How much

How much money do we actually need?

Can we give it all away?  Or do we need to save for our future?

Too much savings is bad.  It means we are not sharing or giving.

But not saving is irresponsible.  As we do need something to retire on.

How do we budget?

Financial advisors tell us to set aside something for daily expenses, something for giving, something for contingencies, something for holidays and something for the future.  This can be easier if you have a fixed income.  But not if your income situation is not stable or large.  And many of us are in that situation.

How would you advise in this situation?

Where does God and family come into your consideration in this issue of budgets?

Do you budget?  Successfully?

If not, then can you imagine the difficulty faced by a Federal Budget?  It is hard to predict the future.  It is hard to line up national values, as different people have different opinions.

What would you do if you were the treasurer?

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?

Attraction and racial stereotypes

Vesko Cholakovv gave his blog the title "Rules of Attraction: Why white men marry Asian women and Asian men don't marry white women".

I disagree with his summation.  I have seen many Asian men who have married white women.  Especially those of Cambodian men who have married British women.  I appreciate that what he wrote is a generalisation, but even so ...

Cholakovv's blog lays reason to sterotypes.  Movies, television, etc. influences the decision.  The way characters are depicted in our entertainment impresses upon society the stereotypes that the authors or producers either believes in, or wishes the society to conform to.  The entertainment industry mostly originated from white American society, which felt the need to protect themselves from the Asian and black-skinned immigrants who would seek marital partners from their kind.

Three stereotypes were introduced:

1. That black men are aggressive and hyper-masculine, while Asian women are perfect wives because of their docile, submissive and obedient behaviour.
2. That Asian men are desexualised math brainiacs while black women are too aggressive, independent and outspoken to be attractive wives.
3. That white men and women are in a position of power and consequently desirable globally.

Although there would be exceptions to this rule, the subtle power of influence from media gets society to behave in a way where men and women subconsciously finding people attractive or not, and end up choosing their marital partners based on these stereotypes.

Of course, society is changing, and there are more deviations to this stereotype today compared to before.  Movies are also less likely to depict their characters based on these stereotypes compared to the past.  And Bollywood, Korea and other nations are injecting entertainment that are not based on white society.

Do you think our choices are based on racial stereotypes which are based on our entertainment industry?  Why or why not?

What should we believe about other people, if not what we have learned about them?  How do we shake off the influence of the subtle messages we have absorbed?

What do you think?

Sex with multiple partners

A contributor to SMH Lifestyle thinks that it has become easier to get laid nowadays.  He then asks if we should be doing it more, and with multiple partners just because it has become easier to.

The contributor said that homosexuality is more acceptable nowadays.  Connecting with sexual partners is also easier, now that phone apps and similar advertising is rampant.  But does it mean that we should do it more just because it has become easier to?

The risk of contracting sexual diseases is still there (even though medical sciences has reduced the risks in some instances).  And then, there is also the risk of being devalued as a person...

In the article's final paragraph, the author said

 "Yet I remain unconvinced. Yes, I agree with freedom of choice. But, ideally, that choice should be informed. Are we properly informed about the long-term consequences of sex with multiple partners in one day? Do we know what will result from this culture when frequent sex with many strangers is easy? Prostitution has a price – what's the cost when the sex comes free and easy?"

What do you think ?  What do you believe?  How would you answer him?

Does morality and ethics have anything to do with this question?  What would God say?

The NSW Opal card

NSW Australia has introduced a stored-value, debit card that is to be used to pay fares on their public transport system.  This card is called the "Opal" card.  It is similar to the MRT pass used in Singapore, and the "myki" used in Melbourne.

The virtues of the Opal card have been debated on news media for months.  The Opal website tells of the positive points, but not the negative ones.  To counterbalance what it says, I shall summarise the negative points I have noticed here:

• While it gives business to newsagents and convenience stores, it lessens business for the CityRail ticket counters now that many paper tickets have been discontinued.  This results in a level of unemployment.
  
• If one does not tap off properly, one will get charged the maximum fare.  Unlike Singapore, though, the maximum fare is expensive.  Sometimes, it is not one's fault that one does not tap off properly.  Eg. if one thinks one has tapped, but actually missed.
  
• When on a train last week, ticket inspectors boarded to check the tickets of the passengers on board.  Most of us checked out okay, but one didn't.  This man said he tapped on at Town Hall.  He did not know why his Opal card did not register that.  Ticket inspectors seemed to have suspected something foul happening, and was giving the man a hard time.
  
• The system apparently gives discounts on individual fares, although possibly, it is more expensive compared to the seasonal tickets that many residents use.
  
• The old system allows passengers to travel for free within the City Circle.  The Opal card doesn't.  But this might be okay, since the system only charges for eight trips/week and subsequent trips become free.
  
• The Opal card system is not friendly to outstation visitors.  Especially to those from other countries.  Such visitors would not be used to the public transport fares of NSW.  This and the uncertainty of their travel plans make it hard to determine how much value to store on their Opal cards.  Then, these visitors cannot get refunds easily.  Refunds come in the form of a cheque or a bank deposit in Australian dollars to an Australian bank account.

What do you think?  Is the Opal card a good system overall?  Do the positive points outweigh the negative ones?

I find that by the ways in which some of the other tickets have been discontinued and the way some of the other discounts have become unavailable, people are being herded onto the Opal card system, even if they do not like it.  Choices are few if one does not choose what the authorities want one to choose.  The customers have choices, but the alternatives are not attractive.

Do you find this to be the case too?  Does this indicate manipulation in a negative sense?  Or do you think it is all positive?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

Nudging

How do you get people to do what you want them to do?  Or what they should do, even without you?

Lawton, in a recent issue of New Scientist calls this technique "nudging".

A famous nudge is at the urinals of the airport in Amsterdam.  A picture of a fly is etched into each urinal.  With something to aim for, men have been urinating better than they did in the past.  This reduced the amount of work and the cost of cleaning the toilets.

Some other nudges noted in the article are:

• Motivating people to vote by telling them that their neighbours are voting;
• Similarly, motivating people to save power by citing how many dollars their neighbours are saving;
• Placing the brands of groceries that supermarkets want to sell at eye level and at check-outs;
• Setting the default in forms to be the choice you wish people to take - some people will choose a non-default option, but many won't bother

Do you find nudging to be manipulative?  Do you think your freedom to choose has been reduced because others have made part of that choice for you?

Lawton says that people generally have two paths of consideration.  One is to choose quickly and make the choice that seems right quickly, or to take a longer time deliberating and chose more carefully.  In this age of haste and lack of energy to consider carefully, most people are generally inclined to make the quick choice.  What seems right is often chosen, even if it isn't really right.

Would you fall for that kind of choice?  What if your life depended on it?

The easy choice is to choose what everybody else is choosing.  But that choice can be the choice that leads to death.  What would you choose then?