No U-Turn Syndrome (NUTS) | Hacker News Reader

No U-Turn Syndrome (NUTS)

en.wikipedia.org

73 pointsdjshah33 comments

A subject close to my heart!

This is one of the reasons why I dropped out of CS program from the university in Singapore, after struggling for 2 years to progress through school. Gave up after few failed attempts to change some idiotic "rules", get permission to do something not written on book, etc.. Got same "NO" reply on levels starting from individual professors all way up to university administration. I can share some personal stories of NUTS in action, not sure If anyone is interested?

I have similar experiences. A company I worked for shifted their headquarters from Sydney to Singapore. I found staff in the Singapore office either loved me or hated me, generally for the same reasons: they thought I was young, clever and refreshing in terms of using logic and simple reason, or thought I was young, immature and a troublemaker for not understanding the importance of authority and beuracracy. It was incredibly frustrating, and something other staff from non-Singaporean backgrounds (Asian and otherwise) experienced the same issues.

Sounds interesting to me. I find real-life examples are usually helpful for understanding things.

Please bear with my poor english and poor storytelling. Here are few examples:

1. Some courses were too easy and I thought I was wasting my time and considered applying for exemption. By the rulebook, only students who have taken similar courses in polytechnic were eligible. Projects I did on my own time that was more technically advanced than coursework, were not even considered as basis. Attempt to negotiate with professor to work on interesting/new/hard project (that will show my skills and understanding of subject) in exchange of exemption from boring coursework didn't go well either. (Hey, it is not about grades, it's about challenge and doing interesting work.)

2. Computer Graphics course, homework is to design animation of one 3D shape morphing into another one, but scene must be defined as parametric equation (x,y,z,t). I did it with PovRay, submitted scene source files and rendered avi file, but it wasn't accepted because I didn't do it the "right" way, which is to use special extension to VRML our professor developed. So I needed Windows to install extension to VRML plugin for Internet Explorer. My argument of "students should have choice on tools to demonstrate their understanding of theoretical concept" didn't go anywhere and I got zero for doing it with povray.

3. I was not happy about requirement of "GPA in top X% of class" to get into undergrad research program. I tried to get around of it with simple hack, if I could convince a professor there will be exception to that rule. Wrote a long letter to 4 professors explaining about myself, attached the abstract of research I was planning to do. All replied and met with them to talk about it. Learned that they don't have any influence/power on selection of students. Later e-mailed to who was responsible and got to quick and short NO.

If it were not my laziness, above things shouldn't have happened in first place. What I mean is, I don't want to sound like I am completely right on all situations here, I am just telling some anecdote stories about NUT syndrome I witnessed. Am I being unreasonable for expecting special treatment from school? They all sounds like common sense to me but answer was no every single time I asked something outside of the rules.

It is sad to read that you were unable to make things happen for yourself and I certainly feel you were hard done by from some of your examples.

Being a product of the same education system, I can empathize. However, things have changed and I know of very different experiences. Although there exists rigidity in structure, administrators have become much more flexible and don't expect the same deference to authority that might have existed. Here are a couple of examples:

1) The story of how CS3216 got started in NUS is classic: http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~cs3216/

Students knew of the recently started Facebook class in Stanford and thought it was a great class to have in NUS as well. They wrote out a proposal for the class. They approached a few lecturers in the CS dept before finding one sympathetic to their needs. He committed to teaching the class. They refined the proposal with him. Then they went to the Dean and over a pizza, gave him a well thought-out proposal for the course, got his approval and further edited and refined it with his input. The course was implemented immediately the following semester. The pace of getting it done is definitely not usual but they did it.

2) From personal experience, having gone on a year-long exchange program, I came back to find that certain modules I had done overseas were not all mapped back, which left me having done extra modules which didn't count anywhere and still one short of graduating. I went to the relevant authorities - sent a bunch of emails and had face-to-face meetings. Initially, I was told by an administrator that it was impossible and I would have to do an extra semester. I smiled at the person and changed tack. I figured out ways that the school could map the modules I HAD done and approached someone who could approve that. Eventually, I got the module mapping accepted and I graduated without wasting an extra semester.

My takeaways: 1) Look at your problem from their point of view - the extra administration it would require etc. This will lead you to 2.

2) Don't just show up with a problem. Do your research and propose solutions to your problem. If you ease the thinking required by the relevant authority, it will help ease your approval process.

3) Don't take NO for an answer - especially if you think you're right. Change tacks if one approach does not work.

4) Communicating properly helps a lot. Always start with deference and build a relationship before presenting your problem and solutions. They'll find it a lot harder to turn you down.

So were you at NTU (which should perhaps then be renamed Nanyang University of Technology, Singapore)?

Given Singapore's reputation of exacting harsh penalties for what many would consider minor offenses, I expected to find that performing an illegal U-Turn there would result in some outrageous fine or even jail time, which would account for the strict adherence to the rule by their citizens. However, an illegal U-Turn in Singapore will cost you $70 SGD, or approximately $50 USD. [1]

In contrast, here in California there are a variety of fines for U-Turns, depending on context, but the most common ("at Controlled Intersection," "in Business District," "in Residential District," "Near Fire Station," "on Highway Without Unobstructed View") will all run you over $200, and over $250 if you intend to go to traffic school. [2]

Of course, this doesn't address the myriad other "offenses" in Singapore which may result in steep fines, jail time, caning, or worse, and how those collectively influence the public's adherence to the law. But a little unexpected and interesting nonetheless.

[1] http://www.singapore-drivers.com/index.php?option=com_conten... (This same list of fines is posted verbatim on a number of other sites, but I couldn't find a more official source. This article on the Singapore Police Force site has some interesting info, but nothing specific about fines for U-Turns: http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/services/Driving_in_S...)

[2] California Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules, January 2010 edition. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/2010_jcbail...., P. 33.

Not nearly as many Singaporeans drive, though, and a pretty substantial proportion of the cars on the street are taxis. So, given that taxi drivers are generally good drivers but prone to the occasional stunt to get a passenger somewhere on time, this could just be pragmatic, where the government isn't interested in punishing the taxi drivers that keep the city running smoothly.

Also, Singaporeans are better trained than Californians, so less of a deterrent is needed.

And, U.S. traffic laws and fines seem decidedly optimized for raising money for the local city government, rather than the safety or convenience of drivers or pedestrians, whereas Singapore has a more monolithic and paternalistic government which can raise the money it needs through other means.

That all seems sensible to me. Although having established that:

1. the penalty for performing an illegal u-turn in Singapore isn't as harsh as penalties for the same act in America, and perhaps other western nations as well,

2. that penalty seems especially lenient in comparison to laws in Singapore that punish more severely behavior that many Westerners would have trouble considering a crime at all (i.e. chewing gum in public or carrying a durian on the metro),

3. regardless of the penalty, the average Singaporean is unlikely to be affected by the law, as they are more inclined to ride in taxis or other forms of public transportation,

this analogy doesn't seem very apt. Is it just the cute acronym that caused this expression to stick? Or the imagery of making a u-turn being representative of rebelling against the "path" as prescribed by authority figures? Maybe Sim Wong Hoo is just popular and knows how to be catchy?

There are a great many draconian laws in Singapore which cause its citizens to be unwilling to act without governmental approval. This certainly has some endemic effect on their societal norms as well. I would argue that this has less to do with Singaporeans being risk-averse and more to do with the fact that on the other side of many of those laws a government official is waiting to beat them with a stick. Except, of course, in the case of illegal u-turns.

I will admit that having not read Chaotic Thoughts from the Old Millenium I cannot say whether or not the analogy is more clearly defined and/or convincing in the original text.

If Singapore is anything like downtown San Francisco, they may save paint and tax dollars by indicating where you can make a U-turn rather than where you can't. It could also be a way of reducing sign clutter, which is an eyesore and safety issue in the US.

Fucking Mission St.

and 19th

U-turns are a distant dream in parts of SF. Let's talk about left turns first. http://akkartik.name/blog/2008-12-14-20-38-32-soc

San Franciscans are more willing than Singaporeans to overlook the signs, I think, when there's no harm to doing so.

In Australia (well, NSW and the ACT at least) you're not allowed to U-turn at a traffic light unless a sign specifically allows it. You can, however, make U-turns (or U-eys, as we call 'em :) outside of traffic light areas. A lot of people get around this by making a right-turn, then doing a U-turn in the street they turned into :)

Making a metaphor out of it for Singaporean culture is drawing quite a long, generalising bow, IMO.

Where I live, Los Angeles, U turns are only allowed in intersections. I'd gladly trade you.

Our (Sydney) streets are just not wide enough to do U-turns in one go. So people were doing them at traffic lights and causing problems as they misjudged then had to do a 3 point turn.

I guess its preferable to let these 3 point turns happen in side streets and backstreets.

I moved from the remote desert southwest to the south bay area/Silicon Valley area and was very surprised to see that making U-turns at major intersections was not only permitted but were announced with signs indicating such.

I still don't make U-turns, though.

So NUTS is not so crazy.

Why is NUTS not so crazy? Because you don't make U-turns?

The reason I said that is because it seems like NUTS is every where, across all cultures and continents and I don't think it's a great way to really put this label on one particular country. I.e., most of the US are not so creative either.

Yeah, I moved from suburban Boston to Silicon Valley and was surprised to see that U-turns were routine and accepted. In Massachusetts, we generally just didn't do them, because the roads weren't suitable. Just try making a U-turn on, say, Rt. 225 in Carlisle: the road isn't wide enough. And you can forget about it in downtown Boston itself, because most of the streets are one-way. Where I grew up, the accepted way of turning around was to turn into some residential development and make a 3-point turn, or just go around the block until you found a street going the opposite direction.

I read Sim Wong Hoo's book back in 2002 and thought this metaphor was really apt to describe what he was talking about - the fear of expressing oneself without express permission by authorities.

However, although it still applies to a certain degree, Singapore and Singaporeans in general have come a long way since he coined the term. People are more willing to take risks and question authority these days. A simple way to highlight this is the dramatic increase in the number of entrepreneurs here - which by definition refers to someone taking risks and pushing the envelope when required.

Anyway, here's the excerpt from his book on NUTS, where he explains what he means and gives examples: http://bit.ly/nouturn

Maybe it'll help elucidate why he coined the term and help decide how much it still applies.

NUTS is also considered as one of the minor criticisms of the rigid Singapore education system, where students are taught from a young age to obey instructions in an unquestioning manner, in a society where grades and paper certification are emphasised at the expense of some life skills.

Singapore? That's India!

Say what you want about the Singapore system - it has resulted in the most successful south east Asian country. So perhaps this model actually works.

Singapore is one of the two most successful east Asian city-states. It's very difficult to say much beyond that.

"Disneyland with the death penalty"--W. Gibson, early '90s. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html

Here in London 'Singapore' is a running joke for describing any faceless, flavourless, rule-bound place - ie, the corporate estate in Canary Wharf where I wrote this is mocking referred to as Singapore by its residents.

Neither Sydney or Hong Kong have this reputation.

Successful by which metrics, though?

And subject to which constraints? Singapore is an unusual country.

One might also ask: Is the phenomenon being described here a necessary component of Singapore's success (however defined) or an ancillary one? And, even if it was necessary once, does it continue to be so?

Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore's daddy, has spoken and written a lot of interesting things about his philosophy in making the country the way it is (politically and culturally) and how it should relate to the rest of the world. Here's a great interview:

http://www.lee-kuan-yew.com/lee-kuan-yew-charlie-rose.html

> Successful by which metrics, though?

Southeast Asian mainland: Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia

Southeast Asian islands and archipelagos: Brunei, East Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Singapore

I've been to like half those countries. Of the ones I've been to, I would call Singapore the most successful of them based on any reasonable metric. The countries I haven't been to also aren't the ones you'd write home about - Laos, Burma, etc. So moral relativism and "well, okay, they're healthy, safe, prosperous, long lived, developed, international, and educated - but do they do what really matters?!" - yeah, I don't think that one applies here.

Singapore is hands down the cleanest, safest, overall nicest country in Southeast Asia. The people are friendly, polite, and courteous. Maybe a little bit too much deference to authority, but there's no any really creative hyper-individualistic societies anywhere else in SE Asia, and there are some interesting thinkers and researchers in Singapore anyways. There's also some decent culture and interesting things going on, excellent local cuisine, decent and friendly nightlife - it's pretty easy to make friends there, the culture is warm enough, and they've got the Confucian-descended ideals about taking care of your family and all that, which I quite respect and think is one of the biggest things missing from the West right now. Really, Singapore is a very nice and wonderful place.

Two things about this strike me as very strange:

- putting creativity and constraints in opposition, rather than seeing constraints at the heart of creativity. This is the ultimate justification for doing nothing, it says "I can't be creative, the authorities don't allow it!" Why not just simply take the risk, break the rule and do a U-turn? Oh, you might get in trouble? Sorry, but that's the nature of taking risks. Wishing for risk-free risks is a deeply conservative move.

- misunderstanding the nature of authority. Here, the authority is overt, it's clear that they are giving orders. A much more interesting authority is the hidden one which structures what you perceive as freedom vs. constraint. Continuing the metaphor, the opposition is between being able to make a u-turn vs. u-turns being forbidden, but the real anti-authoritarian question is who built the road and where is it going, regardless of which direction you drive?

I cannot tell what you are talking about. The first point seems to equate "creativity" with "risk of punishment." If so, that is a bizarre definition I've never heard before. The second point I can't even parse semantically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com