Your Professor is Your Buddy (1)

Okay, among many other fascinating things that I’ve encountered in the US, probably my professor is the one for me most worth sharing. It’s not that professors here are God-like or demigods, to the contrary for me they are more like buddies. Of course, maybe some students have more formal professors or advisors, so I better take precaution by saying that my experience here is probably not applicable to all US professors.

To begin with, I’d like to share three stories about one of my professors. The first story happened just a few weeks after the first class. That day, the professor was trying to explain something by drawing a diagram on the whiteboard. However, the marker run out of ink.
Professor: The marker run out of ink. Anyone have a marker?
Student (sitting at the back): I got one
Professor: Great, throw it
Student: You want me to throw it to you?
Professor: Sure
*and the marker flew to the professor*
Wew, surely I was shocked that time. How in the hell did a student throw a marker to his professor? But it happened apparently

The second story is again about this particular professor. He is kind of person who forgets to bring markers to class (if I recall it correctly, the only time he brought a marker was the day the marker run out of ink). So, every time he wanted to write something on the board, he always borrowed his students’ markers. One student that most often lent him markers was an undergraduate female student. I think she lent him markers in every class session. And came that day. The professor once again intended to write something on the board but didn’t bring his markers. Thus, he decided to borrow the female student’s markers again. However, to my surprise, that day the professor didn’t want to borrow the markers, he wanted to buy them!
Professor: I feel guilty for always borrowing from you. Let me buy them.
Student: what?
Professor: Name the price. $10 enough?
Student: what? umm, that’s too much
Professor: What about $5? I think that’s fair
Student: umm….
Professor: Okay, I take it as $5
*and he gave her the money in exchange for the markers*
That alone already surprised me, but what made it funny for me was that the next week, the professor once again forgot to bring the markers he had bought from the student And as the consequence, he needed to borrow again from the student, who had bought another set of markers.

In Telling the Story of Indonesia, Truth is Better Than Veiled Reality

Published online at http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/talkback/in-telling-the-story-of-indonesia-truth-is-better-than-veiled-reality/467196

The hardest part about being a foreign student, at least for me, is knowing how to present your country to your foreign friends. The dilemma is always one of knowing whether to be an overly positive ambassador, or a realistic one. The first type refers to an ambassador who always talks about what is good and tries to hide what is bad. In this sense, you are like a salesperson promoting a product to potential customers. On the other hand, a realistic ambassador tells the “truth” about his country, as far as he is able to understand it.

I know many overly positive ambassadors — so many, in fact, that I’ve lost count. They are the ones who try to save face for Indonesia whenever negative news surfaces about the country. They will convincingly argue that the real condition is not that bad and that it is just that the media has been exaggerating to get their slice of market share.

Realistic ambassadors are far more scarce. I don’t know what life experience has eventually led me to join this group. I am not going to write about what kind of people are in this group — that would be like writing about myself. Rather, I would like to share two experiences that I encountered in which foreigners ask me questions about Indonesia.

Where do These Radicals Come From?

Published online on the Jakarta Globe’s blog.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/talkback/where-do-these-radicals-come-from/466256

It is surprising that only few of my friends here in the United States know much about Indonesia. They are aware that there’s country called Indonesia, but that is all. They do not know that Indonesia is world’s fourth most populous country or that it is world’s largest Muslim country. In a discussion on terrorism to commemorate the 9/11 attack, for instance, it was shocking to me that all they knew about terrorism in Indonesia was the first Bali bombing. There was no mention of the Christmas Eve, the Marriott, or the Australian Embassy bombings. I felt compelled to share how Indonesia has also been the victim of terrorism, just like (if not worse than) the United States had been.

On the other hand, those who know about Indonesia seem to have some level of knowledge on inter-religion dynamics in the country. Issues like religious tolerance and minority protection interest them greatly. As a result, sometimes I get questions about religious violence in Indonesia, from people dying in conflicts in Poso to more seemingly trivial violence such as actions of radical groups vandalizing discotheques or beating people. Mostly their concluding statements are, “What is wrong with these people? Why can they be so evil?” I believe many Indonesians share the same assumption pertaining the radicals. Their violence does not make any sense, so it must be they are by nature evil, right?

The Power of Situation

It’s implied when someone asks, “What’s wrong with these people?” is that evil is only be done by bad people. Should that be the case, good people would rarely do bad things and bad people would continue doing bad things. Is that really the case? Let’s consider two stories.

The first comes from psychologist Philip Zimbardo. In his “prison experiment,” people were randomly assigned the role of prisoners and guards. While the purpose of the experiment was to study the effect of role-playing among psychologically normal individuals, things went downhill fast. Guards became sadistic and prisoners got depressed. Zimbardo, who had planned for the experiment to run for two weeks, stopped it after just six days.

The (In)Tolerant Face of Our Youth

Recently, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNS) and the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) released a study on the attitude of Indonesian Muslim Youth in several issues. Among the findings were disagreement towards polygamy from about 85% respondents and perception of 94% respondents that people will be happier if they are married.

In addition, the study also offers promising findings on youth’s perception towards radicalism. More than 82% respondents said they were concerned about the lack of religious freedom. More interestingly, 60% saw radical Islam as their concern. Apparently, Indonesia in the future will be more tolerant than it is now because the youth is more progressive than their old counterparts, right?

Other side of the Same Story

Without intending to undermine the optimism study above offers, it would be unwise to overlook studies that offer evidence to the contrary. Of particular interest is the Institute for the Study of Islam and Peace’s (LaKIP) 2010 survey on socio-religious attitudes of high school students in greater Jakarta.

This controversial study –invited disbelief from the Minister of Religious Affairs himself, among other figures– found that 52% of students agreed with forceful closure of problematic worship house. Worse, the survey claimed 41% students were willing to commit such action. Furthermore, more than 40% students objected any erection of non-Muslim worship house in their neighborhoods.

Loosely speaking, the FNS-LSI’s and LaKIP’s findings seem to contradict each other. The first shows that the youth is concerned by radicalism and intolerance, while the later shows the youth is part of that intolerance. The question then, what kind of face our future generation really has, the tolerant or radical one?

Tuhan ada Disini

Tuhan ada disini
Di hati
Di pikiran
Di setiap nafas
Di setiap kata

Tuhan tidak jauh
Ia dekat
Ada disebelahmu
Di depanmu
Di belakangmu
Ia tidak sanggup jauh dari kamu

Tuhan mencintaimu
Dengan segala yang Ia punya
Dengan semua cinta dalam diri-Nya
Seolah-olah hanya ada kamu dalam hati-Nya

Ia tidak segan menjadi kecil
Hanya untuk bisa bersama kamu
Tidak segan jadi manusia
Agar sama seperti kamu

Dari semua hal yang dapat Ia lakukan untuk kebaikanmu
Ia memilih yang tersulit
Cinta sehabis-habisnya
Cinta sampai mati

Dari semua tempat di alam raya
Ia memilih tempat terkecil untuk tinggal
Hatimu

Tuhan adalah cinta
Ia rindu kamu menyadari
Ia ada disini

Pertapaan Santa Maria, Rawaseneng
11-14 Juli 2011

The Question of Morality in Science (the Satoshi Kanazawa case)

Some days ago, I posted on my wall a work by Satoshi Kanazawa on the relation between physical attractiveness and intelligence. Didn’t I expect that the article would bring me a whole new experience. I just thought that the article would serve only science-for-fun purpose. Nothing more. However, some excellent readers made me aware that Satoshi Kanazawa is indeed a controversial figure. He ever published an article that suggests religiosity is in negative relation with intelligence; which implies that atheists are smarter than theists. Recently, he was fired from Psychology Today for publishing study on “Why Black Woman are Unattractive.” No surprise, the study invited anger from blacks and minorities rights groups.

What I am interested to write about in this note is not Satoshi Kanazawa himself, but about what is ethical or unethical in science. Of particular focus, this note will talk about two things. The first is my personal opinion about what can be considered ethical and what can’t. The second is my response to people who accuse Satoshi Kanazawa as not “scientific enough.” In order to make things clear first, I’m not a supporter of Satoshi.

What is ethical and what is not.

To be fair, I don’t think there exists clear boundaries on what is moral and immoral. Eventually it’s for each of us to judge. And because it’s for each of us to judge, sometimes we argue that Einstein or Madam Curie could also be considered immoral because their work on nuclear and radioactive bring harm to people. Which one were they, moral or immoral? I answer the question with another question: what were their purposes in doing the research? For the good of mankind? For the harmony of society? For improving the life of people? Or merely for popularity?

Furthermore, I’d like to borrow from psychology to judge whether a work is moral or immoral. Does a study harm the human participant? Little Albert demonstration by John Watson provided invaluable insight to the question of how trauma develops, but it is morally wrong because little Albert was traumatized during the experiment, and never healed.

So, back to Satoshi, in my opinon, Satoshi is politically wrong, but scientifically innocent. It is like a nuclear physicist found a technique for a new-super atomic bomb and decided to publish it in technical details in a journal. Scientifically wrong? No. Politically idiot? Yes. Satoshi is just the same.

If one is to derogate Satoshi, then it is not by saying that the finding is unscientific. It is by saying that Satoshi has not the wisdom to pursue questions that is worth scientific attention, is morally justified, and is socially beneficial for building a harmonic community.

Love is All Around, yet It’s no Fairy Tale

On November 4, 2007, Patrick Moberg took a late subway from Union Square, New York.
On the train, he encountered a girl, for whom he felt “this is the girl of my dream.”
As the man tried to gathering courage to greet the girl, he lost her in the crowd of man.
No chance to know more about her.

Yet, he kept thinking of her, and decided to make an extraordinary step to find her.
He drew a description of her

disseminated it to friends, colleagues, and even built a website http://www.nygirlofmydreams.com/.
All to find her.

Kisah 1001 Unyu

Hasil permenungan tentang arti kata Unyu
Diambil dari http://twitter.com/nathanaelmu
Didedikasikan untuk segenap Unyu, baik calon Unyu, Unyu masa kini, maupun mantan Unyu

——————————————————————————-

Besok gw operasi bro, doain y
Serius lo? Kenapa?
#Unyu buntu gw pecah niy
-_-

Gw suka banget tuh lagu Sheila on 7
Yang mana?
Yang ‘coba kau #unyu satu bintang’…
*tunjuk  #jauhTapiMaksa

Guys, main yuk, gw baru beli kartu #unyu niy
???
*uno   #UnyuJadiMainan

Anjrit, kaki gw keseleo niy
Cepet dibawa ke mbah-mbah #unyu aja Bro
*urut   #UnyuEdisiMbahMbah

Mase kenopo?
Iki Dok, #unyu kulo sakit
???
*untu   #unyuEdisiDokterGigi

Just Because (for a friend)

Just because someone has left you doesn’t mean everyone else will also leave you

Just because someone has hurt you, doesn’t mean no one will ever prefer hurt himself to hurt you

Just because someone didn’t keep his promise to keep you safe, doesn’t mean no one will ever do his best to protect you

Just because someone treats love as play, doesn’t mean you can’t find someone who gives love the respect it deserves

Just because you never found a love that worked, doesn’t mean there is no such thing as everlasting love

Just because someone you trusted betrayed you, doesn’t mean you mustn’t trust someone anymore

Chasing Ghost

In the recent days, Indonesians have got a new –but indeed is not– term to be familiar with: NII (Negara Islam Indonesia or Indonesian Islamic State). The abbreviation attracts public attention ever since the foiled attempt to explode Christ Cathedral church as well as since reports continue to grow about missing persons suspected to be the victims of NII recruitment.

So popular the organization so that it draws comments from the country’s elites, ranged from the Army Chief of Staff, the Minister of Education, to the President himself. Condemnations and vows of commitment to handle the problem are usually what the comments are about. NII is seen as the best representation of radicalism and how religious extremism becomes a threat to Indonesia. It works underground, far beyond public and state scrutiny. Shortly speaking, NII is like ghost whose presence we cannot identify but whose notoriety on radicalism frightens us all.

The Obvious

Unfortunately, in contrast with attention given to the ghost, public and the government in particular seem to give much less attention to other problem of radicalism. Cases of violence towards Ahmadiyah, vandalism of worship houses, growing intolerance in the country, or disobedience of Bogor Regency Administration towards Supreme Court’s decision on GKI Yasmin, are just examples about which the government indeed could, but so far has not, done more to handle the problem.

Recent study by Paramadina Foundation on church erection in Jakarta, for example, shows that churches that had experienced problems in the construction process but later were able to solve it all were supported by the government, including the police as security apparatus. The government support has been the crucial part for the churches. On the other hand, churches that still experience problems to date, have no such privilege. Either the government actively opposes the church (like what happens in GKI Yasmin) or it leaves the churches to deal with their problems alone.

The ironic thing is, violence towards Ahmadiyah and resistance towards particular worship house are easily visible, felt, and found. Even the organizations involved in the actions can be mentioned easily. They are not ghost. We can touch them, and they do not work in underground. But for most of us, what is easily seen is less interesting than intangible ghost called NII. We care less about religious violence than talking about NII.