Associating with the wise

When I was in tenth grade, I read the English translation of a small episode from the Indian Epic 'Mahabharat'. The God of Justice was quizzing his son. One of the questions he asked was :
'How does a man gain wisdom?'
The answer was :
'By associating with the wise'.

Reading a book enables one to associate with the author, a person wise enough to write a book. Reading is useful. My father would take me to a children's library and read to me when I was too young to read. Then I started reading, developed a love for it, and read story books for many hours each day as a child and as a teenager.

With age came focus. I did not read stories much more. I read things that would help me to achieve a goal - academic or otherwise. Whatever the subject, a book has probably been written on it.

Not all books are created equal. Some books are a lot better than others. They are written by wiser people. In the old days, when I went to a library or a bookstore, there was no alternative to judging a book by its cover, the author's reputation (if you knew the author), and from reading a few lines. One of the things I love about the Internet is that it has made the flow of information and opinions so easy. These days, I never buy or read a book before checking its reviews. Associating with the wisest has never been easier. And this is important, especially in fields where the world has very few real experts, and a lot of wagging tongues. This reminds me of the following experience:

I have purchased several books on finance from Amazon. Whenever I go to the website, it recommends other books along those lines, and I spend some time reading reviews of the recommended books. When the book 'Reminiscences of a Stock Operator ' was recommended, I was curious because the book has excellent reviews. It's a book on trading, or speculating, something I generally refrain from doing. But hey, reading a review cannot hurt.

The book is a biography of Jesse Livermore, a famed trader, or speculator. The reviewers heaped praise on the trading 'commandments' that the book offers, rules that any trader can repeat. Commandments such as -No stock is too high to buy or too low to sell. The book was crowned the grandfather of all books on trading, containing wisdom transferred from mothers to daughters(??) and winners to losers(!!). A sturdy foundation on which to build a successful trading career. WoW!

Another review spilled a few beans. Livermore made and lost millions throughout his life. He was worth 100 million after the 1929 crash and bankrupt by 1934. He ended up committing suicide in a bathroom.

(a moment of shocked silence)

God bless his soul. Clearly not my idea of associating with the wise...

Proof of address

The last time I visited India, I tried to open an account at the local branch of one of India's largest nationalized banks. In order to open an account you need, among other things, a 'proof of address'. It may be a passport, an electricity bill or any of a list of documents that carries the applicant's name and address. Having lived in the US for six years, I had no such document. My passport has a really old address on it, and I pay no bills in India. What the bank really needs is proof of citizenship, and an address for correspondence (which is rarely used since these banks seldom mail statements).

At first I thought that I would try reasoning with the bureaucracy although something told me that things would not go anywhere. As expected, I was thwarted by a clerk who asked 'How will the bank know where you live?'. I felt like replying 'How does the bank care where I live?', but I sensed triumph in his voice and decided to abandon this line of attack. I have seen this clerk coming to work and sitting on the same chair for the last ten years whenever I have been to the bank. The faces in a bureaucracy rarely change. They start young, grow wrinkles, and disappear after about four decades. When I arrived early at the bank one day, I saw this man arrive, sit on his chair, and open his books with a look of sheer annoyance on his face. He hates his job. Why add to his misery by arguing? He doesn't make the rules, he simply follows them; and he may have rightly concluded through experience that his life is simpler if he does not bring reason to the table.

Address does not prove citizenship, and most citizens in India do not have a home of their own, but then a lot of things in a bureaucracy don't make sense. But the not-making-sense part is only the tip of the iceberg. The real pain lies elsewhere. In order to get any of the 'proof of address documents', I would have to get an electricity or phone account, buy immovable property, procure one of the other items from the same list, or to go to an administrative officer, who supposedly knows every person in his particular densely populated locality of India. A clerk at the bank told me that some Bangladeshi citizens had accounts in their branch. Why not? How does the administrative officer know me from a Bangladeshi? All four of my grandparents were born in what is Bangladesh today before independence and the partition of India.

Somewhere during the process it struck me. If they weren't going to use the address, how did I care what address my passport had? I used my passport, and also let the manager know that this was not my current address. He sent me to a clerk who informally made a note of my true address and that was that. The system works, albeit not in a meaningful or foolproof way. It works in the traditional Indian ishtyle.

Being right all the time...

It is tempting to draw a line between the things we do and the things we don't and call it the line between right and wrong.

It is tempting because we get to do what we like, and we get to think of ourselves as being right all the time. We also get to think of ourselves as fair, applying the same uniform standard of righteousness to everyone. Then there is the joy of meeting the highest standard effortlessly, and seeing others fail frequently. Having a holier-than-thou attitude certainly has its perks!

Strength

As a youngster trying to discover myself, my instincts often headed in the direction of strength. 'I’d rather be a hammer than a nail'. Strength is cool. You get to do what you want, people respect you, a lot of positives and no negatives. So I began to act strong. Breaking rules is a sign of strength. So is rowdy behavior. Conforming to rules cannot be strong because someone else gets to dictate what I do. And this was not an original conclusion of mine, but a widespread belief that preceded and has outlived my adolescence. Notice that God is equated to kings, and His chosen ones have the ability to break nature's laws? They call it performing miracles, sounds more cool that way.

So strength lay in acting macho. But in my life I had received nothing but kindness from my parents, my teachers, and other adults around me. 'What is strength?' I asked myself. When two people arm-wrestle, and one wins, the winner is clearly stronger. If these two people were to meet in a dark alley, and one were to rob and kill the other, would the robber be stronger? Something seemed wrong. Bullies, robbers, rapists, child molesters, murderers, and particularly dictators who succeeded in oppressing millions of people would all have to be considerably stronger than their victims in the traditional sense.

There is something in us that revolts at the idea of admitting that wrong-doers are actually strong - nope, we should not give them a single point for what they did. Something as positive as strength cannot be associated with crime. Gandhi said 'The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong'. He also said 'A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident'. Wait a minute, we seem to be redefining strength here. There is no reason for the arm-wrestling winner to be just, or for the just to be forgiving. These are different character traits that may or may not be found in the same person. What Gandhi really meant is that justice, non-violence and forgiveness are good, and therefore he associated them with strength, which is also perceived as good.

I concluded that strength, as in the ability to succeed, is completely neutral on the scale from bad to good. Like a hammer, it totally depends on what you do with it.

Popular Elections

I believe in democracy. Power can be the means to a good end, but absolute power holds the greatest attraction for the worst people – who do not question themselves and seek not to be questioned by others. The kind and the fair rarely need power to achieve their ends. Democracy distributes power among many, and enables stability, which is valuable even at the cost of efficiency. Inefficiency is something I can live with. What bothers me is the lack of reasoning behind our collective democratic decisions.

America is heading towards another national election. I see the presidency as a 'job' of great power (therefore responsibility). Every American adult citizen is invited to have a say in filling up this position. Yet, some of America's top elected leaders seem to be the kind of people whom I would not hire as my financial advisor, security-expert, child's tutor, doctor, director of my company... But then, these leaders are the people’s choice.

In my opinion, most people perceive the election as a popularity contest. As time passes, I see more and more blatant deviations between the process of election, and the process of hiring. Apparently, a large majority of African Americans favor Obama. Women, especially elderly Caucasian women, favor Clinton more. One of the big problems in Romney's campaign was his Mormon religion. The allegation of Obama being Muslim is a serious concern to his campaign. Evidently, racial, gender and religious profiles play important roles in hiring the one person who will direct security, healthcare and education. All this in a country where if a company were to use these criteria in hiring, lawsuits would soon shut it down. I don't believe that people attach as much importance to criteria such as religion, race and gender when seeking services at a personal level. So what changes in an election? My conjecture is that most people don't see 'leading the country' as a job. Not surprisingly, the immeasurable acumen required in deciding policy is unfathomable to most people. Driven in part by blissful ignorance, and partly by the large optimism bias in humans, most people fail to consider the consequences of putting a person of inadequate ability and experience on the hot seat.

This monologue would not be complete without mentioning the role of the media. Media personnel have a strange job. They must produce eight (or however many) hours of news no matter what happens, or even if nothing happens. Watching these people discuss the campaign in painful detail each day from morning until night for nearly a year evokes pity. No wonder, even those who rarely follow the news encounter 'Is America ready for its first black president?', 'Why American women are empowered but not in power', and 'I can't believe we have a candidate who's middle name is Hussein'. The amount of time expended on the discussion of such topics would strongly suggest to the audience that somehow the biases that we strive to fight in our daily lives should acquire foremost importance in America's choice of its leaders.

This bizarre mismatch between political leadership being a crucial job, and the election process being a large-scale popularity contest is one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy. The case of America is just an example, and a relatively benign one by comparison with some other democracies.

India Growing

India's population used to be 357 million in 1950. From 1950-2000, the population grew at roughly 2% annually to just over a billion. In the last two decades, governments carried out an extensive media campaign to spread awareness regarding birth-control, and to point out the benefits of having small families. Despite the campaign, the population grew at 1.8% between 1990 and 2000. Although the growth rate is likely to keep going down, by the latter half of the 21st century, India may have to accommodate 2 billion people in a third of the area of the United States.

In stark contrast to China, which has taken extreme measures to control its population, the Indian government has resorted so far only to spreading awareness and making birth-control available to those who ask for it. These are positive steps, but their effectiveness is somewhat limited. To make a person do something, we can use several measures:
1. Polite request
2. Point out advantages
3. Provide incentives
4. Impose penalties for non-compliance
5. Use force
A government can use all five (and maybe others). China relied on the bottom (most effective but harsh), and India started from the top (benign but inefficient). In fact, I am not aware of any monetary incentives given for having few children in India. For the poor, cheaper and more rice and sugar in monthly rations would be a good incentive to have few children. And the government would save far more in the long run, than it would spend in extending such subsidies. For those with taxable income deducted at source, a tax cut would be a good incentive, again saving the government money in the long run.

Governments in India are run largely on populist principles. In the last two decades, power has regularly changed hands from one party to the next, thereby making politicians eager to avoid displeasing anyone. But try as they may, power changes hands in every national election. On the outset, this may seem surprising for a country with a rapidly growing economy, but it is not really. Money being important for happiness, a nation must have a healthy combination of wealth-creation, and wealth-distribution. In India, growth has far outstripped distribution. When 10% of the people have 90% of the money, the rich do not make a fuss about buying necessities at unreasonable prices. Inflation goes through the roof, and life becomes miserable for the majority of people. The frustration of the majority is then directed at those in power. Politicians will not be able to halt the flip-flop of power until they create avenues through which money can percolate from the rich to the poor, and from urban to rural areas.

Here I sit, in the comforts of my home in San Diego, thinking about the country where I was born, and its problems that are of a scale unfamiliar to Americans. There are things that make me glad, and others that make me a little melancholy. In a way, us humans are like trees. There is no such thing as a perfect transplant for a grown-up; we just learn to live, adapt, and deal, and in the greater scheme of things, that's not so bad at all.

Excerpt from 'The Cloak' by Nikolai Gogol

The young officials laughed at and made fun of him, so far as their official wit permitted; told in his presence various stories concocted about him, and about his landlady, an old woman of seventy; declared that she beat him; asked when the wedding was to be; and strewed bits of paper over his head, calling them snow. But Akakiy Akakievitch answered not a word, any more than if there had been no one there besides himself. It even had no effect upon his work: amid all these annoyances he never made a single mistake in a letter. But if the joking became wholly unbearable, as when they jogged his hand and prevented his attending to his work, he would exclaim, “Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?” And there was something strange in the words and the voice in which they were uttered. There was in it something which moved to pity; so much that one young man, a new-comer, who, taking pattern by the others, had permitted himself to make sport of Akakiy, suddenly stopped short, as though all about him had undergone a transformation, and presented itself in a different aspect. Some unseen force repelled him from the comrades whose acquaintance he had made, on the supposition that they were well-bred and polite men. Long afterwards, in his gayest moments, there recurred to his mind the little official with the bald forehead, with his heart-rending words, “Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?” In these moving words, other words resounded—“I am thy brother.” And the young man covered his face with his hand; and many a time afterwards, in the course of his life, shuddered at seeing how much inhumanity there is in man, how much savage coarseness is concealed beneath delicate, refined worldliness, and even, O God! in that man whom the world acknowledges as honourable and noble.

Brevity is the soul of wit

So said Shakespeare, and I agree wholeheartedly. Brevity is the soul of most communication. The same message repeated loses its charisma. Perhaps it is the 'familiarity breeds contempt' postulate. A message, once spoken, becomes familiar to the listener, and when repeated it is annoying. I once read an article that claimed that the human mind relaxes through variety more than it does through sleep, because the mind does not sleep when we do. Old information = no variety. Is that why we are attracted to sources of new information: news, magazines, blogs, novels, the latest ____?

An exception the above rule is when there is no new information to begin with. Two entities share a common belief, and expression of the belief in between them is reassuring. Maybe the brevity principle applies more to disagreeable messages and to information that we have no emotional connection with, than to pleasant exchanges. After all, it is information the mind eats: A lot of sweetness is fine, but the bitter and tasteless stuff... briefer the better.

बादलों से बातें

'जब वी मेट' सिनेमा का एक गीत मुझे भा गया। गाने के शब्द थे 'आओगे जब तुम ओ साजना' , और गाना राग मेघ में था।

कहते हैं कि तानसेन जब राग मेघ मल्हार गाया करते थे तो सूखी धरती पर भी बारिश होती थी। आजकल San Diego में खूब जमकर बारिश हो रही है। तो मैंने सोचा कि जब मैं गाता हूँ, तो मेरे गाने से पहले ही, मेरे गाने की अपेक्षा में बूँदें टपकने लगती हैं। इसलिए मैं अपने आप को तानसेन का बाप समझने लगा था। और यही सोचकर मैं रोजाना रियाज़ करने लगा। फिर एक दिन, सपने में एक बादल आया। उसने कहा 'उस्ताद जी, आप हमारा इशारा समझ नहीं पाये। हम कहना चाहते थे की हम यूं ही बरस जायेंगे, न्योछावर हो जायेंगे, अस्तित्वहीन हो जायेंगे, आपकी बड़ी महरबानी होगी अगर आप नहीं गायें।'

The dilemma of 0,1 or more Gods

There was a chapter in my history book that dealt with ancient Hinduism, principles and practice. In particular, the authors spent some words explaining how Hinduism, while seemingly polytheistic, actually believes in one supreme power. Ancient verses to this effect were quoted. It was also mentioned that Hindus were considered inferior by Europeans because of their apparent polytheism.

Well... people often consider those with different beliefs and perspectives to be wrong, therefore stupid, and therefore inferior. Nothing original about that. To this day, Hindu temples, and many homes have several idols. And if someone asked me: 'Is Hinduism polytheistic?', my one-word answer to this 'Yes-No' question would be 'Depends'. But I found it interesting how one was considered more 'cool' than the other in the history book. These days of course, most people who are not too cool to not believe in any God, are cool enough to believe in only one God. They merely have not been able to agree which one it is.

The path to nowhere

I was recently watching a movie where a teenager aggressively tries to undermine the school's administration. He harbors a grievance that the school exploits its students by limiting their freedom. Intially he finds support among several classmates who view him as a role model, but as time passes it becomes increasingly clear that his actions are more deplorable than the school's. In the end, he is stopped and receives counselling. One of his teachers cites another student who had moved on a similar path and in the end committed suicide.

When a person has been moving passionately on a path for a long period of time, it becomes very difficult for the person to admit that all that has been done was wrong. It takes more courage and a lesser ego than most people have. It is far easier to continue in the same direction, dismissing all doubts. Creating an avenue for such a person to give up what he/she did without feeling overly humiliated can accelerate the process of recovery.

It is a different story when a large group of people join hands to undermine existing authority. Perceived exploitation cannot by itself move large masses over extended periods, unless the masses are incapable of reasoning. Lack of education or an insular society go a long way in obstructing the flow of reason. Sometimes though, the exploitation and deprivation are not perceived, but real. When people have almost nothing to lose, they have almost no reason to conform to the demands of established authority. Such problems have a disturbing property: they don't go away. They stay, and they accumulate over decades and centuries. Millions suffer, millions die. Count to a million. And all because we are not willing to stop and say: 'I am sorry that I hurt you. My bad. What would you like me to do to make it up to you?'

Excerpt from the movie 'Because Of Winn Dixie'

Opal: Gloria, you know Otis?
Gloria: No, I don't know Otis, but I do know what you told me about him.
Opal: You know he's a criminal? He's been in jail.
Gloria: Baby girl, come on. I want to show you somethin'. See this tree?
Opal: Yeah.
Gloria: Hmm?
Opal: Why are all those bottles on it?
Gloria: To keep the ghosts away.
Opal: What ghosts?
Gloria: Ghosts of all the things I've done wrong.
Opal: You did that many things wrong?
Gloria: More than that, baby girl.
Opal: But you're not a bad person.
Gloria: Doesn't mean I haven't done bad things.
Opal: But there's whiskey bottles on there, a-and beer bottles.
Gloria: That's right. I know that. I'm the one what drank what was in 'em, and I'm the one what put 'em up there. Oh, baby girl. You know, a lot of folks have problems... with liquor and beer. Get to start drinkin' and can't get stopped.
Opal: Are you one of those people?
Gloria: Yes, I am... but you know somethin'? These days, I don't drink nothin' stronger than coffee.
Opal: Did the whiskey and beer and wine... did they make you do all those bad things that are ghosts now?
Gloria: Some of'em. Some of'em I would've done anyway, with or without the liquor and the beer... till I learned.
Opal: Learned what?
Gloria: Till I learned what was the most important thing.
Opal: What's that?
Gloria: Oh... it's different for everyone. Got to learn it on your own. But, you know, we should judge Otis by the pretty music that he makes and how kind he is to all them animals, 'cause that's all we know about him now...

The relevance of Gandhi

In early 1922, India was in the middle of the Non-Cooperation movement against the British administration. The goal -- human dignity and self governance. The path -- non-violent insistence on the truth. And then it happened on February 4th 1922. Police firing killed three protesters and injured others in a crowd of about two thousand in the town of Chauri Chaura. The furious mob, in retaliation, attacked the policemen who tried to hide inside the police station. The police station was set ablaze; twenty-three policemen were burnt alive. Afterwards, nineteen people were hanged for the incident, and over a hundred received various jail terms varying from two years to life.

Gandhi's response was to halt the movement completely. He also went on a five-day fast as a gesture of repentance for what he believed was his complicity in the killings. Most of the contemporary Indian leaders deprecated his action - describing it variously as mistaken, cowardly, madness or betrayal. Historians tend to agree that the stray incident of violence, although regrettable, did not undermine a nation's plea for political freedom.

The incident defines Gandhi. For him, non-violence was not a conscious choice, but an instinct. So too was his refusal to impose on others what he did not practise himself. Come to think of it, non-violence is just one component of the expansive "practise, then preach" philosophy. This fundamental principle is known by many names: the Ethic of Reciprocity, the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Tolerance -- and it forms the basis of the very concept of human rights. The principle, however, is incredibly hard to follow to the extent that Gandhi did. And in a political leader with a hundred million eager followers, it is unthinkable.

But does an incident of violence undermine a nation's plea for political freedom? Absolutely not. However, political freedom is insignificant when compared with freedom of the mind. What does political freedom mean? The power to choose our leaders, to make our own laws perhaps. Political freedom is a means to an end, the end being a state where people may live without fear. To reach that state, it is necessary that all individuals practise mutual respect and tolerance. Achieving freedom from fear is far more difficult and also much more important than any regime change. It was probably clear to Gandhi that the British would leave sooner or later, and then people would celebrate their freedom, but their lives would not change overnight.

Political freedom for a nation is like allocating funds to make something gigantic happen. Without the right mindset, things soon sour up, a few people have a good time with the money, and in the end fingers are pointed and a few scapegoats are punished. India, a nation with a population larger than that of the North and South Americas put together, and with immense diversity in languages and cultures, would have very little chance of surviving as a nation in the absence of mutual respect and tolerance. And non-violence is a stepping stone for tolerance.

As far as usage goes, the term 'diversity' is viewed quite positively, but for all practical purposes, it is a bomb waiting to explode. The notion of identity is very important to human beings. We all have many identities: I am an Indian, residing in the USA, male, Hindu, Brahmin (priest by caste), married, straight, an electrical engineer, with a PhD, employed, the list can go on. Most people attach the most importance to one or a few identities, commonly based on nationality, religion, race, ideology or sexuality. We identify with the grievances of people who share our chosen identities, and we blame all who share the identity of individuals responsible for causing the grief. The fact that all individuals are responsible for only their own actions, and that we share common identities as human and living beings, matter no more. Our mind loses its sense of justice, and replaces it with a senseless rage. It is a state where actions are not born out of reason, rather reasons are made slaves to justify unconscionable actions.

Gandhi realized the importance of tolerance when others were fascinated with self-governance। In a way, he was years ahead of his time, indeed years ahead of today. As Albert Einstein said: "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood." Who knows when, if ever, our species will evolve to a point where all of us value kindness the way Gandhi did.

My father

Being a father seems to me a difficult task. And I don't mean the 'providing' part. It is not always clear how a child's experiences influence its behavior or personality. Maybe the prospect scares me even more because I live in the shadow of my own father, or his memories since he died in 1997.

For the most part, my father 'observed' me. It was unlike him to give me instructions. Mostly, he did what he could to create the right environment without appearing harsh to the pleasure-loving creature that a child is. Objects that provide entertainment but no learning had a difficult time finding their way into our home. Before classes started each year, we would sit down and put covers on textbooks. He did it like it was an art, finishing with writing my name on the front cover in a handwriting that would seem to have come from a printing press. He had won gold medals in Engineering for his Bachelors and Masters degrees. The standards were set as high as they could be, but never was a word uttered about any expectation of meeting them. I had once asked while watching Ivan Lendl play tennis with the usual tense expression on his face - is it important to play to win or to play happily? The answer came immediately - It is better to play happily. I didn't think that was necessarily right at that time, but now I see how personal ambition has brutalized humanity throughout history. Gentle hints came my way on rare occasions. He once asked me about the TV - Can't you overcome its attraction? I gave him a sheepish shrug.

Few words were exchanged between us. For the most part, he would seem aloof, and I might have been tempted to nurture that belief, but that was as far from the truth as it could be. Let me tell you about one incident that took place when I was eleven. In school I had a clean record - I never caused any trouble. Therefore, on the Friday when my teacher gave me a dressing down for my poor handwriting, and wrote a complaint in my school diary, my heart altogether sank. This was a new experience for me. How would I show my face at home? I had to get it signed by my father by Monday, but the weekend passed and I could not muster the courage to tell him. Monday morning came, and I woke up unhappily. Surprise, surprise, my father was sitting with my diary at the edge of the bed. He smiled and I babbled something. He asked me to write - I shall diligently try to improve - and then he signed it. To this day I don't know how he came to know. Maybe someone told him. Or maybe he just sensed it, but one cannot help wondering how attentive he must have been behind his facade of 'aloofness'. I guess fatherhood is another department where the standards are sky high for me, not that I am planning on having kids in near future, but still.

Fairness in reward and remonstration

A fundamenatal legal premise is:
"No person shall be punished but for an action violating a rule that was in force at the time when the action took place."

If my father was a murderer, no modern court of law would hold me responsible. Strangely, if my great great great grandfather had belonged to an oppressed section of society - identified by race or religion perhaps - I would likely be entitled to preferential treatment today, irrespective of my current living conditions.

There is a curious incongruity in the ways in which the modern world disseminates rewards and punishments. The law punishes individuals for what they consciously do. In contrast, government policies often reward groups of individuals for attributes they have no role in determining.

Explain yourself!

I am impatient. If I am convinced that something is correct, then I usually don't like to explain why. What do you mean 'why?'? Most things can be explained, and it is useful to explain things patiently. It is better than annoyance for reasons of popularity, and better than silence if you want credibility. And if my audience is not listening, well that's their problem not mine :)

INTP

I took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. It is a simple test that classifies you into one of 16 personality classes. You can take it free on a number of websites. And no, you don't have to sign up for a free ipod. Mine turned out to be INTP (Introvert, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). Actually, some tests give you the extent of each. I am strongly introverted and thinking, and somewhat intuitive and perceiving. Here is a link to a brief description of INTP that I found in the web. Pretty accurate I think.

http://www.e-mbti.com/intp.php

Free advice

A young friend of mine was feeling frustrated with the way some professors treated students. People who have gone through an undergrad engineering school in India can identify with that at some level. So I gave him some advice. Now, giving advice is one thing, and following it yourself is another. It is far easier to preach than to practise. But then again, you cannot effectively teach what you don't follow. So, I will put my advice on the record here, to remind myself what I should be doing:

As a child, I used to be scared of my neighbor's rooster, which would steal every chance to take a peck at me. Time has flown by since then. I have grown. If I were to encounter the rooster today, it would probably not try the same strategy.

Things will change. One of the only things that never changes is the fact that things continue to change. And in the bigger scheme of things, my approval rating with the rooster does not count for anything. What would be sad though, is if I became a miserable, grouchy rooster myself, giving a hard time to those whom I was supposed to nurture, protect and guide. It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak, the privileged to uplift the underprivileged. Those who act contrary to these principles, are just plain irresponsible. Period.

No one can tell you what in principle is right. No person, nor book of wisdom (even if it is believed to have come straight from the mouth of God) can ever do that. They may tell you what they think, but you are the ultimate judge of right and wrong in your life. There will be some questions to which you will never find convincing answers, and it is good if you can grow comfortable coexisting with these questions. It is far better than living the lie of pretending to have all answers.

Nurture the strength of your own spirit. Look around yourself. Help those who are more miserable than you. It takes the mind off from dwelling on one's own miseries. It keeps you from joining in the league of ordinary roosters.

Understanding and familiarity

Learning science and technology is largely about understanding new concepts and ideas. The emphasis is not on retaining information, but on organizing it. But some concepts are really hard to understand, or maybe they are hard to explain and few people have ever had it explained to them. Over time, we grow familiar with these concepts and we start believing that we understand them. Then we start conveying our familiarity to others, sometimes to show off, and sometimes to avoid looking foolish. I feel that this is a tendency that we should all be aware of, and guard against. I causes so much misery, especially to children and students.

I once read in a children's book that a ventriloquist is someone who can throw his voice. Of course it made no sense to me. I looked it up in some kind of dictionary and coincidentally found the same definition. Who knows, maybe the author of my book had consulted the same source to find out what a ventriloquist does before he went about telling others about it. Later, I figured that a ventriloquist is someone who can change the sound of his voice and speak almost without moving his lips. It gives the impression that someone or something else is speaking, especially if you have a dummy in your hand, and move its lips. I also realized that sounds like m, p, and b need the lips to be closed. Interesting stuff it was back then, and I tried a bit of it myself. But I still don't think throwing your voice describes it very well.

Reviewing papers

Farbod once told me about a rule of thumb for reviewing papers. I think he attributed it to Prof. Jim Massey.

There are three conditions for rejecting a paper:
1. The results in the paper are wrong.
2. The results have been previously published.
3. The results are obvious or trivial.

I think that is a pretty good rule-book to go by, although I think I would add a fourth condition.
4. The paper is so poorly written that the reviewer, despite being knowledgeable in the area, is unable to make sense of the contributions.

It goes without saying that one should never undertake to review a paper in an unfamiliar field of research. It hurts the field by populating it with superfluous publications.