Commentary on "The Staid Young"

Link to article:






Can small countries have significant voice in world affairs?










Are socio-economic models useful in predicting societal actions?

The world that we live in is complex, hence, models are developed to help us comprehend and predict human behavior. These models are important, not only for individuals to make decisions, for businesses to make changes to their business methods, and even for policy makers to develop their social policies.

     Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Framework for Human Development is a model which predicts how the five environmental systems with which an individual interacts will influence the character and behavior of a child. Parents can then decide how they should teach their child and impart the correct values in them. The education system can also be tailored to be more effective according to this model. In addition, from the economic theories and models that we derive, we learn that businesses operate in order to maximize their profits, and individual customers make buying decisions to optimize their utilities, like happiness and satisfaction. Hence, the price of a product is determined by demand and supply. At the same time, demand for the product reduces if prices go up. For example, if I wanted to buy a new iPhone, but when I find out that its price is increased significantly, I may change my mind and purchase a Samsung SIII instead. Understanding of such a model allows manufacturers to better predict consumer behavior, and thus business decisions to be made.

However, while models may be useful in predicting the human behavior, they are not always accurate. Some researchers conduct social experiments to verify or challenge the predictions made in models. The Milgram experiment exposed that people are willing to obey a figure of authority, even if the latter’s instructions conflicted with their personal conscience. The Asch Experiment was another famous social experiment designed to test how peer pressure to conform would influence a person’s judgment and ultimately his decisions. Back to the example of hand phones, if most of my friends have iPhones and it is perceived in society that iPhones are better, I may choose to buy the iPhone even if it costs much more than the Samsung. In this case, the economic model cannot accurately predict my final decision. It is reported that although the prices of luxury goods such as Louis Vutton handbags increased, its sales increased unexpectedly. This went against the demand and supply model which would have predicted sales to have decreased instead.  

Just because models cannot be applied to every single case does not change the fact that they are relevant to our daily lives. They allow government policy makers and business decision makers to understand and predict behaviors of a large population, since these models are largely accurate at predicting behaviors at a macro level. Models are useful because it is the only practical way of predicting the way a large population acts. On the other hand, as some social experiments show that predictions using models may not be accurate at all times, it is essential to understand the limitations of models. We can in fact modify these models to make them more encompassing of exceptions, and make them more accurate in predicting people’s actions.

Effects of Haze in the region






Certainly, the haze problem, usually existence in SEA, has and will continue to cause the above social and economic problems, direct and indirectly, in the short term and long term.

Popular leaders are influential leaders. Do you agree?

         It was apt when John Maxwell, American author, mused that “People buy into the leader before they buy into the vision.” Often, people become more receptive towards the opinions and ideas of leaders if they were likeable individuals, who were kind, caring and encouraging. A group of such individuals is what forms the support-base of popular leaders — and these leaders can then gather supporters for their causes, becoming influential, for better or for worse. At the same time, though, we must also recognise that there are two types of popularity — sociometric popularity, which was what was earlier described, and perceived popularity. Perceived popularity refers to those who are well known for being popular, and are subsequently highly visible, but rarely liked by others. Both these kinds of popular leaders are people who become influential leaders, because they harness the advantages of popularity, funnelling their wide support-bases towards fulfilling their ideals and goals. The sheer number of supporters they garner bestow great legitimacy upon which they can make a difference, and they are also able to push through with necessary, though sometimes unpopular, decisions, by virtue of the support they possess. In addition, some can make use of their soft power over others to initiate change and influence others. 

Critics of the thesis would be doubtful of the influence that leaders without a clear vision can bring about. They postulate that the determining characteristic that makes leaders influential is the quality of their ideas and thoughts, not their popularity, because that is what determines if one’s policies and suggestions will be pushed through. In spite of this claim, it is undeniable that the popularity and following of these leaders would prove essential in helping them influence others around them. Sociometrically popular leaders can capitalise on the connections and relationships they share with their followers to convince and spread their vision and ideas. In this way, the followers popular leaders have confer upon these leaders a sense of legitimacy that extends the reach and impact of their policies. Hence, popular leaders are easily able to galvanise their followers towards a common goal, so as to achieve their objectives. The very structure of democratic systems lean in favour of these popular leaders — the characteristic of majoritarian rule serves to show that popularity is the premise to being placed in positions of authority, and subsequently implement their policies and suggestions. In contrast, even leaders with the best of ideas but lack a following is unable to become influential, because of the lack of recognition and support for these ideas. Therefore, those with large followings that like their leaders for their personalities and traits — sociometrically popular leaders, in short — hold the legitimacy to push forth their ideas and become influential. 

At the same time, even leaders who are perceived to be popular are influential ones. Though some may not be liked for their individual attitudes and traits, they can still garner popularity from those who share their vision, and thereby institute change, so as to influence others. Nelson Mandela is one such leader. Despite the aggressiveness and thirst for power he exhibited in order to wrest power over his political party, many look up to him for his bold vision and achievements. Such followers granted him popularity, with which he was able to influence South Africa by winning the elections and then implementing economic, social and political reform. Ultimately, it does not matter what one does to obtain it, but the popularity a leader has is instrumental to his becoming an influential one. 

Skeptics would adamantly insist that popular leaders pander too much to the desires and wants of their following, which hinders their ability to make a meaningful impact. However, there is no reason to treat such populism as an immediate harm or problem. Sometimes, the only way in which leaders are able to institute change and implement policies is by pandering to some of their followers, in order to tap on them as either financial or human resources. Without these resources being accorded to them, there would be no way in which unpopular leaders can ever crystallise their ideas and goals. For example, the Jewish lobby in the United States holds great sway in politics, especially during times of elections and campaigning. This is because the lobby is able to flex its financial muscle by agreeing to fund the political party that it agrees with most hugely for their campaign. As a result, it is these leaders who are able to gain advantage by pandering to such groups are those who actually wield the power to influence societies and make an impact. 

As a corollary, sociometrically popular leaders are able to sway over the support for certain causes by virtue of the fact that they are people who many look up to and listen to. As a result, the soft power that they possess often give them the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the people, so as to bring important issues to attention. Noting that leaders are not limited to merely the political sphere, sporting stars and media celebrities are hugely popular leaders of their industry, and hold the international limelight. By making use of their popularity in such situations, they can become powerful advocates for, and campaign for various causes. For instance, famous beauty pageant Miss World is linked to many humanitarian causes, such as starvation in Africa, and poverty in less economically developed countries, and their annual winners, whom are thrust into the limelight, go on trips around the world to promote and help out with these humanitarian causes. Angelina Jolie, a famous Hollywood actress, has also used her fame to raise awareness of displaced persons as a United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees. These are all examples of such industry leaders who are largely popular, who can make use of the attention they receive to forward important social causes to benefit others and make an impact. 

In essence, it is true that popular leaders are influential ones as well. Not only are they able to use their extensive followings as pillars of support to forward their ideals and visions, they are also able to gain reputation and support simply for being well known for being popular. Through these means, they are able to initiate change through legitimised action and extensive resources granted to them by their followers, and influence their followers to spread their ideas and to support their decisions. This makes them influential leaders. 

Are teens doing enough for the environment?

Faced with the issues of preserving Earth’s natural scenery, combating global environment phenomena like global warming, reducing Man’s carbon footprint on the earth and other problems that plague the earth’s physical environment, the global community is worried. Environmental problems are the result of constant, accumulated dependency on the earth’s resources since centuries past— and these problems will only worsen in the future if nothing is done to resolve these problems. It is imperative, then, that future generations begin preventive, if not restorative action in order to mitigate or resolve the harms Man has brought to our planet, especially since they are emotionally invested in the condition of Earth in the decades to come. Fortunately, these teenagers are stepping up to their responsibilities, and within their capabilities, grapple with these environmental problems — signifying that they are indeed doing enough.

Before gauging the contributions of teenagers to the environment, it is important that we understand the constraints they live within and the extent of their capabilities, because their contributions must be compared relative to those boundaries. First, we need to recognise that they have financial constraints. Lacking a source of income, it would be unreasonable to expect huge donations that traditionally come from concerned philanthropists, or to expect financial investment for environmental solutions. Second, we need to acknowledge their other commitments. Being growing individuals with little experience and knowledge, teenagers often have other commitments such as school that take up their time. Noting this, it would also be unreasonable to expect them to take on the role of full-time environmental activists like those in Greenpeace, for instance. Third, teenagers are commonly thought of as irrational beings with inability to make important decisions, so adults usually bar them from obtaining partaking in discussions and making significant choices. As such, many lack the power to implement change, unless they obtain support from adults. However, what we should examine is the effort put in to think up new, innovative ideas to solve environmental issues, or the time committed outside school hours to participate in environmental efforts such as sorting of recyclable rubbish or beach cleanups as a part of serving the community. Hopefully, then, they will implement and push out their new innovations as they grow up. 

Some would argue that teenagers are completely ignorant of the problem of global warming, and this means that they do not contribute to saving the environment because they do not acknowledge the problems facing the environment and do not understand the solutions to solve it. However, in a world of increased connectivity through pervasive media platforms like the Internet and social media platforms, the number of teenagers understanding the severity of the problem has increased. Naturally, a majority of these teenage individuals are concerned about the problem — a survey done by Habbo and Greenpeace in 2007 of 50,000 teenagers showed that they were more concerned about greenhouse gases than drugs, violence and war, with 74% believing that global warming is a serious concern. Taking note of the fact that the implications of the energy crisis and the onset of melting ice caps in the Arctic all happen and will affect the lives of these teenagers, it is reasonable that these teenagers will be invested in solving these problems. At this, it is then important to understand how these concerns translate into concrete action to care for the environment and the future of the Earth. Increasingly, schools have been providing chances for teenagers to show their dedication to the environment. Students have been coming up with unique solutions, like using soy bean waste to produce bioethanol, or using sea shells to adsorb heavy metal ions from water, all in the name of saving the environment and making the world a better place to live in. These reflect the sheer dedication of these students to think up novel methods of solving issues like the energy crisis and pollution of Earth’s resources, showing that teenagers are indeed acknowledging the problems with the environment, and intend to solve them. 
Other skeptics of teenage environmental activism also claim that teenagers today are often distracted by other things like technology and their gadget, which leaves little thought for contemplating how to protect the environment. On the contrary, teenagers are much more likely to initiate their own environmental projects and awareness campaigns, bypassing the political, bureaucratic world of adults. Furthermore, the familiarity teenagers today have with technology and their devices make their campaigns all the more effective and their messages all the more impactful. Though many teenagers are often not handed the chance to make important decisions, many teenagers do not merely give up but go on to push for change in other ways. For instance, a group of these teenagers in San Francisco went to rally for change in their own creative ways, such as the donning of impactful costumes made of plastic bags, and finally testifying in their courts for their cause. This led to the banning of the provision of plastic bags in their county, which is a significant change for the community. This also disproves the assumption that one must hold significant power before change can be brought about. In addition, the technologically-savvy younger generation is able to forward their cause more strongly aided by the Internet, their handphones and the like. These social media platforms are increasingly used in the global community, and they are special in that the messages they portray are not only delivered efficiently but also effectively, aided by the use of photos and videos that come along with campaign messages. Well-accustomed teenagers can thus use these technological platforms to show their concern, share their thoughts and promote their own actions. This bonds groups of adults and teenagers alike that are interested in doing more for the environment, and can serve as a source of  inspiration for change such that more people can contribute, and more effectively. Clearly, teenagers are indeed doing enough by pushing for change in their own unique ways, manoeuvring within the tight boundaries they experience. 

Opponents of the thesis express regret over the fact that commitments bog down teenagers, and make the statement that teenagers could have done so much more if academic work was not as intensive as it currently is. The problem with such statements is that it fails to consider that the growing trend that education seems to be taking a turn towards. Education is no longer just the feeding of knowledge, but also has adapted to include the requirement for students to take on projects. This means that schools increasingly take into account the need for students to learn new skills and apply them in the real world. There is no better place to do this than in schools, where teachers are students’ sources of guidance and a pathway to greater resources and connections. Teenagers that are indeed concerned about the environment would have access to ideas and previous works, of which schools have a dearth of. Therefore, under the mentorship and help of adults, teenagers can then find ways to realise and materialise their ideas to save the environment. The learning of the effect of bonding between the cell walls of microorganisms to certain substances in biology, for example, facilitates the inspiration of students to find out if harmful substances can be selectively removed from the environment. Overall, the intense focus of the entire global community on the environment has allowed students to build on the foundations set up by their forefathers, and thereby concretise their ideas and inspirations. 

In essence, the children of today are raised to feel a natural inclination towards saving the environment, and have been repeatedly told by the global community and the media that they are tasked with the job of preventing environmental chaos and further harm. This pushes teenagers to take on more projects with like-minded individuals, which can be found more easily in this globalised world with the help of social media. The expertise, knowledge and interest of scientists and researchers can then add on to the ideas and projects of these invested youths, so as to actually find a way to solve environmental problems. As Thomas Jefferson, previous American president, said, “Every generation needs a new revolution”. The environmental revolution will be a new one, headed by teenagers, the adults of tomorrow, and backed by their parents and the research of generations past. 

About this blog


About Me

My photo