some say smoking pot is seeing god. or metallica.or jessica alba in a g-string. or sachin tendulkar. how about a successful meeting? more specifically, a successful presentation(in a meeting, of course). here is the inside from a meeting, where the cast is a couple of graduate students, an old and really smart professor, and some visiting scholars.
time: the ungodly hours of friday evenings.
projector hums. pen drives hum and hum and hum and yes, windows finally finds the damn thing.
professor comes in, with a rush, says hi. sits. says something and wants the presentation to start.
student 1: very serious. keen. incisive report. remarkably clear to the grad students. visiting scholars are mildly surprised. professor pats the student for his report. done.
student 2: serious. bad references. wait, trouble. the rule is, the scholars go for the kill first. but this is not that bad, the professor asks a couple of questions. student answers uncovincingly. professor sighs. student exhales. its done!
student 3: first slide. offset name. title typo. layout is bad for reading. size of the font is small. the template is not the standard one that is used.the name shouts all these mistakes out loud, and claims responsiblity, and the student is ready to shoot himself on seeing this. the prey is ready. second slide. i would like to explain the objecti...
stop...says the professor.
have you ever felt your heart stop? when you almost got hit by the thug on the road?when the cops just flagged you to stop when you coolly drove down the one way street, just before pongal? when you first saw the girl's awesome whatever? when india needed two runs of the last ball to win a match again pakistan for the world cup?when you were young and got lost in a crowd? when you proposed and waited for the girl's answer? none of it rivals this. the professor just said stop.by way of being professors, they are very meticulous at butchering-when they are ready with the cleavers, not even an ounce of flesh of your carcass is going to hell when they are done. slowly, but steadily, everyone is the room is aware of the tension. of the fact that you are dead. and much worse than that. but, just a trivial question from the professor. you can heat an entire building with the steam the student blows off now. and continues. but, the presentation proceeds to take an ugly turn, and it heads directly into the dungeons and every hair on the student's body is at right angles to his skin. the final slide-
professor is saying: "quote some reasonable references that makes sense, and not rubbish".
student is listening:"go to buckeye donuts, they have the best ones in town"
professor : "i am not really satisfied with this"
student:"hugs and kisses to everyone in america, i am done"
and then, free air awaits, along with more work, and more presentations!!
I recently watched the documentary series "Walking with Dinosaurs", "Walking with Beasts", "Walking with Monsters" and "Walking with Cavemen", in which, as is obvious from the title(s), prehistoric creatures/early hominids are made to prance about their environments, in scenarios created by palaeontologists/anthropologists, concerning social behaviour and all that other biological baggage that comes when dealing with extinct beings. My personal favourite in the series is the "Walking with Beasts" one- it's got an epic intro!
So of course ( I dunno whether this is a good habit or bad), it set me off thinking- What if- hypothetically speaking, we all die out in the next million years and some millions of generations later, some other intelligent form of life digs our bones up? What sort of questions would they ask? Would they unravel all the unpleasantness in the world right now/ before now? Will they be able to look at our petrified bodies, now entombed in stone and find out why there are mass graves in some areas of the world? Can they find any evidence of our complex social interactions- one that uniquely defines us as human?
I thought, you know, "Let's have a look at we humans/palaeontologists/anthropologists do". So consider this example- a dinosaur has been excavated (now we are pseudo palaeontologists) and it is a relatively common dinosaur- say, an "Allosaurus" or an "Iguanodon". After all the usual examination of the fossilized skeleton and taking cross sections of these bones to see internal bone structure and all that, palaeontologists look to scan and make a 3-D image or even find a fossilized bit of the brain (Usually they find fossilized dung more easily than they find fossilized brain). Using the brain model, they compare it to several other extant species, whose brains are similar and then try to deduce behaviour. So, "Allosaurus" has a brain similar to that of a crocodile and was built similar to a bird (look at a pigeon, if you don't believe me- or better, go to the Jurong Bird Park and see a few ostriches). Therefore, looking at what diseases the skeleton shows and how the bones have healed after a fracture and many more bits and bobs, they can build up a picture of its life.
So, let us have a look at what those creatures, a million years from now, having found our bodies would do, if humans die out. Now I dunno if they would be able to find many of our inventions- unless a river overflows and covers a town in mud and silt, they would have a poor understanding of our system of government and all that... But let’s suppose that they do find these things- towns and all that- and it presents a unique set of problems; the rate of technological advancement in man is staggering- it’s an ex curve with respect to time and if they find a Roman town and maybe Singapore, they may show similar dates on the radio carbon dates- what would they make of that? Would they discover that the Romans had poisoned their air with lead with their lead mines and we, now poison our air using CO2. What would they make of that? Would they attribute these changes in chemicals to a “natural process”? And both Singapore and Italy lie close to plate boundaries on the Earth.
Let the opposite be true. Let the future beings not find our towns and cities, and bits of our civilization. What would they picture us as? There would be no apes to compare us with, as we are on our way to destroy the apes before we die out anyways- would they used future monkeys for behavioural reference? Would they adduce that we swung from trees, in the buff, making weird “oogie oogie” noises, eat lice as a part of grooming and fight over bananas? Would we be seen as the equivalent of the great migratory herds of odd- toed and even- toed ungulates (cattle, horses, pigs, deer etc etc) that populate the plains and not the apex predators that we really are? Would they believe us to be something that we aren’t? And that produces a more pertinent question- given that most DNA is destroyed during fossilization, how do we know we are right when it comes to predicting behaviour of animals that have maybe around 85-95% of their DNA matching with extant species (even make it 98%, that’s the amount of DNA a chimp shares with us- we just aren’t the same, are we?)?
The following are the questions posted on "The Financial Times" undercover economist. I swear I have not read anything funny of this sort on the most serious topic which is economics. As we know economist are very serious people because they are usually involved in making money. Anyway, kindly read the Q&A.
Q) I believe that there is an inexplicable shortage of sex. Given that studies show that women and men enjoy it more than most other activities, and given its intrinsically low cost, it appears that even a crude approximation of a utility-maximising person would probably spend much more time having sex than most. Do you know of any economic discussion of this?
A) It is true that there is something puzzling about the lack of sex in the world. Everybody says they enjoy sex, you can do it fairly safely for the price of a condom, and all you need is somebody of the appropriate gender and sexual preference. How difficult can it be?
Economics professor and blogger Tyler Cowen has offered an embarrassment of possible explanations. In the spirit of perfect competition between economic pundits I suggest that you need fewer answers.
We need just two complementary theories, one to explain the all-night-long sex that couples aren’t having as much of as they should; and the other to explain the casual sex that strangers should be having with each other, and aren’t.
For couples, it’s surely a case of diminishing returns. Just because the average utility of sex is high, doesn’t mean that the marginal utility of more sex is also high. I enjoy sex but I am no longer a teenager and, to be blunt, it takes me days to reload. For strangers, the risk of rejection, violence or social condemnation seems very high. In groups where these risks are lower (gay men, students, hippies) my theory predicts that more sex should be going on.
There is a simpler explanation, though: everybody is having constant, guilt-free sex. They just haven’t told the economists.
Q) I recently noted that I only really fancy my girlfriend after I’ve had a few drinks. Is this relationship worth pursuing?
A) I know how you feel: I only fancy chips with mayonnaise. Sadly for my waistline, my relationship with chips has not suffered. You are saying that like chips and mayonnaise, alcohol and your girlfriend are complementary goods. I am not sure this is a problem.
It might be a problem if your predicament were unusual. It is not. Many people have found that alcohol has aphrodisiac qualities.
Of course, it is easy to drink more alcohol than is good for you, but there should be no need for worry. The government advises that the average man should drink no more than three to four “units” of alcohol. Since the typical British couple claims to make love every three days or so, you should be able to lubricate yourself appropriately without putting too much strain on your liver.
It seems to me that there is one cause for concern: your girlfriend must never suspect that you need to don the beer goggles to find her appealing. Drinking is commonplace in our culture, so you shouldn’t find it hard to camouflage the limits of your infatuation. Just don’t do anything stupid, such as discussing it in the pages of a national newspaper.
Q)Why do most of us iron our clothes, when we are untidy in so many other ways?
A)There is an obvious difference between an immaculate shirt and an immaculate sitting room: you get to enjoy the aesthetic benefits of tidying your living space, but not – unless you spend a lot of time in front of the mirror – the aesthetic benefits of your own clothes.
After all, how many of you can honestly say you haven’t sailed through the day, only to discover that you have spinach between your teeth and you forgot to brush your hair? The horror is apparent to everyone but you.
So why do we care more about other people’s enjoyment of our tidiness than our own? It is not a matter of selflessness: we try to make a good visual impression because it will bring us wealth, status and, we hope, a bit of sex, too.
But a second question arises: why are we judged on appearances? It might be intrinsically satisfying to have a well-dressed boyfriend, but there is nothing fundamentally less productive about a scruffy accountant. Evidently, the tie is important because employers believe it is correlated with diligence and talent.
If this is true, we would expect to see the largest premium on snappy dressing in professions where there are few other effective ways to evaluate performance. Estate agents and management consultants are sharply dressed in the absence of more convincing guides to their competence.
In professions where talent is more obvious, this façade is not needed. That is why when I scan the Financial Times office, neatly pressed shirts and blouses are hard to find.
Q) I have just joined a dating website in the hope of finding true love. Friends of mine have started dating someone they met online, only for a “better offer” to arise on the website. If this happens, what should I do?
A)Internet dating allows more offers to be considered, so the tried-and-tested rules of thumb may no longer be appropriate. It might seem natural simply to consider how many offers you must sample until you are likely to meet “Ms Right”. That would be naive. You must instead balance the benefits of choice against the effect your flightiness may have on your targets.
These decisions are much like those faced by a company choosing the optimal number of suppliers. Dealing with more suppliers allows the company to choose the cheapest and best. But having too many makes suppliers insecure and unwilling to invest in the relationship.
Your ideal choice depends on what you want. Fun and frolics are ideally obtained by keeping options open, perhaps even switching to the spot market. But if you want your partner to have your babies, support you while you write your novel or share the cost of buying a home, you will need to reassure her that you do not have other competitors waiting in the wings.
In some industries it is common to sign contracts with two suppliers – enough competition to keep each on its toes, but enough commitment to inspire big investment in the relationship. In your case that would be a wife and a long-term mistress. Perhaps the tried-and-tested rules of thumb work after all.
Q) I am in doubt whether it is worth changing school for my last year of A-levels. I would be living in a much better place (Cambridge, whereas I am now in Dover) and getting more tuition. I am likely to have better accommodation, more freedom and will meet people with diverse interests. But is it worth the risk of not getting into university or getting lower grades on my A-levels? Please help me to solve this dilemma.
A)Let us run through this supposed dilemma again. You are considering a move to a place that appears to be better in every dimension, including the academic one. Yet you are hesitant because of a perceived risk.
I am tempted to suggest you consult a shrink rather than an economist. Fortunately, so-called behavioural economists combine the best qualities of economist and psychologist. And any behavioural economist would quickly diagnose that you are a victim of the “endowment effect”.
The endowment effect is an irrational preference to keep what you have – better the devil you know and all that.
A typical experiment designed to reveal the effect would give participants a small gift for participating in the experiment. Later, the participants would be invited to swap the gift for an alternative. No matter what the original gift was, or what the alternative is, people, irrationally, are reluctant to make the swap.
Your attachment to substandard lodgings and scant tuition in Dover is clearly irrational. Move to Cambridge at once. You may be wrong, of course, but a risk of error is no excuse for inaction.
Q)I am about to be married, and have no doubts about the relationship. But there is one nagging worry: my fiancé co-owns a condo overlooking the Pacific Ocean near San Francisco – with an ex-girlfriend, who lives next door to it. She is not in a position to buy him out of his investment, and although they rent it out, the mortgage is steep. I believe the condo is an investment specific to the former relationship and would like it divested – but the housing market is a shambles.
A)While I sympathise with your problem, I must correct you.
A relationship-specific investment is one that is worth more within a relationship than outside it, such as a set of wedding photos. The condo is not relationship-specific, just unprofitable and illiquid. The condo can therefore be disposed of without destroying value – but not, it seems, by either side buying the other side out.
If your fiancé sold his share to a stranger, he’d sell at a loss. But, in truth, the loss has already happened; his reluctance to sell suggests he’s pig-headed as well as an incompetent investor.
So I recommend that you buy out your fiancé’s share, at a fire-sale price. Subsequent negotiations about the condo would then be between you and the ex. Should your marriage work out, you can share the profits with your fiancé. And if not, at least you will have prearranged some compensation.
I dunno if any of you have seen the movie 300. Yes, it’s about those seven thousand Greek soldiers and the three hundred Spartans who held the pass at Thermopylae for three days against the Persians. I also had the opportunity to learn a bit about Greek and Roman cultures before, and a few others as well. Spartan society was unique in a way that was not to be seen, ever in a human society again. I may be wrong in asserting that they may be the only true warrior society to have ever truly existed. I'll try to keep it brief as this post is not about Spartan military excellence. I'll have a look at two disparate topics, or seemingly at least -the evolution of human society and the evolution of the biological world around us. I'll also have a look at whether we can ever have a society as close to Sparta again- is it possible?
Let's take a look first at what evolution of the biological world started off as. It began as a group of tiny individual cells competing against each other so as to gain superiority with respect to the other species. This trend continued for an immensely vast amount of time- say from 3.8 billion years to around 800 million years ago (MYA). Then around 600 MYA, there came an explosion in the number of branches of life, with each branch having its own bizarre sets of features. It was not common for animals to have five eyes and twelve digits on a single limb. It was the equivalent of nature high on weed and painting with its fingers. Then after a while, all these animals, fantastic though they were, gradually declined and died out leaving us with a few templates of how life actually looks like- insects and arthropods have three segmented bodies, most animals have two eyes and two pairs of limbs. This template has remained for quite some time- even the dinosaurs look somewhat familiar as they followed the same body plan. Evolution seems to have smoothed out the basic external features for most groups of animals, even if they live in diverse environments.
Now taking the evolution of human society or the evolution of civilizations, we all started out as hunter gatherer societies. Men dressed in animal skins went out and hunted and led a primitive existence. These men lived like this for a long period of time. It was only recently, say three thousand five hundred years ago (an average, mind! I want no controversy on this!), that many, many new styles of living were found. Some stayed as hunter gatherers. Others began creating monarchies. Some places became theocracies. Many became regimented in their own systems of class, ranging from a master-helot/slave relationship to the Asian caste and class system. Some became warrior societies and some became societies where all genders were given equal respect in war and ranking (The Celts and the Ancient British had such societies). A rudimentary form of democracy was practised by the Athenian Greeks. Each area had formed a new form of government and had a set of laws specific to that region. Warfare formed the backbone of these societies as that was the influence of attrition, the major means to target an area religiously, economically and culturally. And it was also a wonderful defence system. Thus we had an extreme case of Sparta- an ORGANIZED, civilization, where the men did not hunt as in the nomadic warrior tribes, but solely practised warfare. It was their way of life- all other affairs were taken care of by the helots. But the evolution of the Spartan way went the way of the dinosaurs. Many such systems were eventually weeded out. Then we had a period of each system interacting (usually beating each others' brains out and kicking the opponents' family jewels) with the other and soon many such systems and forms of life eroded away. We are now beginning to see a homogenization of many cultures and systems of government. There are only a few basic types of government- Theocracies, monarchies, democracies and totalitarians. Even then, we have an abnormally large proportion of countries who have adopted democracy as their choice of government. It's as if, the evolution of civilizations is also reaching a basic body plan, and that seems to me as particularly remarkable!
Now let us assume that such a hypothesis is wrong. Let us assume that what I put forth is wrong and that human civilization can revert to the ways of the ancient world. Knowledge is now and will remain a premium for every individual on this planet. Will we have a society, where "knowledge", like identity, bank account numbers etc etc will all be managed by a group of individuals? Will we ever have a Sparta based on knowledge?
Goldman sachs yesterday reported bumper profits and they announced compensation of $11.36 bn compensation for its employees. OMG! Now we can understand why there is a huge rush for MBA and financial jobs. This is the prime reasons. I don't know what the hell they do there to earn so much. I hope we can also master those skills to earn such a hefty pay or do we need to be priviliged? I don't know the answers. click here
Posts
