of Pushers and Movers

Push is a science fiction thriller movie that is currently being shown in cinemas. I was fortunate enough to be able to catch it over the weekend.

A riveting action-thriller, Push burrows deep into the deadly world of psychic espionage where artificially enhanced paranormal operatives have the ability to move objects with their minds, see the future, creates new realities and kill without ever touching their victims.

Here is a synopsis:

The Division, a shadowy US government agency, is genetically transforming potential psychics into an army of psychic warriors and brutally disposing of those unwilling to participate. Nick Gant, a telekinetic or mover, has been in hiding since the Division murdered his father more than a decade earlier. He has found sanctuary in densely populated Hong Kong, a safe place on earth for fugitive psychics like him. Nick is forced out of hiding when Cassie Holmes, a 13-year-old clairvoyant or watcher who is able of seeing the future, seeks his help in finding Kira, an escaped pusher who may hold the key to ending the Division’s program. Pushers possess the most dangerous of all psychic powers – the ability to influence others’ actions by implanting thoughts in their minds.

However, Cassie’s presence soon attracts the attention of the Division’s agents, forcing Nick and Cassie to flee for their lives. With the help of a team of rogue psychics, the group of them traverses the underbelly of the city, trying to stay one step ahead of the authorities as they search for Kira. Nick, Cassie, Kira and the small group of psychics find themselves battling against Division Agents and the local Hong Kong psychics. These two groups of psychics will stop at nothing to achieve their goal.

The movie displays many aspects of Groupthink.

Groupthink is defined as:

“a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”

-Irving Jarvis

Symptoms of Groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability

• Belief in group’s own morality

• Shared stereotypes

• Collective rationalization

• Self-censorship

• Illusion of unanimity

• Pressure on dissenters

• Mind-guards

In the movie Push, the shady US government agency known as the Division showcases many aspects of Groupthink. First and foremost, yhe Division is portrayed to have a strong sense of belief in its own morality. Two of the leading Division’s agents, Agent Henry Carver and Agent Victor Budarin have a similar warped sense of morality. The Division’s agents would stop at nothing to achieve their goals; even though, it means committing felonies or murdering innocent bystanders. Furthermore, they appear to believe that their actions are justified. They would utilize any means possible to secure Division’s objective. They seem to have a collective rationalization, placing Division’s agenda above anything else. The Division’s agents likewise seem to adopt shared stereotypes. The agents dress alike in the typical black suits and sunglasses. They also seem to have same personalities – cool headed, confident and cunning.

In addition, the group of rogue psychics comprising of Nick, Cassie, Kira and the others could be analyzed by Poole’s Multiple Sequence Model.

Poole’s Multiple Sequence Model suggests that groups develop three different but parallel tracks.

1. Task track

2. Topic track

3. Relationship track

In the movie, the group of psychics led by Nick, develop the different tracks at different rates. Initially, the group is banded to together for various reasons. Some came to fight the common enemy, others wanted to help out of friendship and some were only there because they were hired to. Therefore, the task and topic track progressed faster than the relationship track at the beginning.

However, through all extended periods of time spend together, the group begun to bond with Nick and Kira even entering into a personal relationship. Nevertheless, they did not manage to make much progress with their task track as they were constant pursued by Division’s agents. Thus, the group’s relationship track begun to flourish while their task track was halted.

Although it has not received much media attention, I personally feel that the movie amazing. It was criticized as being “visually flashy but hyperkinetic and convoluted”. Nevertheless, the movie intrigued me as I am a science fiction fan. The movie had stunning special effects coupled with a interesting plot. The directing was not a let down either. I liked how the movie was set in Hong Kong, an Asian setting unlike the typical western setting. I would definitely recommend Push to anyone seeking a thrill at the movies.

of Celebrities and Break ups

Celebrity couple Radio DJ Glenn Ong and television presenter wife Jamie Yeo have officially filed for separation. Glenn Ong broke the news on his ‘Morning Express’ show. There had been rumors and speculation for the past few weeks of their relational problems. Their decision was said to be a mutual one and thus, the parting was amicable. When interview by the New Paper ironically at a Valentine’s Day roadshow, Glenn Ong seem glad to answer questions.

“We’ve drifted apart and we have different goals. The split was amicable and we still talk.”

“In fact, Jamie and I don’t quarrel. Thank goodness we didn’t have one of those bitter fights that some couples had,” he said.

“Jamie and I thought long and hard about it. If it didn’t happen now, it could’ve happened in 10 or 20 years,” the Class 95 radio DJ said yesterday.

The celebrity couple were thought to have a strong bond and were openly affectionate during their long relationship. Even close collegues appeared to be caught by surprise by Glenn Ong’s announcement on air. From the interview, it also became clear that the couple had been “living apart for a while”. This is Glenn Ong’s second divorce and Jamie Yeo’s first.

On the other hand, another celebrity couple Chris Brown and Rihanna was likewise in the media spotlight. Rihanna had canceled her performance at the Grammys, just hours before she was due to be on stage. Media sources say she sustained a bruised face while allegedly riding in the car with boyfriend Chris Brown. Receiving a call of a heated argument, police arrived to the scene and allegedly found Rihanna injured and Chris Brown missing. The LAPD is still investigating the incident. Following that, Rihanna has since cancelled her performance in Malaysia and Indonesia on her “Good Girl Gone Bad” tour.

Nevertheless, Rihanna announced after several days that she and Chris Brown are back together.

In Interpersonal Communication, conflict can occur during the Relationship Maintenance Process. Conflicts occur usually due to differences in perception. Conflict resolution can be functional (build a relationship) or dysfunctional (break a relationship). In the case of Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo, their conflict proved to be dysfunctional and resulted in their separation. However, it is possible that Rihanna and Chris Brown’s relational conflict was a functional one as they finally got back together.

In the Knapp Model of Relational Development, Mark Knapp describes the progression and development of relationships as a series of 10 stages in two phases.

Stages 1-5 (Coming together)

1. Initiating
2. Experimenting
3. Intensifying
4. Integrating
5. Bonding

Stages 6-10 (Coming apart)

6.  Differentiting
7. Circumscribing
8. Stagnating
9. Avoiding
10. Terminating

Stages 1-5 describe the phase of coming together, whereas stages 6-10 describe the relational development phase of coming apart. The stages may not be linear and relationships often may regress to a previous stage or even skip one. Moreover, it is possible to identify the stage a relationship is in by exploring the typical behavior amplified in the relationship.

Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo have their relationship is in the Terminating stage (10th stage). In this stage, the relationship has ceased to exist. Parties in the relationship move on from the relationship in the Terminating stage. For Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo, they filed for separation and have been living apart for some time.

In the situation of Rihanna and Chris Brown, they are probably in the intermediate process of Stages 4-7 also named the Relational Maintenance stage by some theorists as they are in the process of sorting out their conflicts.

In my opinion, I believe that both Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo seem to take their break up very well. They claimed to have not quarreled but rather just drifted apart. Furthermore, both of them did not seem to endure any bitter feelings for each other. In fact Glenn Ong still appear to hold Jamie in high regard saying “I still think Jamie is a great girl. I hope she still thinks I’m a great guy.”

However, I too believe that the media should not give these celebrity couples so much coverage, as sometimes this is abused by them to attract attention. After all, there should be a degree of sanctity involved in marriage, and blabbering about the latest break up or separation in a national newspaper is unnecessary.

Do you have any comments on this issue?

of Hospitalized MPs and Downright Outrageous Netizens

Yio Chu Kang Member of Parliament Mr Seng Han Thong was allegedly set ablaze by a fellow resident last month. After the incident he drew many online attacks.Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew spoke in Parliament on Wednesday February 4 2009. In the Strait Times article published on February 5 2009 entitled ‘Online attacks: Minister rues lack of self-policing’, he expressed disappointment towards the apathetic response of netizens and the unpleasant comments made.

“The vast majority were unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous. It was disappointing.”

RADM Lui cited examples of online statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should ‘be thankful for’ in spite of being attacked. A poll posted on wayangparty.com that was referred to be unjust had asked who deserved more sympathy: MP Mr Seng or his alleged attacker Mr Ong. Mr Ong had received 200 votes while Mr Seng 56. RADM Lui likewise noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng.

When asked by Ms Penny Lui (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), RADM Lui went on to voice his views on netizen’s response to the physical attack on Mr Seng.

“It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.”

“But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.”

“I do not think that the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.”

RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct and enforce such norms. He also commented that website proprietors must be more responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted.

I do not condone any acts of violence nor appreciate the nasty postings that were targeted at Mr Seng. I am inclined to feel much sympathy towards Mr Seng for the grievous hurt he sustained. I feel that no matter how strong a case Mr Ong had, he should not have communicated his distress through violence.

However I do feel that the manner our entire blogosphere and netizens that were tainted by RADM Lui’s comments were rather unjustified. Firstly, one would be hard-pressed to deny that it is evident that there are online posts which have criticized both the attack and netizens who endorsed such brutality. It was probable that the general public and many of those sympathetic towards Mr Seng neither felt a need nor wanted to voice out their opinions online, resulting in a comparatively smaller number of sympathetic posts. Secondly, I believe that by not replying or rebutting the nasty comments does not equate to a lack in compassion among netizens. It is likewise unjust to create such a negative prototype of netizens. Furthermore, the quick claim of judgement that the internet is thus incapable of self-regulatory due to a particular incident is bewildering.

In Foundations of Communication (Unit 2), it is stated that we manage our perception through communication.

“Perception is the process of selecting, organising and interpreting information in order to give personal meaning to the communication we receive.”

-Seller & Beall

One’s perception is influence by our individual characteristics, the mass media, social networks and the environment. With regards to RADM Lui’s comments, I foremost believe that individual characteristics such as RADM Lui’s role as a Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and previous appointment to a Rear-Admiral of the Navy influenced him significantly with the selection of information. This current and prior appointment possibly made him more critical and reactive than most of us when he came across the comments made by netizens. Moreover, there is a danger of omission and oversimplification in the selection process in such a delicate case like this as it is difficult to ascertain the collective views of netizens as a whole.

Likewise the organising of information can be influenced by structural elements. The roles we play, relationship between the people involved, and situational or social rules governing the situation are all part of structural elements that influence our organisation. In this case, RADM Lui’s evident role as a Senior Minister of State of (Information, Communications and the Arts) and his relationship to the victim as his fellow MP could have afforded such influences.

Subjectivity of interpretation is inescapable despite the commonalities. RADM Lui likened the online attacks to be a “squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation“, this possibly illustrates his interpretation of the situation. His interpretation of the issue was possibly not only influenced by his individual characteristics mentioned above but also by his perceptual set of the blogosphere and its netizens.

In our tendencies in perception, we have a tendency to favor dispositional attributes over situational ones, assuming that the cause for behavior is the person and not the situation. Attribution refers to the process of assigning cause to human behavior. I believe that, in this case, there was insufficient attribution placed on the situation and one could gain much insight if he examines the situation closely.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Your views are much appreciated.