Why Do Human Mothers Feel So Much Pain During Child Birth

This is another post on the Man and Animal series. I had earlier written about rape in man and animals and the cause of difference between man and animals.

The current one is about the excruciating pain that human mothers feel during child birth. The question is: do all mothers feel roughly the same pain or do human being feel and / or express a lot more.

Here are some nice articles on the subject:

1. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/09/animals_giving_birth_dolphins_bear_newborns_easily_but_hyenas_risk_death_.html: The ratio of the size of the new born (say 3kg baby in humans) in relation to the size of the mother (say 60kg) can be compared across species. The higher the ratio the more difficult the child birth can be. Nice analysis isn't it?
2. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-human-birth-seemingly-more-painful-than-other-mammals: This one again is lovely. Bipeds have a narrower hip and human heads are larger than heads in other species with the result that getting the human baby out is much more arduous.
3. http://community.babycenter.com/post/a24011163/are_we_the_only_animals_with_painful_births: This brings out the point that expression of pain in other species is likely to result in danger from predators to the mother and new borns and hence the mother does not express the pain. Extrapolate (from my earlier article that surmised that human beings think and emote much more than other species) and we can possibly explain why human being cry out a lot more. A quote from the link: "Animals have limited ways to express their feelings and my guess is that birth is painful for many animals, just like it is for many women. There are some women who have experienced pain free and even orgasmic births, but they are a rarity. The majority of women do experience pain and I think likely so do most animals, they just don't have the ability to express it the way we do."
4. http://psychologyofwellbeing.com/201005/why-is-childbirth-so-freakin-painful.html:  I have included this article because it discusses the issue while providing no answer to the question (had this article been submitted in response to my question, I would have rated it "F"). 

Additional reading:

• Inbreeding: https://davidcavill.wordpress.com/a-beginners-guide-to-inbreeding-and-line-breeding/
• Pain in animals (a nice instructive video): https://video.scroll.in/827043/watch-this-is-how-animals-experience-pain-which-they-cannot-always-convey
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2016/08/difference-between-man-and-other-animals.html

Rape: Why Are Humans Perpetrating It While Animals Apparently Don't

As I was walking I suddenly had this thought. Why is it that the institution of rape exists only in human beings and rarely / never in animals? If Man evolved from animals then Man has gotten this unique habit recently. Why does he do it - more importantly why did he start raping only after having become Man? 

As I was discussing with a friend while walking.. We came up few ideas in relation to the question raised above.

1. Animals strictly adhere to the "(Female's) No means NO" rule
2. Perhaps females in the human species have a higher expectation from the males than do females in other lower species with the result that more human males are prevented from mating resulting in "need" for giving an outlet to sexual urge
3. Animal kingdoms have a (alpha) male mating with multiple females and hence fewer unattached females are available for copulation and rape by males. Among humans, all males are treated as equals and no one man can have more than one woman at a time. Note that rape can be eliminated by removing all females from the scene.
4. A strict punishment enforced for transgressing males in animals

My friend and I thought that one or more of the points above could have caused human beings to coerce a woman into sex.

At this point in time I am still very confused. My initial belief that rape was a truly human invention is itself wrong. Of course many of the articles say that the term "rape" is inappropriate when used in the context of animals and that the right term is forced copulation. Whatever... A rape by any other name... is still rape.

Additional reading:

1. http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/jkywrmQMip9SG6QVYDoe0H/Rape-in-the-animal-kingdom.html
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape
3. I was fairly sure that gang rape was unique to humans until I read this article (read under bottlenose dolphins and also in the para on ducks): http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/columns/faunaforum/rape-happens-in-animal-kingdom-too-maneka-sanjay-gandhi-animals-1.1435307
4. Why rape is supposedly high in Sweden - lovely article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
5. Nice series of answers to  a similar question: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-any-such-thing-as-rape-All-animals-mate-without-incident-of-rape-except-human-beings-What-makes-rape-real-with-men-but-not-apes
6. Another nice article showing how apes do "rape" but is not as bad as human rapes: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/10/03/228809153/why-gorillas-arent-sexist-and-orangutans-dont-rape
7. Rapes by animals: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/13045860/can-dolphins-rape-humans-when-animals-attack-sexually
8. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2896628-when-fathers-rape: This book seems to be interesting, unfortunately there is no online version available as of Nov 5, 2016.

Free Willing In Madurai and Pandyan Express

I happened to be at Madurai recently. I visited Modern Restaurant near Meenakshi Amman temple. The chutney and sambar that they serve is delicious. Apparently the restaurant has been in existence for at least 40 years, actually closer to 100 years as per my cousin who accompanied me. The food is also reasonably priced - see menu below.

Photo of Meenakshi Amman At the restaurant

Menu Card at a lovely restaurant, great chutney and sambar- must visit

Incidentally this is a nice Rajasthani restaurant in Madurai: http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/food/rice-vs-roti-in-madurai/article20698951.ece

Outside the station

Outside the Station. Looks quite nice.

Gentleman Operating Self Service Railway Machine / Counter

That's Pandyan Express. Rake looked absolutely new. Just 2 months old I was to find out later.

Spanking New Compartments. 

Chargers at each bay

And reached Chennai right on time. Not much else was interesting in Madurai.

In the train my cousin and I happened to discuss about free will. He mentioned a song நான் அசைத்தால் அகிலமும் அசையும். While the actual translation is more like "If I move even the world will shake" we both took the saying to mean that God moved everything in the world and nothing moves without His intervention. My cousin agreed that this was the intended meaning. 

I had earlier written about free will. I told my cousin that if nothing moved without Him, then Man had no free will. He agreed. In which case, I continued, it is useless to hold man to be responsible for anything in the world - good or bad. My cousin agreed. Here is where the fun started.

He said while it was true that God moved everything, it was within each of us to make ourselves Good which meant to exercise control, to avoid selfishness, arrogance etc. I asked my cousin how this was possible. He said we have to meditate... Granted that we were given or not given certain skills when we were created but it was within the best of us to rid ourselves of what is bad in us, my cousin said. And when I asked him, if nothing moved without God's will then how could we change ourselves, he insisted it was so. That practice makes a man perfect. Is it not then true that to attain perfection all that was needed was practice? And what prevents each of us from practicing, he said? I asked, can Man decide to practice all on his own - since nothing moves without God deciding to do so. So how could we practice without God willing. And this went on back and forth for half an hour.

Now he, my cousin, was very sure that he was right. And I was sure that he was violating the basic premise we had agreed on (that nothing moves without God).

The surprising thing is that I have had the same kind of response with whoever I had spoken with. What am I missing? How can one hold the basic premise and yet aver that we have the wherewithal to be good and rid ourselves of all things negative. And yes, they do concede that not many of us can do it.. That only the Gnanis and sages do. 

Another friend explained. That my cousin (and perhaps others I had discussed with) were strongly rooted to two premises from childhood - that God's will pervaded everything and second, that we had to and could change ourselves to be better. These two contradictory thoughts are perhaps entrenched in their minds from childhood. The very strong parent state prevents them from using the adult state and see the contradiction. Hmmm.

Incidentally a friend told me about Vidyarthi Bhavan in Basavangudi Bangalore. https://www.zomato.com/bangalore/vidyarthi-bhavan-basavanagudi/menu and http://www.vidyarthibhavan.in/. Very good place for masala dosa.

Entrance to Vidyarthi Bhavan

Seating Inside - Quite Old Fashioned - Definitely worth visiting

A place in Valparai  I have been hearing a lot (positively) about is Sabari Mess (Tel; +919489181602 and +918903951996).

And today I read about Bharat Coffee House in Kochi: http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/food/a-home-away-from-home/article18383776.ece. India Coffee House in Kannur is worth visiting. There are many branches in the city.

Additional reading:
Food for thought: http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2015/11/tirth-yatra-by-train.html

Whales - Math Puzzles

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale:

Males typically mate with multiple females every year, but females only mate every two to three years

How is that possible? If there are 100 males and 100 females and let's say 40 of the males mate each year (other 60 are either too old or too young or sick or gay or weird ones that mate with sharks).

Each of the 40 males mates with 2 or more females from among the same pack of 40 females (rest 60 females which again will have some that are old too old, too young etc).

In this scenario, how can we have females that mate only every 2 or 3 years? This can happen if few females mate with most of the males but then they abstain for the next couple of years. 

Is there any other interpretation possible?

Who Is The ISIS Winner

A friend of mine gave me this puzzle.

N (could be 25, 10, 100 or 2: any positive integer) number of people stand in a circle. They are numbered from 1 to N. Each is armed with a dagger. Shown below is an example with N=9.

All of them perform an activity which is this: 

The first in the circle (whom we identify as number 1) kills the second one. Then the next (3rd) kills the 4th one. The next (5th) kills the 6th and so on. This continues until only one person is alive. 

Essentially every person kills the next person alive. Then the next person alive kills the person next to him that is alive. Only one person is killed at a time.

If there are 100 people in the circle initially (1,2,3,...100) which of them remains alive at the end?

Abstracting it, if there are N people, which person is the winner?

Solution:
If there are 2^n people (meaning 1, 2, 4, 8 etc), if we work out the solution, we will always find the winner to be the person number 1. Let's assume there were 8 people in the circle.

After the 1st "round", persons 2,4,6,8 would have been killed leaving 1,3,5,7 standing with the dagger in the hands of the 1st person. In the 2nd round, 1 will kill 3 and 5 will kill 7 and dagger is back in the hands of the 1st guy with number 5 as the only other person still standing. In the 3rd round, 1 will kill 5. Thus 1 will become the winner.

Now if the number of people is 100 initially, we let the activity or game proceed until the number of players alive reaches 2 to the power of some integer. Here we will wait until 100 reaches 64. Once it reaches 64, we know that the person whose turn it is to kill will win.

Now, the question is: whose turn is it when the number of people alive is 64.
Since 100 became 64, 36 people have died. These are numbers 2,4,6,8 etc till 72. And it's the turn of the 73rd person now. The number of people alive are all those from 73 to 100 (total 28) and those from 1,3,5,7 till 71 (total 36). 28+36=64. 
Person number 73 will be the winner.

Interestingly if there are 2^n - 1 people in the circle, the last one will be the winner. If you are the 1st one, make sure there are 2^n people in the circle. If you are the last, make sure there are 2^n - 1 people. n is some positive integer.

Maths Puzzle - School Timetable (TT)

You have to make a TT for a school.  Here are the constraints / requirements.  

There are 13 Physics periods, 8 Maths and 4 Chemistry periods per week. There are 5 periods daily.  The physics teacher comes only on Mon, Fri, Sat. Chemistry teacher comes only on Tue. Maths teacher comes on Wed, Fri and Sat. School works 6 days a week.

Other periods will be for other subjects such as English, Biology etc.

Making Sambar And Rasam Powder And Vethakozhambu Podi, Milagai Podi

Since Picasa seems to be gone (Damn, I miss it), I am writing down some of the crucial recipes for south Indian / Tamil menu items here. Recipes were so nice to maintain in Picasa.

Read this in landscape mode if browsing from a mobile phone.
Rasam and Sambar powder:   Rasam      Sambar

Dhaniya (glassful=200ml):     2                 2 

Red chili (glassful):               2.25           2.25

Tuvar dal (glassful):               0.5             0.5 

Chana dal (glassful):         Very Little        0.5 

Methi (Karandi = 50gm):       None       25ml 

Jeera (Karandi):                   0.5             None 

Pepper (Karandi):                   1              None

Haldi sticks:                           2                 2

All ingredients for rasam powder (on the left) and sambar powder on right should be roasted and left to cool. Rasam to be ground rough (once in mill) and sambar fine (twice). Chana dal needs a longer time to roast. Haldi to be roasted for 2 min. Rest for rasam powder can be roasted together, for 4min. 1 glass: 200ml. Karandi: big size (100ml). 

See sample proportions below for sambar powder. Dhania was 100ml below. 

Roast chana dal and haldi together. Rest can be roasted together.

Incidentally, while making Jeera rasam if one were to grind dhaniya seeds also along with other stuff, it turns out pretty good.

Jeera rasam powder:

See picture below. Tuvar dal, red chilli, pepper, jeera to be roasted and ground.

Vethakozhambu Podi:  Take equal measures (1 karandi) of Tuvar dal, Chana dal, Urad dal, Pepper.  Also need a little Haldi (ideally Sticks of Haldi. But if you dont have it then, use haldi powder), curry leaves. Roast each of them separately, stir constantly while roasting. Be careful with chana dal, it might become over roasted if not stirred carefully. Roast other dals until they become a little reddish. Roast pepper until you hear crackling sound. Break haldi into small pieces and roast a little (a minute or so). Curry leaves to be roasted until they becomes dry (remove the stem and roast only the leaf). Mix roasted stuff, then grind them. Mix the ground powder with chili powder-ratio 2:1. Result is Milagu podi. This is used in Vetha Kothambu, Gotsu,  Perungayam Vitta Poricha Kozhambu. 

Milagai Podi (for idli, dosa)
Fry all dal (except moong dal), solid hing and red chilies, pepper and white ellu (preferred over black ellu) in til oil. 

Note:

1. Til is to be roasted (meaning without oil) and not fried
2. Fry chilies separately because of its higher volume.. Mix all the stuff and grind them.

Additional reading:

• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/01/recipe-chakkarai-pongal.html: Chakkarai Pongal
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/01/making-ghee-from-home-made-butter.html: Making Home made ghee
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-list-of-indian-mostly-tamil-lunch-and.html

Difference Between Man And Other Animals

A thought arose in me: What is the difference between man and other animals:

Any primitive culture of man seemed to only procreate and eat (and conquer more lands), not much different from animals except in the rituals they followed. Come to think of it, don't animals have rituals?

In trying to answer the question above, I have quoted from sources widely. All quotes are numbered or bulleted and indented (and without permission).

While all animals and men have a need for more food and sex, perhaps man is the only one that could do something to make his life easier. Maybe that's why he learned to talk, then to store the communication on paper and so on.

I thought a basic difference was man's tendency to control the environment around him for his betterment. This is something that animals don't seem to do. The need to improve his own life perhaps led to discovery of stone, invention of fire, agriculture and then on to internet. 

The question then is: why don't animals want to control the environment? What is it in man that made him want to control or make life easier for himself?

Why couldn't predators in the Amazon forest arrange things so that specialist predators killed a whole lot of deer, buffaloes etc and set up shop (maybe call it amazon.eat) where others of the species could buy. Maybe others of the species who were not good hunters could specialize in poacher detection techniques which the specialist hunters of the species could hire / buy and prevent themselves from being shot at or killed by human poachers or by other animals higher up in the food chain. 

Apparently animals do something of this sort. Quote from article by Nathan Lants: "Some species engage in even more complex social behaviors. Think about cooperative hunting, predator alarm calls, and prey-predator signaling, those are highly complicated phenomena and require an animal to deeply analyze the world around her and then communicate to conspecifics about that."

Why couldn't the lions organize a service industry? Why are all the lions actively indulging in only sex and food? Why don't they have sports? Why don't they play tennis? Why is there no Lionder Paes among them? 

An important difference is that a basic economy is highly decentralized. You have to find your own food, have your own baby, take care of your own sickness and find your vacation spot and go there alone (or with your spouse). It's only in an advanced society that you have people to grow food or sperms in a bank or Thomas Cooks or doctors etc whose products or services you can purchase.

Maybe the original man who was very different from the current man and who was more like an animal, who never had a dress...the man had perhaps got enough food and he had extra emotions or thoughts which propelled him to do something more. "More" being to make life easier. 

Does it mean that if lions and tigers had more thoughts and emotions, more in excess of what is required for food and procreation, they might go the same direction as man did? The decision to centralize... that not every member of the species do ALL the things.. That some members should specialize in acquiring food, some handle protection etc... I think this was the most important factor which led to man taking the path he did. Animals use minimal centralization. Females give birth and raise the little ones. And males get food and take care of females and the young ones. Centralization is being done (in the sense males don't give birth too and females usually don't take up security jobs within their species) but to a very limited extent. 

Thus man, because of his extra thoughts and emotions, perhaps decided to centralize his activities, specialize in them. And may be this was the basic reason why man is where he is and animals, not having centralized stuff, are where they are.

God help us if Cobras or Lions or Mosquitoes decide to specialize / centralize their activities.

One more related question: Did man's ability to talk cause the extra thoughts or emotions? Or did he start talking because of this extra thoughts and emotions? Meaning which came first? 

I found a relevant link on the same subject: 

A question from the link:

In asking about the origins of human language, we first have to make clear what the question is. The question is not how languages gradually developed over time into the languages of the world today. Rather, it is how the human species developed over time so that we — and not our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos — became capable of using language. 

Other quotes from the link: 

• According to current thinking, the changes crucial for language were not just in the size of the brain, but in its character: the kinds of tasks it is suited to do — as it were, the 'software' it comes furnished with.

• About the only definitive evidence we have is the shape of the vocal tract (the mouth, tongue, and throat): Until anatomically modern humans, about 100,000 years ago, the shape of hominid vocal tracts didn't permit the modern range of speech sounds. But that doesn't mean that language necessarily began then. Earlier hominids could have had a sort of language that used a more restricted range of consonants and vowels, and the changes in the vocal tract may only have had the effect of making speech faster and more expressive. Some researchers even propose that language began as sign language, then (gradually or suddenly) switched to the vocal modality, leaving modern gesture as a residue.  See this article on body language and gestures. Quote from the same article: "The study of the rich gestural repertoire of bonobos adds further weight to the theory that humans first found our voice through body language. "

• We do know that something important happened in the human line between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago: This is when we start to find cultural artifacts such as art and ritual objects, evidence of what we would call civilization. What changed in the species at that point? Did they just get smarter (even if their brains didn't suddenly get larger)? Did they develop language all of a sudden? Did they become smarter because of the intellectual advantages that language affords (such as the ability to maintain an oral history over generations)? If this is when they developed language, were they changing from no language to modern language, or perhaps from 'protolanguage' to modern language? And if the latter, when did 'protolanguage' emerge? Did our cousins the Neanderthals speak a protolanguage? At the moment, we don't know.

These seem to indicate that man started to talk about 100,000 years ago. So something must have caused him to talk. Once he talked and started expressing, his memory became useful. He could recall from memory and express stuff. He could carve his thoughts on walls and leave it for next generations to read. 

That brings me to the next question: What were human beings like before they started to talk? Were they more or less like other animals? 

1. If yes, then communication and language is the fundamental difference between man and animals. What then caused human beings to talk?
2. If no, then what is the basic difference between man and other animals?

I now quote from Wiki on Human Evolution to answer the question.

• The earliest documented representative of the genus Homo is Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago, and is arguably the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of the use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex. During the next million years a process of rapid encephalization occurred, and with the arrival of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3. (Such an increase in human brain size is equivalent to each generation having 125,000 more neurons than their parents.) It is believed that Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first to use fire and complex tools, and were the first of the hominin line to leave Africa, spreading throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.
• ... which suggests the human divergence from chimps occurred between 7 and 13 million years ago. 

That we had stone tools a million years ago and that we learned to talk about a 100,000 years ago and that other animals don't make tools seem to indicate that man was not like other animals even before he started to talk. (Option 2 above). 

So now we have the question: What is the basic difference between man and other animals? What caused man to diverge from chimps between 7 and 13 million years ago?

And here is a quote from an article by Nathan Lants:  "Natural selection would thus favor individuals with bigger and smarter brains that can navigate the social interactions (assuming that there is a benefit to survival and/or reproduction for those who perform well in these social interactions)." Another quote from the same link: "As I’ve written previously, the tenuous balance between cooperation and competition, was likely a major driving force in the evolution of the human intellect." Nathan Lants' book (mentioned in Additional reading at the end of this blog) and his blog have tremendous content. Another blog of his talks about why humans are smarter than other animals.

Quote from this article: "Indeed, the social intelligence hypothesis (3) states that intelligence evolved not to solve physical problems, but to process and use social information, such as who is allied with whom and who is related to whom, and to use this information for deception."

Incidentally as per this article, the human brain is shrinking probably because we have become more social and we don't need so much effort to fight or compete to survive. In this blog post http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/06/relation-between-nt-sf-natural.html I have written about the shrinking size and which gender in human beings is likely to survive.

Is it the surplus thought / emotion in excess of what was needed for food and sex which in turn caused the brain size to be larger which created the need to control the environment which in turn led to other changes including acquiring ability to speak? 

This quote from the same Wiki article seems to explain...

• The use of tools has been interpreted as a sign of intelligence, and it has been theorized that tool use may have stimulated certain aspects of human evolution, especially the continued expansion of the human brain. Paleontology has yet to explain the expansion of this organ over millions of years despite being extremely demanding in terms of energy consumption. The brain of a modern human consumes about 13 watts (260 kilocalories per day), a fifth of the body's resting power consumption. Increased tool use would allow hunting for energy-rich meat products, and would enable processing more energy-rich plant products. Researchers have suggested that early hominins were thus under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity to create and use tools. This article is on crows' usage of tools.

More interesting quotes from the Wiki article:

• It should be noted that many species make and use tools, but it is the human genus that dominates the areas of making and using more complex tools. The oldest known tools are the Oldowan stone tools from Ethiopia, 2.5–2.6 million years old.
• Among concrete examples of modern human behavior, anthropologists include specialization of tools, use of jewellery and images (such as cave drawings), organization of living space, rituals (for example, burials with grave gifts), specialized hunting techniques, exploration of less hospitable geographical areas, and barter trade networks. 

It seems the answer is yes to the question in the para in italics above.

More interesting stuff about animals:

Quotes from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text:

Certain skills are considered key signs of higher mental abilities: good memory, a grasp of grammar and symbols, self-awareness, understanding others’ motives, imitating others, and being creative. 

They gave Betty [a crow] other tests, each requiring a slightly different solution, such as making a hook out of a flat piece of aluminum rather than a wire. Each time, Betty invented a new tool and solved the problem. “It means she had a mental representation of what it was she wanted to make. Now that,” Kacelnik said, “is a major kind of cognitive sophistication.”

This is the larger lesson of animal cognition research: It humbles us. We are not alone in our ability to invent or plan or to contemplate ourselves—or even to plot and lie.

Deceptive acts require a complicated form of thinking, since you must be able to attribute intentions to the other person and predict that person’s behavior. One school of thought argues that human intelligence evolved partly because of the pressure of living in a complex society of calculating beings. Chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos share this capacity with us. In the wild, primatologists have seen apes hide food from the alpha male or have sex behind his back.

Birds, too, can cheat. Laboratory studies show that western scrub jays can know another bird’s intentions and act on that knowledge. A jay that has stolen food itself, for example, knows that if another jay watches it hide a nut, there’s a chance the nut will be stolen. So the first jay will return to move the nut when the other jay is gone. 

This study, by Clayton and her colleague Nathan Emery, is the first to show the kind of ecological pressures, such as the need to hide food for winter use, that would lead to the evolution of such mental abilities. Most provocatively, her research demonstrates that some birds possess what is often considered another uniquely human skill: the ability to recall a specific past event. Scrub jays, for example, seem to know how long ago they cached a particular kind of food, and they manage to retrieve it before it spoils. Quote from page 1904 in this article "When jays were allowed to cache perishable and nonperishable foods, they were able to remember not only which foods they cached where, but also how long ago they had cached them."

 “Animals are stuck in time,” explained Sara Shettleworth, a comparative psychologist at the University of Toronto in Canada, meaning that they don’t distinguish among past, present, and future the way humans do. Since animals lack language, she said, they probably also lack “the extra layer of imagination and explanation” that provides the running mental narrative accompanying our actions. 

Additional reading:

1. System 1 and System 2 thinking by Daniel Kahnemann - as discussed here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory) seems to contradict what is mentioned in this blog post (for example that animals do not have system 2)
2. The book "Not So Different" by Nathan Lents - seems lovely. So is this presentation by him: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2016/08/25/book-talk-not-so-different-at-the-san-francisco-public-library/
3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/dogs-words-speech-people-brains/: Dogs are more like humans Quote from this article: "Wallis then observed the dogs' reactions as she gazed toward a door. Surprisingly, only the untrained border collies followed her gaze—the trained animals ignored it. That may be because trained dogs learn to focus on a person's face, and not where the person is looking." 
4. Need for a sense of control: http://changingminds.org/explanations/needs/control.htm
5. Nice articles on when humans start speaking - maybe 100,000 to 1 million years ago: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/05/219236801/when-did-human-speech-evolve and www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2656465/Did-learn-speak-mimicking-apes-Early-language-formed-combining-noises-primates-birds.html and http://blog.dictionary.com/origin/
6. Speech in primates: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/21/other-primates-use-speech-and-vocabulary/ Quote: "The point here is that humans most certainly did not invent the concept of words. Primates have been using vocal communication, with precise vocabulary, for millions of years."
7. Speech of prairie dogs: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/08/18/a-career-studying-the-sophisticated-vocabulary-of-prairie-dogs/
8. Life span of various animals: https://propelsteps.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/know-life-span-of-animals-list/
9. https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2017/06/19/waist-hip-ratio-number-of-offspring/comment-page-1/#comment-2508

Largest And Smallest Area - Puzzle

A triangle has a parameter of 50cm.

What is the maximum and minimum area of such a triangle..

Neerja Bhanot flight 73 Pan Am - Horoscope

I  was looking at the horoscope of Neerja. She had 

• Sun in own house
• Mars vargottama in own nakshatra
• Mercury retrograde in exaltation
• Jupiter retrograde in own house
• Saturn retrograde in own house

And yet she died at the age of 23. How does one account for this?

Review of the movie here.

The next similar one is that of Qandeel Baloch - real name Fauzia Azeem, a Pakistani model who was "honor killed" by her brother at the age of 25.

This lady had:

• Saturn and Mars in vargottama in Sagittarius
• Moon vargottama in Aries
• Sun vargottama in Aquarius
• Sun and Jupiter in Rahu's nakshatra
• Powerful Venus in Capricorn in rasi (Aquarius amsa)

Display The Heights

Let's imagine the scenario of a man jumping from a plane from an altitude of 10,000m and determined how long it would take him to reach sea level.

Now, assume two men are jumping at the same time (one in earth and one in moon) from 10,000m altitude one in earth and one in moon.

They will reach sea level (0m) at different times because the gravitational acceleration is different in the two planets. At any point in time (during their “flight”) their heights over the respective planet’s sea level will be different.

Display this difference in heights over the earth’s and moon’s surface in a graph. (distance from earth as X axis and from moon as Y axis)

Buy One Get One Free

What is the difference between "buy one get one free" and "buy two get two free" (you would have seen such offers in shops)?

The Fraud

A friend and I were discussing about Krishna (Hindu God) when she asked me why I think Krishna is a fraud.

I explained. If the CFO of a listed company plays the stock market before public announcement of the company's results we call it insider trading - a fraud.

Krishna knew everything that was going to happen upfront and guided things to happen that way. imagine if Perry Mason, the successful lawyer, won because he was also the judge. Krishna was like that.

Krishna made it seem that Mahabharat was a war between good and evil. And that the rules were fair and that he was only a charioteer and not an active participant (not a judge but only, say, a bailiff in the court), He wanted to show that good triumphs in a fair war against evil.

But he participated...and how...He was David Warner for the Pandavas.

If you play a game where you (and only you) largely control the outcome also through means that aren't kosher then you are a fraud. Reminds me of the owner of Chennai SuperKings. And the team was dissolved...

Additional reading: 

• http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2015/03/krishna-and-kalyavan.html
• http://calmisc.blogspot.com/2014/10/krishna-villain.html

Cloud And The Heart

I was explaining to someone what cloud storage was. I used a metaphor. I said, let's say we have our cupboard full of our things - dresses, books etc. I cannot use those when I am in some other place because they remain in that cupboard in our house. What if, by magic, we could store that cupboard out there where it's safe and still outs and be able to access from anywhere in the world?

Even if we go to America we could access the stuff in our cupboard. The cupboard is still ours except it's not in our house. It's out there in the cloud. The stuff has to be uploaded to  the cloud once and retrieved from wherever we are. Of course courier charges apply to send it and retrieve it (that's the amount charged for data by your ISP). There are storage charges (companies charge us some amount per month or year for any storage beyond the free limit) as well.

And then I went back to the mythological stories I had read in my childhood days. Where a king's heart is stored external to him in some special place and he couldn't be killed unless someone could destroy that secret place (may be a tree). Well imagine storing your heart in the "cloud". And this was thousands of years ago. We have now only evolved to keeping electronic files "out there". 

Additional reading:

A friend sent me this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1085035504886112&set=p.1085035504886112&type=3 (It is about culture but I  recommend that you don't watch it if you a puritan. My friend isn't one.) Read also the comments.

Aphorisms

Starting today, I am going to create my own aphorisms, my own understanding of things that I see. Perhaps one (to two or even longer towards the end of the post) liners that convey my understanding of life.

• People with black and white thinking are touchy. This is because of their inability to see any grey - they can see only limited options to explain others' behavior. And one of those options sees someone else's behavior as personal and meant against themselves. And touchiness is a property or attribute of J (as in MBTI), not of P. It's sad that i know of few touchy P's. I can't explain those rare P's.
• When a person (say P) pushes the boundary of another person (say J) and trespasses, the latter thinks of his own behavior as having been graceful and generous. The former knows he has negotiated a good deal and that he doesn't owe the latter. When the latter realizes that the action he agreed to was a result of negotiation he is cut to the quick. This is one example of the larger rule in human behavior - when our good actions consistently go unacknowledged we stop performing those good actions. 
• Peter Keating says to Catherine Halsey about his boss Guy Francon in Fountainhead "and i have no respect for him at all. And I'm delighted to be working for him" - What a beautiful way to characterize Peter. His heart is delighted because the job provides what he desires (maybe, prestige) and his head has no respect for the man. This is example of Cognitive Dissonance.
• The man in whom the weight of others' feedback weighs heavily is a man that is not worth looking up to. It doesn't mean that all men who do not consider others' feedback are good men. We fear tigers and lions. But we don't fear, as much, the same animals that have been trained to behave as per some trainer's expectation. The first step towards destroying a person's individuality is to get him to seek constant feedback. 
• Some people tend to ostracize those they can't stand. Others tend to destroy people they can't stand. Whether we end up ostracizing or destroying people depends on how strong their Mars (energy level) is. Actually it's a question of fight (destroy) or flight (ostracize or avoid). 
• Some people pride themselves on seeing and depicting reality as it is. Some pride themselves on their ability to change reality - they take pride in amplifying or minimizing what reality is. Remember the senator from Montana in the movie Shooter so says "Truth is what I say it is", meaning he could interpret "truth" any which way. 
• What you hold on to at the end of the day indicates what your capacity and strength are. There is a saying in Tamil "It's when the river runs dry that you get to see the muck."
• If you put off something in your life then that thing was never important to you.
• Some people think of a pointed question that they are unable to answer or one that caught them in a lie as an insulting question.
• Strong Venus (as in Vedic Astrology = F as in MBTI) gives poor introspection ability. Introspection comes from Saturn. I wonder whether Cognitive Dissonance and strong Venus are positively correlated. F also have difficulty in understanding cause and effect (due perhaps to their difficulty in sequencing events which is essential for cause and effect analysis). Intelligent F's do sequencing with ease but usually limit the act to when it's useful for themselves.
• Often we are told to suppress our anger and not vent out and yell. When we do suppress it, it results in disgust being stored inside. This article seems to echo the same thought: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-shows-that-for-wome/. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_Suppression.
• FP (as in MBTI) needs pleasantness and provides the same. It's the essence of their character. Their ability to say yes to your request without meaning it is phenomenal. TJ can rarely provide the pleasantness sought by an FP. As a result the FP will move away. And TJ will hence also part. A TJ can desire the pleasantness despite not being able to provide it. 
• We say Inshallah (or As God wills it) when we are not driven to ensure something - maybe the thing was not important enough. But when we do go ahead and do something instead of inshallahing (just expressing hope) then the goal was important enough for us. 
• When an Enneagram-8 (or with only a strong Mars without even a strong Mars) really feels someone is good what he means is that the someone is or can be of use to him - a good raw material for the 8. See this: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-isnt-being-greatits-enabling-others-great-david-mcqueen. Enneagram 8 are usually leaders and they usually have a very strong Mars and atleast a reasonably strong Venus.
• The thing you crave that you have in plenty is your value. What you crave which you lack is just greed.
• We tend to judge people quite rigorously on those things that we have in plenty. We tend to be very kind on attributes in people which we ourselves lack. If we are a strong T with high intelligence, we tend to judge people harshly on their (lack of) intelligence. While if we were a strong F, we tend not to attack people on their lack of intelligence, we tend to go very soft. Essentially we tend to be bullies - some of us on physical strength, some on attractiveness and so on. We choose that attribute which we think or feel we are strong in and kinda bully others who kinda lack that attribute. The strength of bullying is proportional to the Mars or energy in us. When our energy is low, people may not be aware of our bullying propensity.
• Added on Mar 10, 2017: Paytm planned to levy 2% charge on users who added money to Paytm through credit card. The rationale being that users misused Paytm - they charged their credit card to add money to Paytm, then moved the money from Paytm to their bank and they had a couple of weeks to pay their credit card. Paytm didn't levy any charge for these transactions earlier. Now here is the interesting thing.. People figured out a way to use this loophole in Paytm. Users got free bonus points from their credit card issuer for using the card. Not only that, users got back money in their banks which they had to pay only after a couple of weeks. Beautiful. This is akin to snails homing in on plants or cobras on rats or ants on sugar.. I always wonder. How the hell do they know there is food? The instinct to survive is something God has given everyone including animals. The Paytm users used this instinct. So did the guys who laundered their demonetized notes between Nov and Dec 2016. This instinct comes from keeping all their senses (sense organs) open with a high desire to live well. And so was the caller from RBI ATM. Why did he resort to this con job? My guess is: he might not have found any other routine cleaner jobs to his liking or he didn't get or couldn't keep such jobs. Humans aren't that different from animals. We tend to camouflage our needs better. What we call maturity is our tendency to camouflage or postpone our need for instant gratification 
• Often we see what we want to see. Is it the whole picture? Would our reaction to what we saw change if we knew the whole picture? We often hear of Sri Lankan Navy shooting at or imprisoning poor Indian fishermen off the coast of Rameswaram. I have often felt irritated with Sri Lanka. And I felt the same way about Pakistan about what Pak does off Karachi waters or near LOC. But then read this: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-right-to-fish/article17436605.ece
• Our memory may not be as good as we think it is as per http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/disillusionment (relate to the sinking or the whipping)
• When a wife tells her sick husband and child that she will cook bad food as long as they continue to be sick - is she emotionally blackmailing them or is she showing them the way to get better soon? 
• When we are being non egoistic, we are concerned more with our need for people than our own feeling of being wronged or belittled and our need to destroy whoever caused the wron. We sell non egoistic behavior as divine (as against egoistic behavior). No doubt that non egoistic behavior is nicer.. But...
• Some of us defend external attack on our egos and in the process perhaps let go of our material assets. And there are others who better control their egos while capably defending attacks on their material assets or even going on the offensive to conquer someone else's assets. And since generosity involves letting go of assets, does it mean generosity coexists with ego? Does non egoistic and high EQ (emotional quotient) behavior hence rarely coexist with generosity? 
• Quote on intelligence from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/jbasil/documents/CrowApeCognition.pdf: "One important aspect underlying all flexible behavior is the ability to generalize learned rules in order to apply them to novel stimuli or situations. This ability to solve transfer problems by abstracting general rules is what distinguishes rule learners from rote learners. When presented with a series of different discriminations to learn, corvids (blue jays, rooks, jackdaws, and Eurasian jays), like monkeys and apes, extract the general rule, such as win-stay, lose-shift rather than having to learn each new discrimination afresh. By contrast, pigeons appeared to be rote learners, solving the task eventually by learning each discrimination individually...There are many aspects of corvid and ape cognition that appear to use the same cognitive tool kit: causal reasoning, flexibility, imagination, and prospection"
• We are predisposed or programmed to fear snakes as per https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/
• Quote from https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2016/10/17/dominance-status-affects-the-transmission-of-fear/: "rats, like humans, experience their world through the lens of social contact. Those of high social rank are more influential on others, while being less likely to be influenced by others. Those of lower social rank, on the other hand, have their own advantage: by paying attention to both superiors and other subordinates, they are able to learn from all of members of the group equally."
• Empathy is the ability to see things from another's point of view. J (as in MBTI) hence are least empathetic.. They are so bound by rules and formula and are most fair.. Empathy and fairness rarely coexist. P are usually good at empathy while J show generosity. I wonder whether the existence of empathy and generosity is proof enough of a person's P or J type.
• I love the movie Drishyam (Hindi version). There were two feminine themes. One is how Tabu figures out how Ajay fooled the police. (Incidentally in the Wiki photo, Tabu looks so much like Saira Banu... Beautiful). 
• The other is how cleanly Ajay fools everyone with aptly placed words.. Of course he made some mistakes.. One of which was looking directly at the camera inside the ATM.. People usually don't look at the camera in an ATM.. That act, to prove that he was in the ATM on the said day, aroused suspicion. When his wife tells him at the end that she felt bad that they, as a family, had gotten away free despite having murdered the boy.. And how sad she was for the IG of police. After all the IG was a mother too. Ajay's reply is all about animal behavior with little richness of human behavior. Had the situation been reversed, he tells his wife, the IG would not have been so kind as Shreya is trying to be. Every man to his own. At the deepest level Ajay was concerned about survival than about morals. Are humans very different from animals? 
• Now coming to Tabu...There seemed to be no evidence to support Gaitonde's view that Ajay was the person who drove the yellow car and also probably killed Sam. Tabu and her husband had been hearing all witnesses supporting the explanation given by Ajay...Until she hears one of them blurt out that he didn't remember all the details that happened on Oct 2 and 3. That he had met Ajay 3 - 4 days back and that Ajay mentioned or rather reminded him of the details then... Then Tabu starts figuring out that.. Ajay and his family had gone to Panjim and had eaten Pav Bhaji and stayed at the lodge and watched the movie.. BUT NOT ON the dates Oct 2 , 3 but subsequently. This is the most beautiful part of the movie... This is Ne (as in MBTI) at work.
• Isn't it strange that the people that we expect and do get empathy from are the same ones that we can't let our guard down with... Do we really respect the person with whom we let our guard down? When we let our guard down, we tend to not listen carefully when they are taking, we multitask, we look elsewhere (may be a quick look at the messenger screen in our phone), avoid eye contact.. Would we have done such things when we didn't know the person well? We usually think of letting our guard down as a symptom of getting close.. Is it also a symptom of more distance indicating a lack of respect?
• How often do we say (or heard others say) "Be truthful AND be sensitive to the feelings of others" in the same breath? It is usually not possible to do both, right? 
• Very little of communication is apparently verbal. Much of it is non verbal which includes voice modulation, gestures, facial expression etc.. People with good communication skills use these non verbal techniques while communicating. They convey whatever is necessary. Without any words being uttered leaving no proof. That's diplomacy. Diplomacy is the high end of communication. 
• I had earlier written about line and staff functions and entrepreneurs. It is surprising that people that are not line function (I mean those that are incapable of handling line function. I don't refer to those that are not handling line function) are generally not capable of handling relationships either.. The tendency to specialize too much, which is typified in staff function roles, also extends its impact on family life. Staff function people can not handle deep relationships as well. They can be good counselors, can be a good father, mother, daughter figure etc but usually not a good father, mother or daughter etc.
• When our desire to not get embroiled in a conflict or controversy very high, we convince ourselves that we didn't do anything controversial - even if an impartial observer might opine that we did. Extending this to other behavior, the best of us might lie when it comes to risking public knowledge of our having violated our own strongest personal values. We cannot let it be known that we violated our own values. It is so sacred that we would even lie. 
• Of late I have started reading on evolution, genetics and in the process i came across "natural selection" - how nature ensures that only those attributes are rewarded with survival and procreation that are useful to live.. 
• Charles Darwin: "As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form." See also http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution1.htm
• And INT (as in MBTI) are lowest in numbers. Could it be that INT's are low because they are UNFIT for survival? Neither having an Extroverted nature or Feelings to relate to others nor the S to be in tune with the world. J adds the last nail on the coffin by eliminating all the built in instincts to survive (which incidentally P's have). Could it be that INTJ'S may have thrived long time back in a different environment? Or are INT's the result of a harmful mutation? I wonder. See below:
• A friend of mine sent me this quote on 14th Feb 2017: "I must learn to love the fool in me -- the one who feels too much, talks too much, takes too many chances, wins sometimes and loses often, lacks self-control, loves and hates, hurts and gets hurt, promises and breaks promises, laughs and cries. It alone protects me against that utterly self-controlled, masterful tyrant whom I also harbor and who would rob me of human aliveness, humility, and dignity but for my fool." .......Theodore Rubin [The masterful tyrant is the J behavior while the so called fun loving fool is the P. And the author seems to have some of both]
• Humans are more restrained than animals in terms of what they are and aren't supposed to do. We have evolved rules of behavior. J's (the ones that are rule based) are most human like. And P's are most animal like. It's rather surprising that the more evolved J behavior (with its umpteen rules ) is less likely to survive. Did our ancestors go wrong somewhere while defining rules? Or are the J's themselves too stupid to understand that that J behavior doesn't help them to survive?
• Some people are very honest and forthright (usually the TJ as in MBTI).. Those people can and will say anything if they know that to be true. These people come across as shockingly clean to others. Most people aren't like that. They, the latter, cannot afford to be so open because they have other agenda and they choose their battles wisely. Being so open or honest will cause an unnecessary battle for the latter. F and or P causes one to be careful about what one says. The cleanliness, of some of the TJ's, is like distilled water. Very pure but quite inedible and tasteless. 
• There is an old saying - "Don't treat someone as though (s)he is a priority when you are only an iron for them. Let me start from that thought. You may have come across people who say they love you. I have often wondered. What exactly do they mean? Mothers love their children and would do anything for them and protect them (children) with their love. Women also love chocolates. They will insert it in their mouth and bite a big chunk of it and swallow and destroy the chocolate. The word love is used in both instances but the two emotions are completely different. One (towards children) is a giving kind of love. The other is one that destroys the chocolate. When someone says they love you, do they mean you are like chocolate or like their child? Rather unfortunate that the English language uses the same word to describe very different things. 
• It is important to differentiate between the what and the why and when to focus on the what and when to drill down to the why.. I have often had an issue with people who tend to get into the why instead of stopping with the what.. As a result they tend to get lost and unable to see clearly what i see.. To know that something happened you don't need to know why.. When we are empathetic we tend to justify the what and hence we inextricably bind the why to the what.. The whole purpose of the why, in such cases, is to negate or deny the what.. The why is usually more ambiguous than the what. By linking the why to the what, we are able to make the what also gray. Isn't that the raison d'etre of P's? To not categorize anything and to leave a lot of room for ambiguity? On the other hand when we want to understand and remove a problem we will go to the why - to understand what causes the problem and hence remove or decrease the problem. It is in such cases, when we do a root cause analysis (RCA), that we need to delve into the why. 
• When we hear of an incident some of us ask WHO (it happened to or was involved). While others ask WHY or HOW (it happened). For example when we hear of an accident do we focus on who got hurt or with how or why the accident happened? Those who focus on the who are into gossip. Those who focus on the who / why are into research. 
• It is interesting that if you allowed me to do something or gave me something which I love then I feel respect for you. But if I took the same liberty, with or without your knowledge , but certainly without your permission I think of you as cuckold.
• The acid test for F (as in MBTI) is the tendency to play Robin Hood - to rob Peter to help Paul. Note I use the word Help rather than the word Pay. This tendency is stronger in FP than in FJ.
• I saw the movie Mississippi Burning almost 30 years back and i was electrified by it. Watching it on TV again yesterday (15-Apr-2017) I recognized some other dimensions while watching Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe. Dafoe often goes by the book and says "Bureau procedure, Mr Anderson" to Hackman. Very J. When they interview the deputy (sheriff), Dafoe is with the deputy while Hackman is more unconventional and spends time with the deputy's wife getting useful titbits of information. Towards the end when the county frustrates FBI and Dafoe is in impotant rage because his correct procedure still amounted to nothing... Hackman asks Dafoe whether he [Dafoe] will do it his [Anderson's] way. And was Hackman unconventional!
• I read this article about how $171million was stolen from United Bank Of India (and subsequently recovered within a few days). I wondered about the person who did the heist. Were they any different from the animals we see on Nat Geo Wild? What differentiates us from animals? It's the restraint. We think about rules (more appropriate), we think about how it might affect the other party (more empathetic). When we lack these restraints we are no different from the Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese (and Indians, Pakistanis, Americans etc) who perpetrated the act.
• Negotiation is a trait of the ambitious and of those with high Venus. It is only the assertive people that negotiate. The Aggressive people fight or make war and snatch stuff. Both aggression and assertiveness are symptoms of the "fight" nature as against "flight" nature the symptoms of which are to walk away or show the other cheek. Read this to understand more about the Gandhi / Galt's flight technique. 
• This world makes us change and behave in ways which occasionally makes us feel yucky. So much so that we want to take a small break and live in a pure atmosphere or in the company of a pure person - it's like our own personal Ramzan. The interesting thing is that we can only tolerate so much of the "pure" atmosphere before we start gasping for the normality in our lives and hence disengage from the purity. 
• We come across descriptions like intelligence, சமத்து (non mischievous, dependable, sensible etc), mature, innocent etc. How do these map to MBTI attributes? சமத்து is J, intelligence is N. Innocence is portraying oneself without any embellishmment (WYSIWYG) and is T. Innocence and maturity rarely go together - I would tend to think they are opposites. Maturity is P and not F. Examples of TP are sum, rensrini, and tvran (persons I know).
• I have often wondered why I don't listen to lyrics of songs, though I love listening to songs. I guess it's because of my T. Most F listen to music holistically focusing on the music and voice and lyrics. I am yet to come across a T that listens to lyrics while enjoying a song. Incidentally I read this yesterday. "P. K. Ajith Kumar of The Hindu stated, "Just as [Susheela] does not need to know the language to sing a song perfectly, we need not know Tamil to enjoy her songs like ... Chittukkuruvi... ( Puthiya Paravai )". from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puthiya_Paravai I doubt whether many people will agree with Ajith Kumar.
• Some people have perfected the art of giving when they can afford to or WHEN they have resources in excess and hence effectively limit demands on their resources at other times (by people who get into trouble and need help). A manufacturing analogy is the practice of doing preventive maintenance (PM), the schedule for which one has control over and thus avoid or minimize breakdown of machinery at times when we can ill afford a breakdown. 
• Some of us walk away from a relationship after judging the behavior of the other person to be unacceptable - they remove the other person from their lives. Others just reduce the amount of involvement with a person and go by the "let's be friends". The latter set show a fine understanding of grey behavior while the former operate on a Boolean scale. Are we describing J and P? 
• Introverts repel each other - unless they share something very great. If an introvert has to reach out to another introvert, he has to network through an extrovert, even if he is not very comfortable with the said extrovert and even if he was good friends with the other introvert.
• We always evaluate people very strictly on those attributes we are good at and we are very lenient while evaluating people on things we ourselves aren't good at.
• FP's (or F's or P's) tend to dream a lot. Not only that they tend to focus a lot on their dreams and trying to interpret it. Unlike TJ's who treat dreams as a waste of time. Like an advertisement.
• Nagging can be triggered by desire P (why didn't you get me this or that) as well as by responsibility J (Why haven't you done this, why is this still not cleaned).
• Sensing, listening to, hearing emotional responses is orgasmic for feelers. Most feelers, even introverted ones and selfish ones, respond positively to emotional expression.
• Negotiation is a legal and cheap way to cheat. Especially true when the other party doesn't know the art of negotiation. Examples Belgians in Congo, England's East India Company with India and also seen in many relationships.
• Venus provides the ability to survive and the desire to live. The stronger the Venus, stronger the tendency to survive at any cost.
• J thinks no problems should arise because of him and hence takes extra steps and plans ahead. A p thinks no problem should be attributable to him and hence takes steps (tasks his way through) at the least minute to ensure that the issue is never blamed on him.
• F thinks that the feelings decide what is best. That the path to Happiness is by following the heart. That the heart understand the dictates of the mind (brain) as well as that of the body and finally gives a composite direction. And that Thought / Rationality is likely to lead one astray. 
• I get the feeling that N can be suffixed by TJ or by FP but not by TP, FJ? Meaning NTP, NFJ are not possible combinations.
• When we are shopping for or choosing something P's (as in MBTI) filter based on what is desired regardless of whether it is correct or not, whether feasible or not. The J's on the other hand tend to filter out based on constraints and feasibility even if it means removing desirable options. 
• How much in mental pain must a person be when they accuse their partner of having a very low libido and also accuse the same person of having committed date / marital rape? 
• It is strange that an F / P (as in MBTI) and a T / J conclude a conversation and each has a different recollection of the minutes of their meeting. 
• Women's equality rights feminist movement is not really about women getting equal rights and having the right to live their life as they wish. It is about having life dictated by their strengths - emotions and aesthetics and curbing any focus on physical strength and hard skills.. What women want is a world that rewards soft skills and EQ. 
• When we are good at something, we can recognize the same in others as well. If we are good at faking, we can catch other fakes easily. 
• Objective of F (as in MBTI) is to lead life primarily through feelings and emotions. They know exactly what to ask, demand, get and know what not to give. And do it with such effortless diplomacy that you wouldn't realize what they have been up to. The ones with high energy are especially cutthroat survivors. They are capable of immense sacrifice for their loved ones as well as exceeding self centered and insensitive nature.
• When you are deeply interested in someone, anything they like, place where they live become important and pleasant to you. When you dislike someone, the opposite happens. You want to desecrate what they like. 
• We do not understand the intensity of pain something creates in someone else if we don't feel the same pain with the same intensity.
• NTJ like to discover a new formula or rule which they hope cannot be broken. This gives them a thrill. NFP like to break a so called unbreakable rule. that's what gives them a thrill.. 
• If mankind had only Thinkers, we would have become extinct. And if we had only feelers, we would still be hanging from the tress and thumping our chests.
• For an introverted feeling J person with low energy (in whom S2 is largely absent), arrival of important guests causes S2 to awaken. 
• We use S2 only when we are very particular about a thing. If its not important for us, we use S1.
• When we are not interested in a subject we do not retrieve stuff related to the subject. Example When we are told not to do something (with reference to something we don't like) we still continue to do it unintentionally.. S1 triggers the act of doing.. The instruction not to do it isn't triggered. Is this an issue of storage in memory or an issue of retrieval? I think its an issue of retrieval. If we are repeated that instruction, we do recollect that we were told earlier.. The issue is hence one of retrieval. Because this instruction is something we don't like, it is perhaps stored in a locker which is not accessible immediately during an emergency.
• Figuring out what answer is appropriate and packaging is a P trait not F trait. Meaning FP/TP will do it but not FJ/TJ. 
• T look for competence. F look for happiness as goal in life.
• "Not everything is black and white..Is this statement made by by a P or a F?
• We think its important to be mature. Until we realize maturity is the opposite of innocence.
• There are two kinds of people: A, those who feel small when they have to stand up and acknowledge that they aren't man enough to do a job and B. Then there are those who confidently say that the job assigned to them is a man's job. And they aren't men. They are women who are only helping out. "Women" is of course a metaphor.
• Experience and maturity can camouflage a complete lack of intelligence.
• A girl is lucky to marry a man with a lousy mother.. he doesn't have a great feminine role model that the girl has to live up to.
• I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy - is a classic Feeler's expression.
• The thinker wants to remove noise from anything in order to understand something well. Lyrics (in songs) to them are "noise" meaning non-value add and hence they do not process it. Feelers want to get everything included calling it holistic. 
• The T identifies a goal - for example "one needs to do some specific activity". If no one is there to do it, he does it. The F decides to do the thing if the activity concerned is close to his heart - regardless of whether someone else is already doing it. If not close, the F only expresses sympathy but doesn't do it - No matter if no one else is doing it. For T thus, his head decides. For F his heart does. The two (T, F) do very different analysis.
• The important issue is not whether things are hardwired in people. The question is whether things can be modified as we want.
• Baggage is the dislike of things or of people that over a period of time has moved to S1 in order to not waste time. Hence we respond with a snigger or roll our eyes or scream before we restrain ourselves.
• We are (because we can afford to be) open and honest about things we don't care about.
• Effective way to handle poor chemistry is to switch off communication, neither understand though the heart or the head, turn away when anything is said and if the voice is raised blame the switch off on the raised voice.
• Some people are so superficial that when they plunge headlong into a relationship, not even a single strand of hair gets wet.
• Venus has an ability to compare things across units of measure - i think S1, as per DK, does the same thing.
• Strong Venus, with weak Mars focuses essentially on survival. The same Venus with Mars also strong focuses on winning or conquering. 
• Strange that we judge people based on their S2 (conscious premeditated thought) when so little happens from S2 but mostly through S1 (subconscious).
• The feeler focuses on avoiding conflict. The thinker focuses on avoiding inconsistency.
• Survivors are good for their own families. Non survivors are good for others' families.
• Feelers often think harshness and rudeness are synonyms. Perhaps because both are painful. But the two are very different. Harshness is about saying things without camoflauging, without toning down the message, being blunt and perhaps also being loud. Rudeness on the other hand is about being insulting (Imagine someone saying this prior to Independence. "Only Europeans allowed inside this club. Dogs and Indians not allowed"). And insults can be delivered with a smile, softly in a low voice. Harshness is a masculine trait. Rudeness is a feminine trait.
• The struggle to survive replaces Innocence with maturity. Innocence and honesty go together, as in children. Maturity and dishonesty go together as in feminine people.
• Extreme consequences can restrain the exercise of your preferences.
• S is about a sequence or chronology of events. Specific to one circumstance. N is about a formula more universal.
• In a non-physical conflict between two people, the one that's a lesser (or less sophisticated) feeler is toast.
• The secret of life and survival is to use appropriate peaceful means to exclude rationality from discussion or consideration.
• Insensitivity is driven sometimes by a combination of Innocence and strict discipline. While other times it is driven by self-centered nature.
• The size of a conflict between A and B is directly proportional to the difference in A's forcefulness about an opinion and B's forcefulness that differs from it. The forcefulness of VERBAL EXPRESSION of either opinion is not relevant to the conflict. Feminine people do not express forcefully verbally. They have huge conflicts nevertheless. If what A espouses is strongly disliked by B then A and B are likely to have a strong conflict.
• Feelers introspection is focused on the result (you didn't handle right). Thinkers introspection is focused on the process (why did it happen, who made a mistake).
• I believe that false emotions (showing joy when you don't feel it or hiding your sorrow) are displayed when you are soft meaning while using s2. Other emotions including anger, accusing someone falsely of rape etc are true (sing S1), even if the data may be factually incorrect.
• Feminine people strongly like and appreciate Emotional intelligence. Feminine people judge others on how street smart they are. Feminine people use S2 while applying emotional intelligence.Fairness comes from S2 and is stressful. Emotions come from S1 and cost nothing.
• Context sensitive behavior is an indication of being alive. Autistic people, J's display poor context sensitivity.Don't take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn't introspected ever.
• When I rob Peter to pay many Paul's, all Paul's will come in my support when I am accused of robbing Peter.
• When we are debilitated, for example don't old age, our control on our S2 is limited. We run on S1 more often and hence our true nature is likely to be seen then. 
• Ultimately the game in life is about how much you get by giving the least i.e., maximizing our returns.
• The difference between TJ and FJ (actually between Tx and Fy) is that an F can look at A = B (Equation 1), B = C (Eq 2) and comfortably conclude that A<>C, where A, B, C are real life situations. For example, you tell a feeler: Good husbands take care of their wives (1), Tom never took care of his wife (2). An F will be very comfortable saying Tom is still a good husband. When questioned about point 2, a feeler will say Tom had extenuating circumstances. This is the S1 talking. 
• A feeler judges others (and themselves) on how well they present what is untrue.
• When you do a favor to some people, they return it by asking for some more.
• S2 and thinkers are not synonymous. We use S2 about things we are passionate about. Both Thinkers and feelers use S2 on things they are passionate about. 
• When you understand (or define) something, you should also know what that thing isn't, explain the difference between that thing and closely related things.
• When someone tells you he is entitled to an explanation, it doesn't ALWAYS mean that you are obligated to explain to him.
• Slander is when you say something nasty about someone that is untrue. When what you is true, it's not slander. When you say something nasty, people may say "what a nasty thing for you to say" giving the impression that you have slandered. No, it's slander only when the nasty thing you said is untrue.
• Dream is S1 at work.
• When you are contemplating an issue (whether to go ahead or not) and if there are major issues and if a major issue is removed and you still don't want to go ahead. THEN the major issue removed was never a major issue.
• It's during invigilation time that our base nature raises it's ugly head. We would rather be home sick and do corrections and let someone else substitute for us in invigilation.
• But death, on the other hand, is really tragic. It forces us to do things which we hate.. lend a helping hand to the suffering party - much against our wishes.
• Don't TEST what people say for correctness, fairness etc. They don't mean what they say. They say it because temporarily it seems like a good idea to say it. If you remember this always in your S2, you can deal with people better. Of course, you may become cynical (thinking, oh she doesn't mean what she says).
• Most of what people say - except things that are assignment statements (do this, don't do that), just like in BASIC you can mentally prefix a REM and ignore it.
• Honesty and fairness is nice but not effective if your judgement is poor. It means either 1. Judge blindly and fairly as a judge is supposed to or 2. Judge knowing what is appropriate in the current circumstances. Many a times in order to live and let live, you have to forego fairness.
• If God were ever to grant some people a gift, that they will henceforth only say what is in their mind and what is true... They would die a hundred deaths.
• Feminism is about the world looking at things the way we women do. https://victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/08/04/why-i-dont-want-to-become-equal-to-men/
• For some people, original thoughts are critical. For some others, expressing commonly held thoughts is important.
• It's nice not to dwell on the subject of character especially if you don't have any. Introspection, then, won't throw up any ugly truths.
• Some people think of duty as responsibility towards the external world, what a person needs to do for someone else. For some other people, duty is fulfillment of their own needs.
• "She is very practical" basically means she is not stubborn and knows how to be flexible and is willing to negotiate and create win-win situation. This is a P. The other kind is a J.
• Our job in life is to manage until death. We can be sorrowful or we can be happy. Life is a little more fun if we laugh.
• We are generous with what we have plentiful of. Some are generous with emotions. Some others are generous with their money. Are thinkers generous with their emotions? About as much as poor people are generous with their money.
• "She is very practical" basically means she is not stubborn and knows how to be flexible and is willing to negotiate and create win-win situation. This is a P. The other kind is a J.
• Our job in life is to manage until death. We can be sorrowful or we can be happy. Life is a little more fun if we laugh.
• We are generous with what we have plentiful of. Some are generous with emotions. Some others are generous with their money. Are thinkers generous with their emotions? About as much as poor people are generous with their money.
• If you deeply respect a person A, you will also deeply respect other persons who are very similar to A.
• Statements in support of inaction:

• Things happen as per destiny.

• Set something free. If it comes back to you, it was always yours. If it doesn't, it was never yours.

• Evolution is a strong argument against racism and religion.
• An SJ's (as in MBTI) ability to consider and store a new piece of information is inversely proportional to how much that information contradicts their view of the world.
• The non rational person's prayer: "Let not my opinion be hindered by silly little facts."
• Conviction + Influence = Forcefulness. 
• At a young age some of us have conviction (ki yeh sahi hai aur wo galat hai). When we use that conviction to influence someone else it becomes Forcefulness. When we were younger hence we may not have been seen as forceful even if we had conviction.
• Be pleasant, nice and sweet. The tangible returns will exceed that of Bajaj Finance.
• When generosity comes out by itself it's beautiful. It's ugly when you are manipulated to be generous.
• A lack of energy and extreme focus on comfort and peace (for self first and then for others) - signified by weak Mars and non weak Venus - makes one wait for the opportune time to do something for others while generally being needy. Opportune as in most convenient to oneself than looking at the urgency of someone's need.
• Multitasking by feelers is never done with the aim of getting more things done. It's done primarily when each of the tasks is boring. Even while making love, a feeler would think of other unrelated things when they just want to get it over with. But if they are really into it, they would hate to multitask, say answer a phone.
• The rational NT takes pride in the fact that he uses the K(nowledge) of an event and analyzes it with the Rational Why to create something like an airbag. The feminine mind (SF) uses the same K(nowledge) to determine the Emotional Why. 
• Insensitivity is our desire triumphing our aversion to cause trouble to others. 
• Extreme J nature makes you think of "What should be" instead of "What is" while answering a question or pondering a problem. And hence J's responses are likely wrong or "false" for certain kind of questions.
• Claiming frequent sickness or poverty or other distress or claiming to be frequently busy are both survival strategies. In either case, people generally won't easily come to you for help since you are already in distress or busy. You are given a waiver. And if you do help, you are appreciated much more for having taken time out. This is a win strategy for self most of thee time. The busy option is chosen by positive people, the distress option by negative people.
• We will not take stress for on a routine basis for anything that's unimportant to us.We will not take stress for on a routine basis for anything that's unimportant to us.
• That we are suffering doing something is no proof that we are doing a great job of it.
• Sometimes we don't mean what we say when we are nasty. Other times we don't mean what we say when we are sweet. Lying is preferable to being nasty.
• Caring for someone is not about how much you think of them. It's how much you will do to ensure they don't come to any harm.
• Always express your good feelings and intentions. Then you can get away even with murder, We are being brainwashed into judging people by their intentions and not by their actions.
• Nice quotes are like oxygen for the unthinking mind.
• A string and wind can make a KITE soar high majestically. Another string can cut its leg off in a second. If our position comes primarily through (efforts of) other things, our position is shaky.
• An N (as in MBTI) understands metaphors. S doesn't. S interprets literally.