I, Me And Myself And My Inner Child

A friend sent me these very interesting links:

• Loving oneself: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/02/im-cheating-on-my-partner-why-you-should-too/
• Inner child:
• https://lifelabs.psychologies.co.uk/users/3881-maxine-harley/posts/3351-is-your-inner-child-messing-up-your-relationships
• http://www.healyourinnerchild.com/
• http://www.healyourinnerchild.com/Book-Content/inner-child-healing-techniques

She also sent me this (copied from some site):

But, sometimes childhood experiences are traumatic / shocking or too painful for the little mind to deal with. Then the inner child that grows within us is angry, upset, confused, unable to attract healthy relationships etc. Unfortunately, these people blame themselves, or allow others (especially people in authority / or the ones who did the abusing!)

Two categories of personalities emerge from Inner child issues or more commonly known as Childhood Trauma. The ‘Victim’ mentality and the ‘Rebel’. The ‘Victim’ usually is a sacrificial lamb. He surrenders unhappily to the will of others, is easily dictated by parents / elders / bosses, though his inner voice or his True self may be saying the exact opposite. They blindly follow orders and live by social norms. These people are introverts and rarely have friends. They have trust issues with everyone and look at every relationship with the eye of a Laser beam!!

The Rebel is unusually brave and can take risks of all kinds. They are detached from everyone in general and have superficial relationships. They too do not trust anyone but can be friendly in a superficial way. They hardly have any close friends. They build a wall of defense around themselves to shield from hurt and they do not like to cry. When they grow up the wall becomes stronger and bigger and they are unable to break it.

Making the transition from head to heart: https://www.lifepositive.com/moving-from-head-to-heart/ by Suma Verghese: Quotes from this article:

Capitalism, for instance, is motivated primarily by the profit factor, which means that many of its decisions can be and are unethical, unprincipled and even inhuman. In this scheme of things, the best way to improve the bottomline is to sack the employee.

Violent revolutions such as those that took place in France and later in Russia were dictated by head thinking and not heart thinking. 

Head thinking, on the other hand, gives rise to endless complexities, for it is unable to see things as they are. Hence there will be contingency plans for everything, uniform rules and regulations for all situations no matter how dissimilar (such as, for instance, insisting that your 16-year-old returns home after a party at the same time as she did when she was 12) and extremely complicated procedures.

I had earlier written about another article by Suma Verghese. I remember even the earlier article had assumed that acts of terrorism / violence were created by head thinking - something I strongly disagree with. Comment by Matt is interesting. It goes into the imbalance between head and heart which apparently is caused due to ego in head based thinkers. Aaron's comment is a good rejoinder on the article.

On ego: http://drsircus.com/spiritual-psychology/the-ego-as-the-root-of-conflict/

After reading the article, I started thinking. Can ego and empathy coexist at the same time? If at a point in time, we are reacting to our ego, we are not reacting to our empathy and vice versa. Ego comes out of competitive thinking. Me vs you or me vs others. Does this come from the heart or the head? Where is the fountain from which ego emanates?

On ID (instinctual drive) : From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego: Quotes: 

The id is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth. It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives. The id contains the libido, which is the primary source of instinctual force that is unresponsive to the demands of reality. The id acts according to the "pleasure principle"—the psychic force that motivates the tendency to seek immediate gratification of any impulse—defined as seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure (not 'displeasure') aroused by increases in instinctual tension. According to Freud the id is unconscious by definition.

Ego acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.

The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions.

The superego (German: Über-Ich) reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.

Superego, ego and ID seem to refer to Parent, Adult and Child states. Instant gratification seems to be closely linked to desire. Where is then the root of desire?

A friend sent me this link that discusses the various reasons one resorts to crime. Crime is closely linked to instant gratification. Does instant gratification or an uncontrolled ID (leading to unacceptable behavior such as outbursts) come from unhealed / distorted child?

From this link:

It is the wounded child in us that wants instant gratification.

 Nice link about Wounded Child -a Jungian Archetype.

Additional reading:

• http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/four_steps_to_feeling_better_about_yourself?utm_source=GG+Newsletter+Oct+19%2C+2016&utm_campaign=GG+Newsletter+Oct+19+2016&utm_medium=email: Nice
• http://m.wikihow.com/Embrace-Your-Inner-Child
• https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154227579249513&id=563729512&refid=7&_ft_=qid.6291140921806805900%3Amf_story_key.-2575478529006902724

Oh My God

Thought provoking dialogs from OMG:

Paresh Rawal: ho gayi ki jo gutka bechta hai wohi cancer ka hospital kholta hai (The person who sells drugs is also the person who sets up cancer hospitals.) - This is in response to the interviewer's point that the religious institutions spend a lot on charity. [So what's wrong if the same institutions collect money from people?]

Paresh Rawal: Jahaan dharam wahan sachchai nahi hoti hai. Jahan dharm hai na, wahan satya ke liye jagah nahi hai ... aur jahan satya hai , wahan dharm ki zaroorat hi nahi hai. (Where there is religion there is no truth. Where there is truth, there is no need for religion.)

Interviewer (Tisca Chopra): Dharam ya mazhab ek insaan ke zindagi mein kya karta hai? (What purpose does religion serve in a man's life?)

Paresh Rawal: Ek hi cheez karta hai. ya tho insaan ko bebas banata hai ya atankwadi. (It does only one thing. Religion either makes man helpless or a terrorist)

Akshay Kumar: Logon se unka dharam cheenoge tho log tumhe unka dharam bana lenge.(If you take away religion away from people, then they will make you their religion.)

Apparently this movie is remade from the movie The Man Sued God. 

Logical Puzzle - Brain Teaser

A friend sent me this. I am yet to solve this:

Brain teaser.

-----------------------

1111 = R

2222 = T

3333 = E

4444 = N

5555 = ?

100 % brain work

Most Beautiful Mathematical Equations

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160120-you-decide-what-is-the-most-beautiful-equation-ever-written

One of  the equations is Euler's: e^(i*pi)+1=0. Looks nice.The explanation / proof is here. Another is here.

Another interesting equation is the logistics equation: x[n+1]=r.x[n](1-x[n]) where x[n] should be read as x with subscript n.

A quote from the BBC article: 

"How the population behaves turns out to be enormously sensitive to the value of r, in counterintuitive ways. If r is between 0 and 1 the population will always die, but if it is between 1 and 3 the population will approach a fixed value – and if it is above 3.56995 the population becomes wildly unpredictable." 

I guess it  doesn't matter what the initial value of x is.

Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2010/12/maths-puzzle-5.html

Maths Puzzle - Pebble

A friend sent me  this lovely puzzle. 

There are 63 pebbles in a bowl : there are two players : each player can take any count of pebbles from 1-5. If you are the first mover : what is the first pick to ensure u get the last pick as well?

Enneagram And MBTI - Comparison

Enneagram seems to predict behavior so well that I want to explore it more. This post is about the correlation between Enneagram types and MBTI types.

http://personalityjunkie.com/07/myers-briggs-enneagram-mbti-types-correlations-relationship/

As per the link above: 

• Enneagram One corresponds to J types.
• Enneagram Two corresponds to SF types .
• Enneagram Three corresponds to ENFJ .
• Enneagram Four corresponds to INF types.
• Enneagram Five corresponds to INT, ISTP, male INFJs types.
• Enneagram Seven corresponds to EP types
• Enneagram Eight corresponds to ETJ types
• Enneagram Nine corresponds to IFP types

Quote from the above link:

Consider the following observations based on the above relationships:

• Types characterized by Introverts (4, 5, 6, 9) and Extraverts (2, 7, 8 )
• Intuitives (3, 4, 5) and Sensors (6)
• Thinkers (5, 8 ) and Feelers (2, 4, 9)
• Perceivers (3, 6, 7, 9) and Judgers (1, 8 )

http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/6231.html: Quote from this article on correlations:

Below are the strongest correlations to Enneagram type by MBTI type in descending order. The numbers in parentheses indicate respective correlational strength--the strength of a particular correlation relative to the statistical average. E.g. INTP's, with a correlational strength of 3.99, are about 4 times as likely to be Fives as the statistical average would indicate.

• INTP: 5, 4 (3.99, 1.47)
• INFP: 4, 9 (2.36, 1.70)
• INTJ: 1, 5 (3.58, 2.19)
• INFJ: 4, 9 (1.92, 1.62)
• ISTP: 6, 5 (2.94, 2.92) - results suspect (only 20 scores where the average was 95)
• ISFP: 6, 9 (2.45, 2.13)
• ISTJ: 6, 1 (4.39, 3.57)
• ISFJ: 6, 9 (4.56, 1.86)
• ENTP: 7, 3 (3.63, 2.44)
• ENFP: 7, 2 (3.13, 2.18)
• ENTJ: 8, 3 (5.39, 3.66)
• ENFJ: 3, 2 (3.05, 2.88)
• ESTP: negligible (only 7 results; indicative of an SP trend of abstinence)
• ESFP: 2, 7 (2.94, 1.47)
• ESTJ: 8, 3 (7.34, 4.27)
• ESFJ: 2, 6 (2.57, 2.16)

And the award goes to types:

most introverted: 5, 4 (others fairly far behind)
most extroverted: 7, 2 (ditto, more so for the 7)
most intuitive types: 5, 4 (7 not far behind)
most sensitive types: 6 (no other types were clear-cut S's)
most thinking types: 1, 8, 5 (rest are far behind)
most feeling types: 2, 7,9,4 (after 2 the rest were all distant seconds)
most judging types: 1, 8 (the 1 was wayyyyyy on the judging side)
most perceiving types: 7, 4, 5 (after the 7 things get close)

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/jthirdprinc.html
Quote from this article:

• MBTI types distribute in such a way that certain Jungian pairs can be taken as 'prototypical' of certain 'enneazones' - as summarized in the following chart:

  		Nine	Eight	Seven	Six	Five	Four	Three	Two	One
  		IF = (ISFP, INFP)	ET = (ESTJ, INTJ)	EN = (ENFP, ENTP)	IS = (ISJF, ISTJ)	IT = (ISTP, INTP)	IN = (INFJ, INTJ)	ES = (ESTP, ESFP)	EF = (ESFJ, ENFJ)	all J types

http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/490_psl/step_9.htm

Diagram and table from the article (without permission):

          Table 15: Enneagram Correlates with M-B

Nine ENNEAGRAM Types	Correlates of M-B to Enneagram in order	Leadership Characteristics
1. Perfectionist/ Reformer	ISTJ, ENFJ, ENTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENTP	Rational, idealistic type. Conscientious, with a strong sense of right and wrong. Advocates and teachers, they are agents for change: always striving to improve things, but afraid of making a mistake. Moral and ethical, critical and perfectionist. Well-organized, orderly, and fastidious.Aristotle, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Confucius, Queen Elizabeth II, Wilhelm Leibnitz, Jerry Seinfeld, Martha Stewart, Barbra Streisand
2. Giver/ Helper	ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP, ISFP, ISTP, ISFJ	Caring, nurturing type. Empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. People-oriented, friendly, generous, and self-sacrificing, but can also be sentimental, flattering, and intrusive. Possessive of others, doing things in order to be needed, they have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Proud and self-deceptive, they can feel unappreciated and victimized, becoming manipulative and controlling.Examples: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, Bill Cosby
3. Performer/ Motivator/ Achiever	ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, ENTJ	Adaptable, success-oriented type. Self-assured, attractive, and charming. Ambitious and energetic, but can also be too competitive and driven. Image-conscious and overly concerned about what others think of them. Pragmatic chameleons, calculating, saying and doing whatever "works" for the. Seeking attention and admiration, they can be arrogant and opportunistic.Examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Brooke Shields, Jay Leno, Britney Spears, Katie Couric, Suzanne Sommers
4. Romantic/ Artist	INFJ, INFP, ENFJ, ISFP, ENFP, ESFP	Intuitive, reserved type. Self-aware, sensitive, introspective, and gentle. Individualistic, expressive, and personal, but can also be too moody and self-conscious. They dwell in their fantasies, feeling different, melancholy, and exempt from ordinary ways of living. Become impractical, self-indulgent, and self-pitying; problems with self-inhibition.Examples: Calista Flockhart, Wynona Ryder,
5. Observer/ Thinker	INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ, INFJ	Perceptive, cerebral type. Alert, insightful, and curious. Able to concentrate and understand complex ideas. Independent, innovative, and inventive, but can also be too preoccupied with their thoughts and imaginary constructs. They become detached, yet high-strung and intense. Awkward and isolated, they lack interpersonal skills, and can be cynical and eccentric.Examples: William Rhenquist, Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, Helen Keller, Wittgenstein, Arthur C. Clarke
6. Loyalist/ Skeptic	ISFJ, ESFJ, INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, INTP	Committed, security-oriented type. Endearing and likable, forming strong bonds with others. Reliable, responsible, and trustworthy, but can also be too partisan and suspicious of others, creating 'in' and 'out' groups. Defensive, contradictory, evasive, and anxious: they run on stress while complaining about it. Cautious and indecisive, but also defiant and rebellious, talking 'tough' and scapegoating others.Examples: Al Gore, Mel Gibson, Harry Truman, Woody Allen
7. Epicure/ Generalist/ Enthusiast	ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP, ISTP, ENFJ	Enthusiastic, productive type. Extroverted, optimistic, and spontaneous. Playful, high-spirited, practical, and accomplished, but can also be overextended, superficial, and undisciplined. Acquisitive, seeking constant stimulation, they distract themselves by staying on the go. Uninhibited, excessive, and self-centered. Can be infantile, demanding, and insensitive to others.Examples: Richard Feynmann, Conan O'Brien (Late show host), Warren Buffet
8. Protector/ Boss/ Leader	ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ISTJ	Powerful, aggressive type. Self-confident, strong, and assertive. Protective, resourceful, straight-talking and decisive, but can also be proud and domineering. Feel they must control their environment, becoming confrontational and intimidating: everything is a contest of wills and they seldom back down. Can become hard-hearted and openly belligerent.Examples: Joseph Stalin, Henry Kissinger, Mick Jagger, King Henry VIII, Muhammad Ali, Julius Caesar, Vladimir Putin, Zhu Rongji, Karl Marx
9. Mediator/ Peace maker	ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ESTP, ISTP	Easygoing, accommodating type. Accepting, trusting, and stable. Good-natured, optimistic, straightforward, and supportive, but can also be too willing to go along with others to keep the peace. Want things to be smooth and easy: tend to be complacent, to simplify problems and to minimize anything upsetting. Creatures of habit, they can be passive and unwilling to change. Stubborn, inattentive, and neglectful.Examples: Bill Clinton

Based on the table above which type would be Hitler's and Vijay Salgaonkar's? (Read http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-was-hitlers-mbti-type.html). I wonder whether the descriptions in the last column in the table above match the types.

http://www.typologycentral.com/wiki/index.php/Enneagram_and_MBTI_Correlation: 

MBTI Temperament % for each Enneagram type graph is very interesting. It shows that SP's are  highest for Enneagram types 7,8,9. SJ's are highest for Enneagram types 1,2,6,3 (then 5,4). NF is high for Enneagram 4,9,7. NT's are highest in 5,8,7.

Enneagram type 4,5,7 have a strong preference for N as per the link. Enneagram 3,7,2,8 are more likely to be E while the rest are more likely to be I while 5 are very strong I.

Enneagram 2,4,9 are more likely to be F while 1,5,8 are more likely to be T. Enneagram 2,6,1,3 are more likely to be J while 7,4,9,5 are more likely to be P.

Other nice articles on this topic:

• http://www.personalityhacker.com/understanding-the-enneagram/: nice article sent by a friend
• http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/01/mbti-and-the-enneagram-2/7/ and http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/01/mbti-and-the-enneagram-2/6/
• http://pstypes.blogspot.in/2009/07/myers-briggs-and-enneagram-type.html
• http://www.socionics.com/articles/ctc.html
• http://enneagram-spirituality.blogspot.in/p/enneagram-and-meyers-briggs-type.html
• http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/6231.html: Very nice
• http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/01/mbti-and-the-enneagram-2/6/ - INTJ's
• Why some types withdraw when you start to get close: http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2017/01/heres-why-they-pulled-away-when-you-were-starting-to-get-close-based-on-their-myers-briggs-personality-type/
• What every type does on a vacation: http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/06/what-each-myers-briggs-type-does-on-vacation/
• Why we need each type: http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/01/why-the-world-needs-each-myers-briggs-personality-type/
• Heaven for each type: http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/10/the-definition-of-heaven-for-each-myers-briggs-personality-type/
• Hell for each type: http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/05/the-definition-of-hell-for-each-myers-briggs-personality-type/

Genius is 1% Inspiration and 99% Perspiration

An interview with Manjul Bhargava:

"Interviewer: Is math genius a product of meticulous hard work, practice, incremental gaining of knowledge and insight or is it an outcome of eidetic memory and talent?

Bhargava: You asked this question very eloquently. The answer is that while a good memory and a copious supply of talent is very helpful, there is no substitute for hard work."

While Manjul's answer resonated with the title of this post, I am of the opinion that genius being 99% perspiration etc is misleading. That "formula" and Manjul's interview seem to indicate that genius is largely about good and useful hardwork.

I do not agree. Becoming a genius may involve a tremendous amount of hard work - but NO ONE is going to become a genius any time soon with only hard work. A genius perhaps has some genes - something to do with that "1% inspiration". This inspiration or whatever one chooses to call it is what geniuses have and the rest of us do not have. And without this ingredient for inspiration you are not going to become a genius. And this ingredient is NOT hard work. 

An interesting quote from 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/26/if-you-answer-this-math-problem-correctly-you-may-be-an-atheist/ or https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason:

"people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers."

This quote seems to contradict MBTI theory - in the sense that the quote assumes that intuition and logical ability are mutually exclusive. NT's are intuitive and logical. I guess the authors refer to F(eelers) when they mention intuition. 

Another link, which talks on the same lines, refers to Einstein as an epitome of rational analytical thinking. One of Einstein's quotes (see here):

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

After reading all this, I am shaking my head. They don't add up. A logical mind is just a T (as in MBTI). A genius needs an N - it could be an NT OR an NF. An ST does not make a genius.

Additional reading:

• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2015/09/intelligence-variation-with-religion.html
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/inside-the-mind-of-teenage-maths-genius-alex-gunning/news-story/3039f5b809372fbace63def01b8a646a
• http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/may/15/child-geniuses-prodigies

Maths And Puzzles - How Many Runs Did He Score?

A friend sent me this puzzle.

A question for all cricket lovers, maths genius,  teachers and friends. .!!

How many runs a single player can score in One day match (50 overs / 300 balls)

No 'no balls', no wides, no extras, no over throws...So how much runs he can score max???

this question came in CSAT and 99% people  answered it wrong..

Choices :

A) 1800. 

B) 1650. 

C) 1653. 

D) 1550. 

E) 1555

F) 1506

What Was Hitler's MBTI Type?

INFJ as per 
https://www.reddit.com/r/infj/comments/1zrqky/hitler_was_an_infj/ and http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/11/jung-myers-keirsey-etc-on-hitlers-type/.

Quote: 

• "J : results-oriented and wants to put theory into practice" - Not sure I agree here. Creating theory and wanting to test theory is more an N trait and nothing to do with J. Putting theory (developed by anyone, not necessarily self) is a T trait. A "J" looks at process perfection, wrapping things up, leaving nothing pending. Unbounded enthusiasm, ambition is not a J trait. I do not agree with his typing in the links. I feel Hitler is most likely a P. 

I watched the movie Drishyam. I was discussing the character Vijay Salgaonkar played by Ajay Devgn with a friend. A question arose. What kind of a man was he? What was his MBTI type? IxFP? Could he have been a T? A J(udging)?

He had not even passed 4th grade in school. Yet he displayed consummate skill in planning and executing. Hence T? and J?

Comments welcome.

Additional reading:

• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2015/08/drishyam-and-papasanam-and-bros.html
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2016/01/enneagram-and-mbti-comparison.html

I Hate You, I Was Blind

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=826964957362412&id=100001467463945&set=a.127509503974631.22810.100001467463945&refid=8&__tn__=%2As : This is an interesting story where the moral is that we shouldn't judge others without understanding them first. 

Obviously this was written by a person who is more comfortable with the heart than with the head.

I have always believed in judging to the extent possible without understanding "them" (whoever or whatever is them) first. This black box approach gives way to a clean approach. By clean I don't mean just logical or rational but something that is fair and unbiased. 

The story presented in the link is a nice example of a black box approach leading to a wrong conclusion. Having said that, when we first understand people and then try to judge their actions, it's almost impossible to be neutral and unbiased. Because if we wore their shoes completely, we would do exactly what they did, good or bad. 

If you wholeheartedly disagree with what I say or do, imagine yourself in my shoes - having lived my life, experienced what I did, seen everything through my eyes - would you still be able to disagree with me?

Seeing things using a "white box" is an elegant way to bring in bias or prejudice into the act of judging - unless of course one plans to live his without judging at all.