On chaotic systems

This article on deterministic chaos is a nice introduction to the concepts behind it.

The main point here is that -  a system is deterministic if its current state completely determines how it will behave in the future. A simple pendulum is not chaotic and its motion can be described by a simple equation. A double pendulum on the other hand is a chaotic system where the motion of the system is extremely sensitive to changes in the initial conditions. This is the essence of non-linearity: effects are no longer proportional to causes and even small causes can produce large effects.

The most famous illustration of this is the "butterfly effect" described by Lorentz while studying the equations that determine the weather. The weather is a chaotic system where outcomes are strongly dependent on the initial conditions. The tiniest fluctuations in air pressure in one part of the globe may have the most spectacular effects in another part. Thus, a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Chicago may cause a tornado in Tokyo.


I present all of this to suggest that astrology is a predictive  model of a chaotic system. They rely on initial conditions (with birth time and location of various planets and constellations) and work on the assumption that small changes in the initial condition can have large effects on the life of the individual.

But there is more to these systems that that. Chaotic systems come in two shapes (source: Sapiens: A brief history of humankind). The weather, for example, is a level one chaotic system. Level one chaos is chaos that does not react to predictions about it.  Though it is influenced by myriad factors, we can build computer models that take more and more of them into consideration, and produce better and better weather forecasts.

Level two chaos is chaos that reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can never be predicted accurately. Markets, for example, are a level two chaotic system. What will happen if we develop a computer program that forecasts with 100 per cent accuracy the price of oil tomorrow? The price of oil will immediately react to the prediction and would consequently fail to materialise. (The mere act of predicting affects the outcomes)


Life, like markets are level two chaotic systems and the mere act of knowing your prediction based on horoscope reading immediately alters the system, rendering the prediction meaningless.

In defence of astrology against snakeoil salesmen

In continuation of the de-bunking of the astrology is pure science myth of the previous episode, I spent a sleepless night imagining what a logically sound explanation for the origin and prevalence of astrology might be. I do not claim to be the first to come up with the theory that I present below but I reckon that this could be the "science" behind astrology.

Evolutionary psychology, a branch of science that attempts to explain the origin of particular mental and psychological traits as the functional products of natural selection, shows that two important natural tendencies in humans are results of evolutionary pressures; namely,  

1.  agency (an event is caused by someone) and
2.  pattern recognition  

These traits are not confined to human species but we can understand the development and strengthening of these traits by imagining the forager experience. The first, agency, was essential for human survival as a threat identifier – you hear leaves rustle, you think there is a predator or competitor in the bushes. All early apes who thought that it was probably the wind got eaten quite rapidly. From a survival point of view, it is better to mistake the wind to be a lion, rather than the other way round. So this leads to a fairly basic heuristic – all things that happen are caused by someone.

Similarly, it is easy to imagine the need for pattern recognition. Humans do not develop pattern recognition because they are so special but rather because they aren’t. Home sapiens have not yet become the apex predator that he is now and is in the middle of the food chain. Pattern recognition, such as the hour at which deer or other prey goes to a particular watering hole or the location of predator territory are all basic survival strategies and are therefore adaptive. Adaptive traits gets passed along to the next generations, just like physiological traits such as opposable thumbs. Given that the early humans who are still hunter-gatherers have these tools in their toolbox helps them in their transition to farmers. It should be noted that modern anatomically correct homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old but the beginning of farming is relatively recent – 11,000 years ago, representing just over 5% of the history of mankind.

The origin of pattern recognition as a predictive tool becomes even more essential for the farmer as his survival depends on knowing when is the right time to plant or harvest the newly domesticated crops. The passage of time which were basically separated as day-night and hot-cold needs further classification. The calendar is born and months and seasons are carefully divided to maximise their yield. But unpredictable events such as floods, droughts, pestilence occur fairly regularly. Here is where the adaptive traits of agency and pattern recognition result in the formation of certain beliefs – floods are caused by flood-gods and droughts by drought-gods. And appeasing these pagan gods with sacrifices (usually human sacrifices) results in the alleviation of their sorrow. Basically the heuristic is that I sacrificed a virgin at the altar of the flood god and three days later, the rains stopped. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. Confusing correlation to causation is one of the logical deficiencies intrinsic to the otherwise adaptive traits.Just because one observes a pattern does not necessarily mean that a pattern (with causal link) exists.

Simultaneously a predictive model however simplistic is born out of the hard-wired pattern recognition algorithm. The humans who had already become accustomed to marking the passage of time with celestial movements (sun marks day and night, lunar phase marks a month, etc) notice that particular human events occur after certain celestial events. The most famous example being comets, which were seen as harbingers of death and destruction (up until Newton and Halley). So, a simple model is developed – When planet A is in position B, x occurs.  This model is validated when the next time the planet is in the same position, x occurs again. Of course this doesn’t mean that the location of planet had caused the event to occur but merely that they were simultaneous. However, the model is brought to question, when the planet comes to position B the next time and x does not occur. The question then is what is different this time. Then one of the elders points that though planet A  is indeed in position B, planet C which used to be position D (when the event did occur) has now moved to position E (and the event did not occur).

Thus the model is updated at each instance that a given combination of inputs does not produce the expected outcome resulting in increasing complexity. More and more terms added to the equation. A simple three-body interdependent problem will yield

A1x1 + A2x2+ A3x3 + B1x1x2 + B2x1x3 + B3x2x3 + C1x1x2x3

It is like a Fourier series - the more terms you add the more complex and (probably) more accurate. We can therefore understand the sun signs system as a first order approximation, lunar sign system as a quadratic system. And each time we add a planet we increase the order of complexity.

We have what can be described an emergent phenomena where simple rules gives rise to an ordered behaviour in what is a complex, even chaotic system (some notes on deterministic and chaotic systems in next post). Then, predicting what is fundamentally an unpredictable multivariate phenomenon – the future of an individual - is analogous to the prediction of  planetary motion based on simple rules such as gravity. Astrology, then becomes  a predictive model not based on a causal relationship with position of stars - it is an analogous relationship. That is, two complex systems that are equally unpredictable can be solved with same algorithm. By studying the motion of celestial bodies, we study human behaviour -  as long as we can assume that the external and internal pressures in a multi body problem are analogous. Just as planets exert gravitational forces on each other, we can suppose that an individual has pressures and influences of different members of family, society, past, present and future. The planets are incidental to the prediction of the future. One could arguably use Game theory and computer programming to create a model of vectors of numerous interdependent variables to create an analogue but our ancestors did not have those luxuries. Instead they used the only analogue that they had access to and developed a phenomenological model based on observations of celestial phenomena that they updated or fine-tuned over at least 2000 years.  So one believes in astrology not because it is an exact science but because it is an iterative numerical model that has been around for long and has gone through enough iterations to be presumed accurate.

And that is the historical and scientific story of astrology that one could arguably use to believe in it.

But…

This version of history is not conducive for astrologers or the faithful. Firstly, it is important to understand that the democratisation of astrology is a recent phenomenon – astrological models were developed to predict large natural phenomenon. It is the same problem as using macro-economic models to predict individual behaviour. It simply doesn’t work. One can make fairly accurate predictions of populations of people but the models weren’t meant to and aren’t good to predict if I will impulse-buy a purple jumper on a Saturday afternoon in May next year. It is like the climate models that show global temperatures increasing over a period of years. One cannot use those models to predict if it will rain tomorrow. And the models aren’t technically disproved if you have a cold winter.

The second problem is of course that doing penance or visiting a temple dedicated to a particular planet is not going to make the planet forgive your sins or allow you to buy the Mini Cooper that you have always wanted. So the predictive models, while interesting intellectual exercises are not prescriptive. There is no ‘do this and everything will be fine’. Unfortunately.  We live in an indifferent universe. This is our future. The future is uncertain for the most part and the only thing we have is the now, this moment. And to spend this precious moment on hypothetical futures is futility. We could succeed. We will fail at times. We might be happy. We will be sad. Yes, Fear and especially the fear of the unknown is a strong emotion  and knowledge (however imperfect) can empower us. But it can just as easily lead us to fatalistic despair.  The only certainty is that we will definitely die. We will be forgotten. To quote one of my favourite authors’ view on oblivion -  “There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did and built and wrote and thought and discovered will be forgotten and all of this will have been for naught. Maybe that time is coming soon and maybe it is millions of years away, but even if we survive the collapse of our sun, we will not survive forever. There was time before organisms experienced consciousness, and there will be time after. And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it“  

Also, some infinities are bigger than other infinities.

In defence of science against the astrology snakeoil salesmen

It all started when my father ill-advisedly sent me this article on astrology

The crux of the argument was that astrology was pure science and that any failings that are there in the predictive capability is because the astrologer is not skilled at handling the complex calculations. This in itself is an old bit of excuse and it wouldn't have made any impact on me. But the author mentions things like neutrinos and tidal tugs and pissed me off enough to respond. In excruciating detail.

I would posit that whether astrology has physical basis or not, it is not a science. Even granting that the bulletproof argument that any failings that astrology has is not the fault of astrology but the imperfections of astrologer. 

Words have meanings. science has a very strict definition. Primary of these definitions of what makes science science is 'repeatability'. If I make the claim that the perforation force of a glass fibre sandwich composite is 5000 N (with s.d of 200 N), it means that if I test another composite plate tomorrow I expect it to be 5000 N. Another of the primary characteristics of science is user-independence. If my claim cannot be verified by another scientist using his equipment in another lab, then my claim is pretty useless. If the other scientist finds a perforation force of 2000 N, I can't with a straight-face say, "I am still right". Another feature of science is 'provability or disprovability'. If I make a claim that an unknown ray with unknown attributes is causing things to happen in unknown ways, but it is totally true, then it is not science. 

So even if we accept for arguments' sake that cosmic background radiation and neutrinos are perfect predictors of human destiny and the only problem is that we don't have capable astrologers to do all the math correctly, it still doesn't follow that astrology is science. believe, don't believe - i really don't care as long as you call it something else but science. 

And please don't joke around with terms like neutrinos or tidal tugs. sure to non-physicists these strategically placed jargon give the aura of true science but last time i checked the Higgs-Boson field does not cause tidal tugs on brains to emit neutrinos. here is more jargon to make your head spin - quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter. Tachyons. Midichlorians.

Just so you know that I am not just being 'close-minded', I'll tell you what will make me a true believer. Let Nature, Science or The Astrophysical Journal publish an article that they have measured xrays, gamma rays, cosmic rays or whatever to affect the course of our lives because of the moment of our birth, I will, after critically reading those articles and not finding any leaps of faith, accept the scienciness of astrology. Well, I might even consider his arguments if Shivakumar can give me the link to the extraordinary claim that he has made (technically he has pointed that someone else has made a claim) that gravitational tugs has a measurable impact on brain of foetus. I regularly browse recent developments in cognitive neuroscience and I have friends who work in some of the best labs in the world on neural imaging. I have not heard of any scientific research that proves anything close to a done deal. In fact, I have spent the last hour on scientific databases and I can't find the research that they are referring to. 

So, what would take an open-minded person like you to question the validity of astrology?

Aurora

"There is no Planet B" - Kim Stanley Robinson makes an impassioned argument that if we wreck earth, we may not have another planet to live in. BTW, I finished reading his novel 'Aurora' and I think it was the best book of 2015. Guardian review of Kim Stanley Robinson's Aurora agrees.

To quote this review of this sci-fi masterpiece:
terraforming new worlds proves much harder than fixing the environmental problems of our own beautiful planet – although we seem to be finding it difficult to do even that simple thing.

Star Wars - Force snoozes

Not only was the new Star wars movie disappointing in its lack of ambition, re-watching Episode 1 now, I think George Lucas got a raw deal for the prequels. Sure Jar Jar Binks is ridiculous but he is no more annoying than C3PO.

Active learning

You're innocently walking down the street when aliens zap away the sensory neurons in your legs. What happens?
a) Your walking movements show no significant change.
b) You can no longer walk.
c) You can walk, but the pace changes.
d) You can walk, but clumsily.

A look at how active learning is transforming education, particularly in the sciences.

Incompatibility

One of my cousins wrote this on Facebook:

When any black kid is beaten the racist police in USA,
When a colored Argentinian was shot by UK police,
when a cranky preacher planted bombs in Tokyo subway,
When the Russian military ran over innocent women and kids in Hungary,
When the Chinese tanks crushed students.......
No one talked and linked such barbaric incidents with their science and technology efforts ...
I don't know how digital India gets clubbed with the inhuman act at UP. The buffoons who link it either have hidden agenda or have their brains stapled to their posterior.

Notwithstanding the danger of being considered a buffoon, my reply to his post:

I agree that some politicians are making hay but it is not right to dismiss this as an invalid argument. During the height of the Apollo missions, civil rights activists rightfully argued that there was a fundamental incompatibility between a society in the brink of putting a man on the moon and a society where some of its inhabitants were second class citizens. So it is not something altogether unheard of. Pointing out this mismatch is a narrative platform while not giving the entire picture presents an important link of the jigsaw puzzle. That a government that is proud of its progressive agenda, atleast when it comes to technology, still subscribes to an outdated and inhuman system is cause for concern. And commentary. It is the same unease one feels when immense poverty coexists in otherwise rich countries.

The link between technological accomplishments and societal malaise is the people. Why shouldn't someone who takes great pride on Sundar Pitchai becoming a CEO because he was born in your region not feel shame for some guy from your country doing a heinous act? Why is he the outlier, a lone nut, a bad apple? Where is the ownership? Sundar's success is a reminder of how awesome Indians are but this guy's lynching is just this guy lynching? Where is taking good with the bad? Indian society, particularly the Hindu right cannot insulate itself from criticism. Oh btw, to claim that other countries don't have enough self-awareness, while factually true, does nothing more than proffer a weak excuse. I am sorry, but the sign of a culture in decline is the reluctance for self-examination.

All for a peck in the cheek

The burning embers of your eyes, my love

sun and moon, become

The blackness of your eyes, my love

the dark night enlivened

Diamonds scattered in your silk robe

the star studded night sky

Oh! and your smile

radiant as a flower blossoming

Your heaving bosom

like crashing waves

The sweetness of your voice

Soul-stirring bird song

Thou art a forest goddess my darling

and love fills me to the brim.

Talk not of traditions to me, my love

My passion, it cares but little for laws

If elders blessings we must seek

rites we shall perform

But patience fails me, my love

Perhaps a quick peck on the cheek.

- My translation of Bharathi's Suttum vizhi chudar

Black lives matter -Explained

Over at the intertubes, one redditer had a wonderful way of explaining racial inequality and the need for a 'Black lives matter' movement. I quote the full text (with minor edits), so you don't have to visit Reddit and spend the better part of 6 hours jumping from one sub-reddit to another.

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society. The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way... Societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case.

In summary, saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

Homeopathy

There was a report published by NHMRC Australia that found, "Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness."

It is surprising to believe that in this day and age that people flock to this pseudoscience but then people have always been enamored by snake oil salesmen with their panaceas. It is shocking though that some in the medical research community, *cough* my father *cough cough*, continue to defend practices such as homeopathy. Let me reassure you, dear reader, that I have no skin in this game. I am not paid by big pharma and if there is a global conspiracy to discredit homeopathy, I haven't been receiving their newsletters. 

There are two ways to approach the problem of effectiveness of a health system; the social sciences approach and the scientific way. The social sciences approach is simply to ask people who have used a medical treatment if they thought it was effective in curing them.  One of the pillars of the argument for homeopathy seems to be based on this "It worked for so and so". Clearly this is a tempting proposition. But fraught with danger. For one, it will almost entirely miss the "Didn't do a damn thing to me" demography. That is, if we are predisposed to believe in a treatment, we'll remember all the people who claimed that it worked and don't count the people who have had partial or no success with this approach. Call it confirmation bias. This works just as well for the opposite view. Say I am skeptical about a particular medicine, then I am bound to remember the negative reviews than the positive ones. 

Researchers can work to control this bias in their studies. If a questionnaire was sent to a hundred people asking what they thought of kittens, you can bet that the people who take the time to respond will be predominantly cat-lovers. This selection bias can be accounted for in a study but the layperson who says that they heard from their sister that her friend's mom had a colleague whose niece suffered from asthma which was miraculously cured when they went to a homeopath.... not so much.

The scientific method would be to look at the theory behind the medicine and try to understand the mechanisms by which they cure the disease. For instance, to say that chemical compound A has effect X on organ Y which releases a secretion of  Z which results in reduction of a particular symptom. The problem that scientists have with homeopathy is because this particular line of enquiry yields terrible results. Homeopaths make claims about "water memory" or "super-dilution" that have been tested and the results show that the active ingredient in the "medicine" is so minuscule that it cannot actually effect change in the human body. That is, there is no difference between a sugar pill with no trace of active ingredient and a real pill with a one-thousandth trace of the active ingredient. 

(Side note: western medicine has a similar problem sometimes, when scientists are not able to trace all the causal links and have to say that they don't know which reaction causes particular symptom to vanish but it does. Yes, we don't know everything but the body of knowledge is growing and we are understanding things that we didn't before)

So, why does homeopathy seem to work? It could just be the placebo effect or it could be more complex than that. Many complimentary medical treatments talk about holistic medicine and demand changes in the lifestyle choices of the patient. For instance, the homeopath may demand that you give up meat during the treatment. Or to go on early morning walks. Or breathing exercises. These may allow the natural immunity of the body to fight back and get better. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. 

It is important to note that the claim that a homeopathic medicine works (it does not and from what we know about chemistry, it cannot) is debunked but they may still have value as lifestyle gurus. Governments and medical institutions have an obligation to call them out for what they are, so that the unsuspecting public may make informed decisions. The NHMRC report is a step in the right direction.

The blind leading the blind

What do you make of Chetan Bhagat, considering he's often credited to have gotten more and more Indians to read through his books?

I don't know. Is it that you write third rate books and people can't do much better than to read those third rate books? Is it really an achievement? What is the achievement exactly?

We can't count Chetan Bhagat as an airport novelist. He's not an airport novelist -- he apparently writes about important, relevant things. In other countries when they are having kind of a moment in which they are writing about significant things, you see some great literature come out. Chetan Bhagat is not great literature. 

...

Chetan Bhagat doesn't find an audience because no one outside India can read him. He might just be a symptom of the fact that in English, India is basically a semi-literate country and Chetan Bhagat is the best it can do.

It doesn't seem to me that we need to look for a deeper explanation.

- Aatish Taseer

Human engineering

Read this awful article on a magazine called NewPhilosopher, where the author, Clive Hamilton, scoffed at the idea of human engineering. His article was a rebuttal of sorts to a paper by three bio-ethicists who published a paper titled, "Human engineering and climate change", where they discuss possibilities such as genetic engineering. One of the methods they discuss is genetic modification to obtain night vision (like cats) which would absolve the need for street lights. (I personally think that is an inspired idea)

I can't believe that the NewPhilosopher outright scoffed at the idea going so far as to calling it bizzare and laughable.  They write "Why not genetically modify people to make them white in order to cool the Earth by increasing its reflectivity?" - It's like they haven't even heard of reductio ad absurdum

He writes, "...the question of why anyone who is unwilling to buy a smaller car or switch to green power would be willing to genetically engineer their children".

Why is human engineering so absurd? Because it wouldn't work. So are a lot of plans of reducing emissions, but you wouldn't laugh at a guy who proposes smaller cars.

Of course some bio ethicists are going to write a paper saying what if the choice is between total annihilation and reinventing ourselves as a species . We know that in the past when threatened with extinction, various species have adapted by growing big, growing small, getting a hard shell, etc. One of evolutions tricks is that the size of humans will decrease over several generations if there is a resource drought.The problem is that humans may not have the luxury of waiting for hundreds of thousands of years to develop gills or something to adapt to new earth. So, perhaps human engineering and gene manipulation will not be optional. We will come to a time when changing a lightbulb is not going to be enough to save the human species and drastic changes, including some forms of human engineering will be necessary. You don't wait until after it becomes a reality to talk about the ethics of it. What can we do, what should we not. These discussions should happen now. And in magazines that call themselves NewPhilosopher. (What kind of a magazine are they, really?)

If Clive Hamilton can do nothing to contribute to this conversation but point fingers and sneer, maybe he should be sent to the naughty corner. No cat eyes for you.

I have a dream

The internet is an amazing place. This is what someone called Ian McLean wrote on a Youtube post by Hank Vlogbrother Green.

Dream interpretation isn't really a thing, scientifically speaking. There are some theories, but all we're really sure of is that your dreams often (though by no means always) reflect stuff you've been thinking about in the last couple of days. I prefer to think that when you're asleep, you brain basically plays video games using your memories as source material. So, sometimes, it's playing Road Simulator. And then you dream about being a road. Probably not that often, though. Road Simulator isn't a very good game.

Holiday fatigue - Politics edition

As anyone who has spent a month-long holiday with their parents knows, they sure do drive you nuts. It is not just their waking up at god-awful hours and pottering about (which they do) but every thing. EVERY THING. Take for instance, my father's views on Modi, the rockstar prime minister of India:

1. He is the first guy to really talk 'Change' and he is/will be a transformational figure.
2. People should not criticise him because you have to give the guy a chance.
3. And really, even if he doesn't manage to change anything, it is not his fault because a. he is just one man and he has to deal with a party of old-timers and b. the system is broken.

This "true believer" logic is unbreakable. He will change everything. But even if he doesn't, it is not him but others. And shut up.

What annoys me the most about this fanboy-ness (which everyone is entitled to - refer: John Green / I am giddy as a school girl) is the sort of I-am-above-this-ness that comes with it. Instead of admitting that yes, I fell for Modi hook line and sinker and think that he is the second coming of our Lord and Saviour, one poses as someone who doesn't have any skin in the game. I am just an objective observer and ye shall bow before my pronouncements.

The response and I have to admit that I hardly had the patience to be so clear is:

1. There have always been and will always be politicians campaigning on hope and change. Refer Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama for two of the most recent examples. This is because people want change and they want hope that things will change. And it is not cynical to suggest that politicians want to sell them exactly that. If people want puppy sized elephants, you can bet your ass that the politician will campaign on how he always supported puppy sized elephants and free puppy sized elephants for all.

2. Just as it is valid that people do not criticise Modi before he has had a chance to do anything, it is perfectly acceptable, why, even necessary, that he be not praised for something that he has not achieved. To be fair to the guy, the higher the pedestal, the further he falls.

And we don't need people shushing the naysayers. Firstly there are too few of them compared to the vocal and loud supporters. Secondly, some of the naysayers are not actually naysayers but just wait-a-minuters, who are merely asking a question about some tall claim or talking about actual policy positions. We need more people to criticise and question the government to have any sort of balance with the unbirdled euphoria of the yesmen.

3. I have some sympathy for the politician who promises the sky and can't deliver. Obama peddled hope and change and he turned out to be a big nothing. His meagre achievements are only partially due to the corrupt system or intransigent opposition. There is a lot of inertia built into the political process such that no one person can either do great harm or great good. But there is no fun in campaigning that I will be better than average president. But it is important that one has the ability to call out the emperor when he has no clothes. The "true believer" is a problem because he sees everything through the prism of his hero-worship; my leader is pure and unimpeachable but it is the others. We also saw the Democrats switch their positions from "Bush is an evil war-criminal to wiretap on citizens" to "Sometimes it is necessary to kill our own citizens because Obama says so".

Well! at the end of the day, Meh!

Also this

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