Do Unto Others

I was listening to Vividh Bharati today. The theme today was about lying (falsehood). The RJ said we should not lie to others if we can't tolerate being lied to.

That's what got me thinking. What kind of person follows this "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Some of us believe in rules. They may follow it. Some of us believe in survival (at any cost), such as Ambani or Trump. Do you expect them to follow this rule? 

It's strange that some of us follow rules while others follow their heart. The interplay between the two sets is interesting. If you observe their actions live and remember that one follows rules while other follows their heart - while observing their actions - it's quite an experience.

Can I Call You Tomorrow At 4PM

I thought such a request, as in the subject line, meant that the person has committed to call at 4. 

It turns out that the "can I call you?" for many people (P type, as in MBTI) is in fact about getting a right to call and not an obligation to call.

I always assumed that the question created an obligation.

It took me so many years to realise it's just a right.

A related anecdote:

A friend of mine wanted her brother to come to her place to get something done. She kept reminding him and then he asked her whether she would be home at 3PM. She confirmed. She was waiting from 2:45PM till 4PM for her brother. But he didn't turn up. When she called her brother and asked him what happened, he explained that HE had asked her whether SHE will be home at 3PM. He pointed out that he never told her he will come to her house at 3PM.

Another case of a right (to come) but no obligation (to come). My friend had interpreted her brother's question incorrectly.

So it makes sense to confirm whether someone is assuming an obligation or just a right when they say (or ask) something.

Additional reading 

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2021/07/proposing-to-multiple-women.html

Proposing To Multiple Women

It's often held that males tend to stray more often than women. That they tend to propose love when in fact they were already in committed relationships. 

I would assert that here is more than a modicum of truth in this, without going into the reasons. The symptom is verifiable, notwithstanding the reason for such behaviour.

Now comes the interesting part. Some men and women, the P's (as in MBTI) tend to be less committed to their words. When they have committed to meeting you or doing a specific activity by a certain date they go ahead and commit their time to another activity that would definitely conflict with their earlier commitment made to you. 

The J type (as in MBTI) would think through and then only commit, they would avoid such conflicts. The P's have no such issues, they are like men proposing. 

The final decision of which activity to do (or which girl to go with) depends largely on exigencies (whose father holds a shotgun to the man's head) or where their heart is. 

Both the tendencies, allocating the heart or the time, have similar engines running. Of not blocking the heart or the time slot as anyone meticulously using a calendar would do. In both cases, the perpetrators do not see any issue. It's the J types (in the latter issue) or women (in the former) that are appalled.

High Fi (ENF)

A kind of people interest me immensely. They are extremely emotional, expressive (I am not sure if they are all extroverted but they are definitely very expressive). A common pattern I have found in them is that they are highly competitive in emotions. Lemme explain that. You are not going to ever be able to establish with them that your pain, your suffering was higher. 

The first time I realised something strange was when a cousin of mine said "I wouldn't wish this [her sister, who was in her late 40s, had died that day] on my worst enemy". This was about 10 to 15 years ago. What my cousin said kept playing back in my head in the days and years to come and I often wondered about her phraseology. It's the equivalent of arrogating to oneself the gold medal for having suffered.

We come to the next incident. My friend's uncle had died, around the same time as the previous incident. My friend was totally distraught and she couldn't think of anything else. It took her couple of weeks to recover, while I went about my life. In the same period, my cousin mentioned earlier had died, another cousin had had her second leg also amputated. I was at the hospital prior to the surgery. The previous night my aunt had died and had spent the previous day attending the cremation. But then my friend's pain was much more. Pain isn't like weight or height which are objective. If your height is 170cm and mine is 175cm, I can claim rightfully that I am taller than you. But with pain or any emotion there is no comparison possible. Emotions can't even be objectively measured. You get a measure of the emotion by the intensity of self declaration. For example, "I am hurting", "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy" or beating yourself on your tummy with your palms - each of these indicate differing levels of pains. 

And today I met a cousin after a long time. His wife had died last year of Covid. His father had died towards the end of 2019 out of natural causes, having been in a bad shape and in coma in the hospital for a week prior to his death. His wife had gone through terrible pain because of comorbidities before finally catching Covid. We spoke for about 20 minutes. My cousin was feeling very bad and about his wife and his father, both of whom he had lost in the last one and a half years.

And like the two women I mentioned earlier, he was expressing "my pain is too horrible". But this time around I was processing his pain in real time. And I thought of all the people i know who had suffered worse but wouldn't express as much. 

I believe they are all NF (as in MBTI). They don't do it for effect. They do it naturally. Their "exaggeration of their pain" is completely natural. The only thing is when I have slotted them into this group, I become wary of their pain and almost wait for their "pain" to be expressed. 

These are not one off incidents. With each of the three people mentioned I have had multiple incidents of confession of high pain. 

Amazing. 

It is again very interesting that emotional people judge a work based not on how effective it was but on how much pain was undergone while doing it. So if you don't express pain while or after doing a difficult job, you don't get much credit for it. Hence emotional expression is important. When your wife chides you for the lack of it, pay heed.

Additional reading

1. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-cousins.html
2. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/02/vikram-or-vetaal.html
   
3. https://www.thelily.com/i-sacrificed-my-career-to-care-for-my-kids-in-the-pandemic-never-again/ : here is one more
   

Complex Emotions

Acquired or complex emotions are different from simple emotions such as anger, pain, happiness which are present even in toddlers and in animals. These simple emotions are not learnt. 

Complex emotions are interesting. Lot of things happen because of it.  Most of our major initiatives, good and bad, happen because of complex emotions. Complex emotions may be better developed in P type and F type people  (as in MBTI) people. 

Complex emotions cause motivation, sensitivity, sacrifice, empathy, condescension, focus on (creating the right) image, white collar crime, blackmail, Dark Triad (Psychpathic / Machiavellian / Narcissistic behaviour) etc. 

Insensitivity can be the result of T behaviour (because it doesn't think of how someone might feel) or of J behaviour (because it's too busy following rules to think of feelings) or of a F / P because they are too busy focusing on their own goals.

The complex behaviour needs the N (as in MBTI) trait to grow. 

When a high energy combines with complex behaviour then these behaviours are intensely exhibited.

The greater the N, the higher the person is likely to focus on reaching the top of Maslow's pyramid. Reaching the top isn't always good or bad. People with high level of complex emotions may include Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, Robert Clive, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi - an assorted bunch as we can see. 

The diametric opposite of an NFP is an STJ. The latter (especially one with low energy) will be a very simple soul compared to the former - not necessarily a better soul but simpler.

Take 3 Buses To Arrive At Work

An interesting conversation happened with my maid today. She was supposed to come at 8AM (that's her shift timing) and she has to come despite it being Christmas today. She came 20 minutes late. I called her in panic at 8:20 and she said she was just reaching my place. When she reached what happened, why she was late. She told me a little irritatedly that she had to change 3 buses and finally she had to hire an auto. This should be read in light of the fact that I had suggested she leave half an earlier last night, which she did. 

In her response, there was no apology. She didn't say it was Christmas day and hence buses were infrequent and hence she got delayed and that it won't likely happen tomorrow or any other normal day. Her response basically talked about her issue (she had to spend more for the auto), her inconvenience (had to take 3 buses) and the indication being these issues are outside of her control and the inference being that what happened could very well repeat any other day. 

The question of the shift time and adherence to it was hardly relevant in light of her issues.

She is probably 20 years old. I realised that by this age she has learned to respond emotionally, (but without anger) and unprofessionally. Unprofessional because there were no qualms about being late. Emotional because the entire thought process were about HER personal issues which were not relevant to her work here. A true P (as in MBTI)!

J And P (As In MBTI)

Having seen and been with J and P type people I thought i would write my thoughts about them.

P type people are open, interested in new things, they have more width than depth in subjects. J type people are the opposite. When confronted with a new thing, a P (type person) would want to toy with it and it experience it forgetting that they have other commitments and that indulging in the new thing would conflict with the prior commitments. This need for immediate gratification is overwhelming. The stronger their energy levels, the greater the need.

The J usually would strive for depth and is committed to what is in their plate. They hate to take up new things on the fly, they are not open.

As a result, one cannot plan for things with a P because they often don't follow through with what they commit. One cannot plan with a J, on the other hand, because they often may not consider anything out of the beaten path.

As I mentioned earlier, a J is generally, not open to new stuff. When their energy levels go up, the SJ, as an exception, will consider a new S, but not N, experience. The high energy NJ would consider a new N, but not S, experience. 

Note:

1. In all the assertions, we should prefix the word "largely".
2. J is a person who is methodical, planned.
3. P is a person who is more ad-hoc
4. N is a person who has imagination.
5. S is a person who goes by memory and can't imagine.

Additional reading:

"This kind of approach — being openly meditative about the issue at hand, with a penchant for missing his own deadlines as he mulls his options — is in line with how Mr. Biden has made other big political choices throughout his career. Those who have worked with him over the years describe nonlinear decision-making processes with input from allies and family members, a barrage of questions from Mr. Biden, and a habit of extending deadlines in a way that leaves some Democrats anxious and annoyed, while others say it brings him to a well-considered decision, eventually.." From Why Joe Biden Keeps Missing His Own V.P. Deadlines

I Should Explain It To You Once (Once = Sometime)

This phrase and "You should come to my house for tea once" and "We should catch up sometime" were told to me by friends. Each time it was a shock, albeit a minor shock, when I heard it.

I would wonder why my friends used the word ONCE or SOMETIME? Why didn't they say NOW or TOMORROW - give a specific date?
That's what I would have done. 

Maybe they didn't want to commit. Maybe they liked saying it without the obligation to fulfill it - like buying options in the stock market.

Maybe they were afraid I would land up at their house the very next day or that I would expect them to explain to me immediately. Is it classic P (as in MBTI) behavior?

They wanted to keep their options open even if it was at the expense of others. 

But my reaction to these phrases each time was distaste.

If you didn't want to commit to something, why say it? What if I told you I SHOULD GET MARRIED TO YOU SOMEDAY? Really romantic, huh?

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. 

Difference Between N and S (As in MBTI)

A friend of mine told me that she, a school goer and her mom, a school teacher, were both out getting wet when it rained heavily. Apparently the principal of the school told her mom not to stand in the rain but her mom wouldn't listen. 

Seeing her mom, my friend also joined in the fun. 

When she recounted this to be, I said what her mom did (having fun and getting wet inside the school) wasn't ok, even if this was done after school hours. I explained further. Other students would be watching her and her mother. Those students might also do the same. And their parents might complain to the principal that the school allowed such behavior and that their wards got a cold or fever or cough.

All this because my friend's mom couldn't restrain herself. 

My friend was aghast. She said "no one had told her this." 

She is an "S". (Actually SF and likely SFJ.)

N's don't say that people never told them about such a "rule" which is basic common sense. Even if an N wasn't aware of the rule, he would introspect why he didn't figure it out. To an N common sense things are to be figured out for oneself. Not to be told by someone so one could memorize.

Analysis and Description - What, When, Who, Where and How.

While talking to people we realize that some of them (typically SF) are exceedingly good at describing things.

Others (NT) are very good at analyzing things.

To the average audience, they seem similar. The first set are good at recounting the What, When, Who, Where and How.

The second set go about explaining the Why. 

When done eloquently and nicely, the What, When, Who, Where and How description is as interesting as the Analysis of Why. 

The funny thing is that the two sets of people bore each other.

The first set thinks of the How and especially the When, Who, Where and How as a surrogate for Why. The second set desires brevity so much that it replaces all the others with its Why thus missing the sensory picture.

Children These Days

Couple of days back i was talking to a friend while having idli and coffee. He was an elderly gentleman and commented that my coffee was getting cold. I just smiled and asked him mischievously what he could say about people who were picky about coffee being hot.

He answered in a serious tone that you couldn't say anything about a person who preferred hot coffee. Some prefer it hot, he added, while others prefer to take it lukewarm. And that It was being judgmental if one were to venture to describe a person's character based on his (temperature of coffee) drinking habits. 

I let it go. He went on to tell me that (adult) children these days do not take care of their senior parents and that our generation took care of our parents. I suggested that we should seek our parents' opinion on our care taking ability especially since we are freely venturing our verdict on our children's care taking ability of their parents. He said his parents were no more, so how could we.

I asked him whether saying that the current younger generation does not take care of its seniors well wouldn't be considered to be judgemental. He was taken aback. He said, "No it's just an opinion". 

That begged my next question - how is an opinion different from a judgement? He stammered. And then we went on to other topics.

Now the question is: how is it that he found an opinion about coffee drinker's habits to be judgemental while an opinion about the current generation to be kosher?

My belief is this: my opinion about coffee drinkers (i didn't even tell him what that opinion was, just that there could be a pattern) was too strange to digest and hence he dismissed it as being judgmental. While the opinion about the current generation is oft repeated and hence could be mentioned without having to prove it.

Either of the opinions (his or mine) could have been faulted or been faulty. 

He didn't want to discuss the truth of either opinion. Mine was dismissed. His wasn't to be questioned. The entire conversation was very polite. But underneath the politeness.. 

Feeler  (MBTI) definitely. 

Both judgments (mine and his) come from our S1. Mine would have used S2 (conscious rational thought) but could have jumped to a wrong conclusion because of S1 without sufficient data analysis. Each of us is quick to point out quirks in someone else's faulty judgement while being nepotic towards our own.

Wow.

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

MBTI Be Damned

I have 2 friends x and y. X is an E*FP (as in MBTI, not sure whether he is N or S) and y an ISTJ. Superficially they are both very dissimilar. One is fun to be with, gregarious, regales you with stories of incidents while the other is quiet, organized, disciplined.

Y is incidentally D's father in https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/02/vikram-or-vetaal.html

I found that x and y had something in common. Y has innumerable ailments. No sooner is one ailment kinda cured than he starts mumbling about the next one. He is scared stiff that people might come to believe that he is perfectly fine. He hates that very idea that people should think that she is doing fine. 

X as a young man used to gamble, got into many (i guess dubious) business ventures and ran up a lot of loans. His father would come from his home town to visit X in the city, pay off his son's loans and and ask his son if that's all the loan he, the son has. The son, X, would confirm yes only to bombard his father later with more loans to repay.

X, the FP, gave a lot of distress to his elderly father. After the father helped pay off X's  loan, x will broach the subject about another. And then another.

Y, the more disciplined FJ, would broach about his next ailment or pain, as soon as one was sorted out or addressed. He stood in perennial fear of being deviated healthy. The same way an OBC or SC/ST person might fear being termed a Brahmin and thereby lose all access to subsidy.

I used to feel that deep down both x and y were similar in the amount of pain they gave to the people who supported them.

J or P, it didn't matter.

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.

Family TV Serials

These days I have been exposed to considerable number of hours of Tamil family oriented TV Serials due to some unforeseen concatenation of circumstances. Let me clarify that I have not watched many different serials but I have watched many episodes of a few serials.

My observations:

1. There is a good amount of voice over that expresses people's thoughts. Meaning there is a good amount of focus on letting the audience know what the characters thought apart from what they explicitly said. The expression of these thoughts make it more obvious to the audience as to what a character really felt or thought.
2. There is a good amount of focus on what people are saying, wearing, who is watching. The incidents are fairly routine with most of the settings being indoors in a family environment. The target is towards the what, who, when that appeals to the S (as in MBTI) personality than to the N. You have probably come across people whose talk refers only to what happened to them, their family and friends, expressing shock, surprise, fear and other emotions (interspersed with context sensitive sayings "Mother knows best" and expressions "Inshallah", "By God's grace" or similar stuff in other languages such as "Shiva Shiva" - These phrases have no value other than in a social context). 

This combination of S (Sensory information) and F (Feelings) is easily digested and eagerly expected and indulged in by more than 80% of the population. It's a rare kind of person (and I don't mean great, just another kind but rare) that shrieks in horror when exposed to SF. 

By SF, I refer both to a certain type of people and to an environment that these people find appealing. An environment that focuses primarily on what, who, when and how and on a why that's primarily Emotional rather than Logical.

Now that leads to the next question: what is the difference between the Emotional Why (EY) and the Rational Why (RY). This is a question that people ask me often. I don't think my answer has been satisfactory to them. Let me try to provide it here.

Let's say an incident X happened. We could explore the reason behind it in 2 ways.

1. "Actually she said this, so he felt bad. On the other hand they didn't really mean to do it. But Anita had no other choice so... That led to X." I would call this the Emotional reasoning. This kind of reasoning typically traces the events, what one felt, what one did until the final event X. There is no formula created which can be used to predict what would cause another instance of incident X.
2. The kind of reasoning that results in such a  reusable formula is what I term logical reasoning or RY.

For example, let's assume 50 years back there was a car accident and the driver died. 

One kind of reasoning would focus on the fact that Henry, the driver, had an altercation with his business partner earlier in the day about some discrepancy in their finances. Hence Henry was lost in thought as he was driving and didn't see that traffic signal had turned red and hence...

Another kind of reasoning would have led to the invention of airbags. RY leads to a formula that can be reused in another situation. EY does not lead to such reuse.

The first kind of reasoning, the emotional one, focused on one aspect. The 2nd, the logical one, focused on another aspect.

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. 

Can you imagine a Tamil TV serial that focuses on the 2nd kind? Who would be interested in such a thing? It takes a peculiar mind, a Non-SF, that focuses on the Rational Why to determine a "universal" answer that can be applied to other similar situations.

Would an EY result in understanding the concept of gravity after seeing an apple drop from a tree? Can we imagine what the SF mind would contemplate after seeing an apple drop?

Since the non-SF mind focuses primarily on the Rational Why (RY) and kinda disregards the EY, such a mind is lost in the world of social interactions. Even in such interactions, the RY is focused on finding a formula for analyzing the indulgence of people in the Emotion Whys. Resulting in the non-SF being socially retarded.

An interesting thing in this context is that the SF can't process information that lacks proper nouns. Meaning if the what, when, where, how are mentioned without a NAME, the SF is distinctly at a disadvantage in processing such information. SF have the same issue when dealing with algebra where x, y don't have known values but still are used to denote some concepts.

We often have heard about women loving family oriented TV serials and men not much so. The reason is that 90% of the women are either S or F. Probably two thirds of all men are either S or F. The difference is that most women are S and F. While men are more likely to be S than F. 
Since men, generally, aren't too keen
The people that are neither S nor F would not appreciate such serials. People that are only S or only F fall somewhere in-between in their appreciation of such serials. Family oriented TV serials primarily dole out F stuff that doesn't attract the average man. Physical sports, on the other hand, are primarily about S. We know which gender these sports telecasts attract.

Another characteristic that I have seen in Tamil TV serials, apart from those mentioned earlier, is the increase in decibel levels of background score in an emotional scene. Such background music indicates the emotional intensity of the scene. The onset of such a score prepares the viewer to an emotional intensity even in the absence of something emotional hitherto (akin to the experiment with Pavlov's Dogs). An SF is characterized by a What-Is and the attendant EY.

Having watched a few videos on Ted Talks, I often wonder why they are presented in an audio video format instead of as just plan text. Occasionally, the talks involve the audience (there usually are hundreds in the auditorium and the possibility of having a good interaction with the audience is limited) or show slides but for the most part, a text transcript would suffice. 
Why do they use an AV medium? I wonder whether the actual content (non-SF) is worth no more than 3 to 4 minutes out of the total 10 to 15 minutes of talk by the speaker. The rest of the content  (7 to 12 minutes) appeals to the SF.

The ability to indulge in the S and in the F makes for survival in the social world of human beings. The absence of it ostracizes the non-SF. It takes a non-SF to appreciate the consternation at what makes an SF thrilled. A similar issue happens when the typical SF interacts with a typical non-SF. The non-SF is perhaps seen as a nerd or as autistic.

The non-SF, with his RY, rushes to create a universal formula. The SF sees such a universal formula as being judgemental and confining. She prefers to see each incident as unique having its own set of EYs that cannot and should not be generalized.

The smart SF's look to the non-SF as a useful tool to whom important offbeat jobs can be outsourced and as one who provides useful perspectives on difficult situations which help the SF's find workarounds. The non-SF is seen, at best, as an exceptional bot. At worst, as emotionally juvenile. 

The non-SF is great at abstract thoughts. But it falls very short of meeting the basic routine expectations required of an SF world.

It's one thing to understand others. Its beautiful to understand how others understand us. It all started with watching Tamil TV serials!

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

Quiet

This is mostly a set of quotes (without permission) from a nice book by Susan Cain.

The author seems to have equated E to ESxP and I to INyJ. The author's E seems to have the characteristics of a Venus, her "I" that of Saturn. The x sends likely to be F and y to be T.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet:_The_Power_of_Introverts_in_a_World_That_Can%27t_Stop_Talking

Righteous behavior [it is believed] is not so much the good we do behind closed doors when no one is there to praise us; it is what we “put out into the world.”

Most of Berns’s volunteers reported having gone along with the group because “they thought that they had arrived serendipitously at the same correct answer.” They were utterly blind, in other words, to how much their peers had influenced them. 

Psychologists often discuss the difference between “temperament” and “personality.” Temperament refers to inborn, biologically based behavioral and emotional patterns that are observable in infancy and early childhood; personality is the complex brew that emerges after cultural influence and personal experience are thrown into the mix. Some say that temperament is the foundation, and personality is the building. Kagan’s work helped link certain infant temperaments with adolescent personality styles. 

Kagan hypothesized that infants born with an especially excitable amygdala would wiggle and howl when shown unfamiliar objects—and grow up to be children who were more likely to feel vigilant when meeting new people. And this is just what he found. In other words, the four-month-olds who thrashed their arms like punk rockers. did so not because they were extroverts in the making, but because their little bodies reacted strongly—they were “high-reactive”—to new sights, sounds, and smells. The quiet infants were silent not because they were future introverts—just the opposite—but because they had nervous systems that were unmoved by novelty.
The more reactive a child’s amygdala, the higher his heart rate is likely to be, the more widely dilated his eyes, the tighter his vocal cords, the more cortisol (a stress hormone) in his saliva—the more jangled he’s likely to feel when he confronts something new and stimulating. As high-reactive infants grow up, they continue to confront the unknown in many different contexts, from visiting an amusement park for the first time to meeting new classmates on the first day of kindergarten. We tend to notice most a child’s reaction to unfamiliar people - how does he behave on the first day of school? Does she seem uncertain at birthday parties full of kids she doesn’t know? But what we’re really observing is a child’s sensitivity to novelty in general, not just to people.    High- and low-reactivity are probably not the only biological routes to introversion and extroversion. There are plenty of introverts who do not have the sensitivity of a classic high-reactive, and a small percentage of high-reactives grow up to be extroverts. Still, Kagan’s decades-long series of discoveries mark a dramatic breakthrough in our understanding of these personality styles—including the value judgments we make.

If a high-reactive toddler breaks another child’s toy by mistake, studies show, she often experiences a more intense mix of guilt and sorrow than a lower-reactive child would. All kids notice their environments and feel emotions, of course, but high-reactive kids seem to see and feel things more. If you ask a high-reactive seven-year-old how a group of kids should share a coveted toy, writes the science journalist Winifred Gallagher, he’ll tend to come up with sophisticated strategies like “Alphabetize their last names, and let the person closest to A go first.”
There was an easy answer to the nature-nurture question after all—we are born with prepackaged temperaments that powerfully shape our adult personalities.
On the other hand, there is also a wide range of possible outcomes for each temperament. Low-reactive, extroverted children, if raised by attentive families in safe environments, can grow up to be energetic achievers with big personalities—the Richard Bransons and Oprahs of this world. But give those same children negligent caregivers or a bad neighborhood, say some psychologists, and they can turn into bullies, juvenile delinquents, or criminals. Lykken has controversially called psychopaths and heroes “twigs on the same genetic branch.”
Incidentally I said that CEO's and criminals are similar.
It may be that some disadvantaged kids who get into trouble suffer not solely from poverty or neglect, say those who hold this view, but also from the tragedy of a bold and exuberant temperament deprived of healthy outlets.
But even orchid children can withstand some adversity, Belsky says. Take divorce. In general, it will disrupt orchid kids more than others: “If the parents squabble a lot, and put their kid in the middle, then watch out—this is the kid who will succumb.”

Enjoyment appears at the boundary between boredom and anxiety, when the challenges are just balanced with the person’s capacity to act. - —MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI
Our inborn temperaments influence us, regardless of the lives we lead. A sizable part of who we are is ordained by our genes, by our brains, by our nervous systems. And yet the elasticity that Schwartz found in some of the high-reactive teens also suggests the converse: we have free will and can use it to shape our personalities.
These seem like contradictory principles, but they are not. Free will can take us far, suggests Dr. Schwartz’s research, but it cannot carry us infinitely beyond our genetic limits. Bill Gates is never going to be Bill Clinton, no matter how he polishes his social skills, and Bill Clinton can never be Bill Gates, no matter how much time he spends alone with a computer.

Sometimes speakers need to talk about subjects that don’t interest them much, especially at work. I believe this is harder for introverts, who have trouble projecting artificial enthusiasm.

But Eleanor wasn’t the light, witty type he’d been expected to marry. Just the opposite: she was slow to laugh, bored by small talk, serious-minded, shy. Her mother, a fine-boned, vivacious aristocrat, had nicknamed her “Granny” because of her demeanor.

Some children, it turns out, feel a lot more guilty about their (supposed) transgression than others. They look away, hug themselves, stammer out confessions, hide their faces. And it’s the kids we might call the most sensitive, the most high-reactive, the ones who are likely to be introverts who feel the guiltiest.

High-reactive introverts sweat more; low-reactive extroverts sweat less. Their skin is literally “thicker,” more impervious to stimuli, cooler to the touch. In fact, according to some of the scientists I spoke to, this is where our notion of being socially “cool” comes from; the lower-reactive you are, the cooler your skin, the cooler you are. (Incidentally, sociopaths lie at the extreme end of this coolness barometer, with extremely low levels of arousal, skin conductance, and anxiety.)
We know from Kagan’s work that a relaxed torso is a hallmark of low reactivity; and alcohol removes our inhibitions and lowers our arousal levels. When you go to a football game and someone offers you a beer, says the personality psychologist Brian Little, “they’re really saying hi, have a glass of extroversion.”
Elaine Aron has an idea about this. She believes that high sensitivity was not itself selected for, but rather the careful, reflective style that tends to accompany it.

It’s not that there’s no small talk, observes Strickland, the leader of the gathering. It’s that it comes not at the beginning of conversations but at the end. In most settings, people use small talk as a way of relaxing into a new relationship, and only once they’re comfortable do they connect more seriously. Sensitive people seem to do the reverse. They “enjoy small talk only after they’ve gone deep,” says Strickland. “When sensitive people are in environments that nurture their authenticity, they laugh and chitchat just as much as anyone else.”

We all have old brains, of course. But just as the amygdala of a high-reactive person is more sensitive than average to novelty, so do extroverts seem to be more susceptible than introverts to the reward-seeking cravings of the old brain. In fact, some scientists are starting to explore the idea that reward-sensitivity is not only an interesting feature of extroversion; it is what makes an extrovert an extrovert. Extroverts, in other words, are characterized by their tendency to seek rewards, from top dog status to sexual highs to cold cash. They’ve been found to have greater economic, political, and hedonistic ambitions than introverts; even their sociability is a function of reward-sensitivity, according to this view—extroverts socialize because human connection is inherently gratifying.

What underlies all this reward-seeking? The key seems to be positive emotion. Extroverts tend to experience more pleasure and excitement than introverts do.
Dopamine is the “reward chemical” released in response to anticipated pleasures. The more responsive your brain is to dopamine, or the higher the level of dopamine you have available to release, some scientists believe, the more likely you are to go after rewards like sex, chocolate, money, and status.
Still other research has shown that the medial orbitofrontal cortex, a key component of the brain’s dopamine-driven reward system, is larger in extroverts than in introverts.
This blindness to danger may explain why extroverts are more likely than introverts to be killed while driving, be hospitalized as a result of accident or injury, smoke, have risky sex, participate in high-risk sports, have affairs, and remarry. It also helps explain why extroverts are more prone than introverts to overconfidence—defined as greater confidence unmatched by greater ability.

Kellogg School of Management Professor Camelia Kuhnen has found that the variation of a dopamine-regulating gene (DRD4) associated with a particularly thrill-seeking version of extroversion is a strong predictor of financial risk-taking. By contrast, people with a variant of a serotonin-regulating gene linked to introversion and sensitivity take 28 percent less financial risk than others. They have also been found to outperform their peers when playing gambling games calling for sophisticated decision-making. (When faced with a low probability of winning, people with this gene variant tend to be risk-averse; when they have a high probability of winning, they become relatively risk-seeking.) Another study, of sixty-four traders at an investment bank, found that the highest-performing traders tended to be emotionally stable introverts.

Kuhnen and Brian Knutson have found that men who are shown erotic pictures just before they gamble take more risks than those shown neutral images like desks and chairs. This is because anticipating rewards—any rewards, whether or not related to the subject at hand—excites our dopamine-driven reward networks and makes us act more rashly.

“Psychological theories usually assume that we are motivated either by the need to eliminate an unpleasant condition like hunger or fear,” Csikszentmihalyi writes, “or by the expectation of some future reward such as money, status, or prestige.” But in flow, “a person could work around the clock for days on end, for no better reason than to keep on working.”

First Rate Intelligence

I have been following the alleged molestation of Christine Blasey Ford by Brett Kavanaugh (http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/christene-blasey-ford-and-brett.html).

The following is a quote from https://www.wsj.com/articles/tomorrows-elite-lawyers-disavow-due-process-1538695941: "The #BelieveSurvivors mantra is a cornerstone of the campus grievance industry but inimical to everything that a law school should teach. It’s a religious gesture, not a legal one: Such belief is independent of proof, arising out of a pre-existing commitment to a narrative of ubiquitous female abuse by patriarchal white males. The “survivor” label presupposes the conclusion that evidence should establish: that the accused is guilty of an offense. The fact-finder, if there even is one, regards contradictions or holes in a woman’s story as evidence of “trauma” and thus as further corroboration. According to #BelieveSurvivors logic, the Innocence Project, which exists to vacate wrongful convictions and has a presence at law schools across the country, should be disbanded.    Examples abound of student rape allegations arising out of voluntary drunken hookups, following which the self-described victim sought further sexual contact with her alleged rapist. Even if such cases weren’t so common, to presume the guilt of the accused based on an accusation alone would still be an affront to due process. From Tomorrow’s Elite Lawyers Disavow Due Process." 

WSJ is pro-Trump and hence pro-Kavanaugh and hence with respect to the Ford-Kavanaugh  issue it's pro-male.

The link http://theeverygirl.com/why-believing-survivors-is-important/ provides a pro-female view.

Two completely different views. After reading the WSJ article above and then the everygirl link  - former on behalf of men, latter on behalf of victims... It's amazing.. Whose side are you on!! This is an example of not needing to focus on facts but empathizing with men and with women. And not take sides.

As F Scott Fitzgerald said "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." 

Now do you see Scott Fitzgerald is a feeler (and not a thinker)?

The Queen Is King

Most of us, both thinkers and feelers, think we are in control of our emotions. That we process what we hear and see and that we process the sensory information and inward communication through our S2, rather than though S1. (For an  understanding of S1 and S2 read http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/10/thinking-fast-and-slow-daniel-kahnemann.html)
Inward communication refers to what we receive unlike outward communication which is what we transmit.

If such was the case how do we get irritated with others. Or angry or pleased?

If S2 was handling and managing all communications with external parties strictly with no input from S1, how can we get irritated or angry or happy? 

When a computer plays chess and wins, does it feel thrilled? When it loses does it feel sad? 

How do our feelings come out if we were processing things only with S2?

Is it not the truth that even if S2 was front ending everything, the show is managed really by S1? Whenever we talk to people, our S1 is actively involved in the background creating the emotions which S2, if it is up and running at all, tries to keep under control. 

Our non-verbal responses to communication with us is handled by our S1. Our verbal responses are to some extent tempered by S2.

S2 serves to guard our S1 from f***ing up. No matter how strong you think your S2 is, after taking some amount of pummelling it gives up, it gives in to S1. As Daniel Kaufman says, S2 is effortful and lazy. 

Do we agree that people can make us, even Thinkers, feel thrilled or wild with fury if they addressed our S1 appropriately, through flattery, insult etc. 

When it comes to outward communication, Thinkers are, unfortunately, wired to appeal to others using their rationality - a rationality that is usually wasted on feelers. Thinkers try to best present what they have to say logically not appreciating the fact that the audience may have little interest in using their S2 to process the inputs from the thinker.

Feelers, on the other hand, use their S2 to identify how best to communicate with the audience and reach the audience's S1. They know where the seat of power lies in the audience. 

The intelligent feelers know whether to focus on the audience"s S1 or S2 and package the message accordingly. The intelligent thinker logically explains his communication which is often lost on his audience.

Essentially, if you are not aware of and not addressing someone's S1, you are wasting your time. This is what EQ, Emotional Quotient, is all about. Emotional intelligence beats IQ hands down for effective communication.

Who is now set up for success in communication? Thinker or feeler?

Tailpiece:
Successful communicaton is essential to survival. The struggle to survive replaces Innocence with maturity (maturity= EQ).

Extreme consequences can restrain the exercise of your preferences.

People Breach Your Defenses, Reach Your S1

The whole idea of marketing (of the business kind or the feminine kind) is to ensure that they address or reach your S1. Advertisers would not want to reach your S2 with their messages. For an intro into S1, S2 read http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/10/thinking-fast-and-slow-daniel-kahnemann.html.)

When you say no to a request for help, if people respond with:

1. "You have no affection for me, you are so hard and inflexible"

2. "You were never harsh like this, you have changed so much"

3."Who else can i ask?"
Any form of desire and feelings being expressed appeals to the heart.

When people praise you for no real reason uttering empty phrases.:"Your work is so nice", "You are such a nice man." 

They are addressing / reaching your S1 = heart. Not S2. You may tend to let your guard down.

Additional notes and examples of people reaching your S1:

There is a sense of urgency when they talk about an issue, the urgency creates an expectation of fast decision from you, avoiding the use of your S2. The problem people mention would seem to be big needing immediate attention from you. 

• The situation could refer to their plight. "I have to pay my kids' school fees, it has to paid online only. I don't know how to make online transactions. And unfortunately my husband, who handles this always, is also out of town. Can you please  please pay on my behalf. I will repay ASAP." Now if your S2 was up and running, it might have a few questions:. 1. Why don't you give me your card details, I will pay online using your card. 2. Why don't I explain to you and you can pay yourself? 3. Why don't you reach your husband? Is internet unavailable where he is? Why don't take the help of your teenage son for whom internet is a piece of cake? And so on. But the sense of urgency in your friend prevents your S2 from operating. You end up jumping to help her when it wasn't really warranted.
• The issue brought up could refer to your own plight also (in this case your action may benefit them - for example, an insurance agent tells you: "Imagine if you die tomorrow, what will happen to your kid, wife, take an LIC policy immediately." If your S2 was up, it may have raised the question of whether an insurance policy was essential currently, what should be the maximum premium, comparison of LIC's policy with other policies etc.

Most advertisements want to reach your S1. They don't want you to use your S2 and start probing logically into their message "Our toothpaste / toilet cleaner / shampoo / car is 23% better than our competitors'. We work hard so you can sleep easy." Imagine if the message was wrongly delivered to your S2. How would you process the message above and what would your brand recall be?

Why are we urged not to make a decision when we are angry? When we are angry, we are usually riding our S1. Not the best time to make any big decisions when S1 is completely in control.

When people address your S1 and if you are a thinker, that's like telling you to cut your onions with the knife in your left hand. Quite a difficult task. All you have at the end is just tears.

Can you have your S2 always up? No way. But  you may have identified certain people as being ones who only talk to your heart and take you for a ride, especially if you are a thinker (as in MBTI). Set an internal alarm that wakes up your S2 as soon as you encounter this people.

Addional reading

• http://upfrontanalytics.com/market-research-system-1-vs-system-2-decision-making/
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/05/tinkering-with-your-s1.html

Insensitivity - Varieties

A friend of mine is usually accused of being insensitive. She is an extremely generous person and one who would volunteer to help out others at the drop of a hat. She has other friends, women, who are very caring and sensitive but who would hardly ever volunteer to help anyone. They draw a strict boundary when it comes to lending money or doing something for even their close family and friends. I thought this behavior of her friends was very insensitive.

So then my asked me how she herself, being considered insensitive, was different from her friends.

Good question. I had to think through this.

Some of us are sensitive to the emotional needs of others. Others are sensitive to the physical needs of others while being completely oblivious to their emotional needs. 

The first kind, such as my friend's friends, are the feelers who are completely indifferent to the physical (financial, physical) needs of others. My friend is a thinker who is empathetic to the physical and financial needs of others but not to their emotional needs.

I realized that each kind (T, F) berates the other kind for being insensitive while itself being insensitive, thoughtless in other respects.

Strange how the word insensitivity is used very differently by each kind.

Conflict between FPs and TJs
TJs are sensitive to rules and their violations. 
FP's are sensitive to the image they have in public and violations to the image

Worrying about other people's feelings is stressful.  It's easy for feelers to be with you if you are a TJ since you wont get hurt easily (by violation to your image) and they can  let their guard down.
But then you are extremely sensitive and vigilant towards rules and violations of rules and this pisses the FPs off because they aren't particular about rules. Interactions between thinkers and feelers creates this conflict.