SYPT is over. While I'm really happy that all four teams from RI have won the competition, reading the blog of a participant who has lost reminded me that there is always another side of things. I remember that throughout the preparation phase, whenever we hit an obstacle, we would remind ourselves: if even RI, with so much talent, school support and resources, cannot do this well, which other school can? As it turned out, we were right. All those factors greatly contributed to RI's victory. But it did make me think a little bit about how fair it all was.

Don't get me wrong. All four teams from RI deserved to win. The members were really smart, motivated and hardworking. They spent months thinking, number crunching, experimenting and rehearsing to make sure that they could put up a good fight no matter what. Which they did. It was clear that they were vastly superior to all other teams, and for some problems they even approached international standards. Yet, how are we to know that the members from other schools are not equally, if not more smart, motivated and hardworking than the RI team? By distributing resources to maximise the potential of a select group, are we burying other talents?

I understand that as a result of my interference or non-interference, there were only two possible ways things could go. Either that the RI teams maximise their potential and pwn the SYPT convincingly, while in the process improving Singapore's performance at IYPT, or that the RI teams don't become as strong, stand a good chance at winning the SYPT anyway since they are more experienced, and eventually become part of a pretty good team at IYPT. So, it seems that my interference could only have been for the better.

Still, it reminds me of the time when I gave tuition to my cousin's son. Although I was only meant to teach him N level physics chem and math, I liked to teach him extra stuff. I taught him how to make bots in Maplestory using AutoIt, and he got excited at programming. For the next week, he was bugging me to fix his code, but since I was busy then, he figured out what was wrong and managed to make a somewhat functional fishing bot for Runescape. He tried to learn Basic from online tutorials, but didn't know where to get an development kit, and had nobody to teach him. Because RI taught programming to everyone and had really good teachers and resources for it, I assumed that it would be the same for his school, and asked him to approach his school's computer studies teacher for help. It turns out that his school didn't teach that. I asked if he could approach his school's IT department personnel and just ask for help as a form of personal request, but it turns out that the IT department in his school was just an AV department and the people there didn't know programming. He struggled with learning Basic for about another week or so, but could not sustain it.

I thought that was rather wasted because I'm sure that if a Rafflesian had an interest in programming similarly sparked, he wouldn't have needed to go through so much trouble to get proper guidance. Granted, if he was sufficiently passionate about programming, he would have been able to learn it anyway, but it somehow strikes me as unfair that someone should be disadvantaged in learning stuff just because he has scored lower in PSLE four years ago. In fact, I think that because they are not as good in academics, all the more they should be allowed to explore other interests.

I know, saying that other schools get less resources is just another way of saying that RI gets more resources. There are only so many amazing teachers like Mr Mark Wee in Singapore, and it kinda makes sense that more resources are given to people who can learn better and faster. But still, the inequality in opportunities just makes me feel that it is somewhat unfair.

In the case of RGS SYPT teams not getting school support, I think that's just myopia on the school's part. It's pretty sad for the participants, really.

"Be yourself" may not be a good advice, it is nevertheless helpful to say it, but only if you really mean it.

Perhaps, people generally have a somewhat stable "self" that they revert to when they are not under stressful conditions. I know, I can hang around with a bunch of people for an afternoon, but I can't do that day after day. Perhaps, that's what is meant by "character is who you are when nobody's watching"; it is the equilibrium position, the position that requires minimal effort to sustain. And change requires a great deal of external effort, because it is very tempting to revert back to old habits.

So why do people want to change themselves if it requires so much effort to do so? Perhaps it's because they are placed in stressful situations so often that they forget who they normally are or what they would like to do. It is not too unlikely actually, since there are so many other things to think about. Another possibility, which I think sounds more plausible, is that they want to avoid being stressed by adapting to the stress. Some forms of stress are caused by a lack of ability, and these can be relieved by honing these abilities. For instance, studying is a way to relieve academic stress. And for me, honing social abilities was a way to relieve this stress.

I admit that for a large part of my life I have tried to avoid stressful situations by avoiding stressful situations, but I guess army really forced me to change because I was with people all the time and I realised how relationships are important. I went out with people more often. I initiated conversations with new people. Stuff that are slightly out of my comfort zone. But being forced into stressful situations is not enough to change. I needed to know how to change.

I started small. I remembered the awkward situation when I offered someone tissue when he was still eating. That guy said it was ok, but I still felt bad. So the next time, I remembered when to offer tissue, which logically was after one have finished his/her food, right? That didn't come naturally to me. And I did so until it became natural. This small gesture took me a bit of practice. Then, one another occasion when I was eating with someone, he kept his tissue right away after he finished his food, then he offered me his tissue, looking a little sheepish. I thanked him, but at that point I realised that during that awkward situation, that guy probably really meant it when he said "it's ok."

So perhaps people are actually quite forgiving, but sometimes I can't help but feel that someone else looks a little awkward doing something. And I would ask myself if I seemed like that. I guess there are certain body postures or gestures that convey a certain message about yourself, and some of them just leave a bad impression. And I found myself looking at glass panes more often. Self-consciousness ensues. But generally, I've found that keeping your back straight and not looking down gives a better posture. (And I gotta admit, all that military drills helped a little.) But actually, I realise that while slouching is bad posture and may not leave a good first impression, after a while when you know a person's work ethic, you don't notice the slouching any more.

Then there are little little things. My mother sometimes told me, "When someone is talking to you, look at him in the eye." I guess it made me look distracted. I practised. So now, by default, I would look at a person in the right eye whenever I talk to someone. (It's always the right eye because I practised with that and now I'm used to it.) But now you don't really know if I'm listening to what you are saying, I don't see myself becoming more attentive to what people are saying anyway, so that kinda defeats the purpose of the exercise.

I have no idea if this works, but I'm taking more notice of my own and others' body posture. Plunging myself into various awkward scenarios gave me plenty of practice. I notice how I feel, I notice what I look like, and I try to adjust to something that looks more natural. Ok, it was hard the first time, so at some other occasion I tried to notice how I feel in a natural setting, and I'd replicate that. So after a while, I kinda related my posture to my feelings, and I extrapolate it to other people. I'm not sure if it works, but I guess it gives me a kinda indication of whether someone is feeling awkward in my presence, or whether I have made a mistake or something. Generally, it seems that people don't notice my mistakes as often as I used to think they do. Maybe it's not a mistake after all.

There are other small little things like how to behave in a mall, which required some practice too, but the general thing I found out is that, people don't really notice or care about your mistakes very much, and nobody is really sure of what the right thing to do is.

I suppose most people probably went through this self-conscious phase like 7 years before I did, but I probably entered it with a somewhat different perspective. It kinda helps to have read some books, and I guess KI was a good primer to them. This journey of being self-conscious and realising that actually I need not be so worried after all is probably trivial and commonplace, but I think it has been rather significant to me. This experience has told me that being myself doesn't necessarily entail feeling awkward all the time. It has given me the reason to have faith that I'm okay.

"Be yourself." probably means "I think that you are fine the way you are". It is comforting to hear it from people who matter to you, because it is a strong expression of approval - that I have either changed enough, or that I never really needed to be so concerned after all. But say it only if you really mean it, because being yourself is not easy when the self is under so much pressure to change.

Random:

I shall try substituting choice words from the titles of the books on my book shelf with "your mom", and see how things go.

Your Mom lectures Physics

The Man who mistook His Wife for Your Mom

An Anthropologist on Your Mom

Notes from an Even Smaller Mom

Your Mom and Freedom

The Joy of Your Mom

The New Adventures of Army Moms

Freaknomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Your Mom

Harry Potter and the Order of Your Mom

Snow Falling on Your Mom

Brave New Mom

Money for Your Mom

On the Shoulders of Your Mom

Alice in Your Mom

The Tipping Point: How Your Mom makes a big difference