Inflexible Till The End

What is it like to remain inflexible right till the end?

When you are on your fag end of your journey and you look back. And the Galt's Gulch doesn't have people, no more than 2 or 3. All of them going through life just as you are.

You look back and think... What if you had been more flexible? What if you had made different choices / decisions in life? Would your life be different today? Better?

In the movie Rowdy Rathore, Akshay says he be wants to be fearless even when death stares at him in the face. When death stares at me, I wish I remain steadfast and true to my beliefs and that I do not compromise. 

I will go alone. Probably having to switch on the machine myself and then lie down...

What feelings of guilt or of regret would i have them? How could i minimize them?

How would these feelings of guilt and / regret conflict with the decision to never compromise? Compromise and negotiation is made by the heart. Guilt and regret perhaps come from the heart too.. Maybe that's why She described John's face as having no guilt.

Around 2016.

ICICI Bank Backs CEO Chanda Kochhar

I read this article today.

BloombergQuint: ICICI-Videocon Loan: Srikrishna Panel Finds Chanda Kochhar In Violation Of Bank’s Code Of Conduct.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/icici-videocon-loan-srikrisna-panel-finds-chanda-kochhar-in-violation-of-banks-code-of-conduct

ICICI Bank's reaction to Srikrishna panel's report is strange. Earlier when the allegations were made against Kocchar, the bank backed her and declared that she had done nothing wrong or unethical. Now the bank wants to terminate her for cause. What happened to their earlier declaration of her Innocence? How was that decision reached? Who made that decision? What do they have to say about their decision?

https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/icici-bank-ceo-chanda-kochhar-videocon-loans-venugopal-dhoot-arvind-gupta/story/273580.html

The title of the story was : "ICICI Bank backs CEO Chanda Kochhar, says no question of quid-pro-quo in Videocon loans."

It reminds me of the time when the Satyam scandal broke out and only a few months earlier, Satyam had been given the Golden Globe award for good governance. 

Golden Globe, like ICICI Bank today, retracted their earlier stance or award. 

I came across this article a day after I wrote this post. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/icici-bank-board-under-fire-for-giving-clean-chit-to-chanda-kochhar-119013100034_1.html
Seems like other people have similar thoughts as I do.

While I do not know the issues that the Bank faces today and maybe what they did was the most appropriate. Maybe it is difficult for ICICI to continue to say that they believe in Ms Kochhar after Srikrishna panel's reporr. Even if they still do believe in Kochhar, maybe it's imperative in the current circumstances to go with the flow.
But one wonders - is being flexible and going where the wind is blowing is all there is to lending? Or to living.


Additional reading

1. https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/fall-from-grace-chanda-kochhar-or-icici-board-119021000729_1.html
2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/realty-deal-at-heart-of-icici-probe-against-chanda-kochhar/articleshow/67825792.cms -Real Estate transactions between the parties
3. https://indianexpress.com/article/business/banking-and-finance/icici-bank-chanda-kochhar-hurt-and-shocked-videocon-group-venugopal-dhoot-5561993/
4. Economic Times: Here's all that finally did Chanda Kochhar in
5. Economic Times: ICICI Board must answer for the scandal around Chanda Kochhar. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/icici-board-must-answer-for-the-scandal-around-chanda-kochhar/articleshow/67769515.cms?UTM_Source=Google_Newsstand&UTM_Campaign=RSS_Feed&UTM_Medium=Referral

Which Filter?

Few years back I was discussing with a friend about shopping. She told me that when she had to purchase a gift for someone, say a watch, she would go to the shop and look around for appropriate watches until she found a few that matched her criteria and then she would look at the price. If the price was within budget she would purchase the watch, else she would start all over again.

I was aghast. If I wanted to purchase a watch for someone, I would set the primary filter as the price and then select from the watches that met my primary, that is price, criterion. 

Essentially we apply that criterion first that is most important to us. This primary criterion seems to vary from person to person.

Today I happened to go along with a friend who wanted some editing done on some videos that he had. He wanted to do some trimming, merging, adding subtitles, changing aspect ratio and the like. Both of us went to a person he knew who works as a video editor. 

We soon found out that the guy was using a software, the annual license cost of which was quite high. I started getting fidgety. I thought there was no point getting to know how to use this software if we weren't going to buy it. I asked my friend whether he wanted to get the editing done primarily or whether he wanted to use this occasion to learn how to do editing. He avoided answering my question.

Coming back, I related today's conversation with the one I had years earlier about the purchase of a watch.

The similarity struck me. In both cases I would have applied the price filter first. But neither of my friends did that.

So I wondered. My first friend wanted to get the right watch. Today, my other friend wanted to watch how the editing was done. 

For some people, the passion is about the job. For others it is about completing the job. 

Maybe I need to rephrase that. When we are passionate about something, we do not worry about its completion. We just want to be immersed in it and get it to perfection. 

In other cases, we take it as a job and just get it done. In these cases, perfection is not a goal. Good enough and fast is.

Having said that, I wonder how people like Steve Jobs married both the concepts. 

When I get irritated with people who don't use MY primary filter, I might have to consider how they feel about my using what is not THEIR primary filter.

PFC And REC

Indian government is divesting its holdings in public companies to raise money.

Recently it had considered two companies Rural Electrical Corporation (REC) and Power Finance Corporation (PFC).

Initially the government thought of REC buying out the government's stake in PFC. Then it decided to have PFC buy out the government's stake in REC. 

I was wondering, with my limited understanding, about the pros and cons of the two options.

Here are some data as of today

                                                            REC     PFC

Market cap ('000 Crores).               24.3   27.7

Govt holding in %.                             58      61

Dividend as % of share price           7.45    7.45

Value of govt holdings

=market cap*holding %

('000 Crores).                                   14.2    16.9

Dividend amount for govt

Without divestment

('000 Crores).                              

=Market cap*Dividend %                 1.05    1.26

*Govt holding %

If REC bought government's stake in PFC, government would receive 16.9 thousand crores. In the other option, government would receive 14.2 thousand crores. 

The total yearly dividend amount from either company, without considering divestmentis the same (a little more than Rs1000 crores).

Of course, whether the date of acquisition is after or before the dividend record date of the acquiring company and how much it can pay as dividend in light of cash required for purchasing the acquiree company are other factors.

The government initially chose the 1st option, then the 2nd. The original option would have netted more money to the government. Obviously there are other considerations to the decision. 

Data from

1. https://www.moneycontrol.com/india/stockpricequote/finance-term-lending-institutions/rec/REC02
2. https://www.moneycontrol.com/india/stockpricequote/finance-term-lending-institutions/powerfinancecorporation/PFC02
3. https://www.recindia.nic.in/shareholding-pattern
4. https://trendlyne.com/equity/share-holding/1026/PFC/latest/power-finance-corporation-ltd/

Remember Your Mother

A friend forwarded me this.

To all the Mums 😘

When a mother says she's tired, that's all she meant! 

She did not say she wants to drop her son or daughter and forget that he or she exists.

When a mother says she wanted some time alone, just her, that's all she meant! 

She didn't say she's sorry to be a mother and that motherhood was a mistake in her life.

When a mother says she needs help to get things done, that's exactly what she meant!

She is not saying that she is incapable. 

When a mother makes noodles for dinner, it does not mean she does noodles every day of the week and that her son/daughter is a child who does not know vegetables and meats. 

When you arrive at a mother's house and face disorganization, it doesn't mean that every day that house is disorganized.

When a mother says she'd love to go out with her friends, that's all she meant! She doesn't want to go back to being "Single / not a mother" and like it as if she had no responsibility. 

When a mother says she's worried and afraid, that's what she meant! She didn't say she's going to falter, and much less she's a coward.

When you listen to a mother screaming, it doesn't mean she just screams, probably she has spoken 300 times with normal voice tone. 

When you see a nervous mother, on the edge of madness, doesn't mean every day she's in that situation. 

There is a whole context, a whole situation.

Do not invent untruths to judge someone, let alone a woman who every day, at all times, gives up her own life to live the life of another being that she knows is much more important than her. 

In the world there is no human being able to give up and donate as much as a mother!

And they deserve a lot of understanding and fewer trials. ✍💖

I wondered.

Has anyone ever written not to judge a man who is unkempt, drunk, violent. And that it might be just that day that he was so. 

Not to judge him for being arrogant and that he gives sweat blood and tears for his family. (Remember most wives are home bound in India, whatever be the reason.)

Not to judge a man for not keeping a good house because he spends his time making money and doesn't understand aesthetics.

Not to judge a man's anger because, unlike women, he hasn't learnt to express pain in a better and socially acceptable way.

Ever heard anyone, man or woman, write things like this and circulate?

I have mentioned thatI I rarely hear a wife strongly saying anything positive about her  husband's contribution.
(https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-husband.html)

Women are starting to look like Trump.

In this context, I would like to mention a woman who loved her step daughter so much that the daughter loved the step mom much more than she loved her own father. The step mom and father never had any children of their own. This story was told to me by none other than the daughter herself. And I have had no reason to disbelieve it. 

Such (step) moms exist too. They may not be the norm. 

Talking about norm (as a generalisation) is fine so long as it's kept in mind that a generalisation doesn't apply to every individual.

Talking about an exception is fine just to show how exceptions behave. 

But my friend's post was not a statement of facts. It was more of a commercial with little intrinsic value. One could write similar stuff about other groups like husbands, dogs, criminals etc. 

Additional Reading:

1. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/rita-and-sheila.html
2. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/family-tv-serials.html

Planet For Intelligence

I was trying to identify the planet for intelligence as per Vedic astrology (meaning not considering Uranus etc).

Mercury is normally held to signify intelligence and facility with Maths and languages and communication.

Jupiter supposedly confers wisdom, which is not the same as intelligence. Venus, according to me, gives maturity and not intelligence. Mars, Rahu etc just amplify the significance of the planet they come in contact with or when the planet is in their nakshatra (star). 

Moon is supposed to refer to the mind and emotions. I think moon may have something to do with intelligence. 

Saturn provides rationality, not intelligence. As per MBTI, T signifies rationality while N signifies intelligence.

I happened to read this article today.

https://www.quora.com/Which-planet-is-responsible-in-astrology-for-highest-intelligence - It is a nice article on the subject though I don't agree with parts of it.

Mutation In Evolution

I had always thought mutations could be a result of other factors rather than just an accident. My interest in this subject is as a layman. 

Most articles I read seemed to indicate that mutations were completely by chance. I seem to remember this from a book I read earlier "Mutations happen by accident. The subsequent natural selection does not." 

Now here are some quotes:

"It is important to realize that mutations do not occur in response to the environment. They simply happen." 
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

"The emerging molecular mechanisms of stress-induced mutagenesis vary but share telling common components that underscore two common themes. The first is the regulation of mutagenesis in time by cellular stress responses, which promote random mutations specifically when cells are poorly adapted to their environments, i.e., when they are stressed." From
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319127/

"The effect of radiation on the mutation rate in flies had two implications...Muller's experiments demonstrated that heredity could be manipulated quite easily" 

While Siddhartha Mukherjee's book "The Gene" page 119, talks about how a specific intensity of X Ray introduced mutations in flies. In this example, I wondered, playing the devil's advocate, whether it's not possible that the mutations were still an accident but  that natural selection resulted in the survival of the mutated flies. In the absence of the Xray, there was no such mutation. Hence Xray did cause the mutation.
Is this experiment, conducted around 1930, not proof that mutation can be designed to happen, rather that environment plays a part in mutation?

https://www.seedquest.com/keyword/seedbiotechnologies/primers/varietydevelopment/inducedmutation.htm - This link also talks about how mutation can be induced.

Specific mutations that have been consistently reproduced in organisms under controlled conditions, as in a lab, prove that mutations are not just an accident.

It is possible that several kinds of mutation can happen in an experiment of which only a few pass the natural selection test. To determine the list of all mutations that happen one has to pause or block natural selection from happening. If natural selection cannot be paused then the entire test shows the result of mutation and of natural selection together. 

Lab experiments show the final result of induced mutation and natural selection acting on top of it. Hence the chronological sequence is: 
Lab condition causes mutations on which natural selection works which results in the survival of some mutants and perhaps destruction of other mutants.

In this context, I have quotes from a nice book "Primate Change" by

In "Primate Change" book by Cregan-Reid

• "In most other primates, the foot has a different set of functions and consequently a different design."

My comment:The "design" in evolution doesn't work backwards from a purpose unlike engineering design. Mutation causes a different design and it's my belief that the animal learns to use the new design as best as it can. Design (of our body) doesn't have purpose in mind. Hence I am uncomfortable with the word "consequently" in the quote. When I contacted the author about this, he replied that he meant "Design" to imply something like Shape and not Intention / Purpose.

• "As the guts in these hominins shrank (suggesting an improvement in the quality of their food), it meant that other organs could receive more evolutionary attention in future generations."

My comment:Is the total Evolutionary Attention a constant? Again, are we supposing a design in Evolution, a prioritization and planning?

Interesting articles on the subject of whether evolution is predictable:

• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/predictable-evolution-trumps-randomness-of-mutations/
• http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/746
• https://www.mpg.de/10636321/is-evolution-predictable

Additional Reading

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/extinction-and-allele.html

Extinction And Allele

I was reading about recessive and dominant alleles, say blue and brown eyes as per Mendel's theory.

https://www.quora.com/Can-two-brown-eyed-people-have-a-blue-eyed-child

Let's assume that Blue eyed have an evolutionary disadvantage and that over a period of time they become extinct. The last of the blue eyed people die without offsprings. 

Now the remaining people with brown eyes still may have the recessive blue eye allele. Two such people having the blue allele could give birth to a child with blue eyes and the extinct blue eye could reappear again. Unless the blue allele itself disappears there is a possibility for the blue to manifest itself. 

Does this mean that Extinction cannot happen unless the said allele disappears completely?

Extinction of the dominant allele, brown, is simpler to understand. If the last of the brown eyed person dies without offspring then all the remaining population will have only blue eyes. Since blue is recessive, all the blue eyed people will have to have both alleles blue. Hence brown cannot reappear except in the case of a mutation creating a brown allele.

Does this mean that a species is more likely to become extinct only if its alleles are all or mostly dominant?

After I wrote this post, I started Googling and found some relevant links which are listed in Additional Reading below. One thing struck me as strange when I was reading some of the articles. That one should not consider that recessive allelle as being less frequent in the population, and that the word recessive should only refer to whether the allelle is visible when it combines with that dominant one. Now, statistically the recessive allele is more likely to be much lower in population (approx 25%) unless natural selection or some other reason chooses the recessive over the dominant.

Another thing that confuses me is the expression that "a success adapts to it's environment". To me, such an expression is misleading. An animal does not adapt and induce a mutation. Natural or sexual selection ensures that the "unfit ones are removed" leaving the "fit ones standing". 

Additional reading

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2h42n3/can_recessive_genes_eg_blue_eyes_blondred_hair/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/58nav8/can_dominant_traits_disappear/
3. https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/redheads-%E2%80%93-endangered-species: This article expresses the same view that I mentioned. 

Chicken And Egg

When asked the question whether the egg came first or the chicken came first, I used to claim, in a lighter vein, that the egg came first and that the chicken came from the egg. In reply to the obvious question as to where the egg came from, I would grin and say that the egg came from a duck. 

I think my answer, which I gave decades ago when I had no idea of the concept of evolution, perhaps wasn't altogether wrong. Maybe it was a "duck" which laid an egg having a mutation which resulted in the birth of a chicken instead of a duckling.

The original chicken and egg question was interesting primarily because it made the assumption that an egg could come only from a chicken and vice versa. It didn't include mutation as a possibility. The question was created primarily in a social setting to stump you. 

Women In Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths

When a Google employee said that men and women are different and that women on an average are poorer than men in STEM, it caused a furore. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8

In the article below, Masculinity Isn’t a Sickness https://www.wsj.com/articles/masculinity-isnt-a-sickness-11547682809, the author says that men are supposed to be masculine and women feminine. 

To me both the articles are sensible. I wonder why the world (aka USA) looked at the Google STEM article to be in poor taste. Is it that saying women are better than men at nurturing is fine while saying that women aren't as good at men at STEM creates a furore - the reason for both being the same - whether genetics, biology, evolutionary, cultural.

My Husband

After talking to hundreds of Indian women, I had observed one interesting thing. Not one of them had ever said something like "my family is in this great shape only because of my husband's dedication and contribution." Not once. 

This observation should be seen in light of few other observations.

1. Many women have acknowledged the extraordinary contribution by their father or son (never about husband). This makes me wonder how that father who seemed to have contributed so much from the daughter's point of view seems to have failed from his wife's point of view.
2. Many women arrogate to themselves the extraordinary contribution they themselves have made to their family

So when I came across this quote today I was pleasantly surprised. 

"After her son’s record-making feat, Padma praised her husband for devoting “365 days a year for Gukesh’s chess”. She said: “He sacrificed his career for Gukesh and remains his pillar of support. For the past five years, he has spent all his time planning every tournament for Gukesh, booking his tickets and room. He only thinks of Gukesh’s chess. So the whole credit should go to my husband.”" 

From www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/gukesh-is-youngest-indian-grandmaster/article26007191.ece

Do I congratulate or praise the wife? Oh no. Not at all. That would seem condescending.
I was and still am curious about why wives never see their husband's contribution. If daughters and mothers also never spoke anything positive about their fathers or sons then I might have concluded that (a) women are weird and hate acknowledging men or (b) men truly don't make any contributions on the family front.

But I have seen only wives not say it. That's the reason for my intrigue. 

If you are or have been a wife take a few seconds to reflect. Do you recall ever acknowledging to me (ok, that's too much. Disregard the words "to me") the contribution your husband made. I mean an acknowledgement that came from deep within your heart. 

For, the first time (chess GM Gukesh's mother) Ms. Padma...

Merge Audio, Video, Subtitle, PPT

A friend of mine had a video.

He wanted to know how to include a background score to the video, then add subtitles, then prefix a few PowerPoint slides and suffix some more PPT sides.

I asked another friend of mine. She told me to use Camtasia software which call provides all the functionality that I needed. And that a .srt created by Camtasia stores the subtitles. The other output from Camtasia, presumably an mp4, along with the .srt file could be played together on VLC player to provide the necessary functionality that we are looking for.

Except that Camtasia is a licensed software and we could use the demo version. Usually a demo version has limited functionality and can be used for only a limited period of time. 

I searched for other ways to address this issue.

Google provided some solutions

Adding subtitles to videos:

Subtitles:

1. https://www.wikihow.com/Add-Subtitles-to-YouTube-Videos using YouTube
2. https://www.kapwing.com/subtitles - Free version leaves a watermark
3. https://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/how-to-add-subtitles-to-a-video/ - To be verified
4. https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/add-subtitles-to-mp4.html - To be verified

Adding audio to videos:

Audio

1. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/94316?hl=en using YouTube

It seems like adding audio and subtitles are fairly straightforward. You just need to go to YouTube and follow some steps. The issue I found is that while audio stays added, subtitles are not displayed in the video. Though, in  the YouTube design studio I can see that the subtitles are in place. 

Now we come to the slides. Here the procedure a friend suggested is different. One of the easiest ways is to start from the PPT and then give the link to the video from within the PowerPoint.

https://support.office.com/en-ie/article/insert-or-link-to-a-video-on-youtube-8340ec69-4cee-4fe1-ab96-4849154bc6db.

Now the PPT presentation has to be converted to a video format.

1. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/publish-your-powerpoint-slide-show-as-a-video-to-youtube-ab3e03fd-a0fd-46aa-8d4d-4ac0bf62fd5b

The issue is that I have not been able to make the exported video, from such a PPT having an embedded link to an external video, to work. 


How to convert portrait video to landscape mode:

1. https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Convert-Portrait-Video-to-Landscape/
2. www.kapwing.com/pricing: This tool gives an option to change aspect ratio which solves the problem. Go to design studio and click Resize. The issue is that the free version of the tool leaves a watermark. The tool is very slow though. The online user interface is confusing.

How to Merge videos

1. https://mergevideo.online/merge-mp4 - upload file from computer. When I chose the use URL option, I was not able to find the button to merge!

As things stand now, the procedure sends to be to 

1. Add audio to the video
2. Convert video to landscape mode. This step and the audio step can be interchanged.
3. Convert PowerPoint slides into a video.
4. Merge all the videos.

The addition of subtitles, either in YouTube or in Kapwing is rendered ineffective when convince with the other steps.

Old And Feeble

What happens if I am not a strong, self sufficient person? 

I do not have the strength to get what I want. I feel no one cares enough about me. I think of all the things I have done for people. How come people don't offer to help me when I am in need. 

I am not able to catch on to things around me. People talk about Amazon, Flipkart, internet, user id, email, cloud etc. I am not able to relate these to things that I understand and grew up with. 

I feel lonely. I hardly have anyone to talk to. My body is not like it used to be before. It doesn't cooperate with me. Every physical act needs the help of someone. It's painful to have to ask someone to bathe me and wash me after I have been to the toilet. I didn't choose to be this way. But why, oh why, did I have to face this situation? I have no one that speaks kindly to me.

I do not even have the means to take my own life. At times I feel it's far better to fall into a coma. At least then I won't be aware of how I feel. 

The weakness and the awareness of it is an awful combination. When one is a baby, one is equally dependent on others for everything. But a baby doesn't feel humiliation or embarrassment. And with time a baby grows to be independent. 

For me the future will bring only more dependence. I hate to consider the stage when I can't even do what I can now. That I might have to be fed. Or carried.

I find it difficult not to harbor ill feelings towards others. I tell myself that it's in poor taste to feel that way. 

How long will this go on? When will people realize that I am a human being deserving of love. 

Is an old and feeble person to be discarded like an old appliance? 

Addional reading:

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/go-with-dignity.html

Emotional Aphorisms

What is it like when you help a person get over you? Could the act be authentic? Or, do you just indulge in your obnoxious behavior which puts off people and you claim such behavior as a virtue (that you are helping them get over you)?

When you can't handle some things:

1. Don't make things worse. Stay away.
2. Protect yourself and keep yourself in shape for the time when you can do something.

Sometimes explaining your circumstances to someone about why you can't do something isn't effective. Showing them examples from their own life when, in a similar circumstances, they can't do anything.. Now that strikes home.

Apart from the usual reasons for burning a bridge, some people burn a bridge after acquiring another bridge. Other people burn a bridge while destroying other bridges - sort of more the merrier.

One of the most depressing things in life is to be utterly dependent on that person whom you detest. For example, women financially dependent on a louse.

Life is a constant struggle between the need for indulgence / happiness and the duty to do the right thing.


Some people quote temporary issues like weather, traffic, cramp, away on vacation to explain why they didn't do something for years.

Feeling tremendous passion and desire to have fun when they are ovulating and feeling depressed, having cramps and avoiding responsibility when having periods is a common refrain for most women. And men. 


When you get along better with a person when they have dementia than when they didn't, what does it say about you or the other person?

Rita And Sheila And Marks

Pain is essential for survival. And for good communication. Talking about your pain makes you seem human, vulnerable. When you show interest in another's pain, you show empathy (atleast cognitive empathy).

People who indulge in pain also exhibit one strange habit. That is to measure contribution not in absolute terms but also taking into account the amount that could have been contributed given the pain. For these people, hence, contribution is measured as a fraction: what one contributed compared to what one could have given their pain. 

Is that too wrong?

Well let's assume there was an exam that had 10 questions, all of equal weight. 

Rita, a very good student, answered 7 of the 10 correctly. Sheila, a not so good one, answered 4 correctly. Let's say Sheila could only have answered 5 at the most given her competence. A "painful" grader would give 7/10=70% to Rita and 4/5=80% to Sheila.

If a student wanted to maximize her grades, she could also focus on exhibiting a lower potential apart from trying to improve her competence. Go through this link for a maths demo: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEe5Ds492tdQcbGvFy9lsXzS9AUOImmK78RvER7xxwA/edit?usp=drivesdk

In a social setting between Rita and Sheila where the former focused on not showing her pain while the latter did the opposite, where would Rita be after a length of time?

When we reward people based on their performance relative to their potential we penalize people whose potential is high.

In Tamil there is a saying which roughly translates as: "It's the baby who cries that gets fed". Meaning those babies that don't cry are apt to get fed less.


Isn't it nice to express how much pain you are in?

Additional reading
https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-weak-shall-inherit-earth.html

UP & DP

A friend of mine, A, had left some money with me. She called me up and said a friend of hers, B, had  asked A to deposit some money into B's account. I told my friend that I will transfer the money to B's account. Earlier too I have transferred to her sister's account.

A grimaced and said she wanted to go to the bank and deposit the money in B's account. I told A that she could save herself the trouble. But A was obstinate. I got irritated and told her she could do what she wished. She told me she wanted the cash immediately. I was surprised. I told her again that the easiest and faster way was to transfer to B's account. 

A then told me that she had a guy waiting at the bank to whom she had to give some money, apart from depositing the money into B's account.

Aaah. Now it became clear. She had to go to the bank to give the guy money. And also deposit the money into B's account. But why didn't A say upfront that there was a guy waiting for her at the bank? That would have avoided a lot of my questions. Obviously she didn't want to tell me about the guy. Her communication to me was indirect. 

I realized that I also had made a mistake. When she was so reluctant about my offer to transfer to B's account I didn't think of why she might be reluctant. And I didn't figure out that she had another reason to take cash from me. I processed the data that I had downstream instead of upstream. 

Upstream processing (UP) involves figuring out what must have happened in the past that led to current events. Downstream processing (DP) involves processing the current events and figuring out where they would leadl to in future. DP led me to think that my friend was being silly and obstinate. UP, in hindsight, gave me a better explanation. 

DP is logical and innocent and uses S1. UP is not as logical and straight forward but it involves a smartness, wisdom and maturity and uses S2. 

Effective communication with feminine people needs S1, rather a suppression of S2.

For an intro into S1, S2 read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/10/thinking-fast-and-slow-daniel-kahnemann.htm

Trump Says Cheese

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2018/12/07/trump-narcissistic-sociopath/

The above interesting post analyzes the character of Trump from an evolutionary standpoint. Trump apparently has no fixed stance on core issues except for "America First" which is a proclaimed vision and not his value.

There is a general belief that man ought to have character and values that are strong and hence to some extent non-negotiable.

Another other way to lead life, like animals do, is to have a personal goal (eat and procreate) with little in the way of values. 

Spencer Johnson, in Who Moved My Cheese takes a view that supports moving to where the cheese is. Of course there is no point looking for cheese where it isn't available. But I believe the correct interpretation of the story is that one should constantly optimize the search for cheese. 
Trump does that. He moves to where the cheese is unrestrained by any rules. Is this not how animals flourished? 

Cheese being a metaphor for what you want a lot of.

An article  

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hes-a-gut-politician-trumps-go-to-negotiating-tactics-not-working-in-shutdown-standoff/2019/01/09/c7bb5ff2-142b-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html) in Washington Post says this "President Trump has long said that keeping opponents off balance is the best way to win a negotiation." 

This behavior is not illegal but seems immoral and it's part of Trump's arsenal to get cheese. It's immoral because, in exchange for money, he doesn't use only goods or services that he provides in exchange - but he uses intangible items such as keeping people off-balance while negotiating a contract. He creates a better offer for himself when he keeps people off balance.
When we blackmail people we do the same, that is keep people off balance. We will come back to this later

In a human society we are caught between looking for cheese on one hand and anchoring ourselves to "things" (maybe our values) on the other. Which of these two is the right way? Hang on to our values while facing starvation or go for cheese at the expense of our values? 

I have assumed that going for cheese is inextricably linked to a violation of (our) values. Is this assumption unwarranted? When we are sharply focused on cheese (the end), aren't we violating values (means)? Can you be the best cheese "getter" if you wouldn't violate your values? 

Some humans are driven by getting cheese. Some are driven by values. It's a rare person that can do both. 

I interpreted Nathan Lents as saying that animals and humans are punished when 

1. They relentlessly, at the cost of others of their species, pursue cheese. And
2. When their numbers increase beyond a cutoff limit. Beyond this limit, the rest of the species get together to snub these cheese getters out.

What I gather is that focusing on cheese is a great strategy (whether anyone can choose to be like a Trump or whether Trumps are wired to be that way is a different matter) so long as there aren't too many of them.

Yossarian's thought in Catch-22 that "if you won't chase cheese then someone else will grab it and you will lose out and hence in order not to be a sucker, you have to chase cheese" may be fine so long as the number of such cheese chasers don't exceed a certain limit. 
By cheese chasers, I refer to people that chase at any cost.
As per the blog post by Nathan Lents, mentioned at the top of this post, there seems to exist a quota for such cheese chasing. Once the limit is exceeded, cheese chasers would be punished. Would it happen in their lifetime or over hundreds of years (evolutionarily), I have no idea.

I come now take up the issue of immorality which I touched upon earlier. Philosophically, what can you do if your self actualization comes from chasing cheese? Trump does it one way. The fictional character Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged did it another way. Hank adhered to one set of morals - that he will never take anything for free nor give anything for free. Even Trump could claim the same thing. Trump negotiates and that doesn't mean he gets things for free.
When we keep people off balance we short change them. Rearden made people pay more for his metal. Trump tries to make people pay more by keeping them off balance. Both Trump and Rearden are insensitive to others' concerns. They are focused only on getting their cheese.

Could Rearden also be considered a NS? If yes and if there were many Reardens, would society conspire to put them in their place (just as Nathan Lents mentions about NS)? 

If self actualization is our goal in life, can we really constraint it with morals and our impact on others? Are Narcissistic Sociopaths (NS) to be denied self actualization? The quest for self actualization doesn't understand artificial borders and constructs such as America, Russia. If self actualization required that Trump collude with Russia then so be it.

Does it mean that society cannot accept more than a certain quantum of people actively operating in the self actualization mode? If that were the case, self actualization can necessarily not be an achievable goal for more than a small fraction of mankind.

In this post, I started with a macro concept about the evolutionary success of a NS such as Trump as explained by Nathan Lents. I tried to explain Trump's behavior as essentially chasing cheese. 
Then I tried to explain how Ayn Rand's character Hank Rearden could also be considered a NS because he also chased cheese relentlessly. Ayn Rand's philosophy is at a micro level which she details through her heroes.
Then I theorized that cheese chasing is essentially an act of self actualization. And that Cheese chasing is an act of NS. 
Finally, I concluded that self actualization as acted out by NS cannot be achieved by most of mankind, based on evolutionary theory.

Addional reading

1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201706/do-you-have-be-self-centered-be-self-actualized
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/it-totally-belittled-the-moment-many-look-back-in-anger-at-trumps-tossing-of-paper-towels-in-puerto-rico/2018/09/13/8a3647d2-b77e-11e8-a2c5-3187f427e253_story.html

Go With Dignity

How do you feel when you are at the fag end of you life? 

When the limbs don't move much. When the voice doesn't carry far. When your thoughts and memories are sometimes muddled. When your clear memories of events are at least 10 years old and most ones about 30 years or more. When your eyesight is not as sharp as it used to be. You think you hear noises and you exclaim, only to be told that there was no noise - just your imagination.

When you think of your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and reminisce the sweet times you had with them. You recollect some touching moments. And then with sadness you realize most of them are no more. 

Then you look at your children and their spouses and observe how they are with you. You may hence realize the mistakes you made, so many years back, towards your parents and parents in law. 
You can now understand the cryptic things they said because you, now, think the same things. If only you could go back in time and straighten out or do some corrections to things that you said and did.

Then you look at your grandchildren and wonder whether your children would be sensible and smart to do the right things for your grandchildren. If only your children respected you more instead of treating you as a person in a "pre-crematorium" stage.

But then you are tired. You get tired so often. You lie down. 
You have always been a positive person. You think of how much time it has taken to tone down the few negative, bitter thoughts you had of some people. You have outlived most of them.

You think back to your first love. To the day your baby was born. And how much effort you put in to take care of the family.

You remember your earliest memory. Of going to preprimary school. Making your first friend. How much you cried going to school the next day. You memory fast forwards and rewinds to interesting points in your life. To weird things you were told about other family members and friends. You chuckle at some of the things you said or heard about others.

And now your day is not too far. You know each time when you go to sleep, you may not wake up again. You also know you are getting ready for it. You know that you have done all that you could for your family and children. You worry thinking of how your children will feel when they arrive at the stage that you are at now. You hope the "purvapunya" that you have accumulated will be of use at that time.

You hope you will go with dignity. You wonder whether you will feel the heat as you are cremated. You chastize yourself not to think such silly thoughts.
You wonder whom you will meet on the other side. And whether you will you be treated well. This journey to the other side becomes your life. You can't do any more preparation for it.