Resolution

Until I have finished the first draft of my university application essay, I shall abstain from the following activities.

1) Blogging activities of all kinds (writing and reading)
2) All webcomics and online manga (good bye Naruto, Order of the Stick)
3) All television programmes and movies
4) All computer and console games

In essence, I shall be ripped away from most of the activities that siphon away my precious time from the important task at hand. Sigh, looks like next week will be tough.

City-CentreTraffic: N-Player PD?

I swear that there is an ongoing conspiracy to make me give up Krispy Cream for Crème Brule, Hamburgers for Pork Knuckles, Broadway for West End, Sex and the City for Coupling, etc. I swear, if they don’t stop soon, I may soon find myself at Heathrow instead of JFK Airport

But then again, why limit my options, I thought to myself, and thus, I decided to research Oxford’s Economics department. I didn’t find much useful material pertaining to the undergraduate application, but I did stumble across a collection of research papers written by the professors there. Talk about looking for a few grams of gold and finding the mother lode.

One paper which I found particularly interesting was a study which sought to disprove the representation of city-centre traffic as an n-player Prisoner Dilemma.

“Impressed by the elegance of the PD theory, social policy theorists have too casually assumed that the PD provides an adequate analogy for real-world social dilemmas, such as the traffic problem or, more recently, panic -buying of fuel (Hallsworth & Tolley, 2000).”

Let us first start with a two player game. Let us first assume that there are only two people in the city, Tom and I, who wish to enter the city centre, and that they can choose to drive or not to drive (take the public transport, walk, cycle, etc). We assume that the roads are so narrow that having two cars on the same road causes enough congestion to hamper both drivers.

Let X_Y be the term used to represent each person and his preferred mode of transport (X to represent the mode and Y to represent the person). For example, D_T would represent a case when Tom is driving and N_I would represent a case when I’m not driving.

In order for payoff,

For Tom: D_TN_I > N_TN_I > D_TD_I > N_TD_I
For Me: D_IN_T > N_IN_T > D_ID_T > N_ID_T

The best case for Tom (he gains the most utility) would occur when he drives and I don’t, since he would enjoy both the mobility of a car and not be boggled down with traffic congestion caused by two cars on the road.

The next best situation would be if both of us don’t drive since we would both reach the city centre without suffering the negative effects of private transport caused by others (congestion, pollution, etc).

The third best situation would be both of us driving. While relative to this situation, the two of us would prefer to cooperate and both not drive, if the other drives, our best option is to drive as well. This would be preferable, from Tom’s viewpoint, to a case when Tom takes public transport while I drive, the worst of the four possible outcomes.

The table below shows a more graphical representation of the case, where the first number refers to my payoff and the second number refers to Tom’s payoff. The higher the number, the greater the value of the payoff.

	Tom Doesn’t Drive	Tome drives
I Don’t Drive	(3,3)	(1,4)
I Drive	(4,1)	(2,2)

From the table, it can be inferred that if Tom doesn’t drive, then I can reap maximum benefits by driving. It can also be inferred that if Tom drives, I can reap maximum benefits by driving, although the benefits reaped in such a situation would be lesser than the previous one. Thus, mine dominant strategy is to drive since regardless of what Tom does, I reap maximum benefits.

Tom would think in a similar way, and thus choose to drive too. Thus, both of us would end up driving, reaping a (2,2) payoff even though both of us would prefer to cooperate and reap a (3,3) payoff. That is the irony of the PD, that when both of act rationally to maximise our payoff, the converse happens.

The same concept can be extended to a multiplayer game as long as driving remains a dominant strategy. Do note that that the payoff takes into account all factors including time taken, convenience, cost, cultural reasons, etc. Thus, while everyone has different preferences, we assume an averaged payoff for the general populace which encompasses all these factors.

Table 1.1

	Populace Doesn’t Drive	Populace Drives
I Don’t Drive	(3,3)	(1,4)
I Drive	(4,1)	(2,2)

This leads to traffic congestion as everyone chooses to drive. The same concept can be used to explain phenomena like why everybody rushes to withdraw money from the bank during a depression upon hearing rumours of its insolvency (which leads to its actual insolvency in the absence of vast amount of reserves or governmental intervention).

Or can it?

The authors of the paper go on to disprove the generalisation of n-player PD from 2-player PD in traffic conditions using vigorous statistical methods. I shan’t harp on that but shall instead write about my take on the issue.

In the two player game, we assumed that if both Tom and I drove, the congestion caused would lead to a diminished payoff, which would happen if the roads to the city centre were extremely narrow. Thus, we can infer that there must be a certain threshold congestion point, below which the populace can drive without causing significant diminished payoffs. What is the game like for such congestions?

Table 1.2

	Populace Doesn’t Drive	Populace Drives
I Don’t Drive	(2,2)	(1,4)
I Drive	(4,1)	(3, 3)

Driving remains a dominant strategy (Table 1.2) and this quickly leads to a build-up in traffic, bringing it to the equilibrium point (represented by the Table 1.1), and beyond. However, I assert that past the equilibrium point, the payoffs shown in Table 1.1 do not hold. Let us first consider another two player game between Tom and me, but this time when the roads to the city centre is already crowded.

Table 1.3

	Tom Doesn’t Drive	Tom Drives
I Don’t Drive	(4,4)	(3,2)
I Drive	(2,3)	(1,1)

In this case, I assume that if I’m driving, I’m made worse off if Tom drives as well since he adds to the congestion and pollution (the marginal effect is small but since I will be generalising to a n-player game, I think it’s best to include it). The same logic can be used to explain why if I don’t drive, I’m made worse off if Tom drives.

Unlike the game shown in Table 1.1, the dominant strategy when the roads are already congested is to not drive.

Let us now consider the n-player game. Assume that traffic conditions have been deteriorating since Monday, and yesterday (Thursday), word spread that it was much more convenient to take public transport. A rational person who has equal access to both his car and public transport would have a greater incentive to choose to take public transport, leading to a reduction of traffic on roads. In this way, a negative feedback loop is formed, ensuring that traffic congestion does not spiral out of control (in fact, it ought to hover near this congestion point) as predicted by an n-player PD.

But what good is this analysis, for if conditions hover near congestion point, it would already mean that cars are being delayed on roads. I’m not so sure myself (I only have a few hours of formal economics training) but, it seems systems are most efficient at equilibrium so by extrapolation, some kind of efficiency must be reached in this system as well. When I do find out, I’ll add it in.

Drunk

I’m totally drunk. I’m not sure if it was the Chivas Regal or the Gin, but whatever the cause, I’m totally inebriated.

And it’s times like this when I think about the what ifs. What if I got an A1 for English during the O Levels like I deserved to instead of the odious B4 (which I still believe to be a fluke)? Then again, what difference would it have made? Maybe it’s better this way? Argh, why? Why?

Bah, I think it’s all the alcohol. It’s gone to my brain, and hasn’t just affected my writing facilities.

PS: This post should be deleted for disjointedness, plain stupidity and lack of discretion. But maybe it will serve as a warning not to get so wasted next time. I guess I ought to be glad that I wasn’t around with mutual friends. Can’t imagine the consequences of accidentally blurting out stuff. Bah!

Economics and My Liver

Literature, History and Economics, three subjects which I think I will like, three subjects which I didn’t read in Junior College because I though I was better in the sciences, three subjects which I will try to read in University to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. How ironic, how strange, how sad!

I remember during my mid-terms in Junior College, when the horror and regret I faced when I chose Biology over Economics had reached its crescendo, (try memorising page after page of gibberish --- and yes, to me, the difference between a plant cell and an animal cell is gibberish) I decided to do something outrageous: I would, using what little I knew about economics, answer my biology essay with economics jargon and concepts. The exact question eludes my memory, but I remember it was something about the functions of the liver. (non-biology students will be surprised by how many pages of crap you can write about one small organ.)

I explained how a combination of specialisation, division of labour and economies of scale vis-à-vis specific liver cells could lead to allocative efficiency in the production of hormones, blood proteins and other products. I think I mentioned marginal utility as well, just for good measure. And of course, I made it a point to use the phrase “ceteris paribus” at least once per paragraph, for I just loved the sound of anything Latin (classy).

It was a move that certainly wouldn’t endear me to any economics teacher (I massacred the subject), but seeing that I didn’t have one, I wasn’t overly concerned. And the final twist? I received a surprisingly good grade for the essay. The marker must have known shit about economics too.

Office Antics

Yesterday, I had a chat conversation with a friend whom I had not spoken to for quite a long time.

Latingirl: Everyone thinks I am weird.
Me: Of course you are not. I think you are perfectly normal, and charming too.
Latingirl: You don't know me well enough.

The worse things about MSN conversations is you can’t judge, based on the other party’s facial expressions, whether she means it in jest. But, I would rather err on the wrong side of caution than risk her feeling unhappy.

Thus the game plan: to regale her with tales of how weird I am in office so as to make her seem normal by comparison. And so I started; I told her about how I would waltz around the corridors, how I would ask stupid questions like whether it was possible to get a girl pregnant by injecting semen into her bloodstream, etc. Halfway-through the mission, I realised one important fact: I was truly strange, at least in the office. Who else asks questions like why people don’t build hotels on mountains --- that way mountain climbers don’t have to sleep in tents at night.

Was I revelling in getting a raise out of people? Was I secretly laughing at people’s ineptness to realise that they were being tricked? Was I trying to mask the reality of being incarcerated by asylum-like behaviour? Was I playing out the role of a jester?

Religious Faith

Today was OSC day, and thus, instead of our usual gourmet fare from the cookhouse, we had to settle for plain old chicken by old man Col Sanders. Now, before we started to eat, our resident atheist (if you are actually just an agnostic in disguise, I apologise) asked if anyone wanted to say Grace.

This sparked off much introspection: here’s a man who is firmly anti-religion, someone who threatened to disembowel me when I called him a catholic, someone who I wouldn’t bet against burning crosses and bibles; yet, ironically, he had the decency to ask if we wanted to adhere to our religious practices, and I, a self-professed Christian, was more busy with the chicken (the KFC chicken). For shame honestly, for shame.

And yet it wouldn’t matter as much had this been an isolated event, a momentary lapse of willpower in the face of temptations like chicken (again, the KFC chicken), but it wasn’t. It was simply yet another instance in a long line of impious acts.

I remember what my Pastor once said: “The biggest problem facing the Christian community is that too many of us are Christians only on Sundays.” I’m not a Sunday-only Christian; I’m a crisis-only Christian. It seems that I turn to God only when I’m beleaguered and in the greatest need of an emotional or spiritual crutch. I became deeply religious when my aunt, one of my closest relatives in Singapore, died this year, but as the pain subsided, so did my religious faith.

Or perhaps “religious faith” is the wrong phrase, for it seems to connote a lack of belief in the existence of God and his miracles. I do believe in the greatness of God, but the inertia is simply too great. I went to church twice last year, and on both occasions I was invited by a well-meaning Michelle. But now that she’s in Penn, there’s simply no one to help drag me to church.

Somehow all my other responsibilities seem to have higher priority; and yet, when I’m in need of succour, I go crying back to God, expecting him to help even though I pay him scant attention the rest of the time.

有事钟无艳，无事夏迎春

I’m truly ashamed and penitent. But I wonder if that will translate to action?

Observation

Still waters do indeed run deep. I wonder what else lies beneath that stoic countereance.

Dancing Down Orchard Road

Today was one of the more fun nights I had in quite a while: to start, Anonymous Playboy joined Amanda, Kok Heng and I for dinner and soon got down to what he excelled at.

Anonymous Playboy (turning to Amanda): Why do I hang around with people like Kok Heng and Daniel instead of interesting and intelligent people like you?
Amanda: Anonymous Playboy, you’ve known me for all of two minutes.

Smooth Anonymous Playboy, smooth. Actually, I think that she may have been flattered had you not told her about your conversation a few days ago.

Anonymous Playboy (over the phone): Kok Heng, I’ll call you back later. I’m trying to get laid here.
Girls around him (obviously miffed): What! Do we look like we are so loose?
Anonymous Playboy (starts laughing): What do you think?

Before continuing, some background information: Amanda was my first ever dance partner and we learnt Salsa together. However, while she took to Salsa like a fish takes to water, I wasn’t as half inclined or talented (which reminds me of the time I got thrown off the powerboat while wakeboarding with Ken, Eunice and Jia Yang). In fact, I was quite ready to give up dancing forever, but I guess fate makes sport of man.

Anyway, in spite of my musical impairment and salsa-phobia, we decided that it was time to burn the floor, and what ensued was a crazy night of dancing as Amanda and I started Salsa-ing down Orchard Road. In spite of the weird looks we received from bystanders and I only knowing the basic steps, it was fun, great fun. We really must do it again =D

PS: It’s not so much that I have suddenly developed a love for Salsa; rather, having not danced for quite some time, I’m desperate, utterly desperate, for dance, any kind of dance. Now if I can only persuade Amanda to take up the Waltz with me before she leaves for Boston.

Brave New World

It seems that I’ve underrated Brave New World. I originally meant to read it on a dare and didn’t expect to enjoy it. However, I’ve been, thankfully, mistaken.

Nevertheless, I feel that my understanding of it is rather superficial. It has, after all, been hailed as one of the most startling, provocative and prescient novels ever written. Thus, I shall attempt to get Ming De to teach me how Literature students analyse books, how they spot the dominant motifs and themes, etc, and hope to be able to apply some of these skills in the inevitable second-reading.

I could simply read Sparknotes, and I may, but I would much rather learn to fish. Besides, to simply imbibe Sparknotes’ interpretation and pass it off as mine without further processing would be stupid, criminal even and yet so instinctive, results of years of conditioning.

There is only one correct answer, one correct interpretation. There are no grey areas, only Black or White, and sometimes not even two. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an enemy. Recognise them, hunt them down, and disparage them. Diaphanous they are, threat to society they are, Art students they are.

Random thoughts that didn't fit in anywhere else

I found Brave New World to be chillingly provocative, especially when juxtaposed against our consumerist world. It certainly has provide much food-for-thought, even if I’m still unable to recognise all the literary devices or unable to identify the growth of the characters. Yet, is that really important? What am I supposed to get out of a good book: an in-depth understanding of the plot and characters, or the message, be it a moral, ideological or warning, that the author wanted to bring across? Or are they hopelessly intertwined? So many questions, so few answers. Is this what I’m supposed to feel?

Literature

In a bid to sound more learned, I have decided to do three things in July.

Enjoy JK Rowling’s thrilling novel, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (okay, not exactly literature but who cares!)

Read Aldous Huxley’s seminal piece, Brave New World

Survive Plato’s soporific tome, The Republic.

GP Tutors

20 year old male seeking young, nubile, attractive female. Willing to pay high rates for personalised services.

To all who think that my desperateness has reached new levels, let contrition flood your sorry soul, let guilt and remorse overwhelm your sick mind, for I’m actually looking for an English teacher.

My writing style is horrendous and has two defining characteristics: the first being long and largely incoherent sentences that go on and on like a never-ending river, addling the mind of the reader, testing the extents of his patience and short-term memory, pushing the limits of punctuations’ role in assisting the formation of meandering sentences, all for the sake of being irritating. The second? Curt prose.

Unfortunately just like two lefts do not make a right, two extreme forms of writing do not make for a balanced way of writing, and I’m effectively, in the absence of a more apt term, screwed unless I can correct them before the SAT. Sad right?

Normally, I would simply look up the classified ads, pick a GP tutor and randomly quote prices based on gut instinct and the timbre of the voice over the phone. Cut and dried. But today, for posterity sakes, we (and by we, I really mean I, but anything to make you feel involved) shall attempt something different, something revolutionary, something scientific. Drumroll please!

But first, a few words from our money-grubbing and unkind lawyers: the text below contains my interpretation of economics theories and are meant in good humour. As of the time of writing, I have only two hours’ worth of knowledge, and if you are a purist who hates to see your beautiful subject get desecrated, please avoid reading the next few paragraphs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the biggest criticisms of economics is it having too many assumptions. This seems to imply that any decent economics paper ought to have truck loads of assumptions and hence, being someone who aims to please, I present my first assumption.

It’s acceptable to make assumptions in an economics paper.

Circular logic I know, but hey, it’s a start. Things will start getting hot and heavy are just heating up.

Before continuing, let me outline the aims of this exercise. I want to hire someone to help me improve my grammar, vocabulary, expression and writing style in preparation for the upcoming SAT I Writing test in October. In particular, I wish to break away from the “GP-writing-mould”, or the rigid writing structure taught in GP classes which I deem to be overly stiff. Thus, I’ll prefer a university student reading Law, Politics, etc to a JC teacher who I feel will be locked in the GP form of expression.

EDIT: After much thought, I’m now inclined to believe that a Literature lecturer would be the best choice. However, I have to consider the state of my finances.

Before more in-depth discussion can be pursued, I must make the following assumption:

Man is rational and attempts to maximise benefits while simultaneously minimising costs.

Following which we must decide if we wish to maximise benefits or to minimise costs. I propose that the former can be accomplished by fixing the amount we are willing to pay (we thus select the best teacher for that fixed amount) and the latter can be attained by fixing the approximate standard of the teacher (we then choose the cheapest teacher for the chosen standard). Deciding on the approach is not meant to reduce the teacher’s fee demanded but rather to maximise the usage of our time. I’m rather cash-strapped at the moment so we opt for the latter.

The next set of crossroads: should we pay him/her according to much we value his/her time, or according to how much he/she values his/her own time? A quick simulation shows that the first option is inferior.

Case 1:

My valuation < his/her opportunity cost

He won’t take up the deal.

Case 2:

My valuation = his/her opportunity cost

He takes up the deal and I do not overpay him. Best scenario for me.

EDIT: Sheng Quan informed me that this case is the turning point and in practice, one has to take into account switching costs and thus one needs to make an offer slightly above opportunity cost. However, even if we take that into account, I believe my original hypothesis still stands, except now the criteria for overpaying should be a valuation exceeding k, where k is a constant that is slightly greater than the opportunity cost.

Case 3:

My valuation > his/her opportunity cost

He takes up the deal but I overpay him. Worst scenario for me.

Assume that there are plenty of tutors, and thus, should a tutor refuse my offer, I can easily seek someone else.

The probability that Case 2 occurs is low and thus we will in all likelihood overpay the tutor. Moreover, one has to consider the practicality of assigning valuations in this situation. I believe that in calculating valuations, one has to rely on estimated marginal utility which is based on either prior experience with the product or similar substitutes, or testimonials from others. Since we have never been taught by the tutor, we obviously cannot rely on first-hand experience. Furthermore, quality and methods of teaching vary greatly from teacher to teacher and a relationship between these and easily-verifiable things like qualifications seems to be tenuous at best. Thus accurate valuation becomes difficult, making this approach unfeasible.

We are then left with using how much the tutor values his time to determine price. Initially we felt that while there was a market for GP tuition, most students preferred actual JC lecturers, and thus there was a low demand for GP tutors who were young and relatively inexperienced (perhaps university students or NSFs from the Humanities Faculty). According the Law of Supply and Demand, since demand was low and supply was relatively high (large number of people who fit this criteria), price ought to be low. However, we soon realised that many of these potential tutors who were good enough to teach GP were also equally skilled in Economics, and that relative to GP, students seeking help in economic were less picky vis-à-vis academic qualifications, and thus demand was higher. All other things being equal (neglecting the added pool of university students who can teach economics but not GP), they could charge a higher rate for economics tuition.

We assumed that the tutor will judge the desirability of an offer based on its opportunity cost. Thus, while it is likely that the tutor may not be offered fees (for GP) which exceed that I offered, assuming the tutor has no significant preference for teaching GP over economics, he can obtain higher fees from teaching economics. Hence we must offer a rate that matches that from economics tuition.

However, due to us being new to economics, we lack the necessary tools and formulas to calculate this rate using a scientific method. Thus, we shall have to resort to the time-tested formula of calling the tuition agency and just randomly quote fees. Well, at least we tried. Till next time.