Author: Jinavie

Posted in History & Literature

Rosetta Stone

Posted on by Jinavie

In 1799, during Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt, a French officer named Pierre-François Bouchard came across a granite slab a couple of miles from a port city named Rosetta. The slab – about 112cm by 75cm in size – was densely filled with ancient inscriptions on one face of it. But strangely, there were three distinct languages written on the slab: Egyptian hieroglyphs, an unknown script and Greek.

The discovery of this stone sparked immediate scientific interest. Up until this point, no scholar had been able to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs. The hieroglyphs had not been used formally for almost 1800 years, so the way to read it had been lost to time. Europe was going through an “Egyptomania” at the time, with great interest in this ancient civilisation. However, little was known about the culture as the ancient texts could not be read.

People quickly noted that there was a strong chance that the so-called “Rosetta Stone” contained the same text in three different languages, which meant that if you could translate one of the languages, then you could decipher the alphabet of the other two. This proved to be true, with the text being a royal decree exempting priests from taxation. Numerous scholars from all over Europe pored over the Rosetta Stone to solve the mystery of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The first step was to translate the Greek version, as ancient Greek had already been studied in depth by scholars.
Around a similar time, a Swedish linguist named Johan David Åkerblad figured out that the middle, unknown script was Demotic, a cursive script used in ancient Egypt. Åkerblad was able to decipher the Demotic alphabet by comparing it to the Greek script, particularly through comparing names, as both languages were largely phonetic, meaning the characters used to write the name will have the same sounds in the two languages.

The final step – deciphering hieroglyphics – proved to be much harder. It was theorised that hieroglyphs were not phonetic, but ideographic, meaning each letter represented a whole word or concept (similar to Chinese) rather than a sound. If this is true, then it is impossible to decipher the hieroglyphic alphabet just by comparing it to the phonetic Demotic and Greek scripts.

But then, one scholar named Silvestre de Sacy realised that foreign names would have been written phonetically, much like Chinese scripts. This allowed him to zero in to Greek names in each script, such as Ptolemaios, thus creating a skeleton for the phonetic alphabet for both  Demotic and hieroglyphs. Scholars could then use the phonetic reading of hieroglyphs to make more headway into reading the Rosetta Stone.

After 20 years of exhausting research, the Rosetta Stone was finally fully deciphered. The Rosetta Stone is famous because it was the key required to decipher the entire Egyptian hieroglyph system, while birthing the new field of Egyptology. Being able to read hieroglyphs allowed us to better understand the ancient Egyptians’ way of life. Nowadays, the term Rosetta Stone is also used as a symbol of a key to understanding an entirely new field of knowledge.

Posted in History & Literature

Designing Under Constraint

Posted on by Jinavie

You would think that the more freedom the designer has, the more their creativity can flourish and they can produce more original, greater ideas. But it is a well-known fact in the design world that the the best designs are produced when designing under constraint.

Consider the beauty of the canal houses of Amsterdam. In the 17th century, plots of land by the canal were allocated in narrow (but deep) portions to maximise the number of houses. Architects worked around this restriction, resulting in the narrow, tall houses of various shapes and colours that we see today. Another architectural example is Florence and Santorini, where building materials were limited to red bricks or stone painted in white and blue respectively, meaning the buildings shared a consistent colour scheme, while varying in shape – the ideal combination for building a beautiful city.

We see the same in other fields. Photography is limited in the realm of time, as you can only take a snapshot. But by using long-exposure or composite images, time can be represented in unique, beautiful ways. The artistic restriction of painting led to Pablo Picasso pioneering cubism, which attempts to represent the many faces of a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional medium. Great literature can be produced from limitation also, such as haikus or flash fiction, such as the infamous six-word story by Ernest Hemingway: “For sale: baby shoes, never worn”.

There are many reasons why designing under constraint results in greater works.

Firstly, choice and freedom can be paralysing. When we have absolutely no restricitons, rules or guidance, we have difficulty processing the sheer number of possibilities, because there are too many things to consider. We find it much easier to make a decision and proceed when there are a limited number of choices.

Secondly, constraint often comes in the form of consistency. One of the basic rules of graphic design is to limit your colour palette and font types to avoid clutter and messy design. A consistent theme is much more aesthetically pleasing. This is a core principle of minimalism.

Lastly, limitations encourage creativity as the designer has to come up with a way to overcome the restriction only with the available resources.

A fine example is Gothic churches. It was very difficult putting in large windows in church walls as they would cause structural instability. So architects devised flying buttresses to help bear the load. But even then, the technology for building large, transparent glass windows had not been developed. So instead, they pieced together small, coloured glass pieces to make stained glass windows, introducing light in to the church while telling stories from the Bible.

Ironically, limits and restrictions can be the catalyst for something better. Instead of rebelling and fighting against constraint, try adapting and coming up with a creative way to overcome it.

Posted in Philosophy

Changing The Past

Posted on by Jinavie

If time travel was possible and you could go back in time to change one thing in the past, what would you change?
Would you try to change the world by attempting to kill Hitler before World War 2 starts? Would you buy stock of a company you know is doing extremely well in the present? Would you take a leap of faith that you never did, such as asking out someone you didn’t have the courage to, or moving to a city that you always wanted to live in?

If we ignored the numerous hypothetical troubles that come with time travel, such as the grandfather paradox and chaos theory, the possibilities seem endless. This is because hindsight is 20/20 and we have a tendency to obsess over roads not taken and missed opportunities. Even though we cannot change the past, we lament how if we had the choice, we’d make so many changes to make our present and future better.

Now ask yourself this question: if you from the future could travel back in time to now, what changes do you think they’d want to try to make? The thing with time is that it marches on linearly, making every moment a past of the future. A major difference in this scenario is that unlike the first scenario, we actually have the power to change in the present and the future.

So whenever you catch yourself regretting how life would be different if you had made different choices in the past, change your frame of mind. Instead, consider what changes you could make now to make your future self have less regrets. Maybe it is treating yourself (within reasonable limits), or finally taking that trip you always dreamed of, or taking a chance on something you are unsure or anxious about, or keeping resolutions on living a healthy, better life.

Although physics (currently) dictates that time travel is impossible, our minds have the power to travel in time virtually from the future to now, letting us make choices and take actions so we can live with less regrets.

(Image from the movie About Time)

Posted in Science & Nature

Dinosaur Meat

Posted on by Jinavie

Did dinosaurs have red or white meat? Typically, we think of white meat as coming from poultry, such as chicken, duck, turkey, while red meat come from large mammals such as cows, pigs and deer. So if you were to hunt down a stegosaurus or a triceratops and cooked it over a barbeque, what colour would their meat be?

The redness of meat comes from a protein called myoglobin, which carries oxygen from the blood to the muscle cells. It is similar to haemoglobin, which gives blood the characteristic red colour. An important note is that when you see reddish water drip from meat from the butchers, you are seeing myoglobin, not blood (the blood is drained when the meat is prepared).

The difference in colour between red and white meat come from the type of muscle fibres and their myoglobin content.
Red meat is made from slow-twitch fibres, which are useful for sustained activities such as walking or to keep standing. They exert a smaller force over a longer period of time, meaning they require more oxygen for aerobic respiration (a more efficient way of burning fuel using oxygen). Ergo, red meat is full of myoglobin, hence its deep rich red colour.

On the other hand, white meat is made of fast-twitch fibres. These fibres are better suited for quick bursts of energy, such as flying or quickly responding to a threat. These fibres use anaerobic respiration (no oxygen), which allow for a quicker, faster burn of energy, but only for a short time. In birds, the breast muscles are typically very white, but they do have some slow-twitch fibres in other muscle groups such as their wings and legs, which is why there is a distinction between light and dark meat.

So how about dinosaurs? Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds and reptiles, so it would make sense for them to have had white meat. However, the majority of dinosaurs, especially large ones such as sauropods, would have had very powerful muscles with slow-twitch fibres, making their meat quite red. A good example are ostriches. Even though they are birds, their meat is as red as beef because they have powerful leg muscles for running.
Smaller animals such as raptors probably had more white meat akin to modern poultry, as they would require sudden bursts of energy for ambushes.

As for how they would taste, that is something we could not answer until Jurassic Park becomes a reality.

image
Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Confirmation Bias

Posted on by Jinavie

We hate to be wrong. When our beliefs and ideas and knowledge are challenged, we have a strong tendency to become aggressively defensive, going as far as attacking the other person personally. It is extremely difficult trying to change someone’s opinion, because of this strong bias towards our own thoughts. This is confirmation bias.

The problem with confirmation bias is that it creates a vicious cycle, causing us to become more and more rigid in our thinking. Not only do we refuse to change our position when challenged by someone else, we actively seek out proof that we are right.

When we read or hear news or a fact, our brain has a tendency to automatically colour it according to our own beliefs. If it aligns with our beliefs, then we take it as concrete proof that we are right. If it goes against our views, we work hard to prove that there are flaws in the article, such as claiming that the writer is biased, or blatantly ignoring it, while demanding better evidence.

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt eloquently describes this phenomenon into two questions.
When we like the proposition or fact, we ask: “Can I believe this?”. If there is even a single plausible reason, we give ourselves permission to believe it, as it reinforces our views.
However, when we don’t like it, we ask: “Must I believe this?”. Even a single, minor flaw is enough for us to discredit the new information.

This gross bias results in the difficulty of our brain to consider alternative points of view. Furthermore, we now live in the Information Era where abundant information is freely available, meaning that we can easily search up numerous other opinions that align with ours, even if the majority consensus is against us. We choose only to discuss the idea deeply with people who think like us, while fighting tooth and nail against others.

How do we overcome this incredible barrier? Like most cognitive biases, we cannot simply switch it off.

Perhaps the first step is acknowledging that we are very flawed beings that are prone to being wrong.

Then, we can catch ourselves asking “can I” versus “must I”. If we catch ourselves saying “must I believe it?”, then we should become critical of our own thinking and ask ourselves how we would respond if we instead asked the question “can I believe it?”.

At the same time, try to notice when other people are showing confirmation bias. Then, realise that is exactly how ignorant and obtuse you sound when voicing your own confirmation bias.

Finally, remember that it is okay to be wrong. If we never made any mistakes, then we would never grow. How boring would that world be?

Posted in History & Literature

Gordian Knot

Posted on by Jinavie

Legend tells the tale of the Gordian Knot, a knot tied so tightly that it seemed impossible to undo it. The Phrygians’ oracle even prophesised that the person who untied the knot would become the ruler of all of Asia Minor. Many tried to loosen the knot, but the knot remained secure for years.

In fourth century BC, Alexander the Great came to the city amidst his business of conquering everything around him. Of course, he could not pass the challenge by, so he too attempted to unravel the Gordian Knot. But alas, not even the great Alexander could untie it.

He then took a step back and thought to himself that it did not matter how the knot was undone. So he took his sword and sliced the knot in half, much to the shock of his audience. As the oracle prophesised, Alexander ruled the great Macedon Empire, stretching its border past Asia Minor, almost reaching present day China and India.

The story of the Gordian Knot teaches the importance of thinking outside the box. We can tackle a problem again and again without fruition if we try only one method. Just when you start to feel frustrated, take a step back and consider a different approach.

Another lesson is the value of combining two different fields. Instead of using typical knot-untying skills, Alexander chose to use military skills. Many innovations have arisen from borrowing skills and ideas from different fields – known as cross industry innovation.

For example, instead of complicated controller designs for drones, the US Army found using an Xbox 360 controller was far more effective. Computer models simulate the way ants find optimum paths to solve complex mathematical problems such as the Travelling Salesman Problem. The combination of waffles and shoes resulted in the creation of waffle rubber soles to increase traction in running shoes. Many engineering feats borrow ideas from nature, such as the aerodynamic design of planes and structural strength of arches and curves as observed by Gaudi.

This is the philosophy of 1 + 1 = 3.

Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Set In Stone

Posted on by Jinavie

The Pont des Arts bridge in Paris is famous for being the site of “love locks”. Since 2008, tourists in love have been attaching padlocks inscribed with their names on the railings of the bridge. Millions of such locks have since been placed on the bridge, promising eternal love between the couple. Within 6 years, the total weight of the locks was already starting to cause structural damage to the bridge, with sections collapsing into the Seine River. In 2015, the locks were removed to conserve the historical site, but love locks continue to plague various historical sites and tall places around the globe.

People love to leave a mark. Whether it be a “Steve was here” on a wall or an “Alice + Bob” surrounded by a heart on a tree, graffiti has existed since ancient Greece. But why? What is the psychology behind couples wanting to immortalise their love in a lock, or people carving their names into wood or stone?

Perhaps it is because we know how fragile everything in life is. Life is full of uncertainties. We may die at any given moment. What we think of as true, eternal love may shatter as a result of our impulses or fade away with time. Even our identities and sense of self are unstable, for we do not really know who we are. 

This uncertainty scares us. We feel insecure that the things we love and make us happy can disappear. So to soothe ourselves, we obsess over the idea of permanence. Because our love, our lives and our identities are intangible, we write our names into something that is tangible and (perceived to be) permanent.

But nothing is permanent. Bridges fall and walls crumble. A metal lock will do nothing to eternalise your love other than making you feel slightly secure for a moment. Instead, we should embrace the concept of impermanence. 

By accepting that nothing is permanent, we can be more grateful for the transient moments of happiness and beauty in life, enjoying the present rather than trying to preserve the future.

Posted in Life & Happiness

Preempting The Preemption

Posted on by Jinavie

A key tool that evolution gave human beings to survive is the ability to plan for the future. We are able to analyse the information available to us to simulate and predict the future. This allows us to make better choices as we can delay gratification, find optimal solutions and work towards a common goal with others.

However, our ability to predict the future is far from perfect. We are still slaves to our base desires and numerous cognitive biases. We are often either too cynical, thinking of every reason something may fail, or too optimistic, thinking of the best-case scenario. Sometimes our emotions cloud our judgement, while sometimes we rely too much on cold logic, ignoring what our hearts really want.

Another problem is that sometimes we overanalyse things. We may become insecure that a certain problem will cause more issues and heartbreak down the line. We let our fears and anxieties create a chain reaction leading to the worst possible scenario. Instead of trying to work through the problem, we decide to not even try. 

We start to preempt the preemption.

But the thing about the future is that it is inherently unpredictable. There are too many variables and random probabilities involved that no matter how hard we try, we cannot perfectly predict what will happen. What is certain is that if you do not make an effort and pursue something, it will certainly not happen.

Consider the last time you made a major decision, such as deciding to change jobs, or to date someone, or to move to a different city. Did things work out exactly as you planned? Now think back to the times when you gave up on something before even starting because you didn’t think it would work out. Do you think things might have gone differently had you not given up?

It is perfectly reasonable to make a conscious choice not to act or pursue something. But every now and then, even if you feel that things won’t end perfectly, take the leap and make a daring choice. Whether the outcome is good or bad, you gave the future a chance to prove itself. 

Life is like a lottery, and you can’t win anything without buying a ticket.

(Image source: https://xkcd.com/248/)

Posted in Science & Nature

A Beautiful City

Posted on by Jinavie

What makes a city or town aesthetically pleasing? Places such as Prague, Florence and Santorini are famous for their picturesque cityscape. Instead of specific famous buildings or tourist spots, postcards from these areas could just show any part of the city and they would still be beautiful. What sets these places apart? How is it that despite all our technological development, modern cities can’t compare to the beauty of cities that are hundreds or thousands of years old?

Korean architect Yoo Hyun-Joon proposes a theory regarding two factors: material and shape. Consider the following matrix using the two:

Out of these four, the combination that we find the most beautiful is when a city has simple materials but complex shape. For example, Santorini is made only of stone buildings painted white and blue. But because it is built on a volcano, the ground is uneven and the building shapes differ to accommodate for this. Florence is almost entirely made of bricks. Traditional Korean houses were made only of wood. This is because in the old days, due to labour costs and poor logistics, cities were usually built with materials abundant in the surrounding area. Instead of varying materials, architects would challenge the limit of materials with varied shapes.

Nowadays, thanks to trade and globalisation, it is much easier to obtain materials from all over the world such as glass, concrete and steel. Furthermore, we can use industrial vehicles to change the terrain to flatten the ground and we use tall rectangular buildings to maximise space. Thus, we end up with the ugly, chaotic combination of many materials and simple shape.

The solution to making a beautiful city is simple then – create a building restriction that unifies the building material to one. A good example is Newbury Street in Boston, USA. This shopping district is famous for its classy red brick appearance, thanks to a building restriction that ensures every new shop built on the street must have the side of the building facing the street built using red bricks.

Of course, just unifying the building material to any one thing does not solve the issue. For example, cities made of only concrete rarely are as appealing. What is important is to use local materials that best represent the context of the city and the land it was built on.

Posted in History & Literature

The Hill You Die On

Posted on by Jinavie

The Battle of Hamburger Hill is a famous battle of the Vietnam War, where the US military engaged in an attack to try take Hill 937, also dubbed Hamburger Hill. It was a highly controversial battle as the hill held little strategic value and was heavily fortified, yet the army was ordered to launch a frontal assault to try to capture it. After ten days of heavy fighting and the death of hundreds of soldiers, the US forces eventually decided to give up on the hill. The military was heavily criticised for the futile operation and news of the battle contributed to the war losing favour from the American citizens.

This battle may be the origin of the phrase: “is this the hill you want to fight and die on?”. The question is often used somewhat jokingly, but it is a surprisingly powerful and useful frame of mind when it comes to life.

We often find ourselves in disagreement with others, whether it be over ideas, plans or opinions. We may disagree with a plan of action from our superiors, or we may have a difference in opinion with our partner over some matter. Our natural instinct is to argue back to try to win the argument, because everyone hates being wrong. The problem is that the other person will be fighting back just as hard, so the argument can end bitterly with negative consequences in the relationship.

So when you find yourself in an argument, ask yourself: “is this the hill I want to fight and die on?”. There are certainly things worth fighting for, such as your values or if you think the consequences of what you are fighting over is significant enough. However, there are so many arguments where the prize is merely your ego and pride. Is it really worth damaging your relationship with the other person just so you can be right?

If you think this isn’t the hill you want to die on, it might not be worth wasting your emotional energy on the matter. Instead, you may want to compromise and make a conscious choice to let the other person win. Letting the small things go in life and choosing your battles will make a great difference to your happiness and connection to other people.

(Image source: https://xkcd.com/386/)