The effects of media on hips don't lie!

One of the most obvious signs of how the media has influenced our world today is the effect it has on the perception of beauty, or more specifically the size of the body considered beautiful. During the Renaissance in Europe, being fat was all the rage. Women should have wide hips and a large behind. Pale skin was also in fashion, the whiter the better.


Lets take a look at why previous beauty ideals have been in fashion. Who was fat during the Renaissance? The lords and ladies. Regular people just couldn't afford enough food to get fat. Who had white skin? The lords and ladies, who spent most of their time indoors or under an umbrella. Thus both fat and pale skin were signs of wealth. Large hips on women were a sign that they could bear many children. Children were necessary to secure your lifestyle at old age.

In modern western society those beauty ideals seems to have been flipped. Women should be thin as sticks and men should be the same, but with a six-pack. In modern society both men and women work and there's welfare at old age, so children are less desired. Hence large hips aren't as fashionable either. Most of the work is done indoors and isn't very physical. People don't get six-packs unless they actively pursue it. There's food in abundance so for most people it's actually easier to get fat than to put in the time and effort to be thin.


However, to dive deeper and observe society nowadays, are geeks the new in-thing? Are factory workers, the police, or the social worker attractive with their natural six-pack? Hardly. No, the high steady income goes to the highly educated nerd clattering away at his computer as the media teaches and potrays. He's the one who will go on to become president of his company, a politician or even the next Bill Gates. Being good with technology is more important than being physically strong nowadays. Is this media influence and powerful effects theory at its finest?

Insecure Collectivism

To go a level deeper than the surface of just labeling the culture of Asian countries as collectivistic, and Western countries as individualistic, I tried to dive deeper into the effects of such labels, and find the source. Observed from an experiment by Ryan and Deci, these labels largely touch on the issue of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (2000).

One of the most fundamental principles of extrinsic motivation, like operant conditioning, is to give a reward each time a desired behaviour occurs to increase the frequency of that behaviour. Say for example you announced to an entire state, for any child that read a book, the child would receive a coupon for a free pizza. There is no doubt that rewards are powerful motivators and that pizzas will get kids to read more. However, the effects of the rewards not only stop there, but also affect the children’s thoughts about themselves, their self-concept, and their motivation to read in the future. Does getting money for reading, for example, change people’s ideas about why they are reading? The danger of reward programs such as this example is that kids will begin to think they are reading to earn the pizzas, and not because they find reading to be an enjoyable activity in its own right. When the reward programs end and pizzas are no longer forthcoming, children may actually read less than they did before. This is especially likely to happen to children who already liked to read. Such children have high intrinsic motivation, which is the desire to engage in an activity because they enjoy it or find it interesting, and not because of external rewards or pressures.

What happens when the children start getting rewards for reading? Their reading, originally stemming from intrinsic motivation, is now also spurred by extrinsic motivation, the desire to engage in an activity because of the external rewards or pressures, not because you enjoy the task or find it interesting. According to self-perception theory, rewards can hurt intrinsic motivation. Initially, many children read because they enjoyed it, but now they are only reading so that they will get the reward. This unfortunate outcome occurs when intrinsic motivation is replaced with extrinsic motivation; it makes people lose interest in the activity they initially enjoyed. This result is called the over-justification effect, which results when people view their behaviour as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which their behavior was caused by intrinsic reasons.

This speaks volumes to Singaporean culture today. We often look at western kids and wonder why are they so outspoken. Or perhaps wonder why the opinion of family and friends matter so much to us, to the extent that sometimes a person's perspective can make us alter our decision altogether. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying individualism is clearly superior to our culture. They have problems of their own.

However, to find the sweet spot on the middle of the spectrum, we have to identify, what is the root of the problem? Is it really the culture that we have been shaped by, or our unwillingness to explore and find our identiy in something other than the impressions and expectations our community have for us?

Uniquely Singapore!

Does Singapore have an unique and distinctive culture?

Many elements of Singapore society fit the bill of what sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander refers culture as – an organized set of meaningfully understood symbolic patterns. In olden times, ancient cultures would worship a certain deity, following strict customary law and practices. Today, we're still a collectivist culture, but how things have changed. Most Singaporeans now collectively worship a new deity namely, money. The importance of money is ingrained into our minds from birth, our parents knowingly assuring us the practicality of living in this day and age. The Singaporean way – study hard, memorize your lessons well, get a good grade, get a good job, earn a lot of money; and surely this will bring you happiness. In Singapore, the pursuit of being number one is the most noble of goals one can have in his life. To put it bluntly, most mothers from other countries will normally be overjoyed if their child managed a ninety-eight for a test, but in Singapore, the child is prepared for caning if he knows that his ninety-eight was only second to another child’s ninety-nine.

On the other side of the coin, people are arguing that the world is affected by influence from various sources, and each country is beginning to lose its distinctiveness. Globalisation has caused racial, cultural and lingual barriers to be broken down, and one may argue that we are facing the eradication of distinct cultures around the world. Economic emphasis in most countries has caused negligence in cultural growth. Heritage is lost in our constant struggle of twenty-first century advancements. Media influence seems to be the bible for our young these days. The world seems to be moving towards one giant, global culture that seemingly has the word “consumerism” written all over it. However, despite how many cultures ebb and flow into each other like paint on a canvas, there will always be room for smaller scale cultures to flourish regardless of how that mini-culture is set in the bigger picture.

I believe that a unique Singaporean culture is alive and well today. Our totems are our cell phones; our altars are our office cubicles and “4d shops”. Our national heroes are the financially successful, and the path to nirvana is a fat one hundred on a test paper. Yes, this is the Singaporean culture. Like it or not, this is what we have created. The slogan on our national tourism campaign proudly proclaims: “Uniquely Singapore”. However, it is definitely not for the reasons others think we are.

Love, love, love!

What is love to you?

Does love equate to interpersonal relationships? Is attention love? Sacrifice? Or perhaps warm tingly feelings in your toes, followed by the fluttering of your insides? The world teaches us that love's a deep intense feeling, the one thing that can free us from all the weight and pain of life. However, H.L. Mencken discerns that to be in 'love' is merely to be in a state of perceptual anaesthesia. On the other end of the spectrum, we have fields of knowledge trying to give love a definition. Psychology portrays love as a cognitive phenomenon with a social cause. Communication's contemporary view of interpersonal relationships is that we're establishing relationships with another individual just to satisfy our social needs and realise our personal goals (Gamble and Gamble, 2005).

I believe all these views/theories/insights/blabber-of-the-experts have missed what love truly is by a long shot. To me, there are really 4 general types of love. There is Stergos, the parental kind of love. There is Philia, that's really friendship love! There's Eros, the romantic, emotional kind of love. And then there's Agape, God's never-failing, ever-faithful, love-without-condition.

The world pretty much subscribes wholeheartedly to the Eros kind of love. Love is all about the perfect Hollywood scene. They glamourise the expensive restaurants, holding the door for the lady, and (literally) the romantic walk-in-the-park. They exhibit proudly the infatuation and the lust, but never really seek to investigate the true foundations of a long-lasting relationship.

Some ask what love truly is. Others argue that views on love are always limited by context, that you can never truly define it. Well let me share the bible's interpretation of any and every kind of genuine love: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (The Holy Bible, NIV, 1 Cor 13:4-7)

LOVE IS NOT SELF-SEEKING!! Perhaps its time to stop asking ourselves if we'll ever find the 'perfect' guy or girl of our dreams. One that will chase all the troubles away. One that would truly bring happiness. One that would truly satisfy.

Maybe we've all been too concerned about FINDING the right one, when all along we should have been concerned about BEING the right one for someone else!

You fail your driving test... because you're female.

Comparing and contrasting ability differences between genders have always been a touchy topic. More so when dealing with the stereotyped assumption that men are better drivers than female ones. It is for this reason that I have to be extremely unbiased with my stand. If I am not careful, I would be branded an animal. Not just any animal, specifically a two-legged mutant pig with chauvinistic notions, arch-enemy of females all around the world.

This is why I believe, men are such amazing drivers when put next to female ones. Why the diplomacy with that statement you ask. Why do I not just proclaim men’s obvious superiority? Well I believe in honesty and objectivity. As shocking as it may sound guys, you do not totally rule as the superior gender over females. Women are definitely somewhat better in some ways too, like you know, giving birth.


We give you that girls, we’re man enough to admit that there are indeed some ways you might be slightly more talented when compared to us males. Then why do you females always make such a ruckus when we state the obvious fact that we’re better drivers? For one, you females are terrible decision makers, and thus, terrible “lane-changers”. Men are generally very used to making prompt yet important decisions. In our compulsory two lovely years of “national slavery”, most of us are enlisted into the army. One of the training programs that we go through is to learn to throw a grenade. Now, phonemes, synthatics, semantics and pragmatics given to us are very clear and simple. We pull the pin, we throw the grenade. What we don’t do, is ponder over unnecessary questions. We do not observe the wind change. We also do not project a best possible angle for optimized results. Hesitation is normally and most usually fatal, and we have been well-trained to avoid it. Now, of course I am not proposing that it should be compulsory for women to have grenade lessons. That is just ridiculous, with mortality rates already on the rise; we just cannot take the risk.

Another reason why men are better drivers is the fact that we’re just better internally-wired to drive than you females. Don't blame it on the internal-external locus of attribution, and it is not a fundamental attribution error either. It is men’s natural tendency to have a passion for speed, and to push limits to the extreme. For example, hand a male a sports car. In a single week, he would have attempted to control a drift, pushed the engine to its top speed, and experienced handling the car on adverse road conditions. Chuck the same car to a female, and she will be wondering which soft toys would be best interior decoration. Now, consider a time of need arises, and perhaps they both have a dying relative in the backseat of their car. The male will definitely be able to send the relative safely to the hospital in record time, while the female will probably be better off hailing a cab. This is of course, mind you, after washing the blood stains off her soft toys and seat first. Faster isn’t necessary better you argue? In fact, you knowingly insist “slow is the way to go” as it is much safer, and less prone to accidents. Your statement however, is not valid. It is just like a seventy-five year old man driving around at thirty to forty kilometres per hour. He proudly boasts that he has been driving for more than fifty years and never had an accident. Well technically yes, but how many has he caused?


The final reason why men are superior in driving is because we play video games, racing video games to be exact. You females have always been laughing at our mindless obsession over moving pixels, but guess who has the last laugh. Indeed, it is true that the hours that a boy can spend playing these senseless games are astronomical. However, what this also means is that these hours translate to viable driving experience. Even before a boy is old enough to obtain his driving license, he has probably already netted more driving hours than the average adult female! An increase in reaction and response times is just one of the few positive side effects nurtured through gaming. More importantly, boys also end up with a better knowledge of car peripherals. One truth I learnt through these games might be shocking to most female readers, so do caution yourself before reading the next part. The rear-view mirror is really a clever invention to observe the vehicles behind you, and not a strategically placed mirror that is convenient for applying your makeup. Acknowledging and understanding this piece of information will definitely take awhile females, but persevere on, you have my support.


I hope to have shown as objectively as possible the difference in gender traits, which leads to men’s obvious superiority in driving skills. We men have acknowledged your talents, and the least you females can do is to accept ours. If you still insist otherwise, as a last resort I suppose we could call you creature names like “pig” too. However, that will be incredibly mean. That would be too harsh an insult to our four-legged friends now wouldn’t it?

Did you get WALL-E?

There is a way to measure how well an animation fares. Does it take over your imagination? Does it override your senses, so much so that you forget you're even watching animation? Do the fantasy-land characters, pixels and settings, become, for lack of a better word, real? That, or something close to it, is what happened to me during WALL-E, the puckishly inventive, altogether awesome new digitally animated masterpiece from Pixar. However, apart from the film being able to impress even with almost zero dialogue aka non-verbal communication, I was more interested that the message this latest Pixar film brings wasn’t one about the environment or obesity, but rather, about relationships.

IT’S NOT ABOUT OBESITY. What if everything that is crucial for survival like health care and food was taken care of, and you had nothing but a perpetual vacation to fill your time? The result of all that convenience was that all your relationships would be indirect, and nobody's reaching out to each other. A lot of people have suggested that the movie was making a comment on obesity. However, the movie was trying to illustrate humanity as big babies because there was no reason for them to grow up anymore.

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. If the movie was criticizing people of anything; it’s not pollution, but the worship of leisure. Human beings nowadays live to be cared for rather than to care, and the few human beings WALL-E meets in the movie have become such big babies that they are literally feeding on milk than solid food. In stark contrast, WALL-E, the meek little trash collector, accepts stewardship in a way that people have rejected.

IT’S ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. What interested me most about the film is the depiction of the most “humane” thing in the universe being a machine because it has more interest in finding out its true purpose of living than actual people. Does that not reflect the fallen state of the world today, the perceptions of what’s important or valuable in the world, the cognitive schemata we have, and the scripts we form? Like the human characters in the movie, our “programming” is the routines and habits that distract us to the point that we're not really making connections to the people next to us. We're not engaging in relationships, which are the point of living: relationship with God and relationship with other people. The greatest commandment Christ gives us is to love, but that’s not always our priority. In WALL-E, two very different, unique (read: defy social constructs) robots are trying to go above their basest directives, literally their “programming”, to experience love.

True, the foundation for the story is that humanity has left the planet heaped in garbage. However, far weightier themes: like how technology distances us from the wonders of creation and how that distance cripples us spiritually; play a bigger role. Robots have always been seen as slaves to mankind, but because they embrace stewardship – and love springs from service – that perhaps they are the only ones that truly have understood the concept of love. This movie’s not an environmental message, it’s a biblical one.

MMORPGs Are Bad: A Fresh Perspective

A mage incinerates her enemies from afar, fiery magic streaking from her fingertips. Wielding the elements of nature with ease, she decides with sinister glee on the next spell she should manipulate. On the other end of the spectrum, we have warriors. Brawn over brain berserkers that often rather rely solely on brute force, but that does not mean they are any less capable then their witching counterparts. You could be anyone; a hero from zero, a powerful and feared bounty hunter, heck, even a maiden in distress if that is your kind of thing. I am of course, referring to the emerging world of virtual fantasy, massive multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG for short.

MMORPGs are specifically the type of online computer games that require investments of time and money, usually to exorbitant amounts. As a result, the stereotyped image of computer gamers is often negative. Besides being a form of addiction, MMORPGs are viewed as an alternate avenue for the socially-dysfunctional. It is believed to be plagued of players with identity crisis, and others who cannot see the distinction between real life accomplishments and in-game acquisitions.

What draws people to spend enormous portions of their life on achievements measured by pixels on a digital screen? The truth is that MMORPGs have great appeal because they are able to cater to very different motivations of play, all at the same time. One way of understanding these differences is by exploring how male and female players seem to prefer very different aspects of MMORPGs. For the majority of male players, the most obvious appeal derives from the elements of achievement in these environments. Guys love the fact that they earn exclusive boasting rights after accumulating tangible wealth, rare items and power. This refers to the males being more concerned with logos, or what is communicated during speech. However, for the majority of the female players, their main appeal comes from the joy of chatting, making friends, and affiliating with larger social groups such as guilds. This refers to the lexis, or how the speech is delivered, rather than the content. For females, the focus of the game is in building relationships, and killing monsters is something you can do while chatting, whereas for the male players, the focus of the game is in killing monsters, and chatting is something you have to do to coordinate battle plans!

Along the same lines, some argue “virtual relationships” are inherently meaningless, as one can hide behind a computer screen and portray himself anyway he wishes. This is because in a MMORPG, you could be anyone, possessing any skills, limited only by the boundaries of your imagination. They believe that the interactive model of communication that the net provides also allows you the time to plan and regulate your responses. However, do consider we all wear masks in real life! It is naive to assume that we get to know a person intimately merely because we can interact with them with the transactional model (face to face). On the other end of the spectrum, this might even be a good thing! The removal of physical cues such as age, appearance, race and social class forces players to interact with each other with far fewer prejudices and stereotypes than they would in real life.

Another line of critique argues that this make-believe virtual world is not only pointless, but also perhaps of danger to teenagers who may lose hold of their real identities. First then, lets question what “real” identity refers to in modern times. According to the social constructionist perspective, are they social cages called expectations enforced by our family and friends? People might expect us to act in ways that might not necessarily reflect who we truly are, unknowingly trapping us in our own masks. Without this expectations in-game, MMORPGs allow you to embrace or even discover your true self! Also important to note, there is a distinction between identity and role. There is nothing wrong with having many roles as everyone does too shift between multiple roles in modern society. Take for example; a teenage boy is a student, a son, a brother, a group leader and a member of a team all at the same time. Do we ask ourselves if the brother is losing himself in the role of the son?

In fact, maturity is about the accumulation and balance of roles, and more importantly, the understanding of life from different perspectives. I believe with careful supervision, the virtual worlds that exist in MMORPGs provide truly safe spaces for trying out different roles and perspectives. Change only occurs after knowing what you are not, and testing out different roles and personalities is the kind of experimenting that all teenagers go through anyway. The difference is that this experimentation is much safer in these virtual worlds. Is this something we should shun?