I went for my first H3 math lesson today. well, it was high time anyway; cant expect to be able to take 2 H3s while just sitting around doing nothing. the lesson itself was quite manageable, and i had panyu for company, so i guess it was quite ok. the real killer wasnt in the lesson itself, though, but rather the lessons before that - namely 6 Graph Theory chapters and 2 Sets chapters... holy crap i dunno how in the world im supposed to be able to catch up now T_T
while i was on the bus home today, a man carrying a small kid in his arms boarded. the boy (im presuming his son) looked maybe 2-3 years old, and the father didnt have one of those carry-your-baby-like-a-backpack things, so im guessing he was struggling quite a bit. there were still quite a few seats available on the bus, but they were scattered throughout the bus. i guess the father was uncomfortable with leaving his toddler sitting alone with a stranger, so he sat down next to another guy with his son still in his arms. time passed, and they guy was still sitting there, seemingly oblivious to the fact that right next to him was a man who needed a seat so that his son could be comfortable. it was pretty obvious that nothing was going to happen, so i gave him my seat (i had an empty seat next to me so that he could sit with his son). and after that, i sat next to they guy who didnt give his seat in the first place.
i understand why people might not want to help if it entails some form of self-sacrifice. no matter how selfish it seems, self-preservation is nearly always at the top of our priorities, and we could never fault someone for placing himself over another. but what happened on the bus challenges my long-held belief that humans are kind by nature; that in the absence of sacrifice there would be nothing preventing a person from doing good and he would thus do it instinctively. there were so many seats available on the bus that the guy could have easily just shifted to another seat and let the father have two joined seats for his son. personally i dont even feel like i have done a good deed, cos i wasnt even giving up my seat, but just shifting to another seat. what does this mean for my belief: that humans are not actually intrinsically good, or that people's threshold for "sacrifice" has gone down to such ridiculous levels?
on a random note: when you put objects into groups it's called organisation; when you put animals into groups it's called classification; when you put people into groups it's called segregation. why do we strive to achieve economic efficiency with our manpower, selecting the elites for grooming while ignoring the "average" majority, when it is clear as day that people are not mere "capital equipment" to play around with? the unique thing about manpower (some might say it's a hindrance) is that it hates being categorised based on capability, and will always fight back no matter how inoffensive it is made to look like. whether you want to gather the cream of the crop of sports, art, music, academics, or just about any skill you can think of, there will be people protesting that the rest are neglected, or that we are not all given a fair chance to prove and develop ourselves, or some other reasons. and of course the lucky few who were chosen will retort that they have proven themselves to be the most promising and thus the bulk of attention should be focused on them, and that the "average" majority should try to prove themselves instead of whining about their plight.
my personal opinion? i feel that elitist as it seems, special attention to the gifted minority of our society is definitely needed for society as a whole to progress. what use is an enitre nation of secondary school physics teachers compared to a single einstein who can come up with a theory of relativity? in much the same way, we can only hope to progress as a community if we invest in those few bright sparks who can truly single-handedly pioneer new changes in our lives. still, that does not mean we should simply ignore everyone else - einstein may be arguably the most prominent physicist of all time, but in no way was he the only contributor to the realm of physics. credit has to be given to the other less famous but still equally important discoveries made by other scientists of that time. similarly, we should always strive to close the gap between the elites and the laymen, allowing the non-elites to also contribute to society. in my opinion, an ideal education system would be one where talent is reconised and built upon immediately, as and when it shows itself. this way, there would be no cases where people are unable to develop to their fullest potential simply because they discovered their abilities late and missed some entrance test set at some arbitrary time. the laymen would constantly have the chance to earn their right to acheive their full potential, and the elites would constantly be challenged to prove their worth and stretch their limits in the face of competition.
i guess it is quite ironic that after my initial critique of treating people in economic terms, i should propose an economic concept as the answer to our problems. confused? if you're an SH2 economics student, then try reading up again on the theory of contestable markets from last year and spot the similarities between that and what im suggesting here. elite group = monopoly, entrance test = barrier to entry. mr hussain would be proud, yeah? :)
let us not forget that despite everything that einstein had acheived, he was born with learning disabilities and was nearly denied an education because he was a late bloomer.
