Perceptions & Facades

 I've written about perceptions earlier. At the time focusing on how society's perceptions impact how it moves together and builds the moral & ethical code of the time.

Today it's slightly different. I recently saw parts of a hindi movie where the protagonist had created facades around himself building a perception that he was this amazing person who could do no wrong while he himself did not think so. He knew that the view everyone around him had was because of what he shows them - his image and hence was very protective of it.

If you think about it, all of us do this everyday, and do not give it a second thought. Our speech is littered with phrases like putting the game face on, putting a brave face, poker face. Each has it's own scenario to be used in but each represent showing the world a facade that they need to see rather than who you actually are. It is an amazing tool to project confidence in circumstances that aren't conducive, project courage in the face of hopelessness or project what you want to really rather than painting a grim picture.

However, is it the best approach? If you're always smiling people assume you're happy. No one really knows whether you are or not. 

I remember this one experience from college. After our Term 1 exams, I had failed in 1 subject. In fact, more than half of the class had. After we all received the results, I was going about my way in the hostel corridor, being my happy self and a class mate asked me if I had passed. I told him, No - I had failed. For the next 2 mins our conversation was simply around this one fact where he refused to believe me and kept asking me why I wasn't telling him the truth (despite that being the truth). He stopped another classmate who was passing by and verified with him whether I had actually failed. Only after he confirmed that I had indeed failed that exam, did he, grudgingly, accept. And then explained his confusion because he saw me going about my way all merry and happy.

I strongly believe in variables that you can control and variables that you can't. If I can't control a variable - like India winning the world cup - I do not let it emotionally affect me. If I can control a variable, then I work towards building a clear plan and making the changes that I can. That does not mean I do not have emotions. It simply means that I am able to dissociate my emotions with my work. And people find it hard to believe and/or make an assumption (and assertion) in their head which is usually contradictory to what's really going on.

So do you project confidence when you're feeling bad or do you share with everyone that you're feeling bad?

The problem with latter is that people thrive on vibes. If I am down and I project that, I bring the vibe around me down. If I am perky, then I make others feel better - except the ones that want to sulk. But what if those are the people that really matter? Do you sulk with them? Or do you be the happy self, coz really there isn't anything you can do about it. Shh!! Who knows, I may get superpowers in the future and may be able to do everything.. 

Apprehensions

 So, D.H. Lawrence's short story - The Rocking Horse Winner - has been going through my mind for quite some time. I've thought deeply about it once earlier when I was in Louisville. Now is the second time my brain keeps reminding me of that story.

It's an amazing story depicting how unspoken words can turn into anxiety and stress and eat a person from the inside. The beautiful characterization uses a child as the primary protagonist who is a keen observer and undergoes that change. It keeps the narrative pure and engaging. It's a great commentary on how a household runs on vibes. Unspoken words, at times, carry a lot more weight than what people say out loud. It also explores luck - one of my favorite subjects and how the meaning of luck differs for everyone.

A short blog, this is going to be.

What is important, a person's principles or the happiness of who they love? What if the two conflict? What gives?

Random Thoughts

 So, Wheel of Time Season 2 arrived on Amazon Prime this weekend. I caught up on the first 3 episodes, and while I still don't like how they're butchering the books, this is a slight improvement on the mess that was Season 1.

I started thinking about why I didn't like this version. I love the series, but I'm not a hardcore fan of it. Drawing parallels, before Harry Potter and The Order of Phoenix came out, I came across a bunch of fan fiction, and one amongst them stood out. And I still maintain that fan fiction made for a much better story than what JKR eventually told in the actual book. Given that, I am open to minor tinkering in the story.

What I don't like is the character assassination that the series has done. I loved the books because I identified with the characters. I identified with the struggle Rand was going through. I identified with the mischievousness of Mat. I identified with the pure heart Perrin carried. I felt the awe that comes with moving from a smaller city to a metropolis. It gave me a sense of adventure, anticipation, and, most importantly, tools and theories that helped me make sense of the world around me.

I could sense the racial tensions and see how different cities had different affiliations. I could see the scars that old wars left on land and memory. I saw how different interpersonal relationships could pan out and how each decision and each move impacted the larger weave.

And all that is what is missing in the series. I don't identify with any of those characters. In order to make them feel more realistic, new backdrops & stories have been added, which make no sense unless you start thinking of the characters in a completely new light. The big cities don't feel grand. There is no specific culture - just people talking to others. We're shown that Cairhien is a political city because it's specifically mentioned in 1 conversation. Instead of allowing us to make up our minds - we're fed with what the series wants us to think. And that - I've never liked. I grew to like Selene in the books, but there were always indications that something wasn't right. In fact, she's still my favorite of the 13 forsaken - so much so that my D4 character is named after her.

So that's that.

How do you deal with emotional tiredness though? How do you deal when you want to make effort to better a relationship but every time you try, you are knocked back?

Being wrong

 Donald Trump has an amazing quality - he's never wrong. The information given to him could be wrong. The way people understand/misunderstand him could be wrong. The way the media represents him could be wrong. But him - no way.

Over the last two months, I've thought a lot about why I do not trust a majority of Hindu priests and don't really care about going to temples and performing various rituals that can benefit me.

 I've concluded that it's not Hinduism that I don't trust - I maintain it is one of the oldest and most scientific religions (if that can be considered a thing) that's around. From Sanskrit to Maths, to Astrology, Astronomy, to Biology - nearly everything historically was scientifically driven. As with every religion, there are some ugly parts, but that's part of evolution.

It's also not that I don't trust in God. I've written previously that I believe in the existence of a singular power, though my thoughts slightly differ from others on what that is.

So what is it?

And this morning, it dawned on me - it's the fact that I have never seen a Hindu priest perform a ritual for their host's benefit and go to the host and say - "Oops! That wasn't the ritual that was supposed to be performed for your issue; I should've performed a different ritual; let me go fix that". Or "I made an error reading your chart or drawing your chart." Either it turns out to be incorrect information was provided. Or "Oh! That ritual didn't fix your issue, let's try this other more powerful one." Or "Let's try this other ritual that calls for a different deity that may be more relevant to your issue"

It's an approach that's neither science nor art. The utilization of this approach is almost an art, but the practice of it isn't. Science is straightforward. It may posit something today: find out the information is incorrect, recalculations are done, and the result is fine-tuned based on the latest correct information. But scientists admit that they made a mistake. When a rocket blows up, an RCA is done, and we find out which piece of calculation/assumption was responsible for it; we fix it and make the rocket again. I don't hear people go, "Oh! your rocket blew up. Let's try this more powerful fuel that I've always known about but didn't tell you earlier"

Art gives its practitioner creative license - so the sky can be blue, black, grey, brown, pink, yellow, white - whatever you want it to be. But no artist goes, "oh! Black didn't work for you. give me more money, and I'll make it bubblegum pink"

The thing is, mistakes are inevitable. That is what makes us human. Admitting that someone was wrong makes them human and more relatable. I would prefer a doctor who admits to their mistake when they make one, rather than one that passes off their incorrect diagnosis as correct but still changes your medication without telling you the actual reason coz they know their initial diagnosis was right.

Balance

 Everything around us is about balance. There's a Yin to Yang. There's a White to Black. There's a Day to every Night. At different times, one may be strong, but then the other pulls, and things become balanced again.

So why is it so hard for me to get used to it? If I know it and can explain it, then I understand it. If I understand it, why can I not implement it? Why do I feel that I should be able to do more for people around me? Why should they listen to me? Why, when they don't, do I feel bad.

Not everyone has to live their life the same way. People should be able to make their own choices. Why is it, then, when someone makes a choice that you warned them against, you feel bad? Is someone accepting my choice a validation that I am right? Is being right so important to me? Or is it that I don't like to be at a place in the future where people say - he could've done something but didn't. Or is that a future validation that I care about? Should I?

You should live life by your principles. Yet, a lot of decisions are made for you, and you have no involvement in them. You are dependent on other's goodwill. So, when there's an option, do you get others' goodwill or do what you want to do? How do you balance and have a social life with your unsocial temperament? How do you get others' goodwill while remaining sincere? If I do what I do, which I usually do, and someone doesn't like the way I do what I do, should I change the way I do what I do? Or should I ignore them? I know I can listen to their perspective, but what if I don't agree? When we say Agree to Disagree - isn't that just another way of saying, "You have your opinions, I have mine, and neither of them is going to change" So then, has the conflict been resolved? Should all conflicts be resolved? Theoretically, conflicts can serve other purposes - so how do you utilize a conflict while not feeling manipulative? Or is manipulation ok? 

A friend asked me if I keep changing the problem statement, how will I arrive at an answer, and how will he be able to help. He's right. As soon as I find a solution to the problem, either a new one arises or the problem itself changes shape. It's like the following excerpt from H2G2 by Douglas Adams :

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Too many questions today. Never-ending stream... I need to get this out of my head.

Mistakes & Successes

 So, another thread from my epic road trip that I am finally putting down.

I realized that most of us carry our (and others) mistakes far too long while overlooking the successes or the good around us. 

If I go out to camp 5 times a year, build a campfire every single time I'm camping, and have been doing it for 20 years. I've camped and built campfires 100 times. 

I will remember the one time when while building the campfire, a hot ember jumped out and burned me a little. I will not remember the other 99 times when nothing out of the ordinary happened. Maybe a few, but while I will have a specific memory of the 2008 Aug campfire that burned me, I will have only generic statements about the third campfire I ever built where we all roasted marshmallows and had fun like every other time since then, except the 2008 campfire.

It kinda makes sense - we have an idiom in Hindi. "Doodh ka jala, chhaach ko bhi phoonk phoonk k peeta hai". It means - Once bitten, twice shy. And specifically, someone who burnt their mouth while drinking hot milk starts blowing over cold milk to make sure he doesn't get burnt again.

Mistakes make us learn a lot more than our successes.

We are more concerned with "Don't do this or else.. " than "Hey! This was good, let's keep doing it"

How does that impact us, though - it creates doubt in our thinking. A chink in the armor that is our self-confidence. Even when we're right, it makes us ask - What if I was wrong? Is that the right way to approach it, though? Recently I read somewhere that recency bias is something we all suffer from. They talked about how we spend money, and a lot of times, the money we have already spent is a driver when we make a decision about the money we have not spent yet.

We've already spent a lot this month, so let's cut down our expenditure and not spend anymore. We start paying attention to what we've done rather than evaluating the expenditures that are yet to happen at their face value. Are those expenditures needed is a question that is exempt from how much we've already spent. Whether I've spent 5% of my monthly budget or 50% - has no impact on whether I need the new something or not.

It's the same with mistakes. If we've already made a mistake, it makes us wary about making others. We lose the rationale that the next thing we're working on has no relation to what has already happened. We are very careful not to make another mistake.

On the other hand, successes do not play the same role in the same capacity. I did one thing right today will not fill me with enough confidence that the next thing will also be done right because I was right the first time. Throwing numbers around randomly, the amount of confidence a mistake takes away - it may take 9 successes to gain back. It's not an equal relationship between mistakes & successes.

Data (mis)Representation and Visualization

 So, Data is the buzzword and the biggest force out there today that is considered the key to future growth and success. It has spawned so many different streams and quotes already. 

Streams like Data Design, Data Analysis, Data Engineering, Data Science, Data Management, Data Steward, Data Governance, Data Migration, Data Ingestion, Data Transmission, Data Storage, Data Streaming, Big Data and a few others that I just may not know about.

In terms of quotes and equivalence that I've heard :

Data is the next Gold.

Data is like Air - everywhere around us and is absolutely needed for an organization to thrive.

Data is like Water - All around us, flowing from one place to another, stored in containers for future use

So I get it. Everybody understands how important data is. But do we know how to use it properly?

Apparently, too well. 10-15 years ago, if someone said that their reasoning/argument/logic is backed by data, it's highly probable that I would probably be swayed over to their way of thinking. Today - not as easy. Why? Because we have learned how to misrepresent data. We have learned how to dissect the data to back our way of thinking. We have made huge strides in analysis, and that has enabled us to portray facts in a light that supports our logic.

I recently came back from a road trip. On one of the days during the trip, my wife & I were driving from Grand Tetons to Yellowstone. It was cold, and it was raining. I was not enjoying driving my Audi A3, a small sedan, on the mountain roads when they were wet and cold and could've possibly been slippery. I wasn't the only person on the road, though. There were a lot of vehicles. To support my discomfort, though, I commented that not a lot of those other vehicles were small sedans or, for that matter, sedans at all. 

Then I started thinking analytically if I could quantify and back my statement with numbers. So I categorized the next 100 vehicles. Only 9 of them were sedans. I counted another 100, and only 6 of those were sedans. Of any size. That gives me a percentage point backing up my theory - Only 7.5% of total cars on the road that day were sedans. 92.5% of the people on the road on that wet, rainy day were driving a bigger vehicle. Does that make my point and back my theory up? It does. Would you think very few people drive sedans and consider that a weird fact. Maybe?

Until I tell you that only 20% of total cars sold are sedans. Until I tell you that when it comes to breaking down this data, out of the 200, rough estimates for other types of cars were : 3 big trucks, 20 RVs, 40 SUVs, 40 Pickup trucks, 10 Hatchbacks, 35 Minivans, 30 Crossovers, and 7 Vans. Giving them a percentage points of 2%, 10%, 20%, 20%, 5%, 18%, 15%, and 4%. Sedan numbers don't look too bad now - do they? It was mixed traffic, and the numbers show that. But because I picked a single category, I can cast it as an outlier. I can pick SUVs and say the same thing - 80% of the people on the road that day were not driving an SUV.

Data is no longer equivalent to truth. It's all about perspective. It's all about how you slice it, present it. 

Talking to a friend recently, they mentioned that there was a travel freeze in their company despite an amazing H1 because travel costs had risen 25% while the revenue was up only 15%. I do not know the actual numbers behind the scene, but that is weak logic. Why, you ask?

Because yes, you're showing that travel costs are rising at a sharper rate, are you actually quantifying the impact? Let's say my revenue last year was 10mn USD, and this year is 11mn USD. That's a 10% increase in revenue. Let's say my travel expenditure last year was 10K USD. But this year, to get more business, more people flew, and it's gone up to 20K USD. That's a 100% increase in my travel expenditure. However, the additional 10K USD in travel, when reflected against 1mn USD in revenue - how much of an impact does it make on the bottom line.

Now during a discussion with another friend, they pointed out that I was only presenting one side of the story, and I see his point. To clarify the scenario above, I'm not suggesting or questioning the decision to travel freeze. Presenting another aspect using different numbers, if we keep the revenue and growth the same, but let's say the travel expenditure last year was 500K and this year has been 625K providing us the 25% increase. That does cause a significant impact because while the growth in revenue is still 1 mn, the additional travel of 125K takes 1/8th of it immediately.

What I'm trying to suggest here is that as we face numbers every single day, we need to remember that simply because we come across a big number or a trend, we should not assume that we are able to understand the full picture. Sometimes summaries can impress an idea that is very different from the truth, and details are needed to understand the background and look at it holistically.