Hero

You dont have to win to be a hero. You dont have to survive , be the last man standing. Those who equate  heroism with victory completely miss the point. A hero is on a plane completely different from others, one who puts his principles before his life.
One of best scenes in an otherwise tasteless movie (Inglorious Basterds) was this one. A German officer chooses to die rather than put the lives of his troops in danger. He is a hero and this scene from the movie will be remembered by me when all the other scenes have faded from memory.



Perseverance in the face of adversity.



Yes, of course he had to pay a price for being a hero. Being a hero ain't easy.




PS: This post marks the beginning of the phase wherein I test the "Sex and Violence sell"  hypothesis on my blog. 

Game Theory

Observing people commenting on cricket matches can be quite an enlightening experience, providing vital insights into human behavior. I observed many people come up with figures and data (selectively sourced, of course!) , find a pattern in them and then predicting a result based on the pattern. 
Here's an example: 

Both the years of 1983 calendar and 2011 calendar starts on the same day. 1983 world cup final date according to 1983 calendar is June 25 (Saturday)
2011 world cup final date according to 2011 calendar is April 2 (Saturday)
(To predict India's win in WC 2011)

"I stopped watching the streaming and India has started to get back slowly. I shall remain loyal to Cricinfo till end of the game. I promise!" 
(A fan attributing India's comeback during the match to his action of not watching the streaming match.)


Our brains are pattern recognizing machines. While this is good for us from an evolutionary perspective (eg: co-relating certain signals like a rattling sound with danger of a snake bite from a rattle-snake) , it also leads us to form false associations which form the basis of superstitious beliefs. 
For example, Event A may cause Event B and Event C to occur. Now, we might not notice Event A happening and see B and C happening together and conclude that B causes C or C causes B. Worse, B and C happening together could be completely co-incidental and we might form associations between them. 
 This fallacy of mistaking co-relation with causality is quite common among people and the habit of predicting a winner for a cricket match based on patterns found in unrelated/superficially related past data is just a manifestation of that.


Could this fallacy take troubling forms? 
Suppose a people come to associate sunrise with human deaths. In other words, a belief that to rise, the sun needs a particular quantity of human blood?
(Note: I am not sure if this was actually the reason for the Aztec human sacrifices, I am just guessing.)

Marriage and Morals

 As promised, I am back with my first review/summary. (Actually, trying to be both, it ends up being neither) :)
The human brain functions through heuristics. Just like a student would first derive a formula and then apply it (as opposed to deriving the formula every time its application is required), the human mind will try to frame all sorts of rules taking into account various factors and then adhere to those rules.
This approach is very advantageous to a human as it saves valuable circuitry in the brain. Along with the advantages it proffers, are certain shortcomings. If the original parameters that went into framing the heuristic are changed, we are often left with a redundant heuristic. Often, completely oblivious to the changed parameters, we continue to apply the same heuristic.
The functioning of a society as a whole cannot be expected to differ significantly from the unit that makes it up. Hence, we have a set of codes, morals and taboos all defined as a society evolved. Ethics pertaining to sexuality are among the most rigid of them all. Bertrand Russell wanted to analyze the prevalent ethics to to analyze their pertinence in today's era (His era actually). Marriage and Morals does just that. It subjects the prevailing ethics to scrutiny from various angles to do a thorough review. One of the reasons , I admired him was that he never advocated the complete relegation of sexuality from the domain of ethical purview. This conclusion would probably have emerged had he viewed the problem purely through the prism of individual pleasure and gratification as is being done by some of our contemporaries. 
Instead, a well crafted sexual ethic has to do justice to various considerations like individual satisfaction and happiness, social stability, nurture of progeny among others. The consideration that towers over all others should be the role a sexual ethic should play in the healthy upbringing of a child.I agree with Russell when he says that a marriage's most important function is the upbringing of a child and it should be legally and socially acceptable for married couples without kids to divorce. He also argues that the role of the state in providing for the child is on the ascent and the role of the father is becoming redundant and we may reach a point where the father is not required at all. Keeping in mind the scenario in India, I find myself disagreeing with this view. 
With the development of contraceptives, individuals dont have to worry about begetting kids while in a relationship. I will not go into the details of the relationship Russell considers ethical but I will mention that he was not an advocate of  sexual relationships devoid of emotional attachment. (See chapter: Trial Marriage)
Besides his progressive views, what makes the book an interesting read is the explanation he offers for how things turned out the way they are. For instance, he attributes male jealousy and female chastity to the problem of determining the paternity of a child. Only when the father is sure of the paternity of the child, would he invest his resources in raising the child (and thus sow his seeds). 
He also discusses other topics like Prostitution and Eugenics. Again, I find it better not to have a detailed discussion on all these topics. 
The reason why I haven't discussed all these topics in detail is because someone else already has and I dont think I can better him. 
Please visit this link to read a summary of each chapter from the book. It will elaborate all the topics I have mentioned. If sufficiently interested, I recommend you get hold of the book.         

Crossroads.

I sometimes wonder what I should blog about. A friend gave me an idea. Now I'll be blogging about the books I read. A review/summary of sorts. It's a very good way to ascertain whether I really gained something of the book or not. Some of the books I've read in the last 6 months worth reviewing are:

Marriage and Morals - Bertrand Russell.
India after Gandhi - Ramachandra Guha
No Full Stops in India - Mark Tully.
Freedom at Midnight - Dominique Lapierre  and Larry Collins. 


The obsession with India really started after I read India after Gandhi during Winter Vacations in December. Anyway I'll come up with my first review after my exams which are due in less than a week. 
I received a copy of 'Discovery of India' , the classic by Nehru which I'll be reading after mid-sems. I remember I first picked up that book in school (Was it VIIth?), read a few lines, yawned and promptly put the book down. Wont happen this time.

The Myth of Free Press.

In a liberal democracy, the function of the press is to promote open discussion and debate, provide honest criticism of the government, expose irregularities in the system, inform the public about happenings and indirectly act as a guardian of democratic institutions. "Free Press" is a term for independent journalistic organizations, that act outside the purview of the government and are therefore assumed to be completely independent of any external influence. In my opinion, this narrow definition of independent journalism discounts several key factors that can threaten the independence,neutrality and thus the credibility of the news media in the country. I will try to list those factors that currently influence the media in our country negatively and prevent it from executing its allocated functions effectively.

1. Financial dependence on corporate organizations.
As long as the media will depend on advertising revenues from companies, they will be open to manipulation and soft coercion. Any negative news about a particular company can cause the company in question to withdraw its advertising from that media organization. This frequently happens and impacts the neutrality of media organizations. While reading Hamish Macdonald's 'The Polyester Prince" (supposedly banned in India), I came across an excerpt that described how newspapers used to run negative stories about Reliance in order to attract advertising from Reliance that would shut them up. An innovative way to exort money, eh? 

2.The Profit motive.
 Although a proponent of increased economic freedom, I was never a fan of unbridled capitalism as espoused by some. I believe there are some industries where the race to increase the bottom-line actually goes against the larger public interest. The eyeball grabbing tactics employed by the media in India stand testimony to my arguments. In an effort to boost TRP's and increase readers, media organizations are going all out to sensationalize stuff and trivialize news. This serves to erode the credibility and trust individuals place in the media. After a while, nobody takes them seriously. 

3. Foreign Investment in Media
When two siblings want to watch different channels on TV, who gets to decide which channel is going to be viewed? Simple, the one who has the remote! 
Unless we want our media to act as a front for foreign organizations, it is imperative that their investments in media be capped.

In one way or other, all these factors somehow relate to money. Maybe I will look into the reforms needed in a later post.

Do or Die.

Seth Godin had this piece of advice for readers who frequent his blog. What I like about Seth Godin's blog is the distilled learning that accompanies each of his posts. Anyway, here is an excerpt :

There used to be a significant limit on available intake. Once you read all the books in the college library on your topic, it was time to start writing.
Now that the availability of opinions, expertise and email is infinite, I think the last part of that sentence is the most important:
Time to start writing.

Over the last few months, I have been feeling increasingly aimless, like an un-anchored yatch riding the winds. There are lots of personal projects I wanted to undertake but mental barriers always manage to keep me tethered. Perhaps the time has come to embark on a few projects I hold dear to my heart. Hopefully, they will impart a sense of direction to my otherwise aimless life.Time has come for being active as opposed to being passive.

Its Magick!

I attended Mood Indigo at IIT-B in December. One of the workshops was called 'Wicca and Magick' (sic). It was held by a lady called Swati Prakash.Follow the link to land on her personal site. She holds these posts :
 President – Tarot India Network
CEO – Magick stores
Head – Global Wicca Tradition
Head Priestess – Earth Healing Temple
This is how an internet portal describes her:
"Swati Prakash was initiated into the realms of divination, magick and transformation at the age of 11 when she spontaneously started creating spells and horoscopes, a skill inherited from her past lives. Her interest in the occult grew with several psychic insights that took her deeper into realms of Wicca, Dream-working, Past Life Therapy, Energy Healing and Tarot."
She was a charming person nevertheless she made some really absurd claims during the course of the workshop like about how her friend who practiced Wicca could memorize the Chemistry textbook without even opening it. She also mentioned a strange worm with beard and glasses that appeared for a week while she and her coterie were performing some Wiccan rituals.
It was preposterous to think that claims like these would not go unchallenged. Most people choose to express their disagreement by leaving the lecture hall. However I choose to ask her questions to give her a chance of explain her position.
I asked her if she would be willing to undergo a test administered by independent observers to verify her claims. After all it is the privilege of the shishya to demand proof if he is not convinced of the claims made by his guru. This probably came as a surprise to her, who had always encountered people willing to submit rather meekly to her instead of poking holes in her theories before accepting them. Visibly flustered she replied " You should learn to respect people who know more than you. I can prove them, but you will need to join us and I charge a very hefty fees for that."
Maybe she had some aversion to the scientific method or science. I decided to check her blog. I found an article explaining how Einstein had proved that mass and energy are equivalent and how we are nothing but energy. (The most obnoxious interpretation of his theory that I have come across.) She seemed to me a person willing to internalize the authority of science when it seemed convenient but never internalize its spirit.
After the lecture, I was determined to further explain myself so I wrote a long email to her at 2 am. Obviously, I did not receive any reply. Nevertheless, it was a long letter and I had spent half an hour of my precious time writing it so it would be a shame if it wasn't reproduced here to add to the voyeuristic delights otherwise offered only by Facebook.

Here goes.
_______________________
You might remember me as the guy who asked that particularly incisive question at your recent seminar in IIT B (Mood Indigo). Firstly, I would like to express regret and apologize if I came off as too harsh and rude. That was never my intention. In a battle of ideas, cults of personality should always take a backseat. Therefore, I urge you to purge all feelings of animosity towards me as a prerequisite to reading the rest of this letter. I expect you to remain highly skeptical of whatever I say in this letter as you should be, ideally. Please give due considerations to the points I have mentioned in this letter and respond to them, if you wish. I would like to hear your point of view in great detail.
Now, from what I have inferred there could be three situations possible. Also, it would greatly help if you considered my comments in each case separately i.e Comments in a particular case belong only if that case is true.

A] You are correct about whatever you say and I am mistaken. In this case, please read the rest of the letter and correct me. I am prepared to pay the hefty fees you mentioned if you can establish beyond doubt your case. I recognize the limitations of the 5 senses of Human beings, but there must be some experiment we could do that would yield observable results we could introspect upon.  This is the one of the best ways to prove your case. Alternatively we can set up an experiment that will falsify your hypothesis, this will be the best way to prove my case. This is because a single negation is sufficient to destroy a general theory whereas an uncountable number of affirmations cannot completely prove a theory. Newton's classical mechanics theory was falsified by Einstein's theory in the same way. You may argue that there is no reason to learn something that is bound to be falsified in the future. Infact, there is. Atleast, we know what not to believe and what is untrue if we proceed like this.
If you are still angry with me, you can cast an evil spell on me that will wipe my existence. Even though I may be dead (in heaven or hell depending on where you want to send me) , I will be happy because you will have proved your point and corrected me.

B] You know that you are incorrect, and you are compelled to cheat/swindle others because of the strong economic incentives underlying it. You believe there is no harm in doing so, as ultimately people report feeling relaxed, happy because of your courses, and it justifies hiding facts from them.This seems the most likely case to me. If this is so, then there is a very strong probability that you will ignore this letter as it will raise some difficult questions. In general, my opposition to this continuing will base on the fact that infact, people are actually getting harmed by believing in this, especially young children whose logical/analytical skills arent yet developed and thus they depend on their parents to show them the correct path. By getting impressioned by concepts like Wicca and Witchcraft, they are prone to substitute development of scientific temper and rational thought which is inherent among children in a nascent stage (as they are prone to ask questions like "What is this?" , "How does this work?") with anti-skepticism, intellectual slavery and suspension of thought that aids discovery.For adults, this could grow really big and take the shape of a religion or a cult as most cults have developed and subject the next generation of children who ideally should be agnostics, to intellectual slavery. No doubt our present society has done its lot to suppress the inquisitive spirit in children by imposing taboos on questioning or acquiring certain kinds of knowledge especially taboos regarding sex, on questioning the authenticity of religion e.t.c. Some religions have gone so far as to impose death penalties on people abdicating their fold. I understand that questioning the authenticity of  Wicca so ferociously is unjustified if you do not consider other religions. Infact, my points apply to other religions that impose taboos on questioning, free thought and inquisitiveness  too in the same way as they apply to Wicca.
Intellectual slavery is a very dangerous thing as it engulfs entire swathes of people without them realizing it and gives rise to dogmas which are the anathema of civilization and contribute to its decay and consequently mankind's. The European Renaissance and Reformation would never have happened if there weren't bold thinkers who could resist the majority and stick to reason.

C] You are incorrect and you believe your theories to be correct based on the supportive testimonials of others.Equally likely. Its a well known fact that today's world has increasingly grown very stressful because of the pugnacious competition and the absence of love and warmth from people in general. People are seeking respite in things they find comforting and pleasurable. As a result, they would give credence to anything that helps them relax and that includes meditation (which is a powerful exercise to stabilize and relax the mind) , sweet smelling candles and incense and your pleasing personality when you accord them affection and warmth. There are other factors too but as I am not very conversant with Wicca, I cant comment on them.But clubbing them as a package and selling them as a worldview would be incredibly dishonest. These are things meant to be taken at their face value.  Another factor in work is the placebo effect, which means that sometimes a cure or a therapy would work if people intensely believe in it. I would have gone in greater details about this but in the interests of keeping the letter short, I request you to read the Wikipedia article on this topic. A reason for the popularity of witchcraft could be the fascination for it and the mysticism behind it. As a big fan of mythological stories and legendary heroes and heroines, I can understand this. Also, another reason for believing in something is the way the psyche of human beings is constituted. They want to have a guiding hand or a protector to symbolize and recreate the ideal parent as most adults , all grown up suffer from some sort of insecurity or other. I am sure you would agree to this. You must have your own insecurities and I certainly have mine. A very wise person once said " The believer is happy but the doubter is wise" . This aphorism applies strongly here. Even Genghis Khan believed he was the scourge of God before he went on to massacre people, just like the modern day al-qaeda.
Again, I want to go deeper into this but I have limitations too. If you dont want to reply to me you can read or watch works of people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins.

I have deliberately kept this letter short and eliminated a lot of things to prevent it from being very boring. I could elaborate certain points if you wish or listen to counter arguments from you. I am a very reasonable man and I am amenable to changing my viewpoints if given sufficiently strong arguments.  I hope you have as much pleasure reading about my thoughts in this letter as I had writing it. :)

Warm regards,
Pravin Sharma
Sophomore, IIT Kharagpur

Nice na?