What Do I Want?

I walk

I walk alone

I walk on empty fields and barren lands

Only in search of something

What do I want?

I find a hailstone

A smooth appearance

And a cooling sensation

Is that what I want?

I find a diamond

Bright, shiny and rare

But hard and sharp edges

Is that what I want?

Hailstone

Minutes to form and minutes to melt

Diamond

Centuries to form and centuries to melt

What do I want?

I am used to getting used to things

I am used to getting used to things..... after being used. Will I ever be used up???

The irony about consensuality

We hear the word "Consensual" quite often in varied contexts. Consensual sex, Consensual marriage (or divorce), Consensual contract etc etc. It's the new age norm. I say new age because consensus didn't have much importance in the past where the society was highly divided in the name of caste, class, race, gender etc. There was not much consensus between a landlord or a peasant when it comes to work. Landlord dictates and the peasant should follow. Or between a husband and a wife for that matter. Our own school textbooks said "Father is the head of the family". But now being Consensual is being matured, professional, logical, humane, moral and also legal in many cases. It makes one humble because the person is expected to consider the sensitivities of the other person/people. On the other hand, forcing something against someone's will is not only looked down upon but in extreme cases, a punishable offense (Eg: Rape). So consensus definitely appears to be a good thing. Where is the irony here?

“There was no consensus before thrusting upon the responsibility to be consensual in every act”

Yes, I am talking about birth here. Nobody is ever asked whether they want to be born in the first place (I know the technical impossibility here). Yet after birth, one is expected to be consensual in every act of life. Also, 2 people are expected to have consensus before having sex. But no such thing for giving birth. Now comes the worst part. Will full taking away of one's life (suicide) is a criminal offense. So essentially I don't have a say in my birth or my death. 
 

Is Possessiveness Uncondionally Bad?

If you have read my previous posts, you might seem to get an idea that I am totally against possessiveness in relationships. But it isn't completely true. 

Say A and B are in love and A is possessive about B. The complete analysis is only keeping myself in B's shoes. Now what would I feel if I am B? Lose of freedom, feeling bad that A does not trust, Or If I am not worthy of trust then A should risk it to know whether the love is strong enough to survive etc etc. However, there is another school of thought which thinks differently.. In fact they feel good about the fact that their spouse/lover feels possessive. B is feeling good because of the attention he/she is getting. B is feeling good that A is surely in love and that is being expressed in a way of wanting B to be always together. It's nice to feel loved and it's nice when somebody wants you so badly (i e being possessed). As I told, this had not appealed to me so much.

But when I looked at myself in the past, it is not that I have hated possessiveness completely. I have liked when someone has felt possessive about me. So I kept thinking, what is my real take on that. So here I come with my new interpretation.

Plot a graph of "Feel good factor" felt by B (Y axis) Vs "possessiveness" of A ( X axis)

When there is little possessiveness, it is surely a feel good factor for B. I mean some feelings are meant to be expressed. Love being there is not enough, it needs to be expressed. One might know the love of the other person but our senses also needs feedback. The eyes need to see it and ears needs to hear it. So if all this is coming as a "bit" of possessiveness , it's ok. But if it keeps increasing, then you hit a point of diminishing returns where the expressions are redundant and has less value. If your partner keeps telling "love you" 100 times a day, you don't feel much. If it even continues further, then we hit the point of negative returns. It's starts to bite you. You feel choked and suffocated, lose of freedom and finally hate the other person for being so intrusive in your life.

So the feeling of being loved, wanted is nice but the feeling of being possessed??

How to care by not caring?

…………… Or how to not care by caring?

It's pretty obvious that I am using the word “care” in 2 different senses but it's care nevertheless. So what are these 2 different types of care? I will just give 2 examples and it might be clear after that.

1. Suppose you have a 1 year old kid and you have taken him/her for vaccination. You know the kid is going to cry a lot due to the pain of the injection. Will you stop vaccination because of that or will you go ahead? Here you have cared (By careful considering of the importance of vaccination) for the kid by not caring (about the pain the kid has to suffer).
   
   
2. Suppose you have a strong ideology and you have your reasons for it. The ideology is a consequence of your experiences and learnings. Now that ideology might not particularly please the close people around you. Also, it is very difficult for them to understand the importance of the ideology because they have not had the experience which you have had. So it is very difficult for them to put themselves in your shoes. But it troubles them nevertheless. So what are you going to do about it? If you give up on those beliefs because you “care” for them, somewhere you have not cared by caring. I would say not caring because it gives a distorted image of what you are to them but probably they deserve more. They might deserve to know the sensitivities behind your ideology. It's just that you need (also them) perseverance to finally get to a point where the ideology stays and also the relationship. And that is real caring in my opinion.
   
   
   
   
   So yeah. In my title, the first “care” is giving importance to the person by giving importance to the deeper meaning/purpose behind certain beliefs and actions. The second “care” is giving importance to the person by giving importance to their emotions of pain, trouble, fear etc etc. 
   
   

Double standards – Cont

My previous post was on double standards that exists in relationships. Here I am going to write about double standards in ideologies. Though this idea very much applies to any ideology, I am going to take one ideology as an example and elaborate. The ideology I have chosen is Khalil Gibran's take on possessiveness. It can be summarized in the following quote:

“If you love someone set him/her free. If he/she comes back, he/she is yours. If not, he/she was never meant to be.”

What is the Double standard here? There are 2 types of double standards actually.

• This makes one a hypocrite - Suppose A and B are in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships are usually accompanied by possessiveness though to varying degrees. But A claims that he/she doesn't believe in possessiveness and regularly quotes the above sentence. A also uses it to his/her convenience to flirt/have fun with other people. But in case B does the same, A is very agitated.

• This makes one a Gandhi* - Suppose A and B are in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships are usually accompanied by possessiveness though to varying degrees. But A claims that he/she doesn't believe in possessiveness and regularly quotes the above sentence. A also makes sure he/she never comes in the way of B's freedom. A is also fine if B has multiple sexual partners. However A remains very loyal and committed. Now this can have 2 reasons.
   
  • A just feels to be committed and loyal.
  • A stays committed in order to be extra good by giving freedom but not using it for oneself. Now, I would call this as double standards because if one fundamentally doesn't believe in possessiveness, it should be equally applicable to both parties. It means he/she doesn't possess anyone nor likes to be possessed. 

I am not telling about the category to which I belong. But if one has read my previous posts, it's not hard to come up with a guess :-)

P S : I have no idea about Gandhi's take on possessiveness. I am using the name Gandhi as a metaphor for a person with high moral standards (Double standards nevertheless ;-))

Difference between “Agree to Disagree” and “Agree even though you Disagree”

We all are quite aware of what “Agree to Disagree” means. According to me it is one of the most important aspects needed for healthy human relationships. But why doesn't “Agree to Disagree” often happen or even come in handy? I am going to write about 2 types of “Agree to Disagree” and 2 types of “Agree even though you Disagree”.

The 2 types of “Agree to Disagree” are

• Symmetrical “Agree to Disagree” - This generally is the best form of agree to disagree but also quite rare. Suppose X and Y go for a multiplex. X is a big fan of “SRK” and Y is a big fan of “Salman Khan”. They argue why one is better over the other for 10 min but reach no where. So they agree to disagree and X will go for SRK's movie and Y will go for Salman Khan's movie. Chapter closed. No sulking and no nothings.
• Asymmetrical “Agree to Disagree” - Suppose X and Y are a couple and X wants to have sex with Y because he/she is in the mood that day. But Y is bogged down by some office pressures and not in the mood. X tries to convince that sex might help the situation blah blah bah but Y is not in the mood at all. So they agree to disagree. Now the asymmetry comes in the picture. After agreeing to disagreeing, what follows? They DON'T have sex. Which means it is titled towards what Y wanted. It is different from symmetrical one where X and Y got to watch their favorite hero's movie. Here it is not like X will have sex and Y will not. At most, X can masturbate and be happy. So you can force yourself not to have sex but it is very difficult to force yourself to have sex. Even if Y succumbs and has sex, it is pretty certain that it will not be enjoyable for X. ( When I say sex, I imply the one which is filled with love and emotions and not just the mechanical intercourse).

The 2 types of “Agree even though you Disagree” are :

• The Nature of the Situation : Suppose 4 people (A,B,C and D) are on a very difficult and risky trek and they have lost their way. They reach a fork and in that place, A feels the left direction is the correct one and B,C and D feels the right one is correct. They argue for sometime and explain to each other why they think what they think is correct. But still not convincing for all the 4 to be on the same path. It is possible that A takes the left and B,C and takes the right but A will be taking a much higher risk by being alone on an already risky trek. In such a scenario, more often than not, A joins B,C and D and continues. Though A technically has not agreed to B,C and D, A 's action mimics agreeing even though disagreeing.
• The Nature of the Opposite Person : Suppose A and B are in relationship and they are arguing about a particular action of A's. From A's perspective, he/she has his/her reasons as to why things happened the way it happened. But B is simply not in a position to comprehend/accept that. “Agree to Disagree” and leaving the matter is definitely an option (Unless B is very certain that action is unjustifiable on any grounds. But this also means the relationship is strained). But what I have observed is, “Agree to Disagree” seldom happens in these kind of scenarios. Instead, the rationale behind the argument is compromised and it become very high on emotions. If A's emotions peak, then B will “Agree even though Disagree” and vice versa. My strong belief here is, emotions should have no space in an argument. I am not saying emotions have no space in a relationship. It obviously has. So if B(or even A) is angry/pissed/irritated, so be it. He/She can sulk/throwing tantrums or whatever. But one cannot have an objective unbiased argument in an emotional state. Arguments have to be purely rationale in nature. Arguments which are high on emotions don't even qualify to be called as arguments. The word “Fight” suits better probably. Or if the word argument has a very fight like connotation, I would choose to use the word discussion instead. 
   

Barriers to Honesty

Note: I am using examples of parent-child relationship and friendship to write this post but the idea is applicable to many other types of human relationships as well.

In my Older post “Honesty is the best policy”.. Really?”, I had written about the price one has to pay if he/she chooses to be honest, i e social rejection. In this post, I am going to highlight the nature of barriers that exist which prevents one to be honest. I will broadly classify the barriers in to 3 sets

1) The barrier that exist because of the intrinsic nature of human relationships: These are the situations where it is even inappropriate to use the word honesty or dishonesty. Suppose a 8 year old kid asks the parents “What did you both do at night?” in the morning, no one would call the parents dishonest if their reply is “We prayed to god and slept” .Of course you can't expect them to say that they had sex (assuming they did). Certain circumstances, just by the nature of it, expects people to be dishonest.

2) The barrier that is created by external forces: Suppose a well meaning, honest 18 year old teenager girl wants to tell her parents that she likes a boy and she needs to explore that relationship. If the parents are matured, objective enough to listen to their daughter without biases, it will comfort the daughter to be open about the relationship. By saying this, I don't intend the parents should give green signal or even accept the relationship. I just mean if the parents listen without biases or judgements and if need be, be an integral part to help the daughter analyze the merits and demerits of the relationship, she will be more honest about things. But this seldom happens and becomes a huge barrier for children to be honest with their parents. But what are the reasons behind this?

• Parents are too used to (from scenario 1) treating children as immatured kids and feel it's their responsibility to take decision on behalf of them. This behavior one can see even if the children are 18, 25 or 30. Or even when the children have children of their own ;-)
• In many cases, the children are very immature and a proper dialogue is not even possible and so parents choose to use force. But one definite outcome is, the dishonesty will only increase.
• In some cases, the situation presented by the child is so atypical that it might appear bizarre for the parents. Such situations will force the child to be dishonest though he/she doesn't want to. Basically it's the fear of “not being understood”

3) The barrier that is created by internal forces: Suppose A and B are acquaintances and they are getting closer to become friends. The reason they are getting close is because there is some intersection of qualities. But it's very rare that intersection is full or near full. Initially we choose to ignore the differences and highlight the intersections and that's probably because we are in need of that relationship. As this grows, it becomes hard to be honest about the differences. So the friendship is now between distorted A and B and not real A and B. With time, the barrier to honesty has only become harder to break.

Do people feel guilty when they feel guilty??

Suppose you have stolen Rs 10000/- from someone because you were in need or the money was unmonitored etc etc. But after a month or so, you start feeling guilty for the act you did. You start feeling bad about the act you committed and you find it hard to get over it. What can you do in such a scenario? I can see 3 main possibilities

1. Call up the person (assuming you have the contact details of the person from whom you stolen) and apologize and return the money.
2. Call up the person and apologize.
3. Just try to put the incident behind your mind and get on with life.

I have asked many people over the years to rate the 3 options from best to worst. Invariably people choose the 1^st as the best, followed by 2^nd and then the 3^rd. But I am always of the opinion that 1^st is the best, followed by 3^rd and then the 2^nd. Let me detail.

The premise is, you are feeling guilty about the act you did and that is because of the possible damage you have done to the person from whom you have stolen the money. Therefore 1^st option is the best thing to do. There is remorse in that and correction of the damage done. Now why do people usually think the 2^nd option is second best? That's because it appears that there is remorse (because of the apologizing) though correction factor is not considered. But how true is that? If there was actually remorse, then why evade the correction factor (assuming you have the money to return)? According to me 2^nd option is the worst because there is no remorse there instead a selfish need to wash away the apparent guilt and get on with life. It's to feel good about oneself that the mistake was somehow corrected (though it actually isn't corrected). But in the 3^rd option , there is no washing away of the guilt and it stays within oneself. The memory of the wrong behavior exhibited is the price one pays for the mistake committed. But in the 2^nd option, there is no price payed in terms of repaying nor paying in terms of remorse. Win win situation huh? Only thing is, it is coming at the cost of someone else.

So apologizing when you don't want to correct especially when you can correct is purely a selfish act and nothing else. Forgiveness should be earned after all.

P S - The above post is applicable only in contexts where correction is possible. If someone has hurt someone else through words and feeling guilty for the same, then option 2 is better than option 3.

The source of my Empathy...

“Bangalore traffic is sooo bad”, “This traffic jam sucks”, etc etc. You might often hear people say these, especially when are stuck in the traffic jam. I was also no exception to this until the day I saw a T shirt bearing the following quote “You are not stuck in the traffic but you are the traffic jam”. After getting to know my position (I e my contribution to the traffic jam), my frustration reduced and I started becoming more tolerant with the traffic nuisance that exist in the city. After all, how can I be so harsh on myself??

We all tend to be fussy about people around, their choices and actions. We can be very critical to mean when it comes to responding certain things people do. But do we stop a moment to ask how clean, perfect we are to criticize others? This is not a new thought and the following quote pretty much says it all “Be the change you want to see in the world ”.. So if you don't want to see traffic jam, don't be a part of traffic. How many of us can practice that? People like Gandhi tried and possibly succeeded to some extend. He tried to introspect and self correct to be in a moral position to pass any comments let alone mean and critical ones. But it is easier said than done.

Since I am no Gandhi and don't plan to become one either, I choose a slightly different path. I just stop being over critical. Even if I do (like a lot of my blog posts), those are just my observations for intellectual pleasure and don't intend to offend anyone with those. My source of Empathy, forgiveness at times, being accommodative is very self centric in nature. Since I do have fallacies, why bother criticizing others is the path I often take. Also, I don't let criticisms get on to me quite easily (Except those which has merit in them) because I am quite sure I am not living with too many Gandhies around ;-)

In essence, It is very easy to have ideologies but difficult to follow all of them to the fullest. I am aware of the mismatches I have between my ideologies and practice. That awareness helps me to empathize with others' fallacies. After all, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.

 

Double Standards

Let A and B are in a married/romantic/living together relationship. A falls sick just before B is about to make a trip. The following matrix shows all possibilities.

A -->	Mildly sick	Average sick	Needs immediate attention
B |    V
Travel of low importance	Whether B cancels or not is immaterial	B canceling is better	B should cancel
Travel of medium importance	B going is better	“Double Standards”	B canceling is better
Travel of high importance	B should go	B should go by making alternate arrangements	If B can make sufficient alternate arrangements, then going is an option else canceling is inevitable.

This post is concerned with the box “Double Standards” from the above matrix. What I have usually noticed (Me included) is that, if I am in A's position, I would want B to go (by assuring I will be taking care of myself) and if I am in B's position, I want to stay back ( by saying the travel is of not so high importance ) and that is the “Double standards” I am talking about. Why do we have it after all? This is where guilt comes into the picture

Position	Action	Consequence
If I am A	Letting B stay	I get care but also I have to carry guilt
	Letting B go	I don't get care but no guilt either

Position	Action	Consequence
If I am B	By going	Work gets done but guilt comes along
	By canceling	Work is pending but no guilt

If guilt is so bad that I try to avoid by having double standards, why deny that to the other person? It's the selfishness to have high behavioral stand point. Having a single standard takes away my opportunity to take that high stand point. What would the results be if I had a single standard?

Ideology	Position	Action
If I felt work is more important	If I am A	Would let B go
	If I am B	Would go

Ideology	Position	Action
If I felt medical care is more important than work	If I am A	Would ask B to cancel
	If I am B	Would cancel

Once I did try to practice single standard and faced the most unexpected, hypocritical response. I was in B's position and A asked me to go and I did plan to go only to hear that I have the audacity to leave the sick person and travel on work. So my work remained pending and also was guilt trapped for even trying to travel on work.

How many standards did A have? 

Not wanting me to go but asking me go and then getting pissed when I was ready to go. Triple standards I suppose ;-)

Why is honesty often equated with confession?

“I am being honest now and telling that I was avoiding you”, “I will come clean and be completely honest”…. We hear people use sentences like these often. I feel “being honest” is more often used in the context when one has to confess some wrong doing or when describing a negative trait one possess. But why? Why not sentences like “I honestly tell my understanding of this subject is very good?” “Honestly, I think I m quite deep when it comes to some xyz”. As a teacher, I have made it a policy to be honest with students and admit when I don't know answers to certain questions. In fact I take pride in doing that. But can I be equally honest and say “I think I am a very good chemistry teacher”? I seldom do that and often leave it to students to imply what they want.

I think the reason for such an imbalance is the expectation of false humility from people. The moment I say positive things about me, I am at the risk of getting branded as narcissistic, arrogant, egoistic etc. I also can't be honest when it comes to other people's negatives (Refer my previous post: “Honesty is the best policy”.. Really?) . People expect you to say positive things about them and negative things about yourself but not the other way around. In my opinion, such a skewed honesty, is not honesty at all!

Am I arrogant, egoistic and a narcissist for writing this post?? ;-)

"Person" or "Idea of the Person"?

Finally found the answer to this long standing question.....

It always the "Person" when it comes to oneself and "Idea of the Person" when it comes to others..... Selfish and Hypocritical, Huh?.....

5 Stages of life...

Or 5 stages towards death.....

Stage 1: Denial (Age 0 to 16) – Life Denied the opportunity to be in pain and trouble. Life was smooth, unexperiential, naive and therefore happy :-)

Stage 2: Anger (Age 17 to 27) – Life showed all possible types of Anger - physical, psychological, emotional, environmental… It was nothing but plain betrayal…..

Stage 3: Bargaining (Age 27 to 30) – Bargaining for life, hope and happiness. It wasn't easy obviously. Intense effort, rationalizations to the extent of fooling oneself, willful suspension of truths, sweet lies…… This stage isn't permanent either.

Stage 4: Depression (Age 31 to – ) – Face the truth, break the defences, remove the mask, embrace the reality…. Result in all likelihood is loneliness and Depression/Unconditional Love.

Stage 5: Acceptance (Age – ) - Acceptance of THE truth - Mortality of everything.

In pursuit of “Unconditional Love”…..

Friendship, Love, Colleague to Colleague relationship and many other types of relationships that exists amongst human beings are conditional in nature. Or symbiotic in nature. Nothing can be entirely altruist in nature. Not even a mother child relationship (after all, the child is spreading the genes of the parents ;-))though it is the closest which appears to be unconditional in nature.

A nice take on altruism in the TV show House, MD.

(Benjamin – Patient who is very altruistic: House - A diagnostician : Park and Adams: Assistant Doctors)

(In the Clinic)

Benjamin: I started with 10 million, and I couldn't think of a reason not to give 20. Or 40. I figure I could live off $25,000 a year. One-room apartment. Bus pass, thrift stores. Bare necessities. I still have my software company. And when I make more, I'll give that way too.

(In House’s office)

Park: He's nuts.

Adams: He's generous.

Park: There's a neurological issue. He's getting rid of everything.

Adams: His echocardiogram is negative for cardiomyopathy. Head CT showed no signs of stroke or hemorrhage.

Park: He has one pair of pants.

Adams: Most people with his kind of money are commissioning oil paintings of their Yorkshire terrier. Benjamin is sacrificing his own comfort to help others.

House: That's because helping others is his Yorkie oil painting.

Adams: That's good. Not sick.

Park: That's naive and sick.

A take on conditional love in one of my favorite movie “A”. (Watch between 54:31 to 1:01:18)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TlqjncRpNE

So what/whom am I in Love with??

I have always struggled to love the “person” more than the “Idea of a person”. People often say they are in love with a person unconditionally meaning irrespective of what happens or changes in the person, love towards him or her remains unchanged. But in my understanding, one loves a person for certain characteristics and those can be anything, persona, attitude, money, looks etc etc etc.. Now these can continue to remain the same or change. Sometimes the change will have causes which are very reasonable and it never comes in the way of relationship. Suppose I like someone ONLY for looks and get married, I can't except the looks to remain the same after 40 yrs ;-) (Also here, my looks would have deteriorated too.. Magically if I always retained my 20's looks even after 40 yrs, how would I look at the person whom I have liked only for looks??). The same logic applies to the character of a person. We like someone else because we see somethings in them. Either those things should continue to exist for us to keep liking or if changed, the reason for change should be justifiable. Random unjustifiable changes always comes in the way of relationship and rightly so because the relationship was based on certain desirable characteristics to begin with. Also, what is a person without the characteristics which one is identified with?? It's just flesh and blood and I find it hard to be eternally in love with just flesh and blood when the persona is changing.

The above idea is not always used to judge/evaluate others. It very well applies to self. I like myself for certain characteristics which I have and certain other things which I try to posses and so work towards it. If I fall short in those, I tend to dislike myself for those shortcoming though the only difference is we tend to have much more tolerance when it comes to ourselves than others (As in the movie clip, the protagonist says “We love ourselves more than anybody else.”)

So being unconditional according to me is a state of mind in which everything (likes and dislikes) gets equalised and in that state of mind one is either a saint or dead. Living with some conditional and some unconditional relationships hasn't come to my comprehension still. Either every relationship is conditional or everything is unconditional in nature and I am in the pursuit of “Unconditional Love”.

“Honesty is the best policy”.. Really?

“I love you”, “You are the most amazing person I have seen”, “I think I am quite contented with the life I have” etc etc. We often hear people make such statements in different contexts. How truthful are people when they make such statements? Are they being true/honest or delusional/dishonest?

People also say things like “I want to be honest with you”, “I want to be able to tell what I actually feel like and not hide things”, “I want to follow my feel and be natural rather than artificial”. Now, these statements seem to suggest honesty and dishonesty, natural and artificial, true and false are 2 states and one can be either here or there. Let us explore the validity of this (mis)understanding.

According to me, honesty, being truthful etc etc is a spectrum and NOT 2 states where one can belong either here or there. I shall explain the rest with the help of graph.

In the above graph, honesty varies on X axis. A very dishonest person (close to 0) is an absolute hypocrite and someone who is very very honest (max on x axis) cannot be “normal” and has to have frontal lobe disinhibition (Watch House MD, “The social contract”). As one becomes more and more honest, inner peace (blue line) increases. This might be difficult to understand but imagine if one CAN speak the truth without having to maintain a web of lies, how comfortable it can get. Many times we are lonely when it comes to our thoughts because we seldom share them (mainly because we can't). We believe one thing but pretend to believe something else because what we believe might offend someone else. Also one can get labeled as crazy if he/she speaks whatever comes to mind which eventually leads to social rejection. People cannot bear to hear others' inner most unpleasant, sexual, cynical, pessimistic thoughts though they themselves will be having similar such thoughts. Everybody wants sugar coated sweet lies and therefore “Everybody lies”. As a result one can only hope to strike a balance between inner peace and social acceptance and find their own “sweet” spot. In the above graph, the point corresponding to 10 on X axis is the sweet spot where both the lines meets (a magnitude of 5.5/10 of inner peace and social acceptance). But this is no way universal. Each person has lines of different slopes and hence different sweet spots.

This graph can also help us to understand why people drink. The sober state (being inhibited) can be quite annoying at times. So we tend to drink to loosen inhibition so that we can rant out our inner thoughts. This is socially OK if others are also equally drunk but imagine drinking and ranting around people who are sober??. The comfort of speaking out inner thoughts comes with a cost of social awkwardness.

For an imaginary person with the above graph, he/she is roughly half honest, half natural, half peaceful and accepted by half the society :-). I know this is an over simplification but I hope the idea is clear.

“People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it's served up.” - ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

The Delusion of being in “Control of oneself” after drinking

I am a social drinker… But I socialize quite often!! However, I have always (mostly) limited the amount of drinks I take per sitting.

Reasons being:

1) It's expensive to drink too much, both for pocket and liver.

2)The fun is in the woozy state and not being sloshed out

3)Alcohol in limited quantities enhance the fun of conversations but reduces it if quantity increases a lot. (Law of diminishing returns)

4) No hangover the next day

5) I like being in control of myself even after a drinking session.

I have always been proud about myself wrt the 5^th point, in fact to an extent of looking down upon people who loose control of themselves after drinking. This post will burst the myth of it.

I held that belief (5^th point) largely because of comparison between “control I possess in my drunk state“ and “control others possess in their drunk state”. But who are the others? It's only those drinkers who loose control of themselves (quite evidently) after drinking. But I had missed one major aspect in my comparison, which is the level of “control I posses in my sober state” and the level of “control the others posses in their sober states”. The following graph will help in understanding of where my delusion came from:

* - There are no specific units for measuring the amount of control one has. The measures used here are coherence in talking (Rather Bullshitting), walking, etc etc. Arbitrarily I am assigning 1 to the absolute but hypothetical saint state and 0 to completely sloshed out state.

The point of importance here is at 180mL (3 pegs of alcohol). My delusion came form the fact that I was more or less like others even when 3 pegs had gone down. But the catch here is, my comparison was between my drunk state to others' sober state. But if the comparison was between my own sober state to drunk state, my control has reduced. So will I stop drinking because of this realization? Let action speak louder than words ;-)

P S: Since I am not used to drinking large quantities of alcohol in one sitting, I get sloshed out quite easily than others (Point at 300mL)

A Number Line Representation of Social Interaction

The dynamics behind how 2 non blood relatives form a relation.

Disclaimer : The below analysis works in the context where there is freedom and opportunity for social interaction. Extreme situations of power, gender hierarchy is out of the scope.

1. First impression OR Forced conditions - I think initially people start talking/socializing voluntarily if the first impression (physical, behavioral etc etc) are compelling or there are forced conditions (Teacher student, colleagues, neighbors etc etc)
   
   
2. Reinforcement/Deinforcement of created impressions OR creation of new impressions - With more and more interaction, if characteristics match the created impression, it continues to strengthen else alternative (Good or Bad) impression starts to get formed. Under forced conditions scenario, a impression starts to get formed assuming there was no strong first impression to begin with (There will always be a little. None of us are so objective in our approaches).
   
   
3. The Outcome - I would like to invoke a concept here. A number line to represent the nature of our social interaction. Unlike the mathematical number line, this has finite numbers on either side of 0. 
   
   1. The 0 - This is the absolute neutral state one can have wrt to the other person. Meaning, the other person is neither a positive aspect to one's life nor negative. I have nothing to gain or lose types. He/she just exists in the one's life because conditions expects that. Eg: A perfectly neutral colleague
      
   2. The + side of number line – If the first impression is good, we already start on the positive side of the number line wrt the other person. With interaction it can continue to progress on the positive side. If the first impression is bad, we already start on the negative side of the number line wrt the other person. With interaction it can cross 0 and come to positive side. If started from 0, it will simply move towards + side
      
   3. The - side of number line – If the first impression is bad, we already start on the negative side of the number line wrt the other person. With interaction it can continue to progress on the negative side. If the first impression is good, we already start on the positive side of the number line wrt the other person. With interaction it can cross 0 and come to negative side. If started from 0, it will simply move towards – side.
4. The limits (A very important aspect according to me) – The number line concept pretty much exist universally. But what differs from person to person is the magnitude of positive and negative numbers. (The positive side and negative side need not be equal).
   
   2. Positive limit - For a person, if the social interaction has reached his/her positive limit (Could vary from small positive to large positive), the he/she wishes/attempts to convert that relation (which has just been in social circle till now) to a personal level. Eg: A very close friend, A mentor, A lover etc etc.
   3. Negative limit - For a person, if the social interaction has reached his/her negative limit (Could vary from small negative to large negative), then he/she wishes/attempts to break away from that relation and throw the other person of the social circle.
      

The above is what a natural progression usually looks like. As always, there will be exceptions. Can one follow such a algorithm in a war field for that matter? Even if someone has loong crossed the negative limit, the soldier should still hang on.
 

Who is a Great parent?

I have been an Anti natalist from a long time now. A simple Google search will help one know what anti natalism is all about and therefore I am not going to expand on that. With that as the premise, the term “Good parent” does not evoke positive feelings in me. In order to be a good parent, one has to be a parent first, which is an act of pure selfishness. The selfishness of having the pleasure of giving birth, raising a child, filling the void in one's life etc etc.

“Selfishness is not as one wishes to live,it is asking others to live as one wishes to live” - Oscar Wilde

But what about the child itself?? Has a consent being taken from the non existent person that whether he/she wants to be born in the first place?

According to Jimmy Alfonso Licon, procreation is only morally justified if there is some method for acquiring informed consent from a non-existent person, and due to the impossibility of this, procreation is therefore immoral

In my opinion, lot of parents simply suck. A good parent at the max is just a bad parent (for choosing to be a parent). So who is a great parent? The answer is, A Non parent!!!

A person who chooses to be a non parent by fighting all the biological needs and social pressures in the pure interest of the child (Non existent of course) is a Great parent.

Finally,

Sleep is good. Death is better. Not being born is the best!

Rational OR/AND Emotional?

It's not uncommon that one gets type casted as a rational person OR an emotional person. In reality, are they mutually exclusive or do they co exist? Is it right to say a person is rational/ emotional person? Or would it be appropriate to say that a person is rational at some points of time/situations and emotional in others??. I think the concept of chemical equilibrium would be of some help in this context.

Let us invoke a constant called K _personality (K_p ). This constant is a measure of both rational and emotional components of a person and it stays more or less constant for a person. At any point in time/situation, our reactions/ behavior are a combination of both the components and K_p tells which of the 2 components is dominating. So the equilibrium condition looks somewhat like this

 

                               [Emotions]

                          K_p =  -----------------

                                       [Reason]

If, K_p < 1, The person's rational component dominates.

If, K_p = 1, The person's rational and emotional components are roughly equal.

If, K_p > 1, The person's emotional component dominates.

In my opinion, K_p is unique to a person. For Eg: If my K_p is 0.5, it implies my rational faculty dominates the emotional faculty. Now what happens if this equilibrium is altered by external factors?? As always, Le chatelier's principle comes into picture.

Scenario 1: If RHS (Emotions) are high under some altered conditions.

Loss of a job, troubled relationship, achievement etc etc can have heightened emotions (happy, sad, anxiety, stress, fear etc depending on the situation). Since the equilibrium is altered, the rational faculty comes into picture to reduce the emotions such that the equilibrium is restored. 
 

• Say I loose a job and troubled by it, then I would say to myself that it's not so hard to get another job and so the situation is not very bad.  
• Say there is lot of jubilation due to an achievement, then I would recall the temporariness of everything in order not to get carried by the happiness.

In such cases, the rational understanding of the world will help to calm down the heightened emotions such that K_p is restored.

Scenario 2: If LHS (Reasons) are high under some altered conditions.

Sometime dwelling too much in the so called “perceived truths of the world”, one can become very numb (Eg: States of Nihilism, agnosticism etc etc). The understanding of the world which initially makes someone comfortably numb, would not be a desirable state to be in for too long. Since the equilibrium is altered, emotions are needed to restore the equilibrium. I would in such cases indulge in activities which brings out emotions of “desirable anxiety” (a risky trek for Eg), Fun and nostalgia (hanging out with friends and going out ) and such things so that K_p is restored.

Probably writing this post itself was an exercise to restore the altered equilibrium for me ;-)

I do business with only women as employees..... But I am NOT a pimp.

I recently got an advertisement on my email called Netmeds, online pharmacy store. My first reaction to that was - "Shit, why didn't I think of this!". I need to give some history in order to understand why my reaction was that. I come from a generation who did not have smart-phones, online shopping and related things for the first 2 decades of their lives. I am exposed to these things from past 6-7 yrs maybe. When flip kart came first, I was skeptical because everyone was very new to this online shopping. However it got me thinking when flip-kart became a hit. The fact that most people buy books with just title/author's name, flip-kart was no different from buying a store except that the book gets delivered. The conclusion was that online shopping can easily become a success for those products which are bought only by the name it carries (I still wonder how online clothes shopping thrives when people actually want to see and feel the clothes they are buying). So when I saw Netmeds, my reaction was - "Shit, why didn't I think of this as medicines are also bought just by the name and no one needs to see and feel the medicine strip”.

When I discussed the above things with my friend, he explained to me the idea of USP (Unique selling point). The USP of online buying of books or medicines is that it saves the effort and cost of going to the shop. When we brainstormed on what new services can be provided in this changing world, Liquor-kart was an app we thought of. Still many people (especially women) are not comfortable going to a wine store to buy liquor. The app would solve that problem (which would be the USP). However we got to know the app already exists :-(

What is the connection of all these to the title of the article? Today also I had a “Shit, why didn't I think of this” moment. While cycling, I saw a cab with a woman driver. Immediately it struck that the USP of this service being safety concerns of women are being addressed to some extent. But then my mind started wandering (which it usually does while I am cycling) and the direction was how things would have been if I did intend thought of the idea and started the business venture. Then I would have been successful (hopefully) and in my imagination a friend is making the following comment - “So the feminist Vinay is finally running a business with only women as employees :-)”. But for a second, I did not like that sentence and started wondering why. The reason being once upon a time such a sentence was only associated with a pimp. Women did not have much opportunities in many areas of work and if one thinks of a exclusive women work force, flesh trade comes to the top. Others being (though not exclusively) teaching and nursing. It's good that the changing world is also in many ways changing the perspective (directly and indirectly) that women are not objects of pleasure. And if a man runs a business with an exclusive women work force, he doesn't have to be a pimp.