Personality test

What talents do you have?  In music?  Sports?  Intelligence?  Are you a people person?  Artistic?  Analytical?

There are personality tests that you can do to find out about yourself.  And other people, perhaps, evaluate you similarly, even without tests, in order to categorise in their minds what kind of person you are.

But are you stuck in whatever it is that you are categorised as?

I think you can change - to a degree - if you choose.  And as you age, you also change, even if you don't choose to.

People can change.

Does God have a say in how you change also?

We read of hardened criminals becoming the most gracious of people when they come to know Jesus.  We read of how people change, as they get married or have children.  Or if they lose a limb or face some tragedy.

Are you willing to change?  Or do you think you are stuck in your personality?

26 February 2015

Not of this world

What did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Or when Jesus said in John 17:16
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
I find that as we live in this world, conforming to the patterns of our society and culture is quite necessary.  Be too radically different, and people would think that you are mad, not trustworthy, somebody to shun away from rather than to befriend.  Christians need to conform to the degree that they show God's values in a way that the world would be attracted to God.  They need to be seen as righteous and honourable ... at least, to the extent that they can draw people to Christ.

However, conform too much and the world would not see any difference in us compared to themselves.  We do not show God's glory if we did this.  Instead, we shame our Lord.

Sometimes, it is hard to draw the line.

Especially when we need public favour.  Or to save our own lives.

NSW Premier, Mike Baird was once asked how he came up with the right words to comfort the public after the Sydney Siege.  Mike could have answered to say that God helped him, that God gave him the inspiration, or something to that effect.  He didn't, though.  He said that he worked on it and came up with the right thing to say.  We expect that this is to fit into a culture where one is expected  to be wise and strong as a leader.  Or where mentioning "God" in public draws too much criticism from the public.  But if he had mentioned Gd, God would have gotten more glory.

Would Christians today deny Christ if society would put them to death if they didn't?  Would Christians today be willing to be thrown to the lions, as they were in the first century?  Or, be beheaded by ISIS, in the modern context?

How would you stand out today, if you are a Christian?  Or do you think that Christians are just a bunch of mad, wimpy people who do not know that God isn't real?  How can Christians live lives that say otherwise?

What do you think?

15 February 2015

Authenticating phone calls

When bankers phone you, they need to know who you are.  You must be a signatory to an account belonging to the bank, or the bank must not disclose the details of the account to you.  For this reason, the bank would ask you a number of questions to verify that you are who they assume you are.

Even when they have initiated the call, and not you.

The same principle applies to accounts for utilities as phone, internet, gas or electricity.

But how do you know that the calling party is actually who you think they are?  If it is really an employee or an agent of the bank (or utility company), and not an imposter?

Of course, it is possible for unscrupulous employees or agents to steal your private data as well.  But this is less likely to be the issue, as it is more tracable.  The bigger concern is for an outsider, through social engineering, con you into disclosing details that should remain private between you and your service provider.

You should authenticate the person on the other end of the line - especially if you do not know who they are.  They should be able to send you an email, a net-banking message, an SMS, or disclose a private piece of information to validate that they are who they claim to be.

Many of us, as customers, are used to being verified, but are not used to doing the verifying task ourselves.  We don't often think of doing so.

Do you think so?  How do you think the systems can work for two-way authentication?  How can we protect ourselves from being manipulated and cheated by the bigger organisations and the criminal minds?


08 February 2015

Student thinking

Students are supposed to learn, right?  And learning results in passing exams, right?  That means that a good student, knowing enough to pass exams, has a good level of intelligence, right?

Maybe not.  The mentality of passing exams hampers one's ability to think, apparently, if the Secret Teacher's article is to be believed.

Secret Teacher found that students had difficulty thinking things out for themselves.  Thinking is a strenuous exercise.  They need guidance to think - how big to draw a diagram, what words to use in a sentence, what conclusion should they arrive at, what are the correct answers, how many examples to give, etc ... what will show up in the exams - as they see their goal is to accomplish what is required for the grading tasks, in order to receive good grades.

The objective of actually learning something is not present in their thoughts.  Thoughts are distractions.  Showing the marker what he wants to see in order to be deemed worthy of good grades is the actual goal.  Figuring it out for one's self isn't.

Do you see this kind of mindset in students today?  Or is Secret Teacher's observation not universal?

I think that to a degree, Higher Education does not want students to think.  They want students to gather thoughts from other "experts" as they need to read up many references and quote them in essays.  Research is mostly repeating laboratory exercises and quoting from other people's work.  The only time when students get to do any real thinking is when they are working towards their Ph D, but even then, much of the work is in consultation with other "experts" in the field, as they gather information through readings and discussions.

To have a thought to abstract is probably "wrong".  Thinking is good, but it needs to be verified.

What do you think?  How should one think?  According to the norms that society and the education system tells us to?  Or may one think more independantly?

Who is to guide, if the instructors are wrong?

Can one really discern right from wrong?  How?  Is education the answer?

04 February 2015

Change your first language

"What was your first language?" was a question in a recent questionaire that I read.

It led me to think: does one change one's first language?  Is that possible?

I subsequently posted my question on Facebook.

What my friends answered was a revelation to me.  Here is a summary of what they said:
  • "First language" implies "native tongue" and fluency in that language.
  • Her husband is fluent in four languages.  His first language is changable, depending on who he is talking to.
  • She has two first languages, and has a hard time deciding which is really her "first".
  • Another friend claims English as his first language.  He has since learned two other languages, and is quite fluent in all three.  He claims that his heart language is not his first language.
  • Yet another friend picks up languages quite quickly.  She said she learned Indonesian because she thought she would live there, and Danish because her husband prefers to speak to her in that language.
Is this your experience with languages?  What does "first language" mean to you?  Do you have experiences to add to my list?

Please share.  Thank you.