Koronadal visit

I was born there. Last week I made an unplanned visit to that place to make some quick bread. I arrived at 10 a.m. and left the place the following day at 6 a.m. Now I'm back to where I belong, my office and the classroom. Except for the scary plane rides, my trip was generally smooth and memory stirring. I managed to shove into my tight schedule three meetings with my brightest Auntie. My niece was still asleep the first and second time I came in to see her at my Auntie's place on Osmena St. I had had to go back there one more time. It was good to meet some old friends in the neighborhood. My Auntie had her old house, where we once lived, completely demolished and replaced with new structures that now stand on the old surrounding space of her property. I was thrilled to see some of the stuff that are unforgettable parts of my childhood--pre-elementary and elementary school years. The headboard, the steel image of a peacock, and some pictures of my now-middle-aged cousins are still on display in my Auntie's new house. And the piano, too! It's still there! I played with my lovely 2-year-old niece for more than one hour, ate chicken at the plaza with my sister, and finally settled at my father's place all throughout the night. I was afraid my high school classmates will come to snatch me and make me drink till sunrise of the following day. Well, I did a good job hiding from them, LOL. I met only one good childhood friend and he stayed with me until ll:30 p.m. I didn't have a good night sleep before I returned to Manila, but I felt so relieved after completing my mission. I thank God for delivering me back safely to my family here in Manila.

Are you rich?

"If you are happy, then you are rich. So, are you happy? If yes, I conclude that you are rich."

Or should I say,

"If you are rich, then you are happy.
So, are you happy? If not, I conclude that you are poor." (Poor you.)

Or is it rather the case that,

"You are rich if and only if you are happy"?

Now, if you are moneyed, are you rich? Well, that depends on your meaning of being rich.

John Watson's experiment on little Albert

I'm not sure if a similar observation has been raised elsewhere about Watson's ethically questionable experiment on little Albert, but I noticed that Watson himself--or his presence--was likewise a conditioned stimulus to Albert. Had Watson performed that experiment many times on Albert, anyone can bet that the little one could have learned to display a scared behavior at the mere sight or even thought of Watson. The theory, however, includes only the role of the rat, rabbit, monkey, dog, etc. and the loud metallic noise in the transfer of the putative inborn fear of Albert. Watson's presence during the experiment could have likewise turned into another potent conditioned stimulus. So, the finding could have been something like this:

WATSON'S PRESENCE > RAT > LOUD METALLIC SOUND > ALBERT BEING SCARED

And if this was done many times, it could have advanced into this:

WATSON'S MERE PRESENCE > POOR ALBERT AUTOMATICALLY SHRIEKING IN FEAR (or something like this)

Furthermore, I believe that it won't matter at all if Watson showed Albert a rat or offered him a chocolate bar. I'd wager just the same that he would have achieved the same effect with that startling noise even if it was paired with three lovely roses or a cone of ice cream. The point here is that Watson didn't realize that he played an unplanned role in eliciting fear behavior from Albert. His theory, on this count, has a missing element: his own presence.

Just a fleeting thought.