Is Spirituality for the weak?

As far as I can think back, I could never accept the fact that someone can advise me on what I can do or what I cannot. I don't know if it was the culture or the environment or the people I have been associated with, I always thought I knew exactly what the right thing to do was? I could never accept advices like, speak the truth or follow the path of god or accept failures as a fact of life and move on, etc.,... Well, there is some truth to any advice and in an ideal world, it all sounds good. But, I think there is a big fudge factor to every ideality and one cannot follow rules. What does this have to do with spirituality? one might ask... What about us that defines what is right or what is not? Why do I not seek a solution into believing in ideas which seemingly acts as a panacea to a majority of people ? Or, am I believing in certain ideals implicitly that I dont realise?

Fundamentally, I consider all living things as a big normal distribution with the stronger beings on one side and the weaker on the other. No wonder why survival of the fittest took control and continuously pushes the distribution to the stronger side. In such an environment, given that humanity comes under a single umbrella, what is the hope for the weaker side? I think spirituality solved the problem. Firstly, it gives hope for those who strive to be on the stronger side. Also, it says other things like, if you lead a good life (honesty, hard-work etc.,) , you will lead a great life in the next life and that, money is not everything and that dignity and life-style will make everyone remember you... I think these are ways to console oneself and attribute a reason to their weaknesses. Though I may sound sarcastic and blunt when I say all of this, I should also accept the fact that this is the only reason why the world still exists... One might say that law and order and other factors play a role in keeping us intact. I dont think so... Assume a case when there is always a war between the strong and the weak, the world may not be a good place to live in... One could argue that, there are still wars between the stronger group and the weaker group...But, I am talking about the micro levels...

I cannot stop but admire the vast majority of people who take up the most difficult of jobs and yet, hold on to their dignity and not divulge themselves into a multitude of other criminal activities they could do to break the system. If enough people start thinking the wrong way, I am sure the world wouldnt be a better place to live. Spirituality keeps them under control, which, even the strongest of governments cannot achieve very easily...I really do admire the hope in everyone...When I look down on someone, I also realise that there is someone stronger than me commenting on how contended and happy I am with the life that I am leading... Am I spiritually controlled? I dont know. May be, spirituality isn't something that is quantified as how religions define it.. Hmmm...Am I on the weaker side of the spectrum and am I just inventing a way to justify my beliefs on what I think is right? I dont know...

Complicated...

Not sure if I have written about this before. May be I have. But, one has to vent out their frustrations too in a mind sharing community like this..isnt it? And, chances are that, everyone will have a list of "n" topics in which they get frustrated. So, the manifestation of it in different forms do show up when one keeps it transparent...

Anyway, one of the common terms used in a company is that, some "xyz" is very complicated. I get annoyed whenever I hear that term. There are things that I understand and things that I dont. Not because I dont understand it after reading up on it, but rather the ignorance part of it. I think, just the ignorance aspect of a topic doesnt make any topic complicated. It just means that it may not make any sense when someone talks about it. But, once you understand, you know what it is... Here, the term "difficult" should not be confused with. Something that is difficult to understand could be termed complicated. But then, if something is difficult to understand, then it just shows that one is more ignorant in the topic talked about. For example, a brand new recipe for a chef is something that he can understand though it could be very difficult from a layman's perspective. When I say this, I do have to mention that some people just ride on terminologies. For example, they will use the term LRU instead of least-recently-used or LIFO instead of last-in-first-out when they talk to someone who is already ignorant of what the other person is talking about, making it seemingly difficult to understand hence move towards branding it as complicated. When you know the real meaning, a lot of it would make obvious sense.

I understand that people strive for publicity and being termed elite and so on. But, if the purpose of the conversation is to just prove that, like an interview or a marketing/sales pitch to another company, it makes perfect sense. But, when it comes to pure transfer of knowledge, it is not about telling people what you know, it is about telling them what they don't know in a language that they can understand. If that were the case, nothing is as complicated as it may seem. I do agree that, as you add more and more detail to a concept, it does get a little ugly to quantify in a simple statement. But, all concepts are built on basics and everything else is just an if-else condition within that basic theme. Bottom line, good speakers and good listeners can make this world less complicated...:)

Do you love Coffee???

I was walking back from school today and started thinking about a simple choice problem. Let me start with the basic set up and assumptions. Assume that we are all part of organization X. The members of the organization are myself, mano, meera, brainwaves, saumya, mindframes and survivor (others are welcome to join and should not change anything, except the division of the pie). Let us assume we have a big boss "M". We are all coffee lovers and at present the office does not have a coffee machine. The machine will cost the firm $ "c". Now "M" being the kind of guy he is, decides that he will buy the machine only if his staff (we) value the machine sufficiently to justify the expense. Not buying the coffee machine will not lead to any loss of productivity is an inherent assumption. Therefore the only decision driver for "M" is that we value the machine sufficiently.

Each one of us have private valuations for the machine. The valuation is not the cost of the machine but what is utility that the coffee machine gives me or you. In other words, if asked to contribute to buying the coffee machine, what is my willingness to pay for the machine. Let each of our potential contributions be "x with a subscript i representing each of us". "M" does not drink coffee and his decision rule is that the coffee maker is worth buying if and only if the sum of all the "x's" is greater than or equal to "c". In other words, if the sum of our individual contributions is greater than the cost of the machine, the machine will be bought. Hence what we think about our valuations is important in the outcome and each one of us prefers an outcome where the machine is bought.

Question: What can "M" do in this situation?

Solution 1: "M" can call each one of us privately to his room and ask us for what is our personal valuation. If the sum of our revealed valuation is greater than the cost, the machine is purhcased! Sounds good but there is a problem.

Remember that though we are asked for our valuations, we do not bear any cost. Therefore, one or all of us can inflate our true valuations, because our objective is to get the coffee machine and since inflating the valuation is not costly, the mechanism achieves the objective. "M" being a smart person himself decides that this is not effective and decides against this.

Solution 2: Suppose "M" decides that each one of us will make a contribution equivalent to our valuations and then if our total contribution exceed the cost, the machine will be purchased. Any excess cash collected can be used to purchase say beans. Is this solution optimal? Again it sounds good but there is a problem.

Let us assume here that we are good friends, but do not want to contribute more than an equal share. Also assume that we cannot collude. Therefore our private valuations are known only to us. Now it is possible that some of us might try to free ride on the others. Therefore there is a possibility of understating our true valuation, because we want the same benefit with a lower contribution, expecting another person to subsidize. Hence, again the situation leads to a failure. Therefore "M" rejects this.

What would be the best strategy that "M" can use to resolve this problem? Any suggestions? Is the problem interesting or would modifications be better?? I'm thinking about building examples which can probably be used for teaching design of management control systems (which is something that I want to teach at some point). I presume that such situations probably do arise in real life when there is a need to buy some goods in an organization which are useful collectively. If yes and you were part of it, please do share your experience on how it was solved.

Summer Reading & Viewing list

Started this thread to get summer reading & TV/Moview viewing list.

First reading suggestion Blink is already in.

Bring on your suggestions

Attaching Kqed's summer list. Some of the things stand out on first glance are,
- The Assault on Reason, Al Gore
- The Inheritance of Loss, Kiran Desai
- Finding an Angel to Fund Your Business, Joseph Bell

=======Kqed listener suggestions ====
The Savage Detectives, Roberto Bolano
On Chesil Beach, Ian McEwan
Atonement, Ian McEwan
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, Steve Coll
Lost City Radio, Daniel Alarcon
Amsterdam, Ian McEwan
The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright
The Butcher of Beverly Hills, Jennifer Colt
The Mangler of Malibu Canyon, Jennifer Colt
The Vampire of Venice Beach, Jennifer Colt
Liberty Falling, Nevada Barr
High Country, Nevada Barr
Lisa's Travel Diary, privately published, no author specified
The Medici Conspiracy, Peter Watson
A Journal of Ramblings, Joseph Le Conte, published by Yosemite Press
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi
Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini
A Thousand Splendid Sons, Khaled Hosseini
Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Finding an Angel to Fund Your Business, Joseph Bell
The Terracotta Dog, Andrea Camilleri
The Road, Cormac McCarthy
Taking The War Out of Our Words: The Art of Powerful Non-Defensive Communication by Sharon Ellison
Power, Faith and Fantasy, Michael B. Oren
The Known World, Edward P. Jones
The Assault on Reason, Al Gore
The Yiddish Policeman's Union, Michael Chabon
The Gravedigger's Daughter, Joyce Carol Oates
Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989, by Michael Beschloss
The Inheritance of Loss, Kiran Desai
Imperium, Robert Harris
Pompeii, Robert Harris
The Shadow of the Wind, Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Betraying Our Troops, Dina Rasor
1968, Mark Kurlansky
Salt, Mark Kurlansky
Cod, Mark Kurlansky
The Basque History of the World, Mark Kurlansky
Providence of a Sparrow, Chris Chester
The Last Days of the Incas, Kim MacQuarrie
What to Eat, Marian Nestle
Kushiel's Justice, Jacqueline Carey
Halsey's Typhoon: The True Story of a Fighting Admiral, an Epic Storm, and an Untold Rescue by Robert Drury and Tom Clavin
West of Jesus: Surfing, Science, and the Origins of Belief, Steven Kotler
The Places In Between, Rory Stewart
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling
The Magician and the Cardsharp, Karl Johnson
The Bread Bible, Rose Levy Beranbaum
The Pie Bible, Rose Levy Beranbaum
The Cake Bible, Rose Levy Beranbaum
Alice Medrich's Cookies and Brownies, Alice Medrich
Sweet Minature, Flo Braker
How Doctors Think, Jerome Groopman
The River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze, Peter Hessler
Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The Short Bus, Jonathan Mooney
The Untold Story of Milk, Ron Schmid
Last of the Breed, Louis L'Amour
Ordeal by Hunger, George R. Stewart

Blink

I am reading this book called BLINK by Malcolm Gladwell, which was supposedly my gift to Suresh for his birthday...LOL.... It's a book about rapid cognition, about the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. It is a National Best Seller, not just “New York Times Best Seller”. I have read a couple of chapters so far and am already impressed. It is a book about instant conclusions that we come to, on meeting someone or while buying a car etc. There was a chapter talking about “Looking at Thin Slices” where the author talks about the conclusions that we come to after reading the thin slices about someone. In a nutshell, it says one does not have to be around a person for a long period to know about him/her. A few hours should be enough. I guess we follow this in arranged marriages in India. A few moments, knowing what interests a person helps us in our decision .The author cites Tom Hanks as an example. I have never come across a person till now who doesn’t like Hanks. Have you? When questioned, people always said that Tom comes out as a decent, trustworthy, down-to-earth, responsible human being, which is also true.

There is a dark side to thin slicing. You might make snap decisions by looking at a person and we all know appearances are deceptive. The book cites car salesmen and how they reacted to white males, white females, black males and black females in a particular experiment. All the participants were portraying as well educated professors and dressed the same. Invariably, the entire salesmen asked 552$ above invoice for white males, $1500 for white females and even higher for black males, with black women leading the pack. Are they racial? No. They are unconsciously associating women with less knowledge about cars and “woman and black” is the worst combination. Wonder what would happen if I walk alone into a car shop. :-) If you want to know how you would react to people, there are some cognitive tests at http://www.implicit.harvard.edu which are quite interesting and tell how you associate race, sex etc.

Some more interesting facts – Did you know that most doctors who get sued are not the ones who make lot of mistakes, but rather the ones who spend less time with their patients. Doctors who spent 3 minutes more with the patients and sounding concerned always got out easy in spite of their mistakes , where as those who sounded dominant, not even arrogant, were sued though they might have been good.

There was one more example about how people do things unconsciously. This was about flash dating where men and women get together and talk to each other for 5 minutes . Basically, the women sit in each of the chairs and the men take rotations and talk to each woman. You would have seen this in movies. There was one woman ,lets call her Jen, who liked Ron very much. When asked before, she had said that she was looking for a smart, intelligent guy. Ron was funny and charming, but not exactly intelligent. After those five minutes, when asked, Jen said she likes funny and charming guys. Looks like it continues for may be a month and then reverts back to smart, intelligent guys. All this is done unconsciously. Maybe, when we get married, since we make snap decisions after talking to a person for a few hours or minutes, there must be something that we find attractive and we unconsciously change our likings to make the marriage a success unless there is an overwhelming difference which makes the marriages fail due to the dark side of thin slicing.