Mindset Matters — But Does It?

            I recently finished reading Carol Dweck’s Mindset. Originally published in 2006, I only discovered it two years ago after seeing numerous glowing recommendations across social media. Mindset stands apart from typical self-help books: unlike works that focus on superficial optimism or magical thinking, such as The Secret, it is grounded in research and practical strategies. It promotes real, repeatable methods for personal growth rather than wishful thinking.

This article is not a review of the book — plenty of those exist. Instead, I want to share some questions and reflections I had while reading. Many of these were addressed within the book, but some observations and queries remain unresolved.

Prevalence of Fixed vs. Growth Mindsets

The fixed mindset is often our default state; many of us naturally exhibit a fixed mindset in at least some areas of our lives. The book emphasizes that developing and maintaining a growth mindset requires consistent effort. However, it does not provide data or estimates on how many people predominantly embody a fixed mindset versus a growth mindset.

Can a Fixed Mindset Sometimes Serve Us Better?

This question struck me the most and lingered long after I finished the book. While a growth mindset is undeniably powerful for long-term development, I wondered: are there situations where a fixed mindset might actually be more beneficial? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be yes, in several contexts:

1.     Time-Sensitive Objectives: In scenarios with tight deadlines, existing talent or a baseline level of skill can be more advantageous in the short term. For example, a university student has only two to four years to meet academic requirements. Or consider the Knowledge Premier League, a prestigious company event I participated in and won: participants had just two months to prepare. In such cases, having pre-existing competence can be crucial. A growth mindset might help in the long run, but it cannot conjure talent overnight.

2.     Preventing Exploitation of the Growth Mindset: I’ve observed people misuse the growth mindset concept to lure others into high-risk or fraudulent ventures, like pyramid or Ponzi schemes, claiming anyone can get rich with enough effort — a clear distortion of the idea. Here, a fixed mindset — recognizing that these schemes don’t work — might actually protect individuals. This kind of exploitation has become even more widespread since the Covid pandemic, which is deeply concerning.

3.     The Value of Specialization and Focus: Not everyone is suited for every pursuit. Personally, I know I won’t excel at volleyball or the violin simply because I’ve never had the inclination to master them. This resonates with Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage: it’s often wiser to focus on what we’re naturally better at. Just as an economist might cook better than their maid, that doesn’t mean they should spend time cooking. The key is to leverage strengths where they’re most effective.

Is the Growth Mindset Overrated?

This leads to a critical question: like many self-help concepts, is the growth mindset overrated? Some aspects are undeniably valuable, such as focusing on effort rather than outcomes. For children, this means praising effort instead of mere success, and encouraging renewed effort after setbacks instead of criticism. However, in the real world — especially in today’s complex socio-economic landscape — effort alone does not always translate into results. Often, effort expended in the wrong direction produces poor outcomes, and it’s typically the results, not the effort, that are rewarded. Olympic medals aren’t awarded to the team that tried the hardest.

The nuances and complexities surrounding the growth mindset mean that misapplying it can do more harm than good. I believe it should be cultivated early, when children are just beginning to learn, rather than applied randomly or haphazardly later in life. While the book implicitly suggests you can achieve anything you set your mind to, not everything is worth pursuing. Choosing what to strive for wisely requires another kind of wisdom entirely.

I’ve met many who talk about having a “growth mindset” yet misunderstand what it truly means. Ironically, they often display a fixed mindset — just fixed in the opposite direction.

 

Memory Impossible

 

As I re-watch the Mission Impossible movies in anticipation of the final instalment's release later this year, I recently revisited the second part. When it first hit theatres in 2000, it was hailed as the gold standard of action movies—at least in India. The adrenaline-pumping sequences from the film became so iconic that several Indian films and shows tried to emulate them. Though I didn’t watch it upon release, I saw it a few years later and, like many others, was swept away by its sheer excitement.

But then the Mission Impossible series kept evolving, and with each new movie, it seemed to only get better. The films began weaving in real geopolitical issues while deepening the personal struggles of the characters, especially Ethan Hunt. When I revisited MI:2 now, however, I was in for a shock. The film that once seemed like the pinnacle of action cinema now felt like a big (for the year 2000) and dumb movie. The tone felt completely out of sync with the films that followed, and Ethan Hunt’s character was almost unrecognizable—he acted and fought in ways that didn’t align with what we came to know as his true self. If the series had ended with Part 2, it would’ve been a fun, standalone ride, but as a chapter in a larger saga, it felt disjointed.

One ridiculous part was the film’s depiction of an injectable nano-GPS device that could track people via a single laptop—an absurd premise, especially given how GPS technology works in the real world. The first movie had its own ridiculous sci-fi moments with the Intel 686 AI-enabled chip, but that is all right!

So why was I shocked by this? The movie was exactly what it was before, yet my perception had changed. I was astonished by the inaccuracies in my own memories. It struck me that what we remember is not necessarily the truth of an event, but rather our perception of it—shaped by our biases and worldviews, which evolve over time. Watching MI:2 made me question: what else in life have I misremembered?

Recently, I read Stumbling on Happiness by renowned psychologist Daniel Gilbert. Contrary to what the title suggests, it’s not a guide to finding happiness, but rather a deep dive into the limitations of our foresight. The central thesis is that if our memories are inherently flawed, how can we trust our predictions for the future? This misalignment is what leads us to pursue things we think will bring us happiness, only to realize, once we achieve them, that they aren't what we truly want.

The key takeaway here is that we’re all subject to our biases, and our plans will never be perfect. But by acknowledging the flaws in our thinking, we can become more accepting of ourselves. And perhaps, in doing so, we get a little closer to understanding what true happiness is.

Movie Review: Fighter

 

Pakistan attacks an Indian CRPF convoy. Can a team of skilled Indian Air Force personnel strike back and eliminate the terrorists behind the dastardly act?

Touted as India’s answer to Top Gun, Fighter is an action-thriller starring Hrithik Roshan, Deepika Padukone, Anil Kapoor, and others. Directed by Siddharth Anand, who gave us crafty action flicks like Bang Bang, War and Pathaan, does Fighter go a notch up and live up to the humongous expectations? After all, Pathaan was the first Bollywood movie to enter the Rs. 500 crore club.

Set in the backdrop of the real-life Pulwama attack on a CRPF convoy that rocked India in early 2019, followed by the Balakot retaliation by the India Air Force, Fighter takes ample liberty to fictionalise the events that shook the sub-continent. We have the Air Force battling the Jaish-e-Mohammad (which claims responsibility for the attack on the CRPF) and the Pakistani Army in a series of escalations that threaten to blow out into a large-scale war between the two neighbours (that is not how the real-life event played out, and to date, the actual perpetrators of the terrorist attack have not been identified). Leading the team of avengers in the Air Force are Group Captain Rakesh Jaisingh (Anil Kapoor), Squadron Leader Shamsher Pathania ‘Patty’ (Hrithik Rishan), Helicopter Pilot Minnie Rathore (Deepika Padukone), and other fighter pilots.

Fictionalising a serious real-life event for cinematic liberties is the last of the movie’s drawbacks. Much more stark is the confused positioning- Fighter does not know what it wants to be. Is it like Top Gun, a film about the camaraderie and the travails of airmen? Or a glossy action flick like Pathaan or a gritty one like Rambo or Commando? The film gets quite violent, especially in the finale, which involves a ground-rescue operation of captured hostages. However, the violence does not appear realistic, and the torture scenes look out of place. So do the dogfight scenes, which are supposed to be the film’s USP, which has been done using less-than-decent VFX.

The character development front also leaves much to be desired. Patty’s romantic backstory with his boss Jaisingh’s sister (which ended in tragedy) and his forced romance with Minnie look cliched. Minnie’s turbulent relationship with her father, played by the delectable Ausutosh Rana, does evoke emotions but feels forced.

What about the acting and direction? The former isn’t bad per se, especially from the three leads, but there is nothing remarkable to write about. The director and the actors have all given much better stuff before, both in and outside the action genre. And the villain? The actor in Fighter is a poor caricature compared to the powerful performances by Tiger Shroff in War (that was indeed the actor’s best work to date) and John Abraham in Pathaan. Another disappointment is the music- both unnecessary romantic songs and patriotic or motivational numbers. Who could have thought a film with the combined talents of Siddharth Anand (Anjaana Anjani), Hrithik Roshan (Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai) and Deepika Padukone (Om Shanti Om, Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani) will have such drab numbers?

It was Fighter a few months back. A week back, Bade Miyaan Chotte Miyaan also met a similar reception by the critics. It is time for Bollywood to stop making these derivatives of the YRF Spy Universe films. Without YRF, the vulnerability clearly shows.

Rating: 2 Stars

Cryptos: The Theatre of the Absurd

 

            Long back, during the days when I watched TV, I came across a movie while surfing channels. I can’t recall the name, but I remember the scene. Shatrughan Sinha was playing the role of some local goon. When the character played by Rishi Kapoor asked him for money, he pulled out a piece of paper and, using not a pen but a burnt matchstick, scribbled the words ‘Rs. 100’. That paper worked as a currency in the neighbourhood!

            Think this is absurd? The movie must have been one from the 90s. If the makers were told what they had then included for drama would one day become a widespread reality, imagine what their reaction would be? Welcome to the world of cryptos. Before I proceed, one disclaimer. There was a time when even I was taken by the crypto story. The promise of a decentralized currency meant a more egalitarian world. One in which monetary power would devolve from the hands of Governments to the people. I was also under the mass delusion that still affects many.

            It is simple. Rules and regulations may be annoying. But it is better to have them than none at all. All those who drive any vehicle will agree to this. No rule does not make the system more egalitarian. It only leads to dominance by power players who have a field day running amok over the smaller fish. In the world of cryptos, the power players are the different exchanges, crypto banks, and issuers of digital tokens. This article is not about the detailed m.o. of the rampant manipulations done by the crypto entities.

            In most cases, the manipulations involve issuing some new crypto token, creating hype around them, artificially raising prices, showing self-created money as balance sheet assets, and then taking loans or venture-fund in fiat currency using cryptos as tokens. With some variation here and some there, one factor remains common. Cryptos are about manipulating the prices of otherwise useless entities and convincing buyers that the price will increase. Many people know the stories of the crash of Terra, Celsius, and FTX. Their charismatic founders were once the darlings of a particular set of people, quite similar to the gangster in the aforementioned movie.

            What explains the high price paid for obscure tokens like Dogecoin? Or the craze of last year- Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). I value art. But why should I pay real dollars to purchase drawings of apes anyone can see online for free? Jack Dorsey, the former chief of Twitter, made the image of his first tweet into an NFT. Common memes have been made into NFTs and sold for ridiculously high prices- the disaster girl meme was sold as an NFT for half-million dollars. Imagine the real disaster when the bubble bursts!

            The problem with Cryptos is that after 14 years since the first Bitcoin came into existence (3rd January, 2009), it still does not have a good use case apart from speculation. Its volatility prevents its use as a method of exchange, a very necessary feature of a currency. And speculators do not want to use cryptos for trading with physical goods or services. The one industry that has benefitted a lot is the global scamming network. First, it was internet-enabled finance. Now with cryptos, it is impossible to detect money flow from source to destination. Frauds happened before as well, using bank wire transfers. Cryptos have made the process easy and undetectable.

            Apart from creating ambiguity in the global money supply, cryptos are a terrible waste of resources. The proof of work algorithms needed to generate new coins take increasingly more computing power to solve. Hence, crypto mining happens in dedicated server farms with hundreds of high-power machines operating in tandem. With so many real problems the world faces, shouldn’t the resources be diverted to something more useful?

             To sum up, cryptos are the wild-west of modern finance. I once believed that regulations would be of help. But as John Oliver pointed out in his show’s latest episode, regulations would only add a veneer of legitimacy to the proceedings. It would make banks and financial institutes delve into the world of cryptos, putting public money at risk. Many people are already calling for a ban, following the example of China. That may appear anti-democratic. I do not normally favour any prohibitions. But this may be an exception. We can start at the leaves, if not the root, by heavily penalizing errant people and companies. Before it is too late, the world should come out of the cryptoverse of madness.

Book Review: An Atheist Gets the Gita

Authors: Rahul Singh and Galyna Kogut

Rating: 3/5

Premise: ‘Will this make us happy?’ A business meeting where this rather unusual phrase is spoken piques the curiosity of Anweshak Jigyanshu, a fresh IIM MBA working in a Singapore investment bank. Should happiness be the goal of business? Curious to know more about the person who said those words, he manages a breakfast invitation at his place, which spills over to the evening. Over the course of the day, Anweshak is introduced to the ancient Hindu text of Bhagavad Gita, how it acts as a guide to happiness, and what are other lessons can be learnt from it. Anweshak, being an atheist, is hesitant at first. As the hours progress, he becomes more responsive to the arguments.

Review: A lot is said about the knowledge hidden in Bhagavad Gita. A common claim is that the book is not religious but a guide to life. The knowledge it offers is universal and can benefit each person on Earth. Is that really the case? ‘An Atheist Gets the Gita’ tries to answer these questions. Does it succeed?

The Indian philosophical system is not monolithic. It contains numerous texts. The Bhagavad Gita itself is a part of the larger Mahabharata. And there are countless other texts that go by monikers like Upanishads, Puranas, Vedas, and many more. The historical origins of some of them have been found (e.g. the works of Adi Shankara, who was a bonafide historical figure), while others remain mystical at best. In all this, one detail remains- the texts are both internally and externally inconsistent. They do not add up. The books are full of contradicting information. For example, while the Bhagavad Gita says that lust is the gateway to hell, other depictions of Krishna talk about his numerous wives. In all likelihood, the books were not written by a single person. They were written by different people who added to the existing story, at times basing them on real people they knew. Trying to pass mythological texts as historical facts is a process of going down a deep rabbit hole.

Any religion or belief system comprises three aspects- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics. Epistemology means the relation between the observer and the observed- in other words, it is all about knowledge. Ethics talks about the proper conduct to follow. And Metaphysics is about explaining the origin of the Universe and life in its different parts. Even the various schools of Indian philosophy (Vedanta, Nyay, Sankhya, Vaisheiskha, Mimamsa, and Yoga) differ on these three aspects. They differ because they consider some of the aforementioned texts as more important while completely negating others or interpreting texts according to their worldview. Even the Vedanta subschools (Acintya bheda abheda, Advaita, Bhedabheda, Dvaita, Nimbarka Sampradaya, Shuddhadvaita, Vishishtadvaita) differ considerably.

In such circumstances, trying to pass off any religious book as the ultimate guide leads to gross misrepresentations. Many knowledge points discussed in ‘The Atheist Gets the Gita’ were not from Bhagavad Gita but other texts like Shrimad Bhagavatam, Ramayana, Kathopnishad, and more. If you sift the relevant portions, they do contain snippets of wisdom.

The book by Rahul Singh and Galyna Kogut scores in one place- the detailed research done by the authors. Both scientific facts and mythological details are presented with great diligence. Some of the arguments are logical, especially those relating to epistemology (karma, atma, and so on) and ethics. The ones about metaphysics (age of Universe, concept of time) should not be included in a managerial take on the Gita. The book started with the question, ‘Will this make us happy?’ Does Gita contain points that can help one find happiness? Yes, it does. But a lot of that (especially the how) depends on the text’s interpretation, which varies according to the school one follows. Is Gita the ultimate book? Certainly no. Gita was written when the understanding of humanity was at a relatively nascent stage. There is a far greater understanding of how the mind works, which one won’t find in an ancient text like Gita. And will this book make an atheist into a believer? Or make someone who believes in something different into a strict follower of Gita? No.  

The Brand Is Not Enough

In the October of 2015, the world was witness to a movie titled 'Beast of No Nation'. An Africa set war-drama, this film had hopped across the festival circuit before finding a worldwide audience in that month and year. It was the start of something new. It was the first of its kind, a phenomenon that would become the mainstay of film buffs in pandemic times. It was the first Netflix original movie. Till a greater part of this century, Netflix was known as a shop to rent DVDs. Not many years had passed since it had started its internet streaming service, aided by the increasing ubiquitousness of high-speed internet. Netflix had already produced critically acclaimed web series like 'House of Cards', 'Orange Is the New Black', 'Daredevil', and more. But this was the first time the web platform was venturing into movie releases. Naturally, the film industry watched the development with keen interest. Some dismissed Netflix as a passing fad, others doubted its mainstream relevance, while some were really optimistic about it. As time showed, the people in the last category won the opinion war. Not just Netflix but many other OTT channels exist to bring original movies right to the device.

'Beast of No Nation' was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, a Japanese American auteur whose credentials included some relatively unknown movies like 'Sin Nombre' and 'Jane Eyre'. It is ironic that the same person who started one phenomenon also ended another. He is the director of 'No Time to Die', the latest (and perhaps the last?) movie in the series featuring the debonair spy James Bond aka 007. At the end of the film, in a scene reminiscent of Iron Man in MCU, James Bond sacrifices himself to save the world. It wasn't just this scene that MCU inspired- the lead character's story arcs and the main villain's motivations are very similar in both cases. 

The key question remains- now that James Bond is dead, what should be done with such an iconic brand? The movies have existed since 1962, and the stories have existed since the early 1950s. The name James Bond (or just Bond as he prefers to be addressed) has so many connotations- it can mean an expert, a person confident in his field. It can also mean someone morally ambiguous yet with a heart of gold. Love Bond, hate him (and the movies), or even ignore- but no one can deny that the brand James Bond carries a lot of equity. Perhaps more than all the Netflix original movies combined. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the makers 'No Time to Die' chose to wait for more than a year for a theatrical release instead of an OTT release. Now that James Bond is no more, what should be done?

The positioning of James Bond got changed over the decades. While the original stories capitalized on the cold war frenzy, they were meant to be entertainers than profound discourses on international geopolitics. That was evident by the over-the-top and many times silly situations and villains that the films offered. Spectre stands for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion! The actors changed, and the movies tried to explore contemporary themes. 'The Living Daylights' had a plot dealing with 'heroic' Afghan Mujahiddens- it looks absurd in hindsight, just like Rambo 3. With its theme of media interference in politics, 'Tomorrow Never Dies' especially stands out in this regard. Before the Craig era, no Bond film had a story arc- they could be mostly watched independently. That changed with the Daniel Crag starer 'Casino Royale' in 2006. With the subsequent movies released, the idea was to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. By the time 'No Time to Die' came out, people were interested in the fate of the characters, not just the action and the scenery- something akin to the 'Fast and Furious' series. The Craig starters were characterized by more relevant political themes and less in-your-face sexism. Even Bond had become woke like the rest of the world.

As the franchise celebrates 60 years in theatres, it has to take a call on what is next for the iconic brand. A complete reboot is an option but does that make sense in an era where the spy genre is crowded with movies in multiple languages? A likely route will be to continue with Nomi's character, played by Lashana Lynch, as 007. Taking a cue from other iconic British characters like Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, the franchise can also go for prequels, animated series, and video games (which already exist). Bond-themed merchandise stores and a museum are also worth considering. Whatever is the plan, things need to be done fast lest the franchise gets forgotten in these fast-changing times. Not even Bond has all the time in the world.

No Stars Are Born

 

‘Koi Hero Yahaan, Koi Zero Yahaan, Koi Star Hai, Koi Bekaar Hai’ – Song Lyrics from Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.

The word ‘Star’ has a rather metaphorical connotation. Lie stars in the sky, their earthly counterparts represent a pinnacle that people aspire to be. Be it the performing arts, sports, or the different sciences- there are people celebrated for their stellar talent and accomplishments, thus earning them the title ‘star’. From Sachin Tendulkar to C.V. Raman, and from Shah Rukh Khan to J.R.D. Tata- all of them are/were stars in their respective fields.

This blog post attempts to dig deeper into the phenomenon of stardom. Where there are stars, there are fans. The following contemplation is applicable for almost every field except politics. As someone said, the day we become a fan of a politician, we have failed in our duties as a citizen.

Take any field and name three prominent people that immediately come to mind. Very high chances that those people have been around for a long time or are even deceased with their legacy living on. That is quite natural. Becoming a prominent ‘star’ requires years, even decades of consistent effort. But what about the stars of tomorrow? That is where things get tricky.

Call it is a diffusion of opportunities or any other name, it cannot be ignored that opportunities are now restricted to a select few. The OTT era has led to the presence of actors whose names are mostly unknown. The same is true for sports- the roster in national teams and club games has increased to never before numbers. Hardly any two tournaments have the same constituent of team members. And a replacement for someone is readily available. In the Indian context, there was a time when the names of the latest Olympic medalists (and all the current members of the Cricket team) were on everyone’s tongue tips. That is not the case now. The same is true for other fields- Chetan Bhagat is not the only writer of contemporary fiction now. At one time, Bollywood had four main male singers and two main female singers. No more now.

Let us come to the sciences- be it physical, biological, or social. In many fields, the main stuff has already been discovered and whatever is being done s only incremental. Such scientists attain prominence, but it is remains restricted to others their fields. There are fields where breakthroughs happen- like Prof. Sarah Gilbert’s team inventing the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine. But there are so many others attempting the same or something similar. Such fame is usually short-lived. How many of us can recall the names of the Nobel Prize winners of this year, forget the preceding years? In the world of business, there are superstar businessmen. But such people are usually never free from controversies. And because of the diffusion of opportunities, either direct competition, substitutes, or even a disruption of the norm is never far away.

Stardom is not going to be the same as before. The Internet has led to a democratization of human activities- things are no longer enclosed in hallowed chambers. Unlike the lyrics of the song from Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, no one is the best- at least not for long.

 

Can law be protected by breaking it?

"A license to kill is also a license not to kill"- Quote by M (Ralph Fiennes) in Spectre.

Law-enforcement is not an easy job. Very often, enforcement personnel have to collect evidence against suspects. Since obtaining a search warrant is a time-consuming process often involving judicial red-tape, the police use surreptitious methods to do the task done. And in doing so, they commit the crime of breaking-and-entering.

A more serious matter is that of encounter killings. These are killings by the Police that are not sanctioned by the judiciary. This was very useful in eliminating underworld gangsters in Mumbai and the dacoits in Chambal. But as expected, the encounter cops became too powerful for their own good. To have a better record than rivals in the department, some encounter cops started staging fake-encounters i.e. killing innocent people after framing them for crimes they had not committed. Worse, some cops were even found to indulge in supari killings (contract killings). The near elimination of organized crime had left a vacancy in people willing to kill for money. And who better than morally-compromised trigger happy encounter cops to fill the place?

In the global space, the world powers are known to commit heinous acts in the name of counter-terrorism. The War on Terror has caused the countless loss of life in the Middle East and Africa. A similar situation happened in Mexico and Columbia in the War on Drugs. The intelligence personnel were known to favour certain incumbents in the criminal trade. These wars certainly eliminated some terrorists and drug-cartels respectively. But did it curb the root problem or only made it worse? It dehumanized by desensitizing the local population to violence and only created resentment against the global peacekeeping process.

Gangsters and terrorists cannot be allowed to go scot-free. But what is the appropriate action against them? It is ethical for nations to indulge in preventive killings within their borders and in international territories? Who should have a licence to kill, and when? And should that person be of the stature of James Bond, or even the local constabulary should have that privilege?

As you sow, so shall you reap?

Literature in Psychology is full of concepts about thoughts, beliefs, and actions. How thoughts are created, what are their influences, how thoughts become beliefs, and beliefs guide our decision process- these are the pet domains of both academic scholars and motivational speakers. A so-called New-Age concept made famous by Rhonda Byrne- The Secret aka The Law of Attraction (LoA)- technically isn’t new age. Even before the famous book/movie, people have talked about it in different forms. In brief, for the very few people who are hearing it for the first time, this concept requires us to think (or focus) only on what we want to achieve. Not contradictory thoughts that go against our desires. That is because thoughts have energy, and energy resonates with like objects. Having the right thoughts creates the right energy that eventually comes true as a physical manifestation.

One may or may not agree with the metaphysical part. But there is no doubt about the fact that thoughts influence behaviour. And having the right thoughts may result in the person taking the appropriate action to achieve the result. Psychologists have even talked about priming, where not natural but artificially induced thoughts have caused people to alter their behaviour. In controlled experiments, different cues eliciting different emotions made people behave differently. In an experiment, making people hear words associated with old age (grey, wrinkle, bald, etc) is shown to slow their walking speeds in a particular corridor!

There is no doubt about the power of thoughts? But the question remains- does the LoA work? Can thoughts become things and can we really reap what we are thinking about? The following analogy may help. If we sow nightshade, there is no question about a harvest of mango fruits. But does sowing a mango plant always result in mango fruits? No- it also depends on soil nutrients, weather conditions, and even random or unaccounted factors. Even after there is a mango tree, there is no control on the number of mangoes harvested per year or for that matter, the sweetness of the fruits. And when the mangoes get harvested, there is no control on the market price! That is why the law of attraction does work at some times. One cannot and should not think only of the fruits- the constraints are important as well. Using another analogy, focusing only on the rose presents an incomplete picture- there are thorns as well. Needless to say, the concept of  LoA has been heavily abused in many contexts- like in the propagation of pyramid schemes, by gambling addicts, and in the execution of risky projects.

No psychological concept- whether academically rigorous or metaphysical- comes without caveats. Blanket generalization of any concept, whether in the physical, biological, or social sciences leads to errors, at times disastrous in nature. There is always a context. In many cases, the contexts are understood, like in Newton’s laws of Mechanics. Those apply to uniformly accelerated macroscopic bodies with velocities much less than that of light. In other cases, like the Law of Attraction, the dynamics are still unknown.

Is There an Invisible Hand?

 

The first Microeconomics concept that students study is that of the demand curve and supply curve. When the two curves meet, the market is in equilibrium. Consumers (the buyers) know how much they want and the price they are ready to pay. Producers (the sellers) know how much the consumer wants and the price they can get for it. And hence everyone ends up happy!

And how exactly do the consumers know the optimum quantity needed and the associated price? That is where the magic of the invisible hand comes. According to the founding father of modern economics, Adam Smith, the market forces make sure that the equilibrium point is achieved, whether through a series of iterations or trials-and-errors. For example, if the producer prices something too high, people will stop consuming it in the same quantities. Then the price would automatically come down. The opposite is also true. Market forces can be exerted by both consumers and producers.

We all know this does not work well in practice. Microeconomic theory has different explanations like imperfect markets, externalities, etc. Let us talk about one of them- information asymmetry. One side has more information than the other. More often, it is the seller who knows what exactly the product is, while the buyer does not. George Akerlof, who won the Economics Nobel Prize in 2001, gave the concept of Adverse Selection in his famous paper called ‘The Market For Lemons’. He described how not properly communicating the product quality to the consumers will make them suspicious that the product being sold is inferior. This leads to a vicious circle when they are not ready to pay a premium price because they suspect the product is inferior. Hence, the producer would only be ready to supply an inferior product from the range that can be offered.

Akerlof suggested that the two ways to counter this are Signalling and Screening. The producer can signal (or communicate) that the product is of superior standard through procedures like quality certificates, product reviews, and more. The consumers can screen the product for quality and find out what it really is. The problem comes when buyers do not have the knowledge or skills for screening, and the sellers are adept at sending false signals- catchy advertisements, misleading claims, and the other tools in their paraphernalia.

That is why free markets are a disaster in many cases like financial markets. No invisible hand works to ensure that the buyers get the right loan or insurance product. A free market is like traffic without traffic police. A strong regulatory framework is absolutely necessary to ensure that order is maintained. And we need bodies with authoritative powers to enforce them. So who will watch the watchmen? The same regulatory bodies can be selectively biased, which sets up conditions for institutionalized corruption. The best solution is to make the bodies autonomous, without any political interference. The appointments and promotions in the regulatory bodies should be done after ‘screening’ the candidates for integrity.

Of course, nothing in the world is perfect. But something is better than nothing. The markets cannot be left open at the mercy of sellers with ulterior motives. It is not always about wisdom- the public often does have complete information.

An Ode to My Grandmother

It has been exactly one month since my grandmother passed away. She was my maternal grandmother. She hailed from the royal city of Lucknow. My grandfather had passed away during my early childhood, about 28 years back. After that incident, she continued to stay in Lucknow until my younger sister was born. That is the reason I colloquially referred to her as ‘the grandmother from Lucknow’ while my dad’s mother became ‘the grandmother from Delhi’.

She was a fiercely independent lady, who single-handedly managed her home. The memories associated with her are just too many to be narrated in a single blog post. Among the more significant ones is that of a summer vacation spent with her at the Lucknow home, away from my parents. At that time, I was in third grade, and my family had just been transferred to Dehradun. Before that, my parents had left me at grandmother’s place for a few days. But at that time, my grandfather was alive. This was the first time that she had to look after me completely by herself. Needless to say, the task wasn’t simple as I was a naughty kid! She gave me a good taste of her hospitality skills. I remember the rickshaw rides with her and going to places like Kapurthala, Hazratganj, Nehru Park, and the Science Centre. The last bit is especially significant as she hadn’t formally studied science beyond secondary school (she had graduated from college with an Arts degree). Yet she took a keen interest in the experiments that were demonstrated there, and even tried to understand them. Later, when I developed the habit of conducting small-scale science-experiments on my own (e.g. making an electromagnet with a battery, copper wires, and a nail), she actually helped me with them.

That summer was also significant as it was the first time I watched a movie in a theatre. Prior to that, my parents had taken me to some movie show. But I had become so bored that I literally pulled them away during the interval! One day, my grandmother told stories of her young days, and of my mom’s childhood.  She reminisced how they frequented a movie theatre called Mayfair. That day I decided that I just had to go to one as well! I forced her to take me out, in spite of the June heat! And we went all the way to Hazratganj to watch a movie at that place. To her utter dismay, a really bad-sounding movie was being exhibited at Mayfair. Fortunately for her, something that ‘sounded better’ was playing in a neighboring theatre. I gladly consented to her suggestion, and I ended up watching a complete movie for the first time in my life. This was despite the fact that my early childhood was spent in the cinema capital of India, Mumbai. That movie was the modern-day classic ‘Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander’. I really thank her for making my first movie watching experience a good one.

After my sister was born, my grandmother moved in with my parents in Dehradun, as she was the best person to take care of the new-born child. My sister was practically raised by her. We both were fond of listening to bedtime stories. Apart from the usual tales of fairies and monsters, her stories came with a twist. She used to tell stories about cricket. More specifically, cricket matches between teams of lions, foxes, cows, and jackals! Hats-off to her imagination! Who can spin yarns like that? A part of my storyteller’s imagination most certainly comes from her. And speaking of cricket, at times she even used to participate in certain games of gully cricket with me, and some other kids in the locality.

Another significant memory I have of her is that of my senior secondary school- in other words, my 9th and 10th class. The ICSE curriculum can be quite daunting to someone in the early teenage (though it seems elementary at this age!). And that is where she really helped me revise the concepts, even though she didn’t understand the concepts herself- especially those of Physics, Chemistry, and Computer Science. She had a flair for learning and knowledge, which was really indispensable to me at that time. The fact that we used to share the same bedroom did help a lot. Never once did she complain about me studying till late hours. This continued to a lesser extent during my high school and preparation for engineering entrance examinations. Though at that time, the level of science was slightly too tough for her to comprehend.

She lived to an old age of 86. And apart from the last ten months of her life, she was the epitome of health in our family. Else it is not possible to explore Europe, including the Swiss mountains, at the age of 81! The last few months of her life had been hard on her. It was disturbing to see someone like her helpless and bedridden. It was indeed a relief for her when she passed away. But I prefer to not think of those times. On this day, she is not with us anymore, and the old house in Lucknow is in ruins. But the best image I have of my grandma is that of her standing next to the front gate of the white-coloured house in Lucknow, waiting for the milkman or the bread-seller. For me, she will always remain ‘the grandmother from Lucknow’.

An Advice

‘Advice to sabhi dete hain, the point is who you take it from,’ goes an old TV advertisement featuring the legendary Rahul Dravid. The trouble with advice is that it is generally very biased. People are bound by their own belief system that prevents them from looking beyond their short-sighted horizon. And how are beliefs shaped? Through the experiences we have. Imagine the frustrated fox advising people not to eat grapes, because they are all sour!

Abraham Maslow, a renowned psychologist aptly said that if a hammer is the only tool we have, then all problems appear like a nail. For instance, becoming an Amway distributor can become a solution for unemployment, even though Network Marketing is not everyone’s cup of tea. The most out-of-place advice I have heard is one given to a Mechanical Engineer who had been unemployed for some time. He was suggested to start training as a Commercial Pilot. No prizes for guessing the profession of the adviser!

During childhood days, advice generally comprises of parents and teachers sermonizing kids. As one grows up, it does feel awkward to get one from people with whom your relationship is fuzzy at best. It actually becomes a matter of ego to ‘convey a message’ to ‘someone in need’. This world is not made of absolutes. One person’s right doesn’t make another’s ‘right’ wrong. While some advice can make a person introspect on his own shortcomings, too much of it can lead to mental and emotional conflict, especially because the advice given by different people is of contradictory nature. It is the ‘serial advisers’ who actually need some themselves!

The chilling part is that not all advice comes verbally, through friends, acquaintances, and family. The need of seeking solutions from external sources has given rise to the multi-billion dollar self-help industry which churns out volumes of advice to clueless and gullible people, a lot of which are biased, dangerous, or even downright illegal. We all have heard of self-styled self-help coaches deriding formal education, and others dishing out some magic formula to make you an overnight millionaire. The only people who actually become a millionaire are they themselves.

To conclude, the solution offered ends up doing more harm than the original problem itself. As written by the great poet/lyricist Sahir Ludhianvi, ‘Na to kaarva ki talaash hai, na to hamsafar ki talaash hai, mere shauq-e-khana kharaab ko, teri rahguzar ki talaash hai. Mere namurad junoon ka hai ilaaj koi to maut hai, jo dava ke nam pe zehar de usi charagar ki talaash hai.’

Why do rats have only one tail?

All rats have only one tail, but this was not always the case. Many years back, rats had different number of tails. Some had two, some three, and there has been news of a rat that even had twenty! So why did all that eventually change?

Once upon a time, there were two rats- Alice and Bob. Bob had two tails, while Alice had ten! Now ten tails were just too many, even back then. Consequently, other rats made fun of Alice. She was constantly ridiculed, and no rat wanted to be her friend.

One day Alice decides that she had had enough. She went to the butcher and asked him to cut-out one of her tails. The butcher gladly obliged. Alice was very happy with one less tail, but to her dismay the ridicule didn’t stop. Nine was still too large a number! So she went back to the butcher the next day, asking him to cut one more. The number of tails became eight. Unfortunately for Alice, the situation remained the same as before. She went to the butcher once again. Slowly, the number of Alice’s tail started reducing, till she was able to conform to the general rat population. But by this time, her act of going to the butcher had become a habit instead of a need. So she continued visiting the place even when she had just a single tail left. After that was cut-off, she had no tail at all!

Though they had different numbers of tails, not a single rat was without one! Now Alice was ridiculed for having no tail at all. As far as she was concerned, it was back to where it started- constantly ridiculed, without any real friends to call her own. She went back to the butcher, sobbing on her miserable fate. She wanted some of her tails back. The butcher sympathized with her but said that there was nothing that could be done as all the tails had been fed to a cat.

As luck would have it, Bob the two-tailed rat was passing that way. The butcher then had a brilliant idea. He summoned Bob, and pleaded with him to give away one of his tails in order to help a fellow rat. Bob, who was a large-hearted rat, gladly agreed. The butcher then cut one of Bob’s tails and put it on Alice. Now both Alice and Bob had one tail each. And both were happily accepted in the rat society, as the rats realized that their extra tails weren’t really of much use! From that day, all rats were born with only a single tail!

Life Skills

Life Skills- or what they do not teach you at school. Your teacher has never taught you to be good in bed! Or the odds of scoring different hands in a game of Poker. Or the extensive statistical analysis required before making a bet on a football match. But this post is not about these skills. Neither is it about skills like cooking and stitching, which incidentally are becoming increasingly common in school curriculum. Rather, this post talks about certain behavioural aspects that should be inculcated in everyone….but are overlooked because teachers themselves are unaware. Or even if they are aware, they do not pit it into practice.

Right from the beginning, the learning curriculum is focused on the external aspects of nature. We study Newton’s laws in middle school, differential equations in high school, and the working principle of a Field Effect Transistor in the University (I am from an Electronics and Communications Engineering background). Somewhere along the way, we also have Moral Science, Social Science, and Literature in the syllabus. These do go a long way in shaping our perception of the world, and in inculcating a set of beliefs through which we go about our daily lives. Unfortunately, none of it is sufficient to truly master the art of living (nothing to do with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s eponymous organization). Life skills are meant to be learned and practised by everyone, irrespective of their beliefs and socio-political ideology.

Life skills are a broad umbrella of concepts taken from eclectic fields of study like Psychology, Philosophy, Behavioural Economics, Knowledge Management, etc. As these concepts are not taught in high school or in college, most people simply sail through life in a semi-conscious haze. The result is the rise of the coaching/personality development industry, where so-called life coaches charge a bomb to teach the same to adults whose mental confusion matches that of a primary-school kid in a strip club! 

Let us talk about one or two these concepts. It is human frailty to bother about other people. How many of us are not flustered by what someone else did? The truth is that you can control no one but yourself. Whatever someone does, however twisted or wicked it may be; there is some reason to it. And one does not have to know the reason. That is why it makes a lot of sense to forgive. Here people mistake forgiveness as condoning unacceptable behaviour. That is not the case. It simply means letting go of the bitterness that steals happiness from your own life. The person responsible for one’s happiness is you yourself. No source of external pleasure can replace inner joy.

Over here I would like to talk about a corollary to the above point. The world is divided into different schools of thoughts in the religious, social, and political context. All of them have their proponents and each of them has a place. It would do the world tremendous good if people acknowledge their path is not the ‘only true way’, but one of the many roads that can be walked on. On a broad scale, this would lead to a cessation of extremism, and consequently terrorism.

Then there is the ‘Sunk Cost Fallacy’, which leads the best of us to take irrational financial decisions. A sunk cost is money that has already been paid and can never be recovered. And in order to justify the initial cost, one simply keeps paying in spite of the terrible nature of the product/service. Examples include continuing to watch a bad movie or TV show. Or keeping on dating someone unsuitable, because of the huge emotional investment. If only people are aware of this fallacy, they can behave more judiciously.

These are just some points to illustrate that the current crop of humanity is pathetically devoid of life skills. As an old story goes, when a boat starts sinking, all it matters is whether you can swim your way to safety. You may know to design a MOSFET that has a channel length reduced by 1 nanometer, and that simultaneously consumes 1 micro-watt less power. But at that time, that knowledge is not going to help you!

Preference v/s Discrimination

I am about to vacate my house in Singapore very soon, and my landlady is looking for a new tenant. The catch is that Tamils need not apply. This may sound racist, but there is a perfectly justified reason to it. The owners are Tamil Singaporeans themselves, and have a huge extended family (numerous cousins, in-laws, etc) who frequently keep visiting this house. They do not want the tenant to get personal with any one of them beyond a point. And that is quite likely to happen if the tenant speaks the same language, because then he would be of similar cultural background.

This raises an important question- where does one draw the line between discrimination and preference.? These days, discrimination is very much in the news. Any given day, we can read stuff about regionalism, xenophobia, racism, etc. Add the new dimension of sexual orientation to the picture. Practically speaking, almost all the world conflicts happen because one person or group is different from others. That maybe at a personal level, or more than that. But the issue remains the same at the core- just because one person (or a group of people)  does not conform to the commonly held notions of society, that person is wrong, and steps should be taken to correct that. 

One example is the classroom bullying of a teenager who is not interested in the usual 'school-boy' activities, but is fond of philosophy. So is the shaming of a boy by parents who is more interested in ballet-dance than basketball. On a broader level, there is the example of attempts by missionaries to introduce Christianity to Native Americans in the 19th and 20th century. Let us now look at some international news -the  American Presidential debate with its focus on immigration (and American pride), the European refugee crisis, the rise of ISIS in middle east. They all boil down to the same thing- you are not us, hence you are bad!

The truth is that the society has already put too many identities on us. From the time we are born, society divides us into boxes. First of all we have gender, that is naturally given to us. There are the identities that are imposed upon us- religion, race, and caste. And then there are the choices that we make- regarding education, career, etc. All these identities are not the real us. They come in the category of ego- the image we (and the society) have given to ourselves, the mask we have put on to face the world, and also the titles and the roles that define us. We maybe somebody's son, someone's' husband, etc. We may also be the chief accountant of a firm. But none of these make up the real self. [1]

So back to where we started from- when is discrimination allowed, and when is it unjust? Or when is it not discrimination but discernment? There is no clear-cut answer, and this has to be decided on a case-to-case basis. I remember reading an article where a baker was sued by an amount of $125k because he refused to serve cake at a lesbian wedding. Imagine a bizarre hypothetical situation- if the landlord does not want the tenant to smoke, will it be counted as a discrimination against smokers? In this case, my landlady is justified because the tenant is going to stay alongside the family in the same house. And she has the full right to decide which tenant they want to live with. But if she is renting out the house completely, and discriminating against Indians for flimsy reasons (for instance- not liking the smell of curry!), that is completely uncalled for.

References-

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elyse-gorman/the-difference-between-yo_b_6103266.html