THE ULTIMATE TRUTH

We all have had our Aha moments; something akin to Archimedes ‘Eureka’, though with the clothes on (hopefully!). Yesterday’s Aha moment was somehow special.

I never understood the term ‘love’. People - neighbours, friends and relatives spoke eloquently as well as disparagingly about this term called ‘love’ - unconditional liking is love, love is infinite, there is nothing called love, strength of love, love is blind…and so on and so forth. I, for one, could never get to terms with what it exactly meant. There have been times in my past relationship(s) that I have said ‘I love you’ - although I didn’t understand completely what it meant. I used the phrase in flippant moments, intense moments or just as simple as saying goodbye. I specifically did not know where like, love and lust draw their lines - for me, they were completely blurred.

However, during my sojourn in the blog world yesterday, I came across two quotes which gave me the clarity that noone else could in the past -

The first one -

“Thus love can make us disregard most defects and deficiencies, and make us deal with blemishes as though they were embellishments-even when, as Shakespeare said, we still may be partly aware of them:
When my love swears that she is made of truth, I do believe her, though I know she lies.”

The second one, by Richard Feynman, in a totally different context -

“That was the beginning and the idea seemed so obvious to me that I fell deeply in love with it. And, like falling in love with a woman, it is only possible if you don’t know too much about her, so you cannot see her faults. The faults will become apparent later, but after the love is strong enough to hold you to her.”

When I read, re-read and again re-read the two quotes to-gether - it was all apparent to me. I was so overjoyed by the amount of clarity it provided that I immediately pinged couple of my friends who were online with these two quotes, and they agreed completely (or the cynic might read the quotes as ‘Don’t deceive yourself, stupid!’ But, we’ll ignore him for the purposes of this blog). Now, when I atleast have the clarity (if not the complete understanding) of the term, and I look back at my past, everytime I used the phrase ‘I love you’, I realize that I well and truly meant it with all my heart.

Onto some introspection - I undertook the world-famous Myers-Briggs test some time back. In that particular test, the result was that I think more with my head than with my heart. In simpler terms, I believe and trust more in logic than emotions. That is very true - I get convinced most of the time through cold logic, but hardly through emotions. And till yesterday, I believed that there is indeed a separation between ‘thinking with your head’ and ‘thinking with your heart’. I was told earlier that ‘love’ is meant to be emotional, your heart is involved etc. etc. I was convinced, and yet for a predominantly ‘thinking with head’ person like me, I wondered how come I was in love. However, after today’s Aha moment, I realize that this ‘thinking with head’ vs ‘thinking with heart’ is a bunch load of bullcrap (no offense meant to Myers-Briggs). However, to be fair to them, I think the distinction only kicks in when there is no clarity. Lack of clarity in personal or professional lives leads to the distinction (and hence the research) of predominantly ‘thinking with head’ or ‘thinking with heart’. Lesson learnt: Try achieving clarity in every aspect of life - the dilemma of head vs heart disappears on its own.

So, there - my ‘Aha’ or the Archimedes ‘Eureka’ - might be obvious to many but definitely enlightening to me. [and yes, I  took an example of a very narrow definition of love.  I can expand the similar concept to parents, relatives, close friends etc.]

A man explained inflation to his wife thus:
‘When we married, you measured 36-24-36. Now you’re 42-42-42. There’s more of you, but you are not worth as much.’
- Lord Barnett

That my dear friends, is the essence of the devil called inflation. In more complex terms, and hence economically speaking, Inflation is a rise in general level of prices of goods and services over time. There are many measures of inflation - the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and then there is the GDP deflator and then there is Excess of money supply - in short, economic and finance newspapers make every effort to confuse the common man using such jargon, thereby making money, instead of explaining it through a simple Lord Barnett’s joke which everyone would have understood. [Feminists who can't see the joke in it can go take a hike, and probably buy The Economic Times or The Wallstreet journal]

I like Zimbabwe. No, not the cricket team - they suck big time. I love their penchant for huge numbers. Nowadays, they only talk in millions, billions and trillions. Rich country perhaps. For example, their inflation is just 2 million percent according to the latest figures. Look at that number, isn’t that music for any Finance minister of the country? Or for instance, look at this bill for one dinner - isn’t this fantastic? How rich must the people be to write a 1.2 billion Z$ cheque? And how much would you tip the waiter on this bill? Wow, the calculation in itself is mind-boggling. Wonder how the Zimbabweans do this day in and day out? They certainly love huge numbers - the bill and the inflation are living proof of it. We should all seriously consider moving to Zimbabwe if we ever want to grow rich…or atleast feel rich.

And what is the inflation in India as per latest figures? A paltry 11.42%. How much does this 11 and some change percentage measure up against 2 million percent? Our inflation pales in comparison. No wonder that still 40% of our population is below poverty line. Tchah! And can we even dream of writing a million rupee cheque for one dinner, forget a 1.2 billion rupee cheque? Nope, not in my lifetime atleast. Such sad state of affairs. On top of that, the media goes gung-ho about inflation over-shooting, food prices rising beyond our means and all that crap - ah, the media is so dumb! Why doesn’t someone direct them towards the map of Zimbabwe I say! [And not to speak of the country I currently live in - USA - inflation is a trivial 4% and the whole country is almost in tears and tatters! Uh!]

The government proves my assumption time and again - they are just a bunch of jokers. I sincerely wish for some meritocracy instead of this bizarre bureaucracy.

Let me not even start speaking of the effects of inflation on Zimbabwe. If everything was set right today, the country would take atleast 10-15 years to recover - and I don’t see that happening in the near future atleast. 2 million percent of inflation is something like - the robber asking the passenger in the train: “Hurry, give me the money, before it loses more value” or the realistic situation of giving two gunny bags of money to buy one loaf of bread.

But what is wrong with the Indian and US media? Isn’t the increase or decrease of inflation a normal part of every country’s economic cycle? Shouldn’t the media analyse what are the causes of inflation? Is the artificial price of Oil (currently at $142 a barrel - inspite of major supplies being held up in Persian Gulf due to political reasons) a cause for worry? Isn’t the sudden increase of food prices a direct effect on some of the insane economic policies undertaken (like the one to produce Ethanol through corn, a staple food) or due to large-scale hoarding by merchants in India? And seriously, any inflation above 6-8% is not worth reporting. Unless a country is in deep economic problems, the rate of inflation is always going to come down very soon from these double-digit percentages - sensationalizing issues when there are none has become a habit, leading to dire consequences.

I suggest the media take a chill pill, rest for a month or so and then comment on inflation. Experts say this inflation is a bubble and there is only a requirement for a prick for the bubble to burst. I sincerely hope this prick, whoever he/she is arrives soon enough and douses this mindless fear and fire for good.

Another city, another set of bomb blasts – same set of statements repeated by politicians, police and the media alike; it is seeming more and more like the good ol’ Doordarshan repeat of movies/serials. Hyderabad then, Jaipur now – concurrent blasts, same set of devices, same kind of networking and probably similar number of people killed. How often do we hear that ‘History repeats itself’; I have seen history repeat itself twice over now.

Terrorists (jihadis) who are paid/motivated to cause such disruptions aside, let us look at three fundamental angles to this issue –

1) Politicians: What do we call a bunch of politicians? I say, let’s start calling them ‘A swarm of incompetence’. We often had the same dialogues repeated over and over, irrespective of which party is in power (seems like they have had a common scriptwriter in the Parliament)

‘The terrorists will be firmly dealt with’ (with what, chocolates?)

‘The intent of the terrorists was to cause maximum damage to human life. We will not tolerate such acts of cruelty’ (how surprising!)

Let’s not try to blame them for a moment, shall we? I mean why blame them, if they are not the ones who had/have perpetrated the crime? They cannot leave their all-important job of taking bribes (oops, gifts!) and go after these blood-sucking criminals, can they?

Let’s try to look at it from their perspective. Why at all should they be driven to protect their citizens in a zealous manner from bomb blasts and terrorists? Was a political party ever voted out of power because they did not provide proper safety to their citizens? Or were they voted out of power because the price of onions/rice/wheat rose dramatically? [FYI, BJP was voted out for rise in price of onions in a state]. The incentives are very clear to the politicians too. Every human being is driven by incentives, and the politicians, more so. Let’s not try to get into the moral argument of ‘they were voted into power to secure the lives of citizens’. They were voted into power to do many other things, but they don’t. Police and intelligence were recruited to do this kind of job, not the politicians. Blaming them recklessly would not lead to any fruitful results. What we need to do however - is find a way to incentivise saving of lives, incentivise preventing bomb blasts and then observe positive results automatically. Until that happens, we are going to hear many such similar statements, irrespective of the number of bomb blasts that happen.

[I am deliberately avoiding commenting on the Media. As such, nowadays, two monkeys taking care of each other on a tree in a remote village, Abhishek-Aishwarya wedding drama got more coverage than these bomb blasts; not to mention the frenzy over IPL. Ignorance is total bliss in such a scenario. Fools of the infiniteth order!]

2) ‘We’ the People: One word, Apathy! We have grown apathetic to killing, to terrorism and all related carnages. Sad, but true. What is the first thing you do when you hear of bomb blasts? I, for one, watch the news, call up home to check if everything and everyone known to us is Ok and then switch to more interesting channels. Indifference to death, not in the spiritual sense but materially – we hear about deaths in Kashmir, deaths in the North-Eastern (NE) states so regularly, that it has totally dropped out of the news radar. Heck, the daily number of deaths in Kashmir and NE states might be more than the deaths in Jaipur and Hyderabad put to-gether. Do we express a concern? Oh yeah, words of condolences in Jaipur and Hyderabad’s cases, and silence in other scenarios. And, why is apathy bad? Because, this apathy precisely translates into politicians not having to deal with terrorism ‘with a strong hand’ in literal sense, this same apathy doesn’t make us considerate towards ‘curbing terrorism’ while we vote. Alas, we hope to avoid every bomb blast that happens, and pray every day that a bomb doesn’t go somewhere in the world which may affect any of our family members. I sincerely hope we don’t get into a situation where bomb blasts become the order of the day, just like Kashmir and NE states. As preposterous and terribly pessimistic it may sound, if the scenario does come into play, we have only ourselves to blame.

3) ‘What can I do?”: Actually, nothing. I, as an individual cannot make a difference other than write blogs like this, or support a peace rally which probably will not even get noticed/written about. I cringed, while I wrote the above lines – but I do have some cold logic to support my statement (as awful as it may sound, this is probability!).

Consider this - Police and intelligence agencies might have foiled probably 100 attempts of bomb blasts before this became successful. If not 100, it may be 1000. Considering the breadth of India’s geographical boundaries and its porous borders, the probability of success of bomb blasts increases dramatically day by day. This is because we have more ‘probable’ terrorists coming in through the porous borders for almost the same number of field force in police and intelligence agencies. Hence, by default, the police and intelligence are bound to miss on a tip or two – which might lead to blasts like Jaipur and Hyderabad (and as scientists say, there is usually one success for every 1000 failures]. So much for my optimism, agenda, ‘curbing terrorism’ et al, the mathematics is seemingly true. Please feel free to dispute the logic in the comments section. [And please, hope my mathematical argument doesn’t lead you to question ‘Are you asking us to stop working on curbing terrorism because probability (mathematics) says so? Are you nuts?’ – No, I am not suggesting to stop working on ‘curbing terrorism’. In fact, I am only suggesting to increase vigilance dramatically to stop such incidents].

‘Advertising during IPL matches is over the top – the ads start as soon as the 6th ball of one over is bowled and end only during the 1st ball of the next over. It is killing cricket’ – I have heard this over and over for the past many days. But hey, they paid big bucks for putting up their advertisements and they need to get a good return out of it – don’t you think that is fair? The answers might be yes, no and maybe – but this article is not about the authenticity of the advertising in-between overs; rather it is about advertising within the overs. Let’s look at some of the options –

1) Advertising on ‘ball boys’: I find this slightly shocking – how couldn’t marketers look at such an attractive market for grabbing eyeballs of the viewers (considering the golden rule of marketing/advertising is to grab ‘eyeballs’ and hence brand recall)? ‘Ball boys’ are the ones who throw back the ball to the fielders after the ball reaches the boundary. Considering the number of times the ball reaches the boundary in T20 matches, doesn’t it make logical sense to grab eyeballs of all viewers when the camera is focused on the ball reaching the boundary, the ball boy picking it up and throwing back to the bowler? Let’s take the minimum amount of time that one such event happens – let’s say 5 seconds. The average number of times the ball hits the boundary during the course of the match (two innings) is say, 70 times – which implies 350 seconds on/close to the ball boy. That is almost 6 minutes of advertising in prime time of the match – where almost 30-35 ads of approx 10 secs each can fit in. The cost? What would be the cost of sponsoring the dress for ball boys with company’s (or companies) logo imprinted on it? Get them in bulk – and the cost would be next to nothing. The eyeballs it can grab – plenty.

2) Britannia ’single’ and a MRF ‘two’: We have also heard about ‘DLF sixer’ and a ‘Citibank four’ etc. Make no mistake – it’s a very important innovation that has come through, probably only because of T20. Irritating – you bet! But what about ‘brand recall’? Marketers must be rubbing their hands in glee looking at such an innovation. Let’s take this a bit far – how about a ‘Britannia single’, ‘MRF two’ and a ‘Cheetos three’. How about naming some of the bowling/batting ends as ‘Reliance end’ and ‘Birla Sun Life end’? A sample of the commentary would flow something like this –

Daredevils Sehwag has nudged Royals Warne towards the Reliance end - is it going to be a Britannia single, ohh…it is going to be a MRF two…ohh noo, the fielder has misplaced it, probably a Cheetos three…the ball has finally reached the boundary…it is a Citibank four.

The example above is slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea. Advertising during the match (instead of between overs) is much more effective in grabbing eyeballs. You might say ‘Hey, that is irritating advertising’. Oh yeah! Rule number one in Advertising: There is no such thing as good advertising or bad advertising as long as it grabs attention. Rule number two: In case of doubt, refer rule number one.

3) Advertising on Commentators: This is slightly dicy, but it might pay off considering the lower costs associated with it. Instead of the bland plain dresses the commentators wear during the pre-match and post-match analysis, why not tag a ‘Nike’, ‘Reebok’ or any other company logo on their shirts? As long as it doesn’t conflict with the sports broadcaster’s and commentators agreements/commitments (and I don’t think anyone is so stupid to wear a Star shirt on a Sony broadcast – ah! I forget Sidhu!), all the parties involved would be happy (Advertisers for their eyeballs, Broadcasters and Commentators for the extra money that they rake in). Now, the only question is what percentage of match-viewing audience would also watch the pre-match and post-match analysis? I think very few – and hence the earlier logic of lower costs involved in putting up the logo on commentators’ shirts [Me says, get Mandira Bedi with her noodle straps – who in their right minds would miss the pre-match and post-match analysis? I wouldn’t ]

4) Rebirth of Super Selector: During my Engineering days, there was a wonderful programme called ‘Super Selector’. Summarily, it involved selecting a team across the whole bunch of players whom you think would score max runs/take wickets/effect run outs – and depending on that, points would be allocated. The top scorers used to win prizes from Fabmall. The programme was a raging success. I have no idea why this programme was discontinued – but I think it’s a great idea to rev up with this programme for the T20 championships. That would grab the attention of the younger audience (to whom you can pitch in/cross-sell more products, expensive products - and hence better margins], create advertising for the prize-givers and offer prime time slots to showcase the programme along with different advertisements. I did look at some ‘pseudo super selector’ contests on the Internet, but they tend create more junk in your mailbox rather than anything else. Any clue anyone why this programme isn’t yet on the air?

Those were my few thoughts on during-the-match-primetime advertising. Any other ideas?

The past two weeks were hectic, to say the least.

The most awaited movie of the year – Tashan got released. The metaphor in itself is probably the biggest awaited joke of the year. With the movie poster of Tashan looking eerily similar to Covenant, Yash Raj films indicated that this movie was not original even with the initial advertising. However, with the sole aim of watching Kareena Kapoor making a fool of herself, I watched the movie much to my bemusement and embarrassment. Terming the movie as a joke is an insult to the word ‘joke’. Attempting a Kill Bill+Ursula Andress in a bikini show, Kareena failed miserably and so did all the other co-stars (although some credit needs to go to Akshay Kumar). A shaven-bare-chested Anil Kapoor was probably the most shocking surprise of the movie – but his acting prowess (if I might call it that) has sunk from bad to worse with movies like ‘Race’ and ‘Tashan’. Spinning a yarn convincingly requires talent – and although I would accept that movies are no theorem-proof and are a mode of pure escapist entertainment, Tashan is exactly the sort of entertainment you want to escape from oh-so-desperately! A done-to-death childhood-friends-meeting-later concept and the seemingly meaningless run-around made ‘Race’ look much better in terms of quality and delivery. The prosperity of Yash Raj Films was due to their originality and dare – not cheap imitation, mimicry and mediocrity. Statutory Warning: Watching Tashan is injurious to health.

It was also a week where Sreesanth competed for ‘Award for the Biggest Sissie Drama of the Year’ and won it convincingly. A well-known dramatist-cum-patchy bowler to say the least (no, he still can’t compete with Ajit Agarkar for the Worst Bowler Award!! Ajit is miles ahead of him!) had a tete-a-tete with a bowler whose brains had been lent-on-lease indefinitely, with the result of a sweet punch on the jaw which resulted in Sreesanth bawling like…(no, let’s not insult kids like this!). With the way Indian cricket is played, don’t be surprised if you suddenly watch a soap called ‘Kyunki Sreesanth bhi kabhi Cricketer tha’! Sreesanth is the new gamma-male (alpha and beta are taken presumably!) representing India, a male who can cry on screen effortlessly and for no reason at all. He has probably opened up a whole new market for male actors who would also like to cry on screen. Soaps would be abound with the entire 138 members in a family which stays in one bungalow, dressed up in heavy bindis and kurtas sobbing and howling for 3 years straight. Sreesanth – you are just awesome; there will definitely be a role for you in each of these soaps where you can weep to your heart’s content and get paid for it.

And to round the two weeks off, this piece of news ticked me real bad. The summary of the article is that Singh has called for cut in corporate pay packets to eradicate poverty. Is this the same Singh that our economic textbooks extol of being the spearhead for liberalization in 1993? Is this the same Singh that called for extensive all inclusive-growth to eradicate poverty a while back? His call for “self-imposed ceiling on salaries and expenditure as a means to drive down demand and so ease pressure on supplies” is pure gibberish. Article after article in Markets/Economics/Finance demand that there be ‘incentives’ to growth, and here is our Prime Minister calling for a cut in incentives, thereby stunting growth inevitably. With rising prices of commodities every day across the world, a cut in incentives should have been least on Dr. Singh’s radar. Probably the functioning of Congress has got into the head of Dr. Singh – sadly, for a man I respected utmost, he has disappointed me terribly. Wretched is the situation for a man who was held in high-esteem for his forward-looking policies and global attitude to go on a pseudo-communist path - ah! It is such a shame!

I love photographs, especially old photographs where I was a little toddler, handled by different uncles and aunts, grandpas and grandmas and of course parents in different poses and backgrounds. As is the case with most of us, I too have a huge album of photographs consisting of the entire family – father’s side, mother’s side – probably from the time my mother and father were kids. The favorites are the ones with my cousins with almost all of them with crazy poses – the one where I am eagerly looking to eat the cake, while my similar-aged cousin of 8 was trying to celebrate his birthday, the one in the fields of my village where I had put on my uncle’s sunglasses with almost nothing but a short on, the one where three cousins of mine were fighting with each other as to who should play the car race and many many more. I am sure everyone has his/her own set of photographs and lovely memories.

Each photograph had a story. Even the very old faded ones, torn ones of the 1950s and 1960s had a story. These stories connected to another set of stories and and them to another and this whole series made for a very interesting conversation, and given the time, the discussions would go on for a long long time. Some of these photographs also had counter-stories – one uncle would have one story connected to one photograph and an aunt would have a conflicting story with the same photograph. And therein, ensues a debate which is even more fun and battle-lines are drawn for a discussion which could cover an entire evening. During the good ol’ days, a family photograph meant an event which covered the entire evening. We had to get dressed up very neatly, some elder would seek appointment with the photographer and we all went, the entire family walking down the street to the photographer’s shop. It was an event everyone looked forward to, a merry event – and considering the cameras of those days, you always had the photographer grumbling – aahh, little this side, little that side, don’t tilt your head to the left, lift your head up, ahh..smile and then a click. Everyone waited for three days for the photographer to deliver the photograph with bated breath and then would converge to discuss the pros and cons of the photograph, interspersed frequently by how bad the photography was and promises by anyone and everyone that the next photographer should be a better one.

I look at the recent photographs too – the ones before the digicams became widely prevalent and we all had to expend probably 250 bucks to get a film roll and then get it washed (as they used to call it). Every photograph taken was precious and there were very few and far in between. The ones of Intermediate and Engineering immediately come to mind – and even today, when friends meet up, the discussions about some of the photographs go on and on – from ‘how in the world did I wear such a dress for such an important occasion?’ to ‘how stupid was that’ – but more often than not, feel happy about some memories which remained.

In the current scenario, where everyone with a digital camera thinks himself as an expert in photography (not to mention his favorite hobby as photography), the value of photography probably might have gone up but the value attached to those photographs has drastically dwindled. An age where digicams are inexpensive, the photographs taken are reviewed immediately and the cost attached to each photograph is next to zero – the photographs in itself have lost most of their significance. The number of photographs taken has multiplied, while the importance of each photograph has probably been divided by infinity.

The number of photographs taken for any trip of 3 days is close to 400 (I along with my friends were guilty of this!). It goes into our hard drive after one, probably two looks and then….bham! I have no clue when we would open the folder containing these photographs again. 400 photographs – that probably would be the number of photographs taken in a marriage function in the old days – each photograph carefully treasured in an album, the album in itself covered in some cloth and each time the album was taken out, it was a moment of occasion, of stories and counter-stories again. Not so now. I am also saddened at the state of younger toddlers today. They would have no means to hear some stories and scenarios connected to their photographs – the number of photographs would have been so many in number, he would just see them as a movie – no narratives, no chronicles, plain old one threaded seamless movie (to quote an example again, my colleague has 200 photographs of his 2-week old daughter – I rest my case!). With handycams too within the reach of most of the population, the children of today needn’t even connect the digital photographs – it is in a movie format alright!!

Poor young toddlers of today – they would never know what value a half-torn photograph holds neither will they know how valuable a family photograph is. Probably, they don’t have time for all such things in this uber-competitive world….Really??

A long due post. I was trying to do justice to the topic for quite some time now - seeking an answer to this Catch-22 situation, but still can’t. The following is just a series of thoughts, for which necessarily I have to behave as an economist - 50% on one hand and 50% on another.

As has become the routine nowadays, I drive down to the nearest shopping mall to pick up groceries for the week. The shopping mall is essentially a hypermarket of all goods that exist on Planet Earth, aggregated on a mini-basis. The choices I encounter there is staggering. I can choose from 30 different kinds of shampoo, 10 different kinds of oil, 40 different kinds of biscuits, 7 different varieties of apples, 25 different kinds of cheese and last but not the least, 18 different kinds of toilet paper. The first time I saw such variety, I was pleased and flummoxed at the same time - and those are precisely the feelings that have lead to this Catch-22 situation.

On one hand, I am thoroughly pleased. Those choices cater to my individual tastes. Some marketer has actually thought of selling 15 different kinds of moisturizers - one for ‘normal skin’, another for ‘dry skin’, ‘healthy skin’, ‘normal skin with extra moisturizer’ etc etc. The consumer can pick up a moisturizer which exactly suits his/her skin. Imagine a situation (which was a reality some years ago), where we had only one kind of toothbrush, one kind of schoolbag and every good of only one variety - we necessarily did not have a choice but to buy them. Times change, choices multiply.

It is surprising how opening up India to international markets has brought about such a sweeping change in the country. A country - where I had to wait 3 months before I get a landline connection before, I have now got 3 choices for an instant connection. A country - where the waiting time for a scooter was 7 years, I can now drive a much better vehicle from the showroom today itself. A country - where prices were highly regulated in terms of vegetables and groceries, we now have food marts which cater to every need at different prices.

We now have different industries where we can work. We can now be gainfully employed in different companies, in different countries for entirely different skills. The kind of choice in education is simply mind-blowing. 20 years back, education was limited to Engineering, Medical or the Army. Now, we have multiple choices - from exotic vocations like designing beds for pets to call centers to the most generic of all, the IT industry. The kind of money we can make in different fields is only limited by your ambition. Multiple employers waiting to hire you - and you have choices to make, for good. We have indeed come a long way in having multiple choices for every need in life.

Yet, the very same choices are baffling. It is very difficult to come to terms with choice, if you exactly don’t know what to do, or what you want.* The hypermarket example - how do I know if my skin needs only ‘normal moisturizer’ or ‘normal moisturizer with extra oil’. Vehicle purchase - how do I know which vehicle exactly suits my need? Education - Do I want to do an MBA immediately after Engineering or should I work for a few more years before I venture to do an MBA? Profession - which job would give me satisfaction? What kind of salary would I be satisfied with?

Did I/Do I know the answers to all these questions? I think not.

When I speak to my older relatives, grandmas/grandpas, parents - they were necessarily very satisfied and happy when they were at my age, or so I think. They didn’t have to deal with all such complexities - what do I study next, where should my next job be, which country should I go next, where do I settle, how much money is enough? I don’t think they had to think through and make all these decisions since they didn’t have choices. There was Engineering to do, Government job to take up, a House to be bought in the city and Pension money to live with for the rest of their lives. So simple, so linear - very efficient, thoroughly satisfied.

There have been hundreds of studies which proved that choices beyond a point are bound to throw humans into a psychological condition called ‘decision paralysis’. Yet, I want more choice - choice in everything and anything, so that I can choose what I want (vanity you see, I want make my own decisions and decide what’s best for me). Free markets have definitely made life easier in terms of market offerings but have necessarily bound humanity to make decisions at every step of their life and hence making life more complicated. As I said at the beginning of the post, I still haven’t a clue of achieving the optimal state, whatever that might mean.
* The emphasis I think is the crux to solve this problem of Choice. But then, if I knew exactly what to do, when to do and how to do - I would be God, wouldn’t I?

P.S -

1) There really isn’t a Catch-22, is there? I actually don’t have a choice about the choices available in hypermarket, education, career etc. - I just have to deal with the complexity, whether I like it or not.

2) My take on the Microsoft-Yahoo battle published here.

Haven’t we heard the statement - Man is a Rational animal - a million times before. Of the many types of animal he is - emotional, social etc., the ‘Rational’ argument is the most widely accepted one and probably the most effective one to put forth in this irrational chaotic world. The argument helps and is rather comforting to one and all - atleast something in the world is orderly. And, therein lies the catch. I would like to argue on a slightly different platform - I would say that ‘Man is a Rationalizing animal’ rather than just Rational. What is the difference, you are just playing with words?, you might ask/say. I would only say - A lot.

‘Being Rational’ is to act upon reason or understanding. Rational explanation or rational behavior is an act where the explanation/behavior is based on hard facts, which do not change according to the whims and fancy of the ‘Rational’ person. Rationalization, on the other hand involves twisting and distortion of facts and reasoning to suit your own purposes (in the objective world, this is called cheating) - and this, dear readers is not the behavior of a ‘Rational animal’. To quote Oscar Wilde here, “Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason!” You may ask or rather condemn me by saying - how dare you call me a cheater? I have never distorted facts in my life? Hmm, we all have. Let me explain - the rational way - cold, hard facts.

First things first, let me get the ‘mother of all rationalizing statements’ done with - ‘Whatever has happened has happened for the best!’ I guess, we have all heard this statement 100s of times over and again. As I say, no ‘rationalizing’ statement gets bigger than this. Then, what is rational behavior? In much simpler terms, in terms we understand probably the best - money. If I have lost Rs. 100 in a bet and I find Rs. 50 on the way back on the road - the ‘rational’ way to look at it is ‘I have lost Rs. 100 and I have gained Rs. 50′ and not the rationalizing behavior of ‘Ahh! it’s ok - I have just lost Rs. 50 today’! Seems a simplistic example?! Hmm…let me get into reality.

1) Education - Most of us have gone/are going through this phase of life. Let us for example assume (and in most cases, it is true) that you have not been able to get through a competitive exam successfully (EAMCET, IIT, CAT, GMAT etc etc.). You might not have got a rank, a score which doesn’t get you a seat in the college you desired or a percentile which is just marginally short of qualification. (already nostalgic? ) The point here is this - what happens after this? Life just moves on - and probably your thought process also moves on to ‘mother of all rationalizing statements’ again!!. And why are we not able to accept the ‘rational’ argument in this case? - simply because you just can’t think that you have failed! Period.

2) Career/Job - How about the coveted job you were looking out for? How about the salary you were aiming at? How about the promotion last year? What happened to your thought process when you got one of these and didn’t get one of them? I’ll tell you what happened to my thought process - My Success was defined by reason, hard facts for everyone to consider and ponder. Failure was marketed as ‘It happens you know. Life just doesn’t stop here, does it? Anyways, whatever happens, happens for the best’. Getting my line of argument? Another example…

3) Marriage - Oh boyy!! Volatile topic to handle - but essential reality of life. Not yet having experienced this phase of life - I cannot comment authoritatively. Yet, I quote an example - an example I heard very recently from two different friends of mine (girls!!!) on the same day (talk of luck! - or the lack of it )

- The friend who had an arranged marriage - You know what kiran! I would recomment arranged marriage to everyone. Love marriage involves so many baggages - uff, who would wanna take them along for the rest of their lives. Arranged marriage doesn’t have all these tensions. You just start off afresh!
- The friend who had a love marriage - You know what kiran! You gotta have a love marriage to experience what the feeling is like. You don’t have this tension of blending in with the other person, the usual tensions - he knows you well and you know him well - all other stuff is just manageable.

Let me not ‘rationalize’ my luck in saying that I got two new perspectives of life! Anyways, the point here was that neither of them knew how the other type of marriage was like - and their opinions were biased - rationalization again. (And don’t get me into the argument of ‘ohh…we had a love-arranged marriage’, ‘you know what, we had an arranged marriage but seemed like we were in love for the past two lives!’ Please!! It’s either a love marriage or an arranged marriage!! This rationalization of a combo for feeling better for yourself is plain mediocrity - and for further reference on my opinion on mediocrity, consult my previous blog!)

I can probably go on and on to quote multiple examples from different phases of life - probably restricted only by space. In most cases, rationalization happens when there is a failure. Naturally, the next question would be - ‘Is rationalization bad?’, ‘I am being happy rationalizing things! so, what’s the problem?’. No problem at all. And frankly, I have rationalized quite a bit in my life too. However, I realised over a period of time that when you start rationalizing, you start denying a part of your past - a past that was yours that you don’t want to be reminded of - you want to remember the past as you want to see it (my earlier argument of distorting facts!) and not what it actually was - if I may use the word, trivializing your past - in effect, trivializing yourself. Apart from this, I also see some malign side-effects of rationalization - ‘It feels good, so I want more’ , ‘Everyone is doing it, so it must be OK’, ‘I have to be consistent with my earlier taken stand’, and ‘If I said yes to x, then saying yes to 1.01 x is no big deal’ - sometimes leading to dangerous consequences.

So, is man a rational animal? I would quote one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Bertrand Russell when he said “It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this!”. I rest my case.

P.S -

1) Wherever I have said Man, it also implies a Woman (more so! in fact ) (what with lot of feminist bloggers around, you never know! )