We live in times when most human problems are created by humans. I have found myself postulating that the sum of human miseries is constant - it is only the nature of our problems that has changed over the years.
We humans seem to suffer from two types of shortcomings that lead us to create problems for ourselves. First is the inability to understand our needs - what will hurt us - either because of a lack of intelligence or reckoning ability or because of denial. The second is more pitiful - when someone knows that doing something hurts but in incapable of changing one's ways. Ask any addict.
If you are wondering 'What brings me to these thoughts?'... I was watching a documentary on the life of Sam Clemens (better known by his psuedonym, Mark Twain), a brilliant and successful writer who in later life thought he could do business, but was otherwise a very intelligent man. As someone in the movie commented, "There is no reason for a writer to not be a successful businessman. I have just never met one."
There is another thought worrying me too. Of late, I have begun to harbor the belief that financial independence is the solution to life's problems. I have convinced myself that people work for mainly two reasons - financial needs and the gratification of being productive - and being financially independent is the key to doing productive work of one's liking and therefore being happy. The catch is that research has found that abject poverty is cause for unhappiness, but once people reach middle class wealth, additional money makes them no happier. And I have never been anything below middle class in my life. Am I lying to myself about something?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Suicide helpline autoreply
Please record your message after the beep. When you are finished recording, you may hang yourself or press star for more options.
A fable from the Panchatantra
A man once had a faithful monkey, a powerful beast aggressively protective of its master.
Then one day the man fell ill. While he slept, the monkey kept guard by his bed. A fly buzzed. It buzzed and buzzed and it flew right over the man's face. The monkey was furious. It grabbed a club and aimed it at the insect. One swing after another went in vain until the fly was finally dead.
But alas, when the mission was accomplished, there were no accolades for the well-meaning animal. Time, it seemed, had been rent in two halves by the swift strokes of the club. Before, the insect was the focus of all thoughts.
'That creature must die! Look at the man. This will happen to us all!'
Then the club fell. There was shock, there was awe, and finally there was despair.
'Whoever heard of using a club to kill a fly?'
Then one day the man fell ill. While he slept, the monkey kept guard by his bed. A fly buzzed. It buzzed and buzzed and it flew right over the man's face. The monkey was furious. It grabbed a club and aimed it at the insect. One swing after another went in vain until the fly was finally dead.
But alas, when the mission was accomplished, there were no accolades for the well-meaning animal. Time, it seemed, had been rent in two halves by the swift strokes of the club. Before, the insect was the focus of all thoughts.
'That creature must die! Look at the man. This will happen to us all!'
Then the club fell. There was shock, there was awe, and finally there was despair.
'Whoever heard of using a club to kill a fly?'
Respect
I know a man who works really hard, but people tend not to respect him. He complains all the time. I have never once heard him say something like 'Things are under control. I am taking care of things.' Ironically, he does take care of a lot of things, things that other dislike doing, but he also complains. Just by virtue of what he does, the man ought to be of use to others. And use him, they do, and they pay him too, but they don't respect him.
Earning respect seems to have a lot of prerequisites.
People seldom respect a person who does not respect them.
Respect yourself if you wish to be respected by others. I have seen successful people brag about insincere or unethical actions. Respect vanishes right there. Success and power do not necessarily earn respect. They may fetch flattery, fear, or foolish idolization, but not respect. Of course, that is if you care about respect. There are many who enjoy flattery and being feared as much as being respected. Flattery is insincere, and comes from an expectation of receiving incentives in return. Fear comes from anticipation of penalties. Both satisfy the primal need of being bowed down to. Respect is more subtle - when someone holds you in high esteem with no expectation of incentive or penalty.
A person can react to a situation in a way that earns respect, or in a way that begs sympathy, but usually not both at the same time. This man, with whom I started my story, has spent his entire life playing the victim, begging for sympathy in his own way. It is hard to respect a man like that. Actions designed to earn respect, however, can sometimes earn both respect and sympathy, especially in cases where the outcome is tragic. The sacrifice of martyrs awakens feelings of honor and sorrow at the same time.
Earning respect seems to have a lot of prerequisites.
People seldom respect a person who does not respect them.
Respect yourself if you wish to be respected by others. I have seen successful people brag about insincere or unethical actions. Respect vanishes right there. Success and power do not necessarily earn respect. They may fetch flattery, fear, or foolish idolization, but not respect. Of course, that is if you care about respect. There are many who enjoy flattery and being feared as much as being respected. Flattery is insincere, and comes from an expectation of receiving incentives in return. Fear comes from anticipation of penalties. Both satisfy the primal need of being bowed down to. Respect is more subtle - when someone holds you in high esteem with no expectation of incentive or penalty.
A person can react to a situation in a way that earns respect, or in a way that begs sympathy, but usually not both at the same time. This man, with whom I started my story, has spent his entire life playing the victim, begging for sympathy in his own way. It is hard to respect a man like that. Actions designed to earn respect, however, can sometimes earn both respect and sympathy, especially in cases where the outcome is tragic. The sacrifice of martyrs awakens feelings of honor and sorrow at the same time.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Mistakes
The smartest learn from the mistakes of others. Most of us prefer to learn by making our very own mistakes. And then there are those who never learn...
Monday, March 08, 2010
approximately precisely
'It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong' - is a useful piece of advice. Of late, I have been postulating in my mind a similar-sounding approximately-precisely principle, which goes:
'It is better to know the answer to a meaningful question approximately than to know the answer to a useless question precisely.'
'It is better to know the answer to a meaningful question approximately than to know the answer to a useless question precisely.'
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A memory from my last trip to India
I lay on my bed in the warm humid Kolkata weather, gazing lazily at the clock on the wall. It's an old clock, perhaps twenty years old, runs on a single AA battery. It hung on the wall in our home in Bokaro, or was it Durgapur? It brought back memories...
My father had a childlike enthusiasm about some things. When the clock was still new, he would compare the time on the clock with that on TV before the news on Doordarshan - India's primary TV channel. This was before cable. Some days the clock showed near perfect time, other days it was a little off. I remember the day my father noticed that due to the influence of gravity, the second hand progressed much faster from 0 to 15 seconds past the minute, and considerably slower from 45 to 60 seconds. The clock was not in error! It was perfect! Well... ignoring gravity anyway... There was this look of triumph in his eyes.
My brother recently sent me some old family photos. The one above is from 1990...ish. We were not rich, not poor either. We hardly had any savings but I did not know that as a child and it did not bother me. We were happy. Now, I am probably worth several times what my father was worth at the end of his life. But I miss the simple happiness. In many ways, I have less than I had then. I need to find my way back.
My father had a childlike enthusiasm about some things. When the clock was still new, he would compare the time on the clock with that on TV before the news on Doordarshan - India's primary TV channel. This was before cable. Some days the clock showed near perfect time, other days it was a little off. I remember the day my father noticed that due to the influence of gravity, the second hand progressed much faster from 0 to 15 seconds past the minute, and considerably slower from 45 to 60 seconds. The clock was not in error! It was perfect! Well... ignoring gravity anyway... There was this look of triumph in his eyes.
My brother recently sent me some old family photos. The one above is from 1990...ish. We were not rich, not poor either. We hardly had any savings but I did not know that as a child and it did not bother me. We were happy. Now, I am probably worth several times what my father was worth at the end of his life. But I miss the simple happiness. In many ways, I have less than I had then. I need to find my way back.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Charles Ponzi, Bernard Madoff and the exponential function
The Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment scheme named after Charles Ponzi. The idea is simple. Investors are promised fabulous returns on money. A few investors cautiously bring in small change, and the money is returned with interest as promised. Reassured, these investors bring in larger amounts. Other investors join them. People ask questions on how the money can grow so fast. Answers range from gold and diamonds mines in Africa to philanthropic donors who crave anonymity. In reality, there is no investment. Money from new investors is paid to old investors, while the organizers of the scheme help themselves to some of it. As long as the returns are coming, few questions are asked. People who ask too many questions are even censured by others who have invested money in the scheme, and are reveling in their imaginary returns.
Ponzi schemes tend to be short-lived, with a few exceptions. One important exception may be Bernard Madoff, and we will get to him. In order to thrive, a Ponzi scheme requires a growing inflow of new investment, and to get this inflow, the returns have to be be large enough to induce greed. Charles Ponzi, for example, promised to double money in 90 days. At that rate, money grows to 16 times in a year, and 4000 times in 3 years - exponential growth. To be truthful, all investment at fixed interest rate grows exponentially. Money kept in a bank at 7% interest would double in 10 years, 16 times in 40 years and 4000 times in 120 years. Exponential growth is the norm. What is not normal is the fabulous rate promised by the Ponzi scheme. I suspect that a lot of Ponzi schemers lack an appreciation of the exponential function. Anyway, if Ponzi's scheme were to go on for three years, an investor who brought in a thousand dollars on the first day would be entitled to four million in three years. So long as the investor does not demand his money, all is well. But chances are that the investor of a thousand dollars, now thinking himself a rich millionaire, would want to spend a modest few hundred thousand of his millions. At this point, paying the investor becomes a challenge because inflow of investment money can never keep up with the rapid exponential growth of accounts payable. The game winds up.
It is not hard to see that the longevity of a Ponzi scheme is inversely related to the promised rate of return, but the rate of return must noticeably exceed that obtainable through legitimate sources so as to attract new investors. In this regard, Bernard Madoff took the game to the next level. His returns were consistent, and always better than the market, but not like Charles Ponzi's. His scheme lasted over a decade in the complete absence of investments, and swallowed over 50 billion dollars. His story carries a bold warning: A smart enough Ponzi schemer may get away with a lifetime of fraud. Madoff had no investment whatsoever. A combination of a mediocre investment scheme with fraudulent accounting that shows consistent returns could last many decades. The idea is similar to what Enron and other firms charged with accounting fraud did. Somehow, productive and deceptive activities tend not to co-exist harmoniously over time, which is a great blessing for investors. Still, it pays to be cautious.
There is only one effective antidote to the Ponzi bug - transparency. Never put money into an investment that hides information, whatever the excuse may be. Madoff hid information for decades claiming that his techniques were proprietary trade secrets - sounds legitimate, but no reason is legitimate enough. Another partially effective cure is diversification. There is something pitiful about people who lament the loss of their life's savings in a Ponzi scheme. It is as if they have failed to evolve in a fundamental manner. Not only were they naive or greedy or both, they never understood the eggs and baskets principle either. The law can and should punish predators, but it is impossible to protect those who willingly set themselves up as prey.
Ponzi schemes tend to be short-lived, with a few exceptions. One important exception may be Bernard Madoff, and we will get to him. In order to thrive, a Ponzi scheme requires a growing inflow of new investment, and to get this inflow, the returns have to be be large enough to induce greed. Charles Ponzi, for example, promised to double money in 90 days. At that rate, money grows to 16 times in a year, and 4000 times in 3 years - exponential growth. To be truthful, all investment at fixed interest rate grows exponentially. Money kept in a bank at 7% interest would double in 10 years, 16 times in 40 years and 4000 times in 120 years. Exponential growth is the norm. What is not normal is the fabulous rate promised by the Ponzi scheme. I suspect that a lot of Ponzi schemers lack an appreciation of the exponential function. Anyway, if Ponzi's scheme were to go on for three years, an investor who brought in a thousand dollars on the first day would be entitled to four million in three years. So long as the investor does not demand his money, all is well. But chances are that the investor of a thousand dollars, now thinking himself a rich millionaire, would want to spend a modest few hundred thousand of his millions. At this point, paying the investor becomes a challenge because inflow of investment money can never keep up with the rapid exponential growth of accounts payable. The game winds up.
It is not hard to see that the longevity of a Ponzi scheme is inversely related to the promised rate of return, but the rate of return must noticeably exceed that obtainable through legitimate sources so as to attract new investors. In this regard, Bernard Madoff took the game to the next level. His returns were consistent, and always better than the market, but not like Charles Ponzi's. His scheme lasted over a decade in the complete absence of investments, and swallowed over 50 billion dollars. His story carries a bold warning: A smart enough Ponzi schemer may get away with a lifetime of fraud. Madoff had no investment whatsoever. A combination of a mediocre investment scheme with fraudulent accounting that shows consistent returns could last many decades. The idea is similar to what Enron and other firms charged with accounting fraud did. Somehow, productive and deceptive activities tend not to co-exist harmoniously over time, which is a great blessing for investors. Still, it pays to be cautious.
There is only one effective antidote to the Ponzi bug - transparency. Never put money into an investment that hides information, whatever the excuse may be. Madoff hid information for decades claiming that his techniques were proprietary trade secrets - sounds legitimate, but no reason is legitimate enough. Another partially effective cure is diversification. There is something pitiful about people who lament the loss of their life's savings in a Ponzi scheme. It is as if they have failed to evolve in a fundamental manner. Not only were they naive or greedy or both, they never understood the eggs and baskets principle either. The law can and should punish predators, but it is impossible to protect those who willingly set themselves up as prey.
Friday, August 28, 2009
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...
'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...
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, August 08, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
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.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
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।'
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।'
Friday, February 08, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2008
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?'
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?'
Friday, January 04, 2008
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)