Ashkenazi Jews And Sensitivity

The Secrets of Jewish Genius

The purpose of analysis and research is to come out with formulas that can be applied with accuracy elsewhere too. So long as the formulas pertain to things like relativity or gravity there seems to be no problem. The moment we mention a formula that pertains to people (whether Ashkenazi Jews or Women or Indians or blondes...) we seem to face a problem. We are told that we are racist, judgmental. Instances like the ex Dean of Harvard or the Google employee, (both of whom mentioned that women were generally not as fit as men for STEM discipline and both of whom had to leave their institutions) come to mind. Instead of looking at whether the data and conclusion are accurate we tend to look at whether the conclusion affects the sensitivities of people. The same thing happened with Darwin. His conclusion affected the sensibilities of religious people. 

Sensitivity to sentiments seems to come in the way of science and analysis.

If research has to be constantly mindful of how its conclusions may affect the sentiments of certain sections of the population we may as well start taking long strides forward to the 10th century.

Can emotions be conducive to understanding truth (formulas)?

Additional reading

1. The Jews and American Progress : Unbelievable! Letters to the editor re: the original article.
2. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2015/09/intelligence-variation-with-religion.html

Recipe For Depression, CEO And Mischief

When one has a lot of emotions, and very little energy, one can go into depression because they cannot do much and things aren't happy.

People with a lot of emotions and some energy and lot of skills do something useful. They become CEO's of benign (or at times malefic) enterprises.

People with a lot of emotions and some energy and less skills turn  into mischief.

My Husband - Answer To The Puzzle

I had earlier written about something that puzzled me https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-husband.html

Why do wives and daughters think so differently about their husbands and fathers respectively, as human beings, so differently?

I finally figured out the answer.
Daughters love their fathers because they take care of their daughters, protect them and love them.
BUT because they love their fathers they ALSO think their fathers are great human beings (when they are not really great human beings). This is a mistake daughters make.

Wives dislike their husbands because they are too silly, insensitive, inattentive, unreliable etc BUT because they hate their husbands they ALSO think their husbands are awful human beings (when they are not really awful human beings). This is a mistake wives make.

Both daughters and wives exaggerate the nature of their fathers / husbands as human beings. This is a human tendency. When we like someone, we attend to think they are good at everything. And VICE VERSA.

Most sons think that their mothers are nice while most husbands think that their wives could do with some improvement. The difference in perception is not as much as in the case of daughters and wives, I think.

Men tend not to think too much about relationships while women focus primarily on them and exaggerate (in a benign way or malignant way depending on the object being evaluated) and hence create a whole lot of confusion in people like me. 

It took me almost a year to figure this one out.

Bhutan And Sasural

A woman I know lost her husband some time back. Her euphoria knew no bounds and she is now vacationing in Bhutan with her kids.

Another friend I know discarded her husband and she is now in Bhutan.

Why do they all go to Bhutan?

Now Bhutan is the land of happiness and it's no wonder women gravitate there when they lose or discard their husbands.

What then is the land of unhappiness? Sasural?

Rekha And Munna

I was discussing with a friend the film characters of Rekha in Khubsoorat and of Sanjay Dutt in Munna Bhai MBBS. After watching both the movies (I watched the 2nd one 2 decades after watching the first one), my initial reaction towards both the characters was positive and I felt more negative about Rekha's (future) mother in law in the movie and about Sanjay Dutt's (future) father in law in Munna Bhai.

Both the parents in law were J (as in MBTI) characters, rigid, insisting that things only be done one way, seemed as though they had piles, their lives full of Must, Should etc. Rekha and Munna, on the other hand, were P (as in MBTI) cheerful, flexible, nice to be with be, easygoing etc. Rekha was seen by her MIL as a person not disciplined enough and hence unfit to be her daughter in law. Munna was seen by his father in law as a person who was totally unfit to be his son in law because Munna was a gangster and uneducated unlike the father in law and the heroine who were both doctors. 

And the way Rekha took care of Ashok Kumar, her future father in law, when he had a heart attack and when she was alone with him and the way Munna created happiness in the patients (Jimmy Shergill) and brought life back to the Bengali person in coma (Anand) seemed to belie the poor opinions of their respective parents in law.

When we finished watching the movie we were left with the belief that Rekha and Munna were dependable and good people, perhaps much better than their respective uptight parents in law.

Now here comes the interesting part. 

Think back to the movie characters Rekha and Munna. Do we want our spouses or friends or daughter/son in law to be available in those rate instances when there is a crisis and generally unavailable most of the time for doing anything useful? Do we need Munna's "jaadu ki jhappi" more than his father in law's medical skills? Are we right in assuming that J people are unavailable or incapable of handling emergencies?

Sure I cannot imagine Boman Irani (Munna's FIL) solving problems through EQ. Has EQ become so much important than hard skills? Where will mankind be if all people had high EQ and no hard skills (or hard skills that only rarely emerged as in the case of Rekha)? 

I realized that I have a tendency to get conned by elegant communication as in the case of the two movies mentioned above. I need to be more careful. If I were an elderly lady lying in my death bed, would I be comfortable leaving my family in the hands of a Rekha? Or would I prefer someone like her MIL or like Mrs Soumitra in Bela Sheshe?

Is this the kind of of high EQ and mostly no hard skills or rarely exhibited hard skills that I should be clapping or clamoring for? How did we start allowing EQ to triumph discipline and dependability?

Note:
Indirectly I am equating P with EQ and J with its absence. 

Take To The Streets

Scroll.in: The Daily Fix: India has a loud message for Modi-Shah – we won’t let you turn us into a Hindu nation.

It's nice to see when non-Muslims come against the citizenship thing. It's nice to see women come against issues towards women. Or when men wake up to issues against women.

Makes me wonder if Imran Khan or other Muslims in pak will take to the streets when there are issues against minorities. No of course, it won't happen. It need not happen. Pak is not bound by secularism, it being a country with a single language (not English), single religion, single hatred (of Hindus and India). 

Sad.

I Am Grateful To You

This is the search results for the expression FEELING GRATEFUL.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-motorola-rev2&sxsrf=ACYBGNR8O0lRc5Nry96OtF97gQS1nu0G0g:1576591743753&q=being+grateful&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGhN727bzmAhXzxzgGHQEJAGAQBSgAegQIChAC&biw=360&bih=512

We can see from the links how important it is to feel grateful. Being grateful or thankful to nature or to individuals is so nice. 

Recently when I heard a person tell another that she was grateful to the guy for all that he had done for her involuntarily my blood boiled. There were strong negative vibes in me.

I probed my feelings. And this is what my left brain came up with.

When we say we are grateful or thankful to a person for all that they have done for us we implicitly deny any indebtedness to them. The profound "thank you" squares all the debt or things that we received from another person. What we then feel is that should the other person ever have a problem we would be favorably inclined to do something for them. Being indebted to them, on the other hand, means that we would do something for the other person not just being favorably inclined.

This is a crucial difference. The feeling of gratefulness is nice - it does beat being an ingrate any time. But feeling grateful really is a very shallow behavior compared to feeling indebted to that person. It's surprising how gracefully we have camouflaged the ugly shallow behavior in the guise of a beautiful one. 

What really gets my goat is the tendency for an sweet person to say to a benefactor "You have already done so much good for me and for others. I don't know how to thank you for all that you have done. But I need one more favor from you..."

Only a horrible person can repay favors taken with request for one more and package it with gratitude towards the benefactor. 

In summary, "I am grateful to you" is usually a way of saying "I am not indebted to you". Thank you empaths.

Recent example:
"Actor-turned-politician Urmila Matondkar posted pictures with the legend, saying, "You shaped me as an actor. You saw the talent in a girl from a middle-class family and introduced me to the silver screen. I'll never be able to pay back what you have done for me. Will Miss you #ShreeramLagoo" from https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/eminent-theatre-and-film-actor-shriram-lagoo-91-dead/articleshow/72859320.cms

So nice.

Additional reading

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/when_guilt_stops_gratitude

Don't Judge A Book

https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/the-margazhi-dress-code/article30320310.ece

"Sushma Somasekaran is convinced that clothes have the power to convey what a person may, at times, struggle to convey in just words. Which is why she believes in the importance of curating a look “as it is the first thing people notice about you”." 

Is this why people show skin or cleavage? 

Another quote from the article:

"Is what you wear on the stage, a reflection of who you are? “Not really,” says Sumesh Narayanan, a mridangam artiste. “I’m not one to judge a book by its cover. And it is not about what you wear, it is more about how you wear it.”"

The entire article is littered with similar stuff. How the sari color is matched with the color of raga and the petticoat color with the color of husband's socks. 

It's amazing. So much focus on what one wears and how one wears it. 

What about that old saying that it's not the cover that a book should be judged by? Is this article saying the same thing?

What a world we seem to live in. So feminine.

Missing The Whole Point

I was watching this video that a friend sent me. 

I thought of the sculptor who made the deer so well that he had even sculpted the female sexual organ realistically. So much so that the male deer was actively engaged in it for a few seconds.

While we may think that the male deer was silly in having pursued sex with a sculpture (or whatever it was), I think the male was actually silly in aborting its mission when it realized that the female wasn't real.

The male was having a perfectly good time with the fake until the head feel off. How silly it is to stop an important activity because of the occurrence of an unimportant event (head falling off).

How many times in life we do such things - account something because of an issue with an unimportant part? 

This is because of our tendency to look at this holistically instead of being focused on what we need.

Left (Brain) Zero, Right 100

I was talking to a friend about men, women, their behavior, sex etc. I suggested to her that it would be so nice if all women were locked up so they could never see any men while men remained free.

She was aghast. She used some choice language and said I was a chauvinist and how I could be so unfair to women.

Now, I wondered why she couldn't or didn't realize that if all women were locked up with no possible contact with men then no man could have any contact with women either.

I realized that she was proceeding what I said through her emotions and completely forgot about logic.

This is a classic feminine behavior. This is the same reason that women think that men indulge in extra marital affairs more than women do. They think about how difficult it's for women to indulge in it (emotionally, practically) than for men without realizing that an affair needs a man AND A WOMAN.

The focus on emotions and lack of facility with logic makes them so cute and utterly impossible.

Reservation

https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/india-inc-women-get-only-37-out-of-every-100-new-jobs-created-in-fy19-119111300361_1.html

Apparently for 100 jobs created, women get only 37 jobs. That more jobs should be reserved for women so it's 50-50.

This is the age old question about reservation. Earlier it was about caste, minorities. Now it's about women.

If men started to insist on reservation in fields largely manned by women such as in nursing, gynecology, women's innerwear shops, preprimary teaching in schools, I wonder what they reaction of women would be.

Would there be hostility, warm acceptance, deep discomfort?

Affirmative action is one thing. Insistence on a quota (minimum or maximum) is quite something else. A small minimum quota of some disadvantaged group is acceptable. A quota in proportion to their numbers in their population is ugly.

Imagine tomorrow if all people with diabetes wanted a quota. Or men who short, dark and ugly wanted a quota. The list is endless.

Buniyaadi Zimmedaari Of A Woman

A friend of mine recently related an incident mentioned to her by an author acquaintance (male) of hers. 

When the gentleman was a young student, in one class period the teacher was showing some stuff to the students using a projector with the lights off. There was complete silence in the room until the lights were switched on after the presentation. It was then that everyone noticed a cloud of smoke at the rear end of the room that was apparently caused by the backbenchers smoking cigarettes while the rest of the class was engrossed in the presentation.

The author told my friend that such behavior of the students was not the fault of the students who were smoking during class. That it was the fault of the teacher who had been unable to kindle interest in these students sufficiently. 

My friend, having recounted this story to me, asked me for my opinion. Did I concur or disagree with the author? She said she herself had mixed feelings.

I said I understood where the gentleman was coming from. The primary responsibility of a teacher is to create interest towards the subject in her students. Without this interest no student can learn much. 

I told her I had two things to say about the opinion expressed  by the author.

1st thing:

It's generally held in conservative cultures that it's the wife who holds the primary responsibility of maintaining the family order and maintaining the marriage - she having better patience, understanding, maturity than the husband. (And the husband has the primary responsibility of winning the bread and bringing home the bacon.). Now in this scenario, where a marriage has failed irretrievably, should we hold the woman solely or even primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage?

Circling back to what I said of the responsibility of a teacher towards her students, that is, to create interest in her students: Not all students have interest or aptitude in a subject. Even MF Hussein wouldn't be able to create any interest in painting in me. Even Sachin Tendulkar wouldn't be able make me bat well were he to coach me. Is it then appropriate to condemn Hussein and Tendulkar as being inadequate in their jobs as teachers? Whose fault would it be that I never could paint nor bat well?

The 2nd example I would present to refute the author's idea is to take one of his own books. Let's assume 10,000 people purchased his book and that 8,000 liked it a lot. And the balance 2,000 didn't. Shall we then say it was the author's fault that he couldn't get those 2,000 readers interested and fully involved with his book? 

Any unidirectional communication (a presentation, a book etc) depends a LOT on the author to get the audience involved. Yes, of course. But then there will be some, or even many, in the audience, who have no skill / aptitude for the subject, whom the author cannot reach out to. Which Engineering teacher would be able to reach out to Raju Rastogi and Furhan Quereshi in 3 Idiots?

That there are such students in the audience is no reflection on the author or presenter.

I would consider a good teacher to be one who infuses great interest in part (hopefully large) of her students who benefit from her classes and who identifies and excuses the other part of her students from her class. 

In the same vein, a good woman is one who identifies that the man she is with is not worthy of her attention, love and care and leaves with grace before she messes up her own and his life. This, I feel, is there fundamental responsibility of a woman.
Perhaps this is what Ludhyanvi meant when he said so beautifully "wo afsaana jise anjaam tak laana na ho na mumkin use ek khubsoorat mod pe chhodna accha".

Pak's Stand On Kashmir

From https://www.dawn.com/news/1516825/the-kartarpur-factor 

This article above is written by a person who had served as ambassador of Pakistan to India, USA etc. 

The following two excerpts were very interesting to me. That Pakistan has its eyes on ALL of Kashmir and that people from POK create a lot of disturbance in India and Kashmir with the connivance or urging of Pak come out very clearly.

I had earlier (a few years back) read that Pakistan's Constitution will recognize or accept nothing less than the whole of Kashmir. The author of the link above seems to confirm that desire. 

Once the two points are accepted as the deep driving desire of the Pak establishment, how does one negotiate with them? What does one feel about Pak?

Quotes from the article:

• "In a worst-outcome situation, neither Imran Khan nor the Pakistan Army will be able to restrain the people of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan from responding."
• "He Modi sees himself as the embodiment of a triumphant ideology that has given India great power status while putting an end to Pakistan’s dreams of Kashmir.""

Additional reading

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/08/love-thy-neighbors-wife.html

NT About Narcissistic Trump (NT)

No Charitable Thought for Donald Trump

After reading this article I reflected. A callous, narcissistic person such as Trump is so hard to deal with. There is not an ounce of values of any kind. A pathological liar and devoid of any character, everything is about himself and furthering his own interests. Just like Capone had his income tax, Trump seems to have (hopefully) found his Waterloo in Ukraine.

• The more reflective thought concerns the hundreds and thousands of other similar male Trumps and female Trumps that exist against whom there is no mechanism of Democrats, whistleblowers and anonymous guys to expose. 

Who bells those cats?

Additional reading

• ‘A Warning’ by ‘Anonymous’: 5 Takeaways
• https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2018/12/07/trump-narcissistic-sociopath/

Belar Sheshe - The Growth Of A Plant

A friend of mine, passionate about art, told me a story of a man she came to know some time back.

The man had been born of a wealthy family, successful academically and professionally. Then his life took a turn. He lost many things including his job, his family, his status and wealth. He turned into a shell of his prior self and locked everyone and everything out of his life. 

The man then found that he possessed one thing that was priceless - that was his ability to see and understand life with brilliant clarity. 

When my friend first met the man it s during the course of her work. She had gone through some hard years in her life and was just recovering from her own personal trauma. 

She happened to mention this the man. She was surprised to find that the man, who lived in a world of darkness himself, was able to understand her experience. Not only that, he was able to provide a meaningful expression to her experience and helped her understand herself better as a person. 

The man was able to cut and dissect her experiences, and explain to her that the aversion she was feeling towards herself was not called for. That the trauma, traumas actually, were accidents in her life which she went through for no fault of hers. Sure, she could have and ought to have made better decisions for herself. 

How does it feel when the worst things we feel towards ourselves are removed when we get to see the past in a different light?

And that's what the man did.

While living in his own darkness, he still retained the ability to see light, if not provide light to someone else. 

My friend said of the man, I quote verbatim - "he had weaved a tapestry of beautiful bright colors over his soul while parts of it were still dark as hell". 

And after having spent a few days in his company she realized she wanted to paint again. Painting was her passion. She was a professional artist in her earlier life.

And that is the change the man brought to her life. She wanted to live again and grow, just because she understood his tapestry. 

My Husband - II

What does it mean when someone thinks you as her husband?

A friend of mine (not remotely my wife) recently referred to me as her husband - when she wasn't very conscious, when she wasn't in control of her senses. I wondered what it meant.

Is it the disgust that women have for their spouses that made my friend unknowingly refer me to as her husband?

Later she was contrite and kinda apologized to me. 

But I still can't help but think. Why this disgust?

1. Additional reading
2. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-husband.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parineeta_(2005_film)

FATFat Improvement

https://www.dawn.com/news/1511895/fatfs-concerns

The link above acknowledges the grave concern the newspaper sees.

The same newspaper 2 weeks back had mentioned how Pak was largely compliant in 20 out of 27 points. 

What happened in 2 weeks? Does one believe that Pak was largely compliant solely based on friendship with China, Turkey and Malaysia? 

Only a final decision from Paris makes one see reality? 

What exactly is Pak going to do now? How much brainpower is it going to deploy to address it before the next FATF meet in Feb 2020? What will make Pak realize that its obsession with religion is the cause of terrorism?

I understand India isn't much sensible either. But the state of affairs in Pak seems to be so awful it pains. 

After all Pak is just like us. Why CAN'T they improve?

Why can't India and Pak be like Canada and USA or like Ireland and Northern Ireland?

When will we forget religion? Hum bas ek jaise hi toh the?

An article which echoes similar sentiments: https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/fatf-meet-verdict-pakistan-s-people-deserve-better-11571591868763.html

Sense becoming visible: https://www.dawn.com/news/1512237/sensationalism-draws-attention-away-from-what-pakistan-must-do-in-order-to-come-off-the-fatf-list

The Terminal BB

Why am I potty about the movies Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Tom Hanks' The Terminal?

Both the heroes are extremely sweet. Both want to enter an alien country, but only with permission. When they are given an option to enter through other means, they refuse. Both want to enter the alien country because of a sweet mission. Both are prevented from entering by some people and both make a lot of friends who would do anything to help them. And finally both succeed.

After watching either movie, you feel so good. And alienated, at least momentarily, from all the badness in the world. And you can see it in the expressions of Zeta Jones and Kareena when they realize what the respective heroes are like.

Sweet.

The heroes are not survivors. Principled then?

Additional reading

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-kind-of-person.html

Principles Of Survival

What is a principled person?

I define it as a person who lives by certain rules no matter how much they affect the chances of his superior survival. And whose actions aren't based primarily with the motive of superior survival.

Both the hero in 3 Idiots (also the hero in DDLJ when he explains to his future mother-in-law about two options in life)  and the mythical King Harischandra eschewed running after survival, instead they chose to follow their own values at least at a point in their life, if not in their life.

All animals focus primarily on survival (eating and procreation and avoiding death). The concept of principle is largely unimportant to them.

Human beings, somewhere along the way, invented the concept of principles, things that would curb incidental individual freedom or chance of survival but what we thought would be good for society as a whole.

One might think that all of us have principles. Not really is my answer. Go back to the definition above. That kind of principles is lacking in most of us. 

Yes, each of us has principles in varying extent. 

The most famous example of a very unprincipled human being, a person who solely lives for superior survival, is the current American president. 

It does seem like principled living does not increase the chance of survival except, of course as depicted in the fictional examples given above. 
Extrapolating the logic, does it mean that every person who doesn't survive will is in a way principled? 
Sounds awful. What's the issue?

Carton Of Zubeidaa

Some make role models out of Carton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Carton). 

Some make role models out of Zubeidaa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubeidaa).

Some people look at things and wonder why one couldn't dedicate and sacrifice as a hero. They try to give up things, no matter what the cost while doing so. Their goal is the bottom.

Someone else looks at things wistfully and regrets those opportunities that one had but didn't take. Life is about being a hero, being happy and making the best of what one has, getting what one wants no matter what the cost.  The goal is the top.

Very different, aren't they? Wonder how stifling it must be for Zubeidaa if packed in the Carton!

Wolf Calling The Kettle Black

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/rest-of-asia/china-in-touch-with-india-pak-to-bring-down-tensions

China apparently is trying to bring down tension between Pak and India after Indian army supposedly attacked terrorists in POK. The surprising thing is that China does the same thing repeatedly in Arunachal and the last such incident was only a days back. At least Pak can claim it was all terrorists, Inshallah.. 

What excuse does China have for frequent incursions into India? And now, they are planning to mediate? Ain't that something?

The wolf said "Nee illaatta ongappa": https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/158022-China-gives-Modi-shut-up-call

In Tamil there is a saying, "ooru rendu pattaal koothadikku kondaattam".

And I really wish India didn't use the phrase "surgical precision". Such a phrase implies extraordinary accuracy. Perhaps that phrase was appropriate when US marines went inside Pakistan and nabbed Osama and killed him. In the current instance? Hmm.

It is really interesting that all this time India would accuse Pak of firing across the LOC while Pak would deny. And Pak would in turn accuse India of opening firing which India would deny.  Now for a change India is claiming to have attacked (with surgical precision) across the LOC. And guess what? Pak is saying "No, you didn't". 

What's happening? How does India decide whether to claim that Pak attacked India or to claim that India attacked Pakistan? Pakistan doesn't have a problem in this regard. Pak will just deny whatever India claims. It's India that has to decide - whether to whine or roar. 

I have a larger question. Why does Pak consider India its enemy? Is it because of Kashmir? But then Kashmir was never part of Pakistan. Matter of fact, Pak itself is a child born out of India.

God help Islam... If this is how Allah's progeny have turned out...blind fanatical and filled with hatred for anything that's not Islam...

Having said that there is an absolutely cute article, published by Alizay Jaffer a Pakistani lady, which echoes my own sentiments - except I couldn't have written it as well as her. http://scroll.in/article/818069/dear-india-and-pakistan-cant-we-convert-our-grudges-into-love (or this https://m.facebook.com/alizay.jaffer/posts/884096793617: same content in both links - just in case one of the links is removed in future)

Here is another article by another Pakistani who provides another point of view: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/155974-Pathankot



Additional reading: 

• Added on 26th Jun 2017: http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/chinese-troops-enter-india-in-sikkim-sector-jostle-with-army-jawans-destroy-indian-bunkers/736313/
• http://scroll.in/article/818027/the-strange-case-of-the-indian-soldier-captured-by-pakistan

Published on

9/29/16, 4:21 PM

India Standard Time

On Warranty

This is a nice article on warranty in a Pakistani Newspaper.

I had often thought on similar lines. I remember once dealing with a physiotherapist who was treating an elderly lady who had tremendous back pain. He said he could definitely cure her in a week. After a week, the lady still had pain. He said one more week. And then one more week. Then he said, things are not so easily predictable. Sometimes the body takes longer to heal but he recommended that the treatment continue.

I asked him if he would be willing to take payment only and after she was healed and forego the payment if the pain didn't go away.

The man was stunned. He said what I suggested was unethical. How can a person give a guarantee for a medical treatment. He looked at me as though I was crazy.

I remembered his earnest assurances to the lady when she first met him. Unethical, huh?

Published on

7/20/12, 12:06 PM

India Standard Time

ISI & Terrorist Links

I read this http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/wikileaks-isi-allowed-terrorists-to-attack-india-says-gitmo-detainee-104246 today.

This kinda ties up with what a taxi driver from Kashmir told me. He explained to me about the economy of Kashmir and life there. Youngsters are recruited and given a stipend of approximately Rs 3000 ($65) per month for undergoing military training across the border in Pakistanr. Very similar to what was depicted in the movie Roja, remember Pankaj Kapoor's little brother? Even the movie Sarfarosh was about something similar. Movie Fanaa also.

Another person told me that some Kashmiris prefer that Kashmir be aligned to Pakistan, some prefer alignment with India and some would like both India and Pakistan to let them be independent and leave them in peace. When this question (how do you want Kashmir to be aligned?) is popped to them, their heart, because of the religion, is with Pakistan. While their head says stick to India because of the economic advantage that India provides.

All this is fine and dandy, but I am unable to digest the recruitment and training of Kashmiris by people on the Muzaffarabad side with the sole idea of disturbing peace in India. 

What kind of a mind would find this to be a good thing to do?

Additional reading: 

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-06/pakistans-intellifence-chief-expected-to-resign-ahmad-shuja-pasha/#

Published on

5/8/11, 3:54 PM

India Standard Time

Molesting Isn't A Crime

Continuing from my earlier post on  "reason" / "why", I thought that at times we exonerate someone because a reason was not found for their (wrong) action. Because of an absence of explicit intent, the wrong act isn't punished as in the case of the judge's ruling in the case of Asians against Harvard admissions. Read the link below:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-determines-harvard-s-race-conscious-admissions-policy-is-constitutional-11569958184

In other cases, we exonerate a wrong act because there was a reason. "He came late because there was a traffic jam on the way" or "she couldn't deliver the project because her grandmother was in the hospital". 

The social reason given is basically to remove any trace of any material intent for the wrong doing and hence to give a clean chit to the party that didn't do the right thing.

Either the presence of a reason or it's absence could be used to exonerate someone. The insidious thing is that this is used not consistently across all occasions and all peoples.

Maybe the pedophile who molested your baby was just trying to learn biology. We really don't know why he was molesting, right?

Harvard's Rat Race

Judge Rules Harvard’s Race-Conscious Admissions Constitutional? 

“Even assuming that there is a statistically significant difference between how Asian American and white applicants score on the personal rating, the data does not clearly say what accounts for that difference,” she wrote. “In other words, although the statistics perhaps tell ‘what,’ they do not tell ‘why,’ and here the ‘why’ is critically important.” 

Wow. This is an example of exquisite reasoning. That police officers could pull the trigger more often on an innocent black person than on an innocent white person may not really be an issue because the "what" may be known but not the "why". 

That Hitler committed genocide may have been acceptable if we didn't know of his anti-semitic stance, right? Of course, knowing only the what" "without the why" is exculpatory.

When do we understand that the "why" doesn't change the what". Sooner or later, if you dig long enough" every why will have an innocent enough explanation.

Focusing on the emotional (or social) why" over the rational "why" is a sure way to get rid of any clarity. Read this https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/family-tv-serials.html.

Read also the sequel to this post. (https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/10/molesting-isnt-crime.html).

"Any algorithm that intentionally or not results in discriminatory treatment of women or any other protected class violates New York law,” from the link below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/11/11/iphone-maker-apples-new-credit-card-has-an-awkward-problem/



Additional reading

• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/idmi-and-itbc.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/idmi-and-itbc.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/rita-and-sheila.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/08/affirmative-action.html

Resourceful And Dutiful

When you have two resources, one of which which is resourceful and the other dutiful it's natural and perhaps essential that you delegate the duties to the dutiful and give our resources to the resourceful. That makes the best use of our resources within the constraints of the duties that need to be executed.

The opposite option of delegating our duties to the resourceful and giving our resources to the dutiful will likely result in suboptimal use of our resources. While delegating our duties to the resourceful will likely result in the duties not getting executed as expected. 

I define a resourceful person as a survivor and a dutiful as one who isn't. 

It's extremely interesting to note that the optical allocation of resources and duties come instinctively to most of us. When we have resources to give we tend to choose the resourceful while the duties are instinctively delegated to the dutiful. It's almost like when we have a toy car and a barbie doll, we know which one to present to a little girl and which to a little boy unerringly.

In essence, the dutiful becomes the chocolate, the resourceful becomes the child (read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/02/understanding-love.html).

Thumb Goes Haywire

What Whales and Dolphins Left Behind for Life in the Ocean  

Quote from this article: 

In general, Dr. Hiller said, the rule of thumb in evolution is that genes that are not actively being used tend to disappear or be inactivated. But the new study suggests that the same process can purge the genome of genes that would make a new way of living too dangerous, extra baggage that emerging species — which became today’s whales, porpoises, dolphins — were better off without.

The above quote seems to indicate that evolution has a design behind it, that is it seeks to address a purpose. And that if something is not useful then shed it. 

While I have suspected this, all definitions of evolution state that mutation and other events that cause evolution strictly are random and that there is no goal that evolution heads towards. 

Which is true?

Survival Basics 101

Essential skills for survival

1. You do what you want to do but do preach the virtue of being honest, generous, hard working, diligent, focused.
2. You should tell people how others are trying to take advantage of you - explain who is doing what to them. While you yourself surreptitiously might do the same with others.
3. You should tell people you how helpful you are. It doesn't matter that when others need help you are somehow unavailable.
4. You should say that people ought to be evaluated based on their pain and on their intentions to do the right thing and sweetness rather than on their actions. Actions are very obvious while pain and intentions are not. This gives us a lot of cushion to not do stressful things while not being punished for not doing those things.
5. Make sure you don't take up any job that gives you inadequate returns. 
6. Make sure that you never say No directly. Explain your situation so that it becomes obvious to the other person that your answer has to be a No.
7. Make sure you always do the rewarding jobs first - do not make the mistake of finishing jobs just because they are in the queue. If your queue is empty, people will fill your queue. To achieve this end make sure everyone knows how sick, poor or busy you are. You will be excused for not being able to take up a job while at the same time you get the leeway to pick and choose things that are rewarding socially, financially or emotionally.
8. Always delay helping others until they become desperate. The value of your help increases when people are desperate than when they aren't.
9. Always delay doing things until the deadline. Doing it earlier wont give you bonus points - remember you are not in school. In life, if you delay there are many advantages. Example: A. Someone else might end up doing the job. B. You will get more clarity on the job through feedback from people who did the job earlier as to what is expected of the job (applicable in cases where many people have to do the job). 
10. Always ensure people are aware of your help. If they aren't your then situation is no better than if you didn't help. 
11. Make sure your actions are never rule based and consistent. That will push you into a corner. Your behavior becomes predictable and hence easy for others to manipulate. Inconsistent behavior is always better than consistent behavior.
12. Be empathetic. A kind ungenerous nature is always more rewarding than an unempathetic but generous behavior. 
13. Our resources are limited. Say often that you like or love others. But like or love others only as a chocolate and not as a child. Do not squander your resources on "children" that are not yours. (Read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/02/understanding-love.html)
14. In a situation where you have both rights and obligations, make sure you enjoy the rights before others. And ensure you are the last to be handed the obligations. 
15. If you aren't happy, you can't make anyone else happy. People avoid those that are unhappy. Make sure you do things that make you happy. Far better that you do things that make you happy and feel a little regret than forgo those things and live a lifetime of regret and unhappiness. Life is about doing what you want. To that end make sure you A. say the right things, B. Do what you want and finally C. If asked to, explain your circumstances and get a clean chit. Remember that saying the right things does not mean doing the right things. People value what you say. The marginal utility of doing the right things is minimal.
16. Learn the right things to say. These are crucial to make the right impression. A. We should be generous, our left hand shouldn't know what our right hand is doing. B. I am your benefactor. I always love to help. C. I never intended to ... D. It's not enough if you are generous, intelligent, honest. How you make others happy is what is most important in life. D. I work 18 hours a day. E. My health isn't good but I have to keep working in order to...
17. Never sacrifice your best interests for someone else. "Allah ko pyaari hau Qurbani." - Let Allah and Christ practice it, not you.
18. Know always which resources are critical. Never cede control of those critical resources (property, spouse, son etc).
19. When someone accuses you of something, you don't have to consider their allegation and check if it's true. We are not born in this world to be arbiters of truth. We are here to survive. So we can go through the "I didn't mean it routine". There are even better ways to handle the situation. We can make ourselves the injured party by claiming that we are extremely hurt by the allegation. See, we have not even accepted that we did whatever was alleged. We have twisted the issue to one of us being hurt. Not many people would continue to deride us with what we supposedly did, they would be on the defensive and backtrack immediately. Score: 1 for us, 0 for them. Other variants include us finding their tone to be too harsh, their looks to be lecherous (if the genders are appropriate) and so on. The assault has been thwarted. To quote a cliche, "shikaari khud ban baya shikaar (the hunter has become the hunted)".
20. Remember survival is a line function activity. Every act of yours has to ensure the survival of you and your nearest / dearest. We come with limited resources into this world and we can't squander them. Hence we have to focus on knowledge on a broad range of topics (even if limited in breadth in each) than get lost in the depth of one topic at the cost of breadth. Leave staff function to suckers focusing on depth or to other morons who are best hidden in a staff function. 
21. Never pledge your own resources in any venture. Beg, borrow, steal or volunteer someone else's resources. But keep your own resources safe.

Make sure you hang on to people who do not have these skills. They are good banks to withdraw from without having to deposit much.

Never make these skillsets obvious to others. You don't want others to know what you are doing and you don't want more people to do what you are doing. It's absolutely essential that your actions be camouflaged under appropriate gestures and words. Human beings invented language primarily for this purpose. 

Remember it's not easy to change your behavior. But if your child displays these behavioral traits be happy. They will survive better than you can.

I wish we were taught these skills in school than reading, writing and Rithmetic. It's only later in life that some of us realize that the 3 R's can't hold a candle to the Survival skills listed above.

To some of us, these survival skills are part and parcel of our genes. We don't need to be taught these. Other people that might benefit from these - to understand what's happening around them and, if at all possible, to exhibit the same traits. 

Remember we are not here in this world to be a runt and die. We have to survive. Only if we survive can we do anything good for others. If we don't survive, we can't do much for others anyway.

To test if you are feminine enough, you can answer the questions here https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/09/female-c-comprehension-and-application.html)