Copy and Paste

Anda bebas mengambil content blog ini, tapi mohon sebutkan alamat blog ini dalam tulisan Anda.

You are free to copy the content of my blog. However, please let your readers know my blog as your source.

Minggu, 29 Maret 2009

Boring

Boring adalah kata sifat yang terbentuk dari kata kerja bore. Artinya membosankan. Yang membosankan bisa orang, situasi, pelajaran, dan lain-lain. Banyak deh. Bentukan lain dari kata kerja bore adalah bored. Bored berarti bosan. Yang bisa bosan tentunya kita-kita ini atau mungkin binatang kayak kucing. Benda mati nggak mungkin lah yaw, kecuali dalam film kartun anak-anak. Nah, teman-teman kita sering menggunakan kata boring untuk menggambarkan suasana membosankan, tapi kadang jadi keliru ketika menggunakan kalimat I'm boring. Kalimat terakhir ini tentu dimaksudkan bahwa si pengucap dalam suasana bosan. Cuman seharusnya kalimat yang digunakannya adalah I'm bored. Kalau yang tadi, arti benerannya dari Bahasa Inggris adalah si pengucap membosankan, hehehe. Kan bukan itu yang dimaksud.


Contoh lain dari kesalahan penggunaan Bahasa Inggris sangat sering kita temui. Dulu sekali ada papan ucapan selamat datang raksasa di Bandung yang berbunyi: Welcome in Bandung. Tentu yang dimaksud adalah Selamat Datang di Bandung. Cuman, lagi-lagi ungkapan itu keliru. Yang bener seharusnya: Welcome to Bandung. Emang kalau diartikan harfiah dengan lidah Sunda atau Indonesia kayak nggak nyambung. Lebih nyabung justru yang keliru tadi. Kesalahan seperti ini banyak terjadi. Beberapa hari yang lalu, saya berada di Bandung untuk urusan kerja. Pas ada perlu ke Bank Syariah Mandiri, sembari menunggu angkot, saya melayangkan pandangan pada papan iklan yang masih kosong berikut ini.



Interest? Call us... Aneh nggak? Yang dimaksud tentunya begini. Kalau tertarik masang iklan, silakan hubungi kami. Cuman, lagi-lagi, Bahasa Inggris yang bener mengartikannya begini. Bunga bank? Hubungi kami. Atau paling jauh... Kepentingan? Hubungi kami. Lha, mestinya gimana dong? Ya... Interested? Call us...

Bandung mesti berbenah. Masak kota tempat perguruan-perguruan tinggi terkemuka di Indonesia nggak belajar-belajar juga menggunakan bahasa yang benar, khususnya Bahasa Inggris. Iya deh, nggak semuanya begitu, tapi contoh-contoh di atas menunjukkan ada yang mesti dibenahi. Bandung nggak sendirian lho. Yang berikut ini dari kaos Gegana yang juga menggunakan Bahasa Inggris... tapi keliru. GEGANA... WE ARE PROTECT INDONESIAN FROM TERRORIST. Apanya yang salah? Hayo...


Selengkapnya.....

Sabtu, 21 Maret 2009

Kampanye Sehat


Masa kampanye terbuka sudah dimulai. Nggak seperti pemilu sebelumnya, kali ini cenderung sepi. Partai-partai baru beralasan kekurang dana (dan kader juga kali). Hanya partai tertentu saja yang sering rame diikuti massa, termasuk anak-anak. Nah, ini yang dikritik oleh Kak Seto. Mbok ya anak nggak usah diseret-seret kampanye gitu. Lha, kalau anaknya yang minta gimana? Ya gitulah nggak semua hal mudah dijawab. Termasuk fenomena satu ini!

Misalnya saya satu partai dengan Anda, dan kita sama-sama nyaleg di daerah pemilihan yang sama. Waktu saya kampanye, mungkinkah saya ikut mengkampanyekan Anda? Observasi saya, sedikit sekali yang punya nyali besar seperti itu ketika sedang berkompetisi berebut kursi. Ini mudah dilihat dari poster-poster dan iklan-iklan yang menghiasi seluruh penjuru wilayah dan gelombang radio-TV. Biasanya yang ditonjolkan adalah dirinya sendiri. Siapa lagi yang mau promosiin kita, kalau bukan kita sendiri. Gitu kali logikanya. Paling-paling pihak lain yang disebut dan digandeng adalah tokoh sentral partainya. Seolah dengan menyandingkan foto diri sendiri dengan aura kultus tokoh itu, kemungkinan terpilih bisa meningkat.

Ini nih beberapa contoh yang nebeng aura figur:
Bersama Bapakku dan Partaiku, Berjuang untuk Rakyat.
Lihat Senyum Ibuku. Rasakan Merah Putih Partaiku. Maka Pilihlah Aku.
Rajaku Bikin Rakyat Tenteram. Dan Aku Punggawanya.
Bapakku Capresnya. Akulah Calegnya.
Bapakku Tegas dan Berhati Bersih. Aku juga. Pilih Dong.
Ibuku Menteri. Dia Pelindungku.


Karena trend umum seperti itu, saya jadi heran dengan kelakuan sebagian caleg yang beriklan sama-sama. Ada yang berdua, bertiga, bahkan bersepuluh Terlihat kebersamaannya. Kebacanya kurang lebih: Kalau Aku Nggak Pantas, Pilihlah Rekanku. Dan yang penting lagi, di iklan itu tokoh sentral partai tidak ditebengi. Nggak ngaruh kali. Kebacanya: Bapakku? Ah Dia Sendiri Lagi Sibuk di Sana. Bisa juga sih mereka begitu karena ingin menghemat. Kalau bisa ditanggung bersama ongkosnya, kenapa mesti sendirian? Bisa juga, tapi yang jelas fenomena ini jadi lain sendiri. Kayak oase di gurun pasir. Atau kayak nila setitik dalam sebelanga susu. Terserah sudut pandangnya.

Yang lebih bikin saya heran adalah seperti yang bisa diamati dari foto di atas yang saya ambil kemarin deket Stasiun Bekasi. Sungguh mati, saya nggak kenal dengannya. Biasanya ketika mendorong pemilih lewat iklan untuk mencontreng nama caleg, nama-nama caleg lainnya (dari satu partai lho) dibikin kosong. Hehehe. La iyalah, salah-salah udah keluar duit malah orang lain yang lebih dikenal. Kan mau promosiin diri sendiri? Tapi apa yang dilakukan caleg di foto ini. Dengan yakin ia menyertakan kompetitornya. Ia TIDAK MENGHILANGKAN nama-nama rekannya.

SubhanalLah. Saya sungguh berharap ia terpilih! Saya juga berharap yang suka menjelekkan yang lain (black campaign) justru nggak terpilih!

Selengkapnya.....

Rabu, 18 Maret 2009

Bankir

Krisis ekonomi global memang aneh. Ia membuktikan bahwa bankir selalu diuntungkan. Dalam segala kondisi. Itu semua dipertontonkan ke seluruh dunia dari pusat keuangan yang telah menjadi episentrum tsunami krisis yang menyapu seluruh benua. Kecuali antartika kali.

Bagaimana tidak? Ketika pasar lagi pesta pora, para bankir di lembaga keuangan top dunia giat-giatnya menciptakan produk-produk inovatif, yang bikin kocek mereka tambah tebal dari easy money yang terkumpul. Kita mungkin maklum. La iyalah, mereka kan yang bikin bisnis bergerak dan tumbuh pesat, lewat penciptaan permintaan baru, melalui kredit. Nah, ternyata pesta pada saatnya mesti berakhir.

Bagaimana keadaan para bankir top itu saat krisis seperti sekarang? Sebelum menjawab itu, mari kita cermati dulu berapa banyak pabrik yang ditutup, berapa banyak toko dan restoran ditutup, berapa banyak pemandu wisata yang nggak dapet tamu. Daftarnya bisa panjang. Yang pasti orang yang kehilangan kerja karena terpaksa dipecat buesar sekali. Di Amerika maupun di seluruh dunia. Sebagian kita mungkin menerima kondisi itu. Ketika kondisi bagus, untung. Sebaliknya rugi. Itu namanya risiko. Tapi apa yang terjadi dengan lembaga keuangan top dunia?

Justru krisis yang disebabkan oleh praktik berisiko tinggi oleh para bankir top tertentu memberi berkah buat mereka sendiri. Amerika yang katanya negara kapitalis nomor wahid, tiba-tiba menjadi negara sosialis terbesar dengan dana talangan yang demikian dahsyat kepada lembaga-lembaga keuangan itu. Citi Group cuman satu contoh saja. Ironisnya adalah dana talangan yang mereka nikmati berasal dari kantong pembayar pajak Amerika, yang saat ini banyak mengalami kesulitan hidup.

Koq bisa sih? Ya itu... Bikin uang dari uang, bukan dari usaha yang nyata, membuat jebakan sandera yang fatal. Ketika bank tidak dapat menyalurkan kredit, karena ternyata asset mereka terlalu banyak masalah (nothing right on the left), pemerintah AS kelabakan.

Ekonomi yang dilandasi kredit, atau dari filosofi bikin uang semata dari uang, tidak dapat menanggung akibatnya ketika penyaluran kredit tiba-tiba terhenti. Pecahnya gelembung dapat menyebabkan ekonomi terkuat di dunia rontok sesaat itu juga. Oleh karena itu, pecahnya gelembung harus dicegah! Itu dimulai dengan menalangi bank-bank top dunia agar beroperasi normal. Hehehe, kalau istilahnya penanggung jawab sektor keuangan AS, lebih normal. Artinya belum normal betul.

Lebih ironis lagi, lembaga-lembaga keuangan bermasalah itu dalam kondisi sekarat masih memberikan bonus besar kepada para bankirnya. Obama pernah mencela itu, tapi mungkin sulit baginya untuk tidak menerima bahwa kita semua sudah disandera oleh para bankir busuk. Apakah para bankir dan pemegang otoritas yang punya nurani tidak tergerak hatinya untuk menciptakan alternatif sistem yang lebih berkeadilan? Mari kita tunggu. Bisa lama sih, tapi itu niscaya terjadi. Ikutan nggak?

Artikel terkait:
Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses
A Joke about Our Culture
Integrity Again
Do You Believe in Market?
Dunia Perlu Di-restart
Regulasi Sektor Keuangan
Mencegah Krisis
Free, Good or Bad?

Selengkapnya.....

Jumat, 13 Maret 2009

Knowledge Sharing di Tempat Kami

Saya beruntung bekerja di unit yang sangat peduli dengan informasi dan pengetahuan, bukan hanya untuk kami tapi juga untuk unit-unit lain secara enterprise. Hebat kan? Suatu yang hebat tentu mesti dimulai dari diri sendiri, dari yang kecil, dan mulai saat ini juga. Yah, gitulah kata si Aa'. Jadi singkatnya, unit kami sangat getol melakukan sharing. Bukan karena istimewa dari yang sebelum-sebelumnya, knowledge sharing pagi ini saya publikasikan di sini. Kebetulan yang memberikan sharing adalah Pak Made, Deputi Direktur kami, dan Bu Yetti, bos saya yang mau pindah ke unit lain (hiks hiks hiks).

Nah, karena saya sempat ngambil foto cukup banyak, nggak perlu diceritain lagi. Foto-foto ini akan cerita sendiri.

Bu Yetti lagi presentasi DW 2.0 dan Enterprise 2.0...




Pak Made sedang menjelaskan filosofi pembagian sektor DW 2.0...



Salah satu materinya...



Pak Eddy lagi nanya, dicermati oleh Pak Made, Kamal, Rintik, dan Mbak Fenny...



Serius banget...



Malah berpose, bukan memperhatikan...




Fotografer kedua kami (yang pertama, Pak Bahari, sulit ditangkep)...



Peserta knowledge sharing...






Selengkapnya.....

Kamis, 12 Maret 2009

Irrationality and Improvement

In standard economics, human are assumed rational. Our decisions are made based on not only rational judgement but also complete information and knowledge. In this assumed context, there is no chance that we get free lunches because of others' misjudgement. In theory, misjudgement shall be corrected. First, it may be corrected by the rational agents, basically us as individual decision makers. Second, it may be corrected by market forces. The market itself consists of individual decision makers making up the wisdom of crowds. This is all a nice story to believe. Dan Ariely's findings, however, make this nice story only in dreams. We human are indeed irrational, systematically and predictably.

In his Predictably Irrational closing chapter, Chapter 13, Dan Ariely argues probably economics could make itself more sense if containing human's irrationality. In a broader term, the fact that we are not always rational should influence such areas as from the making of public policy to our individual decision making. The logic behind is that our irrationality creates free lunches. In behavioral economics, however, free lunches are not perceived as bad as in standard economics. By the same token, free lunches mean opportunities for improvement.

After delivering the results of his experiments in his book, Dan Ariely concludes that we human often give up our personal utility due to our irrationality. For example, in America, when ordering a menu out loud, a group of a restaurant guests tend to show their individual uniqueness. Hence, if a particular menu is already chosen by others in the group, the menu is less likely to be chosen by the next guest, however good it is. The next guest predictably will give up his personal utility by choosing another unselected menu to project his or her uniqueness to others in the group. In this case, the first person choosing the menu is the one having the most satisfaction with his / her selection.

What improvement can be taken for the above case? Devising an improved process for taking order could be an answer. Each guest is asked to write down his / her own selections. As Dan Ariely proved in his experiment at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, this kind of improved process made all guests in a group more satisfied. Moreover, implementing this improvement could mean more revenue for the restaurant. So everybody gets a free lunch. Everybody happy!

Below are my articles written based on each chapter of Predictably Irrational. Enjoy the reading.

Irrational regards,
Y Pan


Selengkapnya.....

Senin, 09 Maret 2009

A Joke about Our Culture

Inspired by Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational
Chapter 12: The Context of Our Character, Part II: Why Dealing with Cash Makes Us More Honest


Have you ever heard this joke? In MIT dormitory, somebody accidentally leaves $5 in a public refrigerator. After three days, the $5 bill is still there. In another case, somebody leaves six cans of cokes. After three days, they disappear. In Makkah, the same two cases end up with both cash and cokes untouched at all. It is haram to take things not belonging to you. In an Indonesia university dormitory, however, both cash and cokes disappear after three days. Furthermore, the fridge disappears after five days. OK, please don ‘t feel offended. It ‘s only a joke.

I didn't create the joke for sure. Although there is an analogy to this joke, the joke itself was originally created by Pak Bahari, my colleague in office. One day, I told him a research conducted by Dan Ariely in MIT dormitory regarding cash and cokes. In the experiment, Dan left cans of cokes in public refrigerators and found that all of them disappeared in three days. When he left dollar bills in the fridges, however, nobody took them in three days until he himself took them. The conclusion? People are more inclined to cheat when they commit to non-cash transactions. The farther we are from cash transactions, the more chance we cheat. Sounds weird?

Well, probably because of the weirdness of the conclusion, Pak Bahari instantly created the joke despite that I told him not to try it here. Anyway, the conclusion from Dan ‘s experiment can be used to explain why on the one hand good professionals, good CEO ‘s, good executives, good employees, good men, good women never try to steal money directly, whether from old ladies in the street or from banks across the street, while on the other hand cannot give up the temptations to increase their own perks in the expense of the stockholders. Stealing money or cash is clearly a bad thing to do, but manipulating stock options is more acceptable.

Now, consider this example. In your office, you have a petty cash box. It is always locked, but you are pretty sure that breaking it is not difficult. Do you have the intention to break it? No! In the same office, you are supplied with stationeries. Your already think it’s part of the facility given in order for you to do your job. Right? But one day, your daughter calls from home and asks you to buy a couple of pencils. Since you are very busy, you think it is more practical to bring your office’s pencils home. More acceptable to cheat like this, isn’t it? You even never perceive it as cheating.

Another example would perhaps make you buy Dan’s conclusion in. Suppose you are a government official responsible for managing projects. Let’s say infrastructure projects (o please anybody, do not feel offended by this only joke – Y Pan). You have your budget approved. Do you have the intention to leak the budget for yourself? Nope, I don’t think so, because you are a good person. I know it. But suppose you can slightly mark your projects’ values up. The reason is a just-in-case. Then your contractors treat you luxurious dinners. They also invite you to their headquarters, overseas. Can you resist? Nope, because you think you don’t steal anything from anybody.

A great teacher once said that it is not really difficult preventing oneself from illegal things, but it is hard dealing with subtle things, between legal and illegal. Grey area! In this area, we can manipulate things with no ill feeling. We can rationalize our irrationality. Once we feel that we judge rationally, there is no reason at all to resist seizing opportunities. We think that we already create value and consequently we deserve to take our part.

In our global financial system, the same phenomena have occurred for decades, or probably for centuries. A bank had underlying transactions, which were closest to the cash. The bank then created innovative mechanisms to sell more and even take more profit. Interest was introduced. Then derivatives were created and used, meaning that the bank created more transactions remote from the underlying transactions, remote from cash. The result? Bubbles! White collar crimes! Maddoff is only an example. Global crisis!

Prev: Integrity Again

Selengkapnya.....

Rabu, 04 Maret 2009

Integrity Again

Inspired by Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational
Chapter 11: The Context of Our Character, Part I: Why We Are Dishonest, and What We Can Do about It


Our global teachers, like the prophets, already taught us that we must have integrity. Only integrity can ensure our long-term relationships with whomever. Not only relationships, all dimensions of life are very dependent on integrity. Perhaps, you still remember when Doel's father (Benyamin S) told his beloved son (Rano Karno) to hold this virtue. "Kan gue udah bilang: jujur, jujur, jujur!" If you still don't recall that scene, you may want to consider watching Doel Anak Sekolahan once again. The strange thing is that we always tend to compromise our integrity despite all good things we know about it.

I want to trust you. I believe you want the same thing too for me. So... we consider ourselves as integrated persons. Basically good men, women, boys, and girls. If we are on the street, it is very unlikely we would commit to pick pocketing. It is also very unlikely that a CEO would commit to a robbery. Those acts are so wicked that good persons like you, me, and the CEO really hate them. But suppose you were the CEO of scandalous Enron. Would you still hate stealing money from your stakeholders? Ah, stealing money is such a mean term that you instantly would reject the idea. What if I change stealing money with window dressing?

OK, we compromise our integrity if it comes to window dressing things. Statistics already showed us that our misconducts related to window dressing couldn’t be negligible. Someone has even his gut saying that corporate criminals are far more serious than street criminals in numbers. If it is not the case, the Anticorruption Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi) will have no job to do. Right?

Now we are good persons, sitting in a classroom. We are taking a math exam. Suppose, normally, when cheating is not possible (group or condition #1), we will get 30% right answers. Hehehe, quite dumb. Then, suppose that cheating is possible (group or condition #2). Are we all integrated as good persons? Or will we give up for higher scores? In another condition, suppose that cheating is possible and getting caught is not possible (group or condition #3). Will we give up our values even more? Probably we spontaneously say we wouldn't! Really?

Dan Ariely experimented in Harvard, MIT, and other top universities a kind of experiments described above. The results are consistent. When cheating is possible (group or condition #2), we human tend to cheat a little bit. Even when getting caught is impossible (group or condition #3), we as good persons just cheat a little bit. There is a chance, though, really bad persons cheat all the way 100%. It seems that our inner values can restrain us, but not completely. Probably, we need to be reminded on the spot for our complete self-restraint to work.

Dan Ariely actually used the Ten Commandments in his next experiment. The test takers were grouped into four. The first three groups were basically the same as described above. The fourth group was the same as the third, but on the spot was asked to write down the Ten Commandments. The result? First group, the control group, answered about 3 questions correctly out of 20. The second and third answered close to 6 questions correctly. Did they cheat? Dan had to conclude they did. Strikingly, the result of the fourth group was no different from the first group, the control group.

Hence, the Ten Commandments were proved to be powerful deterrent to cheating, although some of the test takers were even not able to write down the Ten Commandments correctly. What can we learn from here? If possible, the authority can make the environment more religious. That kind of context is not cheating friendly. Tasikmalaya have applied this principle in the streets for many years. Average drivers would temper themselves when prompted with subhanalLah, alhamdulillLah, and Allahuakbar! If Tasik can create a simple good context, why can't we? Our homes, our offices, our markets, our public space all need to be surrounded with a divine context.

Next: A Joke about Our Culture
Prev: Expensive yet Effective Placebo

Selengkapnya.....

Selasa, 03 Maret 2009

Expensive yet Effective Placebo

Inspired from Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational
Chapter 10: The Power of Price: Why a 50-Cent Aspirin Can Do What a Penny Aspirin Can't


If you live outside Indonesia, you may not know a magic boy named Ponari. I, myself, do not really follow the media coverage on him, but I can tell you something. Many, many people have visited the kid to ask him for a magic healing. The boy has a stone, but not just a stone. He uses it to heal all kinds of his patients' illness. Although I am afraid that he works together with the devil himself to practice the treatments, I am not the one having the authority in this area. So I can't stop him. Most of us can't. In the bright side, the economic activities around Ponari's residence turn very attractive, though.

A friend of mine and I often debate on the issue of miracle events. On the one hand, I always propose that magical capabilities should be cautiously judged, since there is a chance the miracles come from not God but the devil. I argue that the miracles from God cannot be controlled. Even the one having such karomah doesn't know his magical capabilities. Everything magical can be accepted only if explained in Al-Qur'an and Al-Hadits. On the other hand, he - my friend - usually argues that the magical knowledge and capabilities can be learned. Not only can they be learned, but they are also legitimate to learn, referring to a verse in Al-Qur'an in the context of Prophet Sulaiman's story. Furthermore, he claims that he knows somebody having those kinds of divine gifts. In short, our perspectives diverge significantly.

Back to Ponari, I'd like to assume in this article that the kid's miracles just come from the air. Not from God! But he is also clean from relationships with the devil's apparatus. Let this tough, superstition issue be handled by the Ministry of Religion Affairs and Majelis Ulama. Having assumed that, I deliberately will focus on the possibility that magical treatments, like voodoos, are just placebo. You know placebo, right? It is bogus. Fake! Nonetheless, if someone really believes in it, it will be very effective for her/him. The instrument making placebo effective is so near, inside our mind.

Placebo is a usual technique used by doctors and pharmaceutical professions to clinically test the efficacy of medicines or treatments. It is even used to treat some patients. A popular treatment can be merely having a placebo effect. We just don't know it. We can't tell whether it is a real treatment or just placebo. In the mid twentieth century, there was a very popular surgical treatment entailing a chest incision, a cut on certain ligament, and more to treat some kind of chest pain. The surgical procedure was very popular for about twenty years until it was discovered that a placebo surgical treatment entailing only a chest incision had an exactly similar effect.

In a search to answers related to placebo effects, Dan Ariely and colleagues devised an interesting experiment. They created a painkiller, named Voladone and tried it in MIT Media Lab to many patients, about 100 adults. They used an electric shock machine to simulate a spectrum of pains. Here it was...

One patient coming to the lab was served by a sales consultant. Using her Russian accent, she explained the fantastic result of Voladone as an effective painkiller. After that, a series of pains were simulated to the patient using the electric shock electrode. Then he was given the painkiller whose list price was $2.50 per dose. Quite expensive. The capsule took about five minutes for the most optimum effect. Finally, similar pains were again simulated. Strangely, he felt the pains were much less painful compared to his first experience. Almost all patients coming to the clinic reported similar thing.

Dan Ariely changed the experiment a bit. The price list was changed from $2.50 to 10 cents. The experiment was then resumed following the same procedure as in the first one. The result? Only about fifty percent of the patients reported the efficacy of Voladone. Patients with more recent pain problems reported Voladone was nothing better than the usual painkillers they consumed. It seems that price has a placebo effect too. Expensive placebo can be more effective. Please note that Voladone is merely vitamin C.

Dan Ariely conducted another experiment. He studied two groups of MIT students. The first group consumed painkillers with the original list price, while the second consumed discounted painkillers. Again price indeed showed its dominance. Discounted products are often related as low quality. In the area of health and medicine, we often get what we pay for. It is not necessarily because of the actual potency of the drugs or treatments, but because of the price's placebo effect. How strange! How irrational.

The issue discussed here is so controversial that even Dan Ariely doesn't have all the answers. I, however, try to suggest in the case of Ponari that the Ministry of Health should put enough attention for the well being of the public. Are we all better off if Ponari with his placebo stone is prevented from doing his treatments? Or are we better off if the authority lets Ponari alone with his patients? If the ministry prevents him from practicing, probably at the same time it must enhance the overall quality of public health services.

Now, if we specifically talk about the "Indo Serbu" program, probably the Ministry of Health should make medicines "for the people" even more readily available. People should be able to obtain them from nearby stores, only five minutes away walking. How about the cost?

Well, since the price has a positive placebo effect, the government can indeed raise the list price significantly. This makes the medicines more potent. For the poorest, however, the government can give the medicines away, through a mechanism similar to "Bantuan Langsung Tunai" program, along with the higher list price. Hence, Serbu doesn't mean seribu (a thousand rupiahs) anymore but could mean sepuluh ribu (ten thousands rupiahs). Would it work? Probably! Hopefully then, we don't have to waste our energy responding to such phenomenon as Ponari's.

Finally, even though I assumed in this article that Ponari might only have had a placebo effect, I am still afraid that he works in an area of superstition. O God please help us out of a more serious problem: spiritual illness.

Next: Integrity Again
Prev: Bias Judgement

Selengkapnya.....

addthis

Live Traffic Feed