Meaning

In ordinary usage the word “meaning” implies intention, intention implies design, and design implies a designer. Any entity, any process, or definition of any word itself is put into play as a result of an intended consequence in the mind of the designer. This is the heart of the philosophical worldview of organized religions, and in particular their creation stories. Humanity, it assumes, exists for a purpose. Individuals have a purpose in being on Earth. Both humanity and individuals have meaning.

There is a second, broader way the word “meaning” is used and a very different worldview implied. It is that the accidents of history, not the intentions of a designer, are the source of meaning. There is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect. The unfolding of history is obedient only to the general laws of the Universe. Each event is random yet alters the probability of later events. During organic evolution, for example, the origin of one adaptation by natural selection makes the origin of certain other adaptations more likely. This concept of meaning, insofar as it illuminates humanity and the rest of life, is the worldview of science.

Whether in the cosmos or in the human condition, the second, more inclusive meaning exists in the evolution of present-day reality amid countless other possible realities.

Humanity … arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution. We are not predestined to reach any goal, nor are we answerable to any power but our own. Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us.

- E.O. Wilson on The meaning of human existence

All things Green

Regular readers of the blog (the imaginary/non-existent beings) know that I turned into a Nerdfighter and John Green fan after the TFioS book (and somewhat disappointing movie adaptation). But so much has happened since.

First, I fell in love with Vlogbrothers videos. This was a Youtube channel that John started with his brother Hank way back in the mesozoic era of 2007-08. The deal was that the brothers would communicate with each other (and the broader Nerdfighter community) through short videos that they posted once a week. There were some rules about length of videos, for instance < 4 mins but the topics covered everything from Hank's rendition of a song he wrote on Anglerfish to John talking about the healthcare system in Ethiopia.

Vlogbrothers led to Crash course and Sexplanations. John did a series on World History for Crash course, which if it was made 17 years ago might have changed my history. I was and still am a history buff and John and his teams' interpretation of the entire history of the world into bite-size packages is so creative, fascinating and educative, I would have embarked on a career following the Mongols if I had watched these videos in my teens.

Sexplanantions was awesome in that I had received no formal sex-education growing up in uber-conservative Chennai. Whatever I knew, I learnt from bits and pieces of information and misinformation from my peers. I wish I had a Lindsey teach me about sex in my teens. But more important than the anatomy or safe-sex lessons from Lindsey, it is the sex-positive atmosphere that I sorely lacked. I am, like so many people, ashamed to talk about sex in an open and curious way and thank the team at Sexplanations for shedding some of those inhibitions.

In the meantime, I also read other books by John Green. Post-TFioS, I started with a book titled 'An abundance of Katherines'. Brilliant doesn't begin to describe the book. I loved loved loved it. I was amused at how well I related to the characters in the book (esp Colin).

Then came, 'Looking for Alaska'. It was John's debut novel and it was as heartbreaking and heartwarming as TFioS. The Green binge was rounded up with 'Paper Towns'.

A common thread around all these novels is that it dealt with smart and curious teens who grappled with big questions about themselves and their place in the world. They read poetry, played pranks, rebelled against authority figures, fell in love, fell out of love and really loved learning. It was ok to be smart. Hell! it was awesome being smart. And that needed to be told.

Don't forget to be awesome

Damien Rice

I feel a little embarrassed when I watch Damien sing... it feels like I am peering into the soul of someone and seeing their scars. And I begin to wonder do I have any business being here. Can I do something to ease this pain? 

And when he plays at a bar or something, and there are people with their iphones and cameras. People! there is a man writhing in pain and you are just standing there taking pictures.

I've never loved.... I've never loved... I've never loved.... I remember it well... The first time that I saw....

Ohgod! why does it hurt so much.

(a+b)^2

This is the last one, I promise.

We live in a society. And there are rules. These rules aren't static entities and do change with the times. We don't always agree with all the rules and neither should we. If we find a rule that is unfair or a belief that is unfounded we do question it and in time replace it with better and better rules.

One of the several rules that our society has in its wisdom decided that we follow is that we don't ask people certain questions. For instance, we don't ask someone their age. There are plenty of occasions where it is appropriate to ask someone their age. A bouncer at a bar, at your doctor's office, at your birthday party with friends, etc. What the rule forbids is asking that question to a stranger or someone who is not in familiar terms with you. And age is not the only taboo. It is not appropriate to ask someone how much they earn. It is impolite to ask if they are single. Or if they are straight/gay. When they last masturbated. If they were the one who farted just then. These are the rules and though we may find plenty of exceptional circumstances where these rules may not apply, these are the generally accepted norms that allow us to decide if a particular action is right. This is not controversial. There is literally no one who is arguing that we should be allowed to accost random strangers in the bus stop and ask them any of the taboo questions listed above. And strangers who do ask questions like 'Where do you work or How much is your salary' are dealt with cold stares and polite excuses.

In this context, I made a feeble and unassuming announcement that we add to this list of questions, a few more. Specifically, these questions were regarding race - like asking a brown man you met at a party where he is originally from because he replied Australia and doggonit he doesn't look "Australian". Or asking a Chinese person who just introduced himself as James, what his "REAL" name was. I didn't come up with these rules. These rules aren't mine. Brown people collectively said that not accepting their answer to where they were from (USA, Australia, etc) and demanding to know what kind of "not white" are you was unacceptable. See for instance, Hari Kondabolu

Asian people in a similar fashion put together a video . Asking Asian, typically Chinese people what their real/ Chinese name is, according to some Asian people, ANNOYING. And they don't want you to do it. They find it patronising and did I already mention it, ANNOYING.

Are you still with me? It is not really that hard to follow, is it?

Well! I got called out for being an evil tyrant who wants to impose his will on others and tells white people what they may or may not do. Really! I was told by someone who shall remain un-named that I was denying them their rights. Asking Chinese people their Chinese name was her (yes it was a her) right and it shall not be denied.

Firstly, I don't want to impose my will. Let's be clear on that. And it is not MY will. It is the will of Asian people who have been asked too many times to spell out their names to curious Georges. Her argument that she is not like the other white people who ask silly questions because a) I am nice or b) I don't have a racist bone in my body are not relevant. Her intentions don't matter only because the guy hearing the question not only hears the question but hears the historical baggage associated with the question.  One can't tell an Asian person that they were wrong to be offended. One can't say I am using "nigger" as a term of endearment and don't mean anything racist by it. The words have historical association with slavery and racism that is irretrievably entwined with it. Your intentions however pure don't matter to the person at the other end. And that is why they (not me) would like very much for you to stop asking them annoying questions. If you don't mind. Pretty please. With a spoonful of sugar.

Our discussion did get heated and I was making my point passionately, arms flailing, voice raising, hair pulling. After that, we walked our own ways, she believed that "We agreed to disagree". After all we are all entitled to our own opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

NO! That is not how it works. To be clear, my arms are flailing and voice is raising not because 'Thou shall always listen to me'. It is because I am frustrated that I am not able to get something so self-evident to me across to you. I am saying (a+b)^2 is a^2 + b^2 + 2ab. And after an hour of explaining how the question can be reframed as (a+b) times (a+b) and that is how we arrive at the answer, you keep insisting that the answer cannot have a 2ab term. We don't walk away saying  that your answer is  a^2 + b^2 + 2ab and my answer is  a^2 + b^2 and that is that.

Of course I admit that not everything is so mathematically certain. Just to give another example of a different discussion: At the height of the re-re-return of the Woody Allen sexual abuse scandal, she made the point that she wouldn't watch his movie because he was a paedophile. I argued that I would still like to watch his movies given that a) he wasn't found guilty and b) that people conflate pederasty and paedophilia while the pathologies associated with both are completely different and that Woody was guilty of pederasty for marrying a girl much younger than he, it doesn't automatically follow that he must also be guilty of abusing Dylan. I also wondered if art can exist beyond the artist or if the two are inseparable. Can we appreciate art, say Polanski's Pianist without excusing his behaviour. To me, this is a complex question with no definite right and wrong and while I argued that we could watch Woody Allen's films, I made no argument that we SHOULD watch them. I can understand that some people have strong opposition to watching a film made by Woody and feel that by watching his films they are in some way legitimising his bad behaviour. I accepted her argument and we did walk away saying that you watch his movies and I won't. I wasn't going to impose my view that one can watch a movie by Woody Allen without being called a paedophile-supporter and she didn't call me a paedophile-supporter.

Going back to our Asian conundrum - Could she ask an Asian person what his/her "real" name is? Yes. Should she? No.

Eppur si muove

White man blindness

The White Boy (refer previous story) is at it again. This time he wrote,

Oh boo hoo, Bill Maher makes a sexist joke to understand Hamas. What is worse slapping a woman or rocket attacks, suicide bombings, or vowing destruction of Israel? Sorry Slate, did the naughty comedian says gross words

That statement is self-explanatory but to give you a bit of context: Bill Maher, a comedian wrote on his twitter

Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her

To which Amanda Marcotte of Slate wrote

Maher is making light of the serious problem of domestic violence. But he’s also trading on the tired stereotype of women as irrational children who need to be brought in line by more stable men.

And the white boy springs to the defence of  beloved comedian's misogyny. He unhelpfully adds that the problem is  "Slate.com's unthoughtful reactions to comedy". And asked about the author he dismissively explains that she writes about rape culture and abortion issues. Yeah! right. And he extolled the courage of HBO in their crusade for freedom of speech and how comedians should be allowed to say what they want.

This is an acute case of White man blindness, a serious medical condition where you are so blinded by the privilege afforded to you by your white-ness and penis, that you dismiss everything everyone else feels or does as trivial. Exhibit A

True feminism would look at the real problem: Hamas. I stand for freedom and not being offended by a fictional jokes or fictional games. Hamas is the feminist issue allowing honour killing, forcing headwear, and real restrictions. Instead, in the West we are worried about the good man saying bad things? Really? What is worse?

Firstly, "I am not standing in solidarity with the asshole comedian, I just like comedy" argument. This argument presupposes that "I like comedy and you don't". If only you had my sense of humour, then you would see that it is not offensive and be A-ok with making jokes about slapping bitches. Hahaahaaaa. So funny.

To say that "If you want Maher to stop saying bitches you have to stop all bigger and greater evils. Solve the middle-east crisis and come back to me about offensive tweets" is such a bogeyman argument that I am left speechless.

I know white men are so used to defining what gets to be what that it may come as a shocker but they don't get to define what is or is not a concern of true feminism. They don't get to say "Look at them Arabs, they treat their women so bad, you should fight against it. Not domestic violence. Or equal pay. Or misogynistic jokesters".

There is always going to be evil in some corner of the world and to say this or that is worse, why are we bothered about the small stuff in our backyard, is frankly pointless. We could and should fight against oppression in the middle -east AND misogyny in our society. It is not an either-or choice. And really how can we have the moral high ground  when our society treats women badly; 1 in 3 women face domestic violence, #YesAllWomen has shown that fear of sexual assault is a real thing in the western world we live in. Even women at the highest echelons of power, the CEOs and PMs are treated poorly. To say that I should be allowed to make jokes about slapping women into line until Arab women can drive is just silly.

The second argument is a keeper: "Am I not in my rights to have an opinion over an overreaction over an opinion, or is she above criticism too?"

This "Stop oppressing me" is such a classic white man response to being called out that it is by far my favourite. It comes in several flavours. "I am just saying", for instance is a tasty one.

Of course you have rights to spew your opinions you poor little white boy. I am saying that you are phoo-phoo-ing Amanda's opinion as irrelevant and over-reaction when they are neither. She is not immune from criticism but what exactly is your criticism, except rolling your eyes and saying Women, eh? Neither Maher nor Amanda are foreign policy experts but Amanda does write about gender politics and she has written a fair criticism of Maher.

If a reasonable post about the offensive tweet which is not shrill, angry, doesn't call for his head, doesn't generalise men as dicks gets a "BooHoo grow a pair", then what exactly can women do to get heard. When women who write about gender issues in media or games get ridiculed by men (like The White boy), their opinion gets de-legitimised and overlooked.

I am tempted to call The White Boy a dick and an asshole but as soon as I realised that he suffers from the debilitating illness of White man blindness, I am moved to sympathy. Poor fellow! he can't help himself. It is a genetic disorder and he has to live with this disability all his life.  

The Germans are coming

Tip to commentator: Do not, I repeat do not say, "The German attack is advancing. They have been threatening all day. The German raid is unstoppable. They are about to strike". 

An 80 year old man in Alsace who turned on his Philips pocket transistor, clutched his heart, keeled over and died.

- context: Germany thrashed Brazil 7-1 at the 2014 World Cup

Perils of flying while brown

Salon has a beautifully written article on the Perils of flying while brown. I have nothing much to add except that I too was a victim to this widespread phenomenon. 

It is all Mitchell Johnson's fault. It so happened that Mitch had a glorious summer with the ball and wiped the floor with the Poms. His mutton chops were credited for his Ashes glory and I in a MoM1 decided that I would grow one as well. And it just happened to be that I got my new passport in that period and the photo on my passport has me sporting a menacing looking "Mitch Mo". The Mo that terrorised the English (and later the Saffers) made me a terrorist suspect. Quelle horreur.

I have travelled widely and no one has made airtravel more painful than the US. Despite being a brown man (clean shaven brown man if I may add), I have an Australian passport. But that counts for little for the TSA. Also to note, I am not Muslim. I still got pulled aside for multiple checks; twice in Sydney and again when I landed in LA. Random, they called it but the odds of me getting the number three times in a row is as remote as a treeful of Monkeys with the finished version of Hamlet that they have typed out one key at a time. 

As courteous as the TSA agents were to me, and they were really friendly, way beyond the call of duty, chatting to me about wine in Napa valley when I spoke of my time in Bordeaux, talking about the differences between NYC and LA (side note: LA, apparently rocks), etc. I simply cannot accept the "better safe than sorry" excuse that is often touted to support this profiling. I travelled to London not that long before and I wasn't frisked and prodded to get into the country. Long live the Queen. The US as a nation is like a paranoid schizophrenic; seeing enemies everywhere and danger in everything. I have much to say about their foreign policies and the Military Industrial Complex but suffice to say that other countries that have been victims of terrorist attacks too, as London has been and Madrid and Mumbai, and those cities and those nations do not possess the same amount of crazy. 

It is not about the inconvenience of a five minute delay but the humiliation of being a suspect for nothing more than the amount of melanin in my skin. The "Othering". The making you fear for your safety. The silencing in the name of freedom. (I almost didn't write this a month after my trip to US, coz the NSA may be (definitely) reading it). 

Anywayz, read the article from Salon. And NSA, please please don't spy on me. I am just a geek who once had a mutton chop tache.

1  Moment of Madness

Adaptation

I was in New York a little while back and I did what New Yorkers do (in my imagination); lie lazily in Central Park between trips to the MoMA and Met, with a copy of New Yorker. I read among other things a glowing profile of John Green, an author, vlogger and all-round nerdfighter. I was beyond intrigued and bought a copy of his latest book 'The Fault in our Stars'. I read it in a day and I haven't wept so much in like forever (I think the last weeping was post-M heartbreak in 2008). And thus began an obsession with all things Green. 

However....

Returning from the TFioS screening, I have to share my disappointment. Don't get me wrong, they were true to the book but I felt like something was missing. You know how for instance they made the Harry Potter movies but made them like a bunch of muggles... without the magic and sense of wonder. I thought the movie lacked the soul of the book. 

Wait, Can books have souls? 

Un-shrugged

I am a book-lover and a book-snob. I admit it. I don't like Chetan Bhagat. I think he is a talentless hack. I could live with one more hack-author (hackthor) raking in the big money but what needles me is his fawning readership that look at every vacuous emission as an edict from the Writing-Gods. I understand that reading is a subjective experience but I do wish that folks are more discerning in their book choices. Surprising as it may sound, this post is not about Bhagat but another writer whose acolytes are legion; Ayn Rand. Though her philosophy and her writings have been eviscerated by critics, she surprisingly continues to win new readers in India (as does Mein Kampf). Part of the problem is that Indians of a particular generation (who went to universities in the 60s and 70s) belonged to the 'Atlas Shrugged' era. Hard as it is to imagine, it was the Twilight saga of that period. A transitional generation came to age reading Ms.Rand whose message of 'self' before 'society' resonated with the newly minted rebels. It was considered a rite of passage; a serious book that serious people read instead of Sidney Sheldon and Harold Robbins. Every generation is part of some Zeitgeist but the influence that Ayn Rand continues to exert over Indian youngsters seems to be because the Zeitgeist never ended; the original devotees handed the torch of the 'serious book' to the university student who enjoyed the titillation of the Danielle Steels and the Dan Browns but perhaps wanted not to be seen as a shallow fellow. The world had moved on and youngsters in other countries had all but forgotten Ayn Rand and it sure was no badge of honour having read her as say, reading Dostoevsky.  Still, Ayn Rand books proliferate, in railway platforms and streetside bookshops. And unsuspecting youngsters are hoodwinked into buying another copy of Atlas Shrugged for its social currency.

I want to suggest 10 books that could better serve the aspiring reader who wants to dip their toe in the vast ocean that is literature. Disclaimer: This is my list. It is not a list of my favourite books and it is not exhaustive (no David Foster Wallace or Vikram Seth) but it is a good start.

1. Farewell to arms by Hemingway
2. Things fall apart by Chinua Achebe
3. God of small things by Arundhati Roy
4. Midnight's children by Salman Rushdie
5. Catcher in the rye by Salinger
6. Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut
7. One hundred years of solitude by Garcia Marquez
8. Portrait of the artist as a young man by James Joyce
9. 1984 by George Orwell
10. The unbearable lightness of being by Milan Kundera

If I could include a few other books which while not quite "literature" are wonderful reads and a perfect stepping stone to my previous list, they'd be

1. Harry Potter series by JK Rowling
2. Lord of the Rings by Tolkien
3. Foundation series by Asimov
4. The fault in our stars by John Green

Go forth and read.

History of science

We were watching, of all the things, an episode of Cosmos when my friend remarked that Newton was so steeped in mysticism that if it weren't for the church we wouldn't have the great scientific breakthroughs that we did. I raised my eyebrows. Oh! one of these days I got to learn to smile, nod and walk away. He went on to aver that it is not just science, it was art, music and culture, the pillars of our civilisation and all modernity that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the church.

Take a deep breath! Don't pop that vein.

Barring the simple fact that art and culture and science have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus was born, that was a remarkably arrogant statement from a white boy who doesn't think that the rest of the world did anything of worth.

How do I say this without popping his western-centric bubble? People existed outside of Europe for millenia and some of these people weren't total savages. You know the scene where they scoop the brains out of the monkey head in Indiana Jones, that wasn't us. There were artists in the east; Japanese art for instance was so beautiful that it inspired artists like van Gogh. There were scientists in the east too; who for instance came up with numbers and they did things like Algebra. They also experimented with gun powder and rocket propulsion. Let's not forget the Egyptians and their long and rich history that included contributions like papyrus, written language and toothpaste .

But even if we were to assume that the non-western civilisations had nothing to offer, let us not forget that the Greeks pre-date JC by a few centuries. Aren't we forgetting Archimedes and Democritus, Parmenides and Plato? The establishment of Alexandrian library. If anything the establishment of the church delayed the ushering in of the modern era by a thousand years. The dark ages were called dark ages not for their fashion sense. Remember that the Greeks not only knew that the earth wasn't flat, Eratosthenes actually measured the circumference of the earth in 230 BCE.  The church, with the collapse of the Roman empire became the top dog and was almost entirely responsible for the intellectual regression. That somehow by supporting Galileo (which they didn't) or Newton or Michelangelo, the church simply conjured civilisation is such a pig-headed statement as to demand ridicule.

I asked if one were to imagine an alternate universe where everything was the same in the world except that JC was never crucified and died a bitter old man who yelled at children to get off his lawn and the church was never established, what would the world become. And my friend, who from this point on I should just call white guy, said that he wasn't sure that we would have Newton's discoveries or Michelangelo's paintings. I say BULLSHIT. Is is possible to imagine a world without great scientific progress because the church didn't build cathedrals and universities? Yes, absolutely. But is it likely? Hell, no!

Men and women have had great wonder at the natural universe since time immemorial. And each generation has built on the knowledge of the previous generations to ask the big questions and take the big leaps. Really, when Newton said that he was standing on the shoulders of giants, he didn't mean the church. He meant the hundreds and hundreds of scholars, thinkers, tinkerers that came before him and paved the way for him to do what he did. Galileo and Newton, Michelangelo and Bach were products of their time and because the church was a strong presence in their universe, their talents found expression in the manner it did.

That is not to deny that the church had a great influence in the works of the masters; merely that in the absence of the church the masters wouldn't have ceased to exist but have found expression through other institutions. To state that if not for theology, there wouldn't be science is a gross misunderstanding. The wonder and curiosity to find answers to the central questions of our existence and our place in the universe is a defining feature of our species. It is incidental that this found expression in a religious path. Without religion, we would simply have followed another path.

And for you who still believes that the sun shines off the church's arse, go read a book. Or go to a museum.

Rant over.

Sapio-philia

I find intelligence the most attractive trait in friends/ prospective partners. I get a hard on whenever someone impresses me with an amazing insight, intellectual ability or their scientific prowess. (Example: I saw this incredible comic exposition of the cosmic inflation that blew my mind today). I like people who are passionate about their work... and they are rare. Even among PhDs you tend to find few. Nothing is better than a long, very stimulating conversation that challenges my thinking. 

I was discussing my sapiosexuality with a like-minded friend. She described that the brain is likely the biggest sexually selected organ and that there is some scientific evidence that it purely evolved due to sexual selection (See earlier post). 

She needled me with a "What about all the other people that do not have the same reaction, but still do have a brain?". I kinda made a faux pas by saying that obviously there is no evolutionary advantage to having everyone be attracted to the same thing. I don't know if the "obviously" is what stuck her nerve but she countered my pronouncement with "The hypothesis of Fisherian run-away does exactly ask this and several studies show that there can be an advantage to being attracted to the same thing. Just think if a large brain means you are better at solving problems and thus finding food and securing a territory this will certainly increase your reproductive success". 

This friend was doing her PhD in evolutionary biology with a particular focus on sexual selection and my knowledge of evolutionary biology, given my engineering background, is limited to that one time I read Richard Dawkins during a long layover in Singapore airport. I was getting schooled (and I was loving it).

Ah! the plot thickens.

I defended myself that it is good from an evolutionary point to be interested in a variety of traits. Vague terms like Biodiversity, evolvability, and genetic variability come to mind. But to give a layperson example, I'd have thought that if all women were interested in nerdy guys who have never done a push-up in their life and the gene becomes dominant overshadowing all the gym-nut types, what would we do when there is a zombie upraising that requires some folks with muscular genes to run and drive stakes and cross-bow hunt them zombies. Oooh! bad example. That is essentially me saying that you are better off dating a muscular guy instead of me (Yes, I was hoping to date an evolutionary biologist). Terrible example. Strike that. Let's suppose that brawny-ness won the gene-survival fight and all the single nerdy men and women took their high IQ genes to their grave, what would we do when the computers develop consciousness and want to enslave the human race. Who will press Ctrl + Alt + Del.

And that boys and girls, is how it is done.

Update: Despite my charm, I didn't get a date with her. But that was mainly because she was an exchange student and has already left our shores for Europe. 

Subjective optimization

I am reading a book called "You are now less dumb" by David McRaney. Like Incognito, it is a brilliant work on the inner workings of the brain. It is so filled with Aha! moments that I am having Ahagasms. Repeatedly.

Take for instance, the section on subjective optimization. A couple of psychologists set up this study where a bunch of students enroll for a photography course. The instructor tells the students to take pictures of what they find the most memorable and beautiful moments of their university life and to showcase two of the best pictures from the lot. This is before the time of widespread use of digital cameras, smartphones, Instagram, etc. The students develop film rolls (you remember those things from the ancient past?). And this is where the scientists come with a  twist. They split the students into two groups. One group is asked to choose one of the two photos which will be printed out and given to the students as souvenir. The other photo will be left behind with the instructors (and they will have no copy of it). Essentially, the student has to pick photo A or photo B then and there and he or she gets to keep the picture they chose and not the other which is lost forever.

With the other group, the scientist offers the same choice between photo A and B but they get to take their time and even reverse their decision once it has been made.

A little whiles later, the two groups are asked about their choice. The group that was forced to make a pick instantly across the board expressed happiness about their pick. The lost photo was forgotten. They had settled for one and it was the right one. On the other hand, the group that was allowed time to choose were more likely to be unhappy about their choice and were filled with regret. Maybe they should have picked the other one. They wished that they could go back in time and change their choices.

As McRaney puts it, "Getting locked into a situation with no hope of escape activates subjective optimization", i.e. "seeing life as it is as being the best that it could be" . This great tool of the psychological immune system makes what you get stuck with seem better than that which you no longer can obtain. Scientists find that it is relatively very easy to induce subjective optimization in a lab setting; offer the participant a series of possible outcomes and rig the system to ensure that they get a crappy outcome and observe how that suddenly changes to a desirable outcome as if by magic.

The book further explores this topic with another study on song choices and I am sure there are plenty of research papers in this field. But the Aha! moment for me was that this explains the relative success of arranged marriages. The strictly confined choice of partner allows the mind to make metaphorical lemonade out of lemons. They are more likely to be happy with the person they are stuck with than a system where people are free to choose their partners (and change their minds). Folks who marry someone out of their volition will be more likely to rue their choice and wonder if they made a mistake by not choosing this girl or that guy from their past. That is not to argue for or against arranged marriage but one more piece of the puzzle falls into place. I understand it better.

Irony

Salon has an obsession with David Foster Wallace. So on April 13, they wrote DFW was right in saying that irony was ruining our culture. Quoting from his seminal essay “E Unibus Pluram,” "lazy cynicism has replaced thoughtful convictions as the mark of an educated worldview". And then two weeks later was an article titled, "What DFW got wrong about irony: Our culture doesn't have enough of it". Which was fair enough. Because the article was a response to the previous article and had an "irony" "expert" talk about what he read in DFW's article and if he agreed with him. After a bit of back and forth, it was concluded that DFW was calling out a special kind of  Institutionalised Irony, and that may be bad but irony can be sincere and we need this earnest irony.

If that was the end of it, one would have had an interesting if not illuminating take on irony both from its supporters and its naysayers. But no! Salon had another article this time about how Hannah Arendt understood irony and DFW didn't. And another one today about irony and Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Foster Wallace. 

It would be immensely satisfying if something he wrote over twenty years ago has some insight to offer us. But it is frustrating to see DFW's name get dragged on Salon every 2 weeks as entertainment or as some in the industry are calling it "click bait". I don't know if that would be an ironic usage of a dead writer's words. What would David Foster Wallace say?

Update: My version of a comment from Salon. Three things in life are certain; death, taxes and Salon name-dropping DFW every 2 weeks.

Cricket feminism

India is a rare country where there is gender-blindness (almost) when it comes to being ignored; male athletes are just as ignored as their female counterparts. Football and hockey thrives in small pockets of the country but for the most part if you are not playing cricket, which is the national opiate, then you can go screw yourself. That is where the money is and that is where the fans are. The IPL season is on and the attention of all the cricket fans in India is tuned to it. While the exploits of Dhoni and his men have captured the imagination of the country, the women are ignored. Unless you are Preity Zinta or Shakshi.

The women's cricket team of India has its fair share of success but don't get the media attention they deserve. But that is not unusual. Women's cricket doesn't have an international audience and one needs the fans to sell Cola and mobile phones. I believe that this is a moment to make something incredible for the female athletes in India. And it involves some structural changes to make women's cricket a spectator sport. The game could do with some modest modifications that would make the sport more accessible for female cricketers. Modifications such as changing the length of the pitch from 22 yards to 18 or 20 yards. The boundaries can also be shortened to 60 yards. I have not interacted with Anjum Chopra or any of the cricketers to see if that would make any difference but I would imagine that with some unorthodox changes (like the diameter of the ball), it is possible to make the sport more explosive. If it can generate new interest for wider audience, the sport will take off. Lessons learnt from Tennis, where the women's professional tennis is now just as closely followed as the men's can be used to bring in sponsors/ viewers. The hope is that cricket can be one of the channels of empowering women in a highly misogynistic society where young girls are told by their brothers and friends that they cannot play cricket with them. My dream is a mixed league tournament, where one or two members in each team in IPL is a female cricketer. Now that would be something.

Opinion

I had a spat with a cousin on Facebook about some of his posts. This is a recurring theme, where I pick on something he said and either he or one of our other cousins defend the original post or take issue with my comment. For instance, I remember there was an incident with Dhanush getting the National award and I got burned for asking if he deserved the award or if it was nepotism. I'll quickly mention that this is all in good spirits and we don't really "fight".

The present case is about a post he made about Chennai Super Kings at the beginning of the season.

The most over-rated 'aviyal' team in IPL is CSK...Yesteryear hitters with jaded bowlers!! What a combo...!!

Two 150 plus scores cannot be a good indicator for CSK. They made lot of changes in the last 2 games.

With controversies around, I would be surprised if this team finishes off in the first four.

This was a perplexing statement. Not because CSK have been successful over the years and been predictably consistent. I took issue because 

a. There were no yesteryear hitters in the team. Brendon (Baz) McCullum had just recently spanked the Indian team (and spanked them hard). There was Dwayne Smith who was at the peak of his career. Faf, Bravo, Dhoni, Raina, Jadeja who were all members of the current team and playing well. This statement could have been made in the previous years as the batting mainstay was post-retirement Hayden and later Hussey. But both players proved to be invaluable with the bat and beyond reproach.

b. The 'aviyal' team accusation was also baseless as they had a playing 11 consisting of 6 batsmen, 1 all-rounder and 4 bowlers. They didn't have bits and piece players, i.e. who were neither "proper" batsmen nor bowlers. Again, the statement could possibly be made previously as Bravo and Albie Morkel were not quite allrounders but could bat and bowl. Didn't Bravo win the purple cap for the most wickets last season?

c. They also didn't make many changes in their team and if anything the CSK team is notorious for sticking to their 11 and making far few changes when compared to the other teams.

d. It was too early to call the bowlers jaded as the bowling mainstay of Bravo/Ashwin/Jadeja had a lot of scalps last season and there were two exciting newcomers in Mohit Sharma and Ishwar Pandey. (Mohit played last season and performed admirably).

e. As for the controversies, it would be hard to say if it would affect team morale and thus the performance but being professional sportsmen, one imagines that the team would play to their best potential. It was more likely that the team would struggle with fitting the new players (Baz and Dwayne) as this was a new contract season. (And Bravo who got injured in the first game and might miss the rest of the season would be missed)

My point was that while it is true that CSK has a reputation to live up to and that opinion may differ about if that reputation was well-deserved, the analysis of the situation was completely factually wrong. It didn't look like my cousin was someone who read the game and knew anything about it. And I said so. Plainly. Without mincing words.

And then, CSK won 6 games on the trot. I didn't feel vindicated by their victory any less than I would have been devastated if they had lost. It wasn't about winning or losing or about my support for the team. It was about analysing the context of the game and making keen and insightful observations.

That would have been the end of it but CSK played Kings XI again and withered under the onslaught of Maxwell, Miller and Bailey. My cousin beamed over the loss, loudly exclaiming, "I told you so!"

I called him out and said that if he was going to talk cricket it would help to talk like someone who knew what he was talking about.

I don't know if he took offence but he posted

What I scribble here is my opinion and I do hope I am entitled to write in my own wall.

What you comment is your opinion and I agree you are entitled to provide on my opinion.

Call the Whambulance!!!! 

I replied that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. 

It is sad that it needs to be said. And this observation is not limited to cricket. Let me illustrate it with one of the other spats that we have had before.

Tamil writer Sujatha, according to my cousin, is the greatest science fiction writer. Or one of the greatest.

I took issue with that statement because in the pantheon of science fiction writers, from HG Wells to Ray Bradbury, Arthur Clarke to Asimov, Philip K Dick to Heinlein, Sujatha is an obscure writer who would be hard pressed to finish in the top 100. If Sujatha was alive today and the question was asked of him, he would agree. And not out of modesty. Sujatha was inspired by the golden age of science fiction (late 1930s to early 40s) and several of his works, for instance 'En iniya enthira' written in the late 80s echoed this. It wouldn't do to call him the greatest science fiction writer in Tamil. Because that is a lonely race. I don't know another prominent writer of science fiction in Tamil. That is not a testament to his prowess but a scathing rebuke of the science illiteracy and general apathy of the Tamil literary world. We are not just 50 years behind the times, we are regressing. This is why tawdry stuff like 'Enthiran' gets rave reviews when it is so full of utter horse-manure.

My point, apart from the observation that Tamil literature is in a death-sprial, is that he is entitled to his opinion. If for instance he had posted, "Sujatha is my favourite writer of science fiction", I cannot comment on it saying, "No, he is not". I could comment that there are some interesting authors with wonderful books that maybe he should check out. But that is about it. He cannot, however call him the greatest, and hide under the phrase, "in my opinion". Rajini is not the greatest actor. Rahman is not the best musician. Language matters, even if it is a post on Facebook. And for someone who is as prolific as he is, he should pay attention to it sometimes. (Doesn't mean one can't use satire, hyperbole, etc for comic effect)

If he had posted  "I hate CSK. I hope they lose. And CSK fans can suck my balls" - that would be an honest opinion. 

End of rant.

Meanwhile, some 3 million years ago

Some evolutionary psychologists have theorised that from a macro-evolutionary perspective, the human brain fits the profile of sexually-selected ornaments, like peacock feathers. Which suggests that way back in the paleolithic era geeks were sexy.

How I Met Your Mother

The show is over. It had its moments but the general consensus is that it should have ended 2 years ago. They dragged it and dragged it testing the patience of all those who had started watching the series from the beginning. And finally when they started wrapping up all the loose ends and gearing towards the finale, one expected that it could end with a bang and make up for all the busts. One would be so wrong. It sure was a disappointing ending.

*Spoiler alert*
The creators spent the better part of 3 seasons to show the transformation of Barney to a sensitive and loving guy and an entire season to the Barney-Robin wedding only to squander all of it and spend 4 minutes to say, "Robin and Barney split", "There is no 'the gang' anymore", "Ted and Mother lived happily for...waitforit... some time and then she died... you don't need to know of what" Oh well! there is Ted and Robin. Blue French Horn. Good bye.

I call Total BS

In other news, there is an alternative ending doing the rounds on the interwebs. Ted meets the Mother on the Farhampton platform and they find each other... Roll Credits. Now that was a decent ending.

Regulation

The Abbott government is releasing a Guide to Regulation. I had a sneak peak and this is breaking news people. Inside it was scrawled in red crayons "relugation = bad" and "bisness = good". Also a stick figure with giant blue penis. True story.

On Kieslowski

From Roger Ebert's review of Three Colours

We see him (the judge in 'Red') like so many of Kieslowski's characters, swimming upward through a suffocating life toward the possibility that hope still floats somewhere above.

I connect strongly with Kieslowski because I sometimes seek a whiff of transcendence by revisiting places from earlier years. I am thinking now of a cafe in Venice, a low cliff overlooking the sea near Donegal, a bookstore in Cape Town and Sir John Soane's breakfast room in London. I am drawn to them in the spirit of pilgrimage. No one else can see the shadows of my former and future visits there, or know how they are the touchstones of my mortality, but if some day as I approach the cafe, I see myself just getting up to leave, I will not be surprised to have missed myself by so little.

No wonder, Roger Ebert called him "one of the filmmakers I would turn to for consolation if I learned I was dying, or to laugh with on finding I would live after all".

On a side note: Juliette Binoche! I have nothing to add.

Prescience

That was how divorced from the human scale modern warfare had become. You could smash and destroy from unthinkable distances, obliterate planets from beyond their own system and provoke stars into novae from light-years off...and still have no good idea why you were really fighting.

- Consider Phlebas, Iain Banks

Questions

Read somewhere on the inter-tubes -

To ask what happened before the Big Bang is as pointless a question as asking where is the universe or what is outside the universe.

Something to ponder upon.

Manhattan project

Why is life worth living? It's a very good question. Um... Well, There are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. uh... Like what... okay... um... For me, uh... ooh... I would say... what, Groucho Marx, to name one thing... uh... um... and Wilie Mays... and um... the 2nd movement of the Jupiter Symphony... and um... Louis Armstrong, recording of Potato Head Blues... um... Swedish movies, naturally... Sentimental Education by Flaubert... uh... Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra... um... those incredible Apples and Pears by Cezanne... uh... the crabs at Sam Wo's... uh... Tracy's face...

- Woody Allen in Manhattan

Post-apartheid Jo'burg

More than 20 years since apartheid was abolished, and Johannesburg still feels like (and is) a divided city. I was staying in a white suburb with 10 feet walls, electrified fences, boom gates, 24 hour patrols, the works. Decided to go for a walk to a nearby park and got stopped by a patrol car. The security guy wasn't rude as much as puzzled - "Why would you go walking about? This is Jo'burg".

I was in the city centre and decided to go for a short walk around the market place (against my host family's instructions to never leave the hop-on hop-off city tour bus). I must have been about for half an hour and I don't think I saw one white fella.

Well! in some ways it is not racially divided so much as economically divided. All cities have this inequity; amazing wealth right next to abject poverty and squalor. The contrast is just more visible here. And the Haves just happened to be white for the most part.