EQ without IQ

(based on my journal entry dated September 3, 2012, a Monday)

I was reading this book “Lou-Lan Short Stories” by Yasushi Inoue and, as with most paperbacks, in the last pages of the book, there are ads for other books, either about Japan or by Japanese authors.

One such book describes Japan as “a learning society.” It was then that it hit me: If I applied this same description to the Philippines, would it hold water?

I thought about it a bit and I guess, yes, we are a “learning society”—albeit to a much lower degree. Now, why is that? I don’t know for sure. I mean, ours is NOT a boring life—there are lots of things going on all around us, things we experience and are exposed to as a people. In short, ours is life IN THE RAW! However, it seems we don’t learn from these things.

In the wake of calamities and tragic events, as a people, we tend to just romanticize about them (by dwelling on the resilience of the Filipino spirit), make fun of them (which is not exclusive to Filipinos, by the way), or simply leave everything to fate (“bahala na”) or even “blind” faith (by this, I mean faith that has little or no work to substantiate it).

It’s all cliché to me, and I’m thinking, if these clichés happen all the time and we can’t seem to do anything to keep them from happening again, given that, maybe—and just MAYBE—ours is not a learning society at all.

I sooo hope I’m wrong.

Or maybe do we learn, it’s just that we easily forget the lessons. Why? Maybe because we lack the maturity?

I read somewhere that babies are like that: they mind only things that they see. You hold up a toy to a baby, he recognizes it. But then, hide the toy away, and promptly, the baby seems to forget the toy exists (or even existed).

In a way, ang mga Pinoy parang ganun din—lalo na ‘yung mga illegal settlers na nakatirang nagsisiksikan sa tabi ng mga ilog at estero. Nakikita lang nila ang danger ng pagbabaha the moment na tumataas na ang tubig. Pero hangga’t walang baha, hindi nila nakikita o inaalintana kaya ang panganib na naka-amba sa buhay nila. Hmmm….

Sabi ni late Secretary Jesse Robredo, ang mga Pinoy daw, more EQ-oriented (as opposed to “IQ-oriented”). We mostly thrive on our emotions—sensitibo tayo sa emosyon natin at ng ating kapwa, at nagagamit natin ito para maisakatuparan ang kung anumang adhikain natin. Gaya na lang ng 1986 People Power. It was a battle won thriving on the people’s EQ.

Naisip ko, mas mahirap bang matuto ng bagong leksyon sa buhay ang mga taong mas EQ-oriented kesa IQ-oriented? E bakit naman ang mga bagyo at baha, gaya ng Ondoy I and II? Those were highly “experiential” and emotional events, and should have fired up our EQs to learn from our mistakes.

And maybe we ARE learning from our mistakes. Maybe we HAVE, judging from the affected communities’ preparedness and well-rehearsed response to flash floods during heavy rains.

Unfortunately, short-term solutions lang ang natutunan natin. Bakit kaya? Hindi kaya dahil HINDI SAPAT ang EQ lang para sa mga long-term solutions sa mga problema?

Sa nakikita ko kasi, dapat BALANSE ang IQ at EQ. Hindi ka puro emosyon lang. Dapat may konting esep-esep din.

Ang siste kasi, ang mga leaders natin, ang mga pulitiko natin, nakiki-EQ din sa masa. Imbes na i-utilize ang EQ-orientation ng mga tao para mapabuti ang bansa, ina-abuso nila ito para makakuha ng mga boto. Kapag panahon ng trahedya, namimigay nga sila ng tulong at relief goods (na galing din naman sa buwis ng taumbayan), pero nakabalandra naman ang mga pagmumukha nila sa bag ng relief goods nila: “Huwag nyo ako kalimutan ha, tinulungan ko kayo….”

Kapag panahon naman ng kampanya, kung anu-anong ka-kengkoyan ang pinaggagagawa para ma-stimulate ang emotional interest ng mga botante. Andung may pahalik-halik sa mga baby, kakain nang naka-kamay lang kasama ng masa, pakanta-kanta o pasayaw-sayaw sa entablado (kasama ng mga sikat na artista) para kiligin ang mga tao, etc. —mga bagay na hindi naman nila ordinaryong ginagawa kapag hindi panahon ng eleksyon.

Naisip ko lang: Hindi kaya ginagawa lang nila ito para manatiling bobo ang mga tao at madali nilang utuin? Na kaya ayaw nilang mag-offer ng long-term solutions sa mga problema ng bansa ay para manatiling nakasadlak sa putikan ang masa—iaabot lang nila ang kamay nila sa mga ito para tumulong (kuno) pero oras na mahalal ulit sila, sabay bawi rin sa mga kamay nila. (At sa ganitong paraan, nananatili sila sa puwesto at kapangyarihan, samantalang ang pobreng masa, andun pa rin sa putikan: nai-angat lang nang kaunti mula sa pagkakalublob, akala nila natulungan na sila ng trapo).

O hindi kaya….

Sadyang KULANG lang talaga sa IQ ang karamihan sa mga pulitiko natin? Kulang sa IQ na pang-complement sana sa EQ ng mga Pinoy…?

"IQ is what you do, EQ is how you do it...."

The Twists and Turns of Brilliant Minds

(based on an excerpt from my journal entry dated June 15, 2013, a Saturday)

I’ve been meaning to write something about Rizal for some time now. May mga nagsasabi kasi na obsolete na raw si Rizal sa buhay ng mga Pinoy. Ang dahilan nila? If I remember their arguments right, panahon pa raw kasi ng Spanish occupation ang kontexto ng mga sinulat ni Rizal at hindi na naman daw tayo sakop ng mga Kastila, etc.

Medyo na-disturb ako nang nalaman ko ‘yun. I mean, napaka-kaunti na nga lang ng mga Filipino personages sa lipunan at kasaysayan natin ang talagang deserving na maging role model, tapos gusto pa nilang bawasan. Bakit naman kaya? At ano naman kaya ang mapapala nila kung sakali?

Hmm…obsolete na nga ba si Rizal? I-rephrase natin: Relevant pa ba si Rizal sa buhay nating mga Pinoy ngayon? Sagot ko: Oo naman. Bakit? Hindi ko pa alam e. I mean, maaari akong makapagbigay ng sangkatutak na dahilan, pero those reasons would be inasmuch as I’m concern only. As in, “Yep, he’s still relevant as far as I’m concern; I don’t know about you.”

Now, if that is the context of my answer, then why is my answer an outright “yes”?

Because it’s IMPERATIVE. Kailangan kasi e. Malabo ba?

Case in point: Relevant pa ba si Shakespeare sa buhay ng mga Briton ngayon?  O ‘di kaya si Mark Twain sa kasalukuyang US of A? Huwag nyo naman sabihing mas relevant pa si Shakespeare sa mga Pinoy kesa kay Rizal. Or better yet, huwag nyo naman sabihing mas relevant pa si J.K. Rowling sa buhay ng mga Pinoy kesa kay Rizal.

“E kasi, si Rizal dead na. Si J.K. Rowling buhay pa….”

“Wow, nahiya naman ako sa ‘yo…o sige, eto na lang: Si Shakespeare super dead na, and yet the Brits (including J.K. Rowling, I assume) still find Shakespeare relevant in their lives. Ano ka ngayon?”

I mean, if there are Pinoys who give time and effort to make J.K. Rowling relevant in their lives, why can’t they do the same for Rizal? Yep, I know, “boring” ang Noli at El Fili, samantalang si Harry Potter exciting. But still, this does not justify dismissing Rizal as obsolete in our lives, does it? Ultimately, it all boils down to whether OUR APPROACH to Rizal is really up-to-date.

I mean, Rizal is already dead. He couldn’t care any less if we find him relevant or not. Pero tayong mga Pinoy na buhay pa—tayo ang mawawalan kapag patuloy nating ipinagkalat etong kahunghangan na ito.

Yes, “kahunghangan.” Uso kasi ngayon ang pagiging cynical (kuno) e. Pero sa nakikita ko, ‘yung dismissive attitude ng mga cynic, defense mechanism lang nila ‘yun. Para itago ang kakulangan nila ng perspektibo. Kaya ayun, ikinulong na nila ang sarili nila sa de-kahong utak. Ang nakakainis pa, ang iingay pa nila. Ipinagkakalat pa nila ang cynicism nila.

Sa totoo lang, wala pa akong nakikilalang “cynic” na itinaas ang kapakanan ng bansa sa pagiging cynical nila. Kung may itinaas man sila, iyon ay ang sarili nilang bangko—nagpapaka-cynic sila para lang masabing “enlightened” sila o matalino daw sila. Ewan.

But then this argument is ad hominem, which is not acceptable. So I’m pursuing the matter further. Just what was (or is) it about Rizal that we should not dismiss him as no longer relevant in our lives? I-paraphrase natin ang tanong sa konteksto ng mga Briton: Just what is it about Shakespeare that the Brits should find him still relevant in their lives?

Let’s see: Shakespeare represents high literature. You can appreciate Rowling and Dickens, but in the English language, Shakespeare is “the man.” His plays are infused with universal truths and timeless psychological insights; his words are poetry. Today, he is no longer just Britain’s national treasure, he belongs to all humanity, representing one of the greatest achievements that the human race can attain. If you’re a Brit and you want to dismiss that, somehow you dismiss your “soul.” Parte ‘yun ng kultura mo e, bakit mo ide-deny?

I guess I can use the same argument about Rizal. His novels may be about his time, but then there are insights in them—along with his poems, essays, etc.—that still speak to us as a people. His insights on love of country, freedom, education, dignity, etc. remain relevant to our situation as a nation. Why turn a blind eye to these things?

Now, there’s this Rizal essay (“The Philippines: A Century Hence”) that I believe deserves our attention. Kasi daw sa essay na ‘yun, nakinita daw niya ang pagsakop ng mga Amerikano sa Pilipinas. I read it just a few weeks ago and besides that, I was taken by Rizal’s lucid insight into the psyche of the oppressed and downtrodden. [I later found out that the essay was infused with ideas by a German intellectual (Jagor?) who was in the Philippines earlier, and whom Rizal became friends with in Germany.] I find the work fascinating because I am intrigued by the twists and turns of their (Rizal’s and Jagor’s) brilliant minds, enabling them to come up with their “prophetic” conclusion. Just how did they do that?

I am reminded of Nobel laureate John Nash (film bio: “A Beautiful Mind”), whose game theory serves humanity today as the better alternative to Adam Smith’s dictum. Nash’s Equilibrium theory basically points to how “players” (or parties) in a “game” (or negotiation) can ALL come out as “winners”—no “losers.” Using John Nash's theory, maaaring magkakalaban tayo sa isang laro, pero sa huli, wala ni isa sa atin ang magiging “loser.” Lahat tayo “winners.” Gets?

Posible ba ‘yun? Oo naman. John Nash was able to put the needed mathematical equations to support his theory, and na-demonstrate naman na effective ang theory niya. Kaya nga siya nanalo ng Nobel Prize for Economics e.

Now, about 2000 years ago, Jesus demonstrated just that. A woman caught committing adultery was brought before him by the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. These “powers-that-be” wanted to trap Jesus, and so they said to him: “We caught this woman committing adultery. According to our law, she should be stoned to death. What say you?”

What Jesus did next is what I find most intriguing. According to the Gospel, Jesus did not answer immediately. Instead, he bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. Now, JUST WHAT WAS IT THAT HE WAS WRITING ON THE GROUND? Some syllogistic diagram? A mathematical equation? And then he answered them: “Whoever among you who has not sinned may cast the first stone at her.”

Wow! What an answer! I mean, with that answer, both parties emerged “winners”: the powers-that-be won the argument (“Yes, you may stone her to death….”), yet the accused woman also won because her life was spared—since the powers-that-be could not bear the hypocrisy of their judgment. How brilliant was that? It’s like John Nash’s game theory put to work to settle a moral argument.

Rizal, Shakespeare, John Nash, Jesus—all brilliant minds. I shudder to think that one day, it would be so easy for us to dismiss them as “no longer relevant” or even “obsolete” simply because we lack the perspective to connect with them and their brilliance.

GOVERNING DYNAMICS

“If we all go for the blonde, we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends. But they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. But what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way to win. That’s the only way we all get laid.”

Gangnam Matata

(my journal entry dated December 12, 2012, a Wednesday)

Makulimlim ang panahon ngayon. A most welcome change, kasi ilang araw na rin kasi na matindi ang sikat ng araw, naturingang December pero hindi naman malamig.

Kagabi, ginulat ako ni Myrna (pinsan ko sa States). Kasi, bigla siya nag-message sa Facebook. She asked—jokingly, I think—kung handa na daw ba kami sa December 21, 2012. Wala lang. Natawa lang ako. Sabi ko, kung patay, e ‘di patay.

May binigay siya na link sa isang website. E hindi naman gumana ‘yung link. So, sabi na lang niya, i-search ko daw: “Nostradamus, Gangnam.”

I thought at first it was a joke. Pero mukhang seryoso ‘yung gumawa ng video. As in! Base daw sa isang prophesy ni Nostradamus tungkol sa siyam na circles at meron pang kabayo (was it “dancing horse” or “prancing horse”?). Sabi, kapag naka-1 billion hits na daw ‘yung “Gangnam Style” video ni Psy sa Youtube, the number would be nine zeroes corresponding to the “nine circles” in the prophesy. Tapos kasi, ‘yung sayaw ng Gangnam Style, parang nangangabayo pa. Ewan.

Natatawang naiinis ako. Hindi kasi ako fan ng Gangnam Style, and so far, utang-uta na ako sa kantang ‘yon. Parang “Nobody Like You” (tama ba title?) ng Wonder Girls ng nakaraang taon. Gusto kong ilibing sarili ko nang buhay sa tuwing naririnig ko ‘yun. Ewan.

Sa tingin ko, umaraw na ulit sa labas. Naalala ko, weeks ago, may napanood akong pelikula (comedy) with Anna Farris in it. Sabi ng character niya doon sa movie, a lot of sun daw tends to make people dumb—or something to that effect. Is that true?

Come to think of it, I think it makes people more “living in the present.” Not trying to escape. Enjoying instead all that is around, unmindful of worries. Hakuna Matata. Of course, living in the here and now does not necessarily mean that one is dumb. However, it does account for one’s lack of introspection.

Unlike in cold-climate countries. Sa tropics, we don’t worry much about temperature. Kapag nainitan, konting paypay lang, okay na. In cold countries, they shiver. They worry about keeping warm. Tayo, there are times we don’t even mind sweating much, especially when we’re having fun.

I guess people in cold countries tend to be more introspective. Now why is that? Maybe it’s because of the long winter season and people tend to stay indoors. And in their heads, they couldn’t help but try to “escape” the cold—with their imagination, thinking up ideas, reading, etc.

Dito kasi sa ‘Pinas, ang break lang, tuwing may bagyo. At ‘yung bagyo, isa–dalawang araw lang on average. Not much time to be introspective? Kung sakali mang may maisip na idea, the typhoons don’t last long enough to keep people indoors to pursue and finish up their ideas. Pagkatapos ng bagyo, people are back outside again. Living in the “here and now” again, coping with and simply reacting to the flooded streets and broken down houses and buildings.

Kahit nga Holy Week dito, hindi na rin ganoon ka-introspective ang mga tao. Bakasyon. Punta sa beach. O ‘di kaya, cable TV or DVD marathon. People are so in the here and now that they leave the introspecting to other people. Most are just ready to be spoon-fed the news and analyses—on TV, radio, or whatever. Kung ano ang pinag-uusapan sa TV, ‘yun na lang din ang pinag-uusapan nila. And they tend to believe anything, swallow anything—hook, line and sinker.

Like Psy’s Gangnam Style, for example. Or Psy being a horseman of the Apocalypse or something.

The Tokens: "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"