Branding is an important element for a product. When you establish brand of a product, say a car, you determine which ones of its many attributes are worth highlighting-- those that will differentiate your product from competition. So, for example, Volvo has branded what it builds as a ‘safe’ car and so those obsessed with safety will consider it when shopping for cars.
We also use branding to differentiate ourselves from the others. This personal branding is a natural thing to do unless and until we have gotten rid of our egos. We select one or more of our attributes and try to highlight them. This is done through how we project ourselves, what we do, what we say, and how we interact with people. The arguments we make, the subjects we select to discuss, and things we purchase are often meant to support the brand image we are trying to create and sustain.
The problem comes when people’s image of us does not agree with the one we are trying to portray. Again, thinking of cars, GM’s Pontiac was branded by its tag line ‘Pontiac brings excitement’. Well, the customers did not accept that branding. The car failed to differentiate itself from the ‘non-exciting’ brands and the whole division was shut down. (To be fair, perhaps it brought excitement in the 50s but not in the new century, so it was more of a problem of sustaining its brand.)
So it is with personal brand. We might want to brand ourselves as the rugged outdoors type by driving around in a Jeep. However, our other attributes and actions may leave the people we interact with not thoroughly convinced.
Thus, personal branding has at least two dimensions: (1) what we want people to think about us and (2) what people really think about us.
Another dimension is --- what really is the truth. We may not really be rich but want people to believe that we are. Even more interesting is the fourth dimension----even though we really are not rich by any measure, we think and truly believe that we are. This is the scary stuff, and often thought of as delusional.
I think of all this because soon I am off to India for my 40th reunion. I will meet people who I have not met for four decades. Most of us will see this as an opportunity to re-brand ourselves. The snotty kid of the past would re-brand himself as the savvy globetrotter. Efforts will be made to provide supporting evidence, leading to his brand becoming credible. Or, it would be seen as delusional diatribe by all but the most gullible.
In the end, it would not really matter. But, it will nevertheless be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
The last hike
October is a great month to be in Boston. The days are bright, cool and crisp. The leaves are in their full autumn glory and the city has a vibrant feeling.
However, for us, fond of hiking, October is also the time when we start coming to the realization that winter is almost upon us and our hiking season is coming to an end. The mountains will soon be snow covered and the weather will turn quite challenging. Before that happens, we will do the last hike of the season and then wait for snow to melt in April before starting again.
This is a tolerable situation because it is a temporary hiatus before we begin again.
However, considering that we are all aging, someday we will go on a really last hike----not last for the season but last forever. That is inevitable. What is not clear is how exactly this will play out.
There are two scenarios. One in which we will know beforehand that this would be the last hike, and the other in which we will not.
Which one is more likely?
I bet that it will be the second scenario that plays out. Under that scenario, every time we go on a hike we will keep thinking that there will be additional opportunities. We will not decide before hand that this would be it. We will not celebrate a last hike and accept the fact that in the future we will enjoy a hike by reminiscing about it. We will only be able to look back and say---although we did not know at that time--- that was our last hike.
However, for us, fond of hiking, October is also the time when we start coming to the realization that winter is almost upon us and our hiking season is coming to an end. The mountains will soon be snow covered and the weather will turn quite challenging. Before that happens, we will do the last hike of the season and then wait for snow to melt in April before starting again.
This is a tolerable situation because it is a temporary hiatus before we begin again.
However, considering that we are all aging, someday we will go on a really last hike----not last for the season but last forever. That is inevitable. What is not clear is how exactly this will play out.
There are two scenarios. One in which we will know beforehand that this would be the last hike, and the other in which we will not.
Which one is more likely?
I bet that it will be the second scenario that plays out. Under that scenario, every time we go on a hike we will keep thinking that there will be additional opportunities. We will not decide before hand that this would be it. We will not celebrate a last hike and accept the fact that in the future we will enjoy a hike by reminiscing about it. We will only be able to look back and say---although we did not know at that time--- that was our last hike.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Bottled water
Whenever we go to Europe for a vacation, the issue of bottled water comes up. When one asks for water in a restaurant, the invariable question the waiter asks is, “with gas or without?” There is no mention of tap water in his query.
Invariably, we divide ourselves in two groups. One group thinks that it is OK to order one of the two types of bottled waters. The other, its members sticking to their rights as customers, and having previously learned what tap water is called in the local language, makes a go for the option not offered. Argument usually ensues between these two groups about the merits of the two approaches.
The tap water group argues that it is better for the ecology---and that is a perfectly valid reason. The other reason, although not stated clearly, is that the bottled water costs money, the tap water is generally free. One can not argue with that either.
The arguments against ordering tap water are fuzzier but equally compelling, at least to me.
The first is that it is the custom of the country and we should obey. People in these countries do not consider it safe or civil to drink tap water, as we do in the US. As an examlpe, when the Western visitors go to India, they are expected to follow the local customs, however indignant they may be about them. For example, they would be expected to remove their shoes in a temple, no matter how filthy the floor is. The same logic applies here.
The second reason is closely associated---and that has to do with pride. I am an American and perfectly comfortable with the western ways. While I am proud of my Indian heritage, I believe that there are better ways of displaying it than sticking like a sore thumb in a restaurant. I do not want to give the waiter an opportunity to make faces at me, saying to himself, “Here comes another cheap Indian.” It is a matter of pride for me.
Needless to say, I usually end up losing the argument when the group consists entirely of Indians. How can one argue against ecology and saving money? And what is this “custom of the country” and “pride” bit?
May be I think differently. May be there are others like me who think of ecology and money not as sacred cows that can not be touched, but as elements of tradeoffs one makes in the overall context of the situation. It is OK to spend a bit more than necessary, and purchasing a bottle of water (generally of recyclable glass not plastic) on occasions is not going to destroy the eco system.
Invariably, we divide ourselves in two groups. One group thinks that it is OK to order one of the two types of bottled waters. The other, its members sticking to their rights as customers, and having previously learned what tap water is called in the local language, makes a go for the option not offered. Argument usually ensues between these two groups about the merits of the two approaches.
The tap water group argues that it is better for the ecology---and that is a perfectly valid reason. The other reason, although not stated clearly, is that the bottled water costs money, the tap water is generally free. One can not argue with that either.
The arguments against ordering tap water are fuzzier but equally compelling, at least to me.
The first is that it is the custom of the country and we should obey. People in these countries do not consider it safe or civil to drink tap water, as we do in the US. As an examlpe, when the Western visitors go to India, they are expected to follow the local customs, however indignant they may be about them. For example, they would be expected to remove their shoes in a temple, no matter how filthy the floor is. The same logic applies here.
The second reason is closely associated---and that has to do with pride. I am an American and perfectly comfortable with the western ways. While I am proud of my Indian heritage, I believe that there are better ways of displaying it than sticking like a sore thumb in a restaurant. I do not want to give the waiter an opportunity to make faces at me, saying to himself, “Here comes another cheap Indian.” It is a matter of pride for me.
Needless to say, I usually end up losing the argument when the group consists entirely of Indians. How can one argue against ecology and saving money? And what is this “custom of the country” and “pride” bit?
May be I think differently. May be there are others like me who think of ecology and money not as sacred cows that can not be touched, but as elements of tradeoffs one makes in the overall context of the situation. It is OK to spend a bit more than necessary, and purchasing a bottle of water (generally of recyclable glass not plastic) on occasions is not going to destroy the eco system.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Forty years and counting
I arrived in the US in the August of 1970. That means I have been here now for forty years---a personal landmark for me to look back and reflect.
This was not the way it was meant to be.
I had come to MIT for graduate studies. After finishing my doctorate, I had started applying for jobs in India. By the time the last summer of my stay came rolling by, I already had three offers in hand. I could have become a lecturer at IIT Bombay, an assistant professor at BITS in Pilani, or a scientist at the Indian Space Research Organization in Trivendrum, at a princely salary of about Rs.1000 per month.
Then came a fateful meeting with a friend of one of my cousins. I met this gentleman, a senior executive of an Indian firm that represented Digital Equipment in India, at the Howard Johnson motel in Concord. In about an hour he managed to convince me that I should at least get some work experience in US (and earn some money) before heading home.
That one and half year work experience under a “Practical Training” program led me to apply for Green Card, along with a promise to myself that this stay in this foreign country will last only for a few years…ten at the most.
Then came marriage and children. Ten became twenty. The idea of going back faded, as did the notion of what is “back”---back where? This was home now.
In doing this, I became one of the statistics---that representing brain drain from poorer countries. Instead of paying back to my country of birth and the fine education it had provided, I was helping a rich country become richer and in the process becoming prosperous myself. I did not get to spend much time with my family in India, and started drifting away from a network of friends I had left behind.
Forty years. Much lost….but much gained. Probably gained more than lost.
I can rattle off the usual benefits of living in the West----good living, material prosperity, few hassles, and raising children in a land of opportunity. However, to me an equally important aspect, if not more, is the opportunity for personal development this has provided. Living in a country like US gives you an opportunity to gain a global outlook, widen the scope of experiences you can have, and vastly increase the potential to learn. Being neither an Indian nor an American in the strict sense allows you to become both or, if you wish, a global citizen, equally at home in any part of the world.
Come to think of it, that is not a bad trade-off.
This was not the way it was meant to be.
I had come to MIT for graduate studies. After finishing my doctorate, I had started applying for jobs in India. By the time the last summer of my stay came rolling by, I already had three offers in hand. I could have become a lecturer at IIT Bombay, an assistant professor at BITS in Pilani, or a scientist at the Indian Space Research Organization in Trivendrum, at a princely salary of about Rs.1000 per month.
Then came a fateful meeting with a friend of one of my cousins. I met this gentleman, a senior executive of an Indian firm that represented Digital Equipment in India, at the Howard Johnson motel in Concord. In about an hour he managed to convince me that I should at least get some work experience in US (and earn some money) before heading home.
That one and half year work experience under a “Practical Training” program led me to apply for Green Card, along with a promise to myself that this stay in this foreign country will last only for a few years…ten at the most.
Then came marriage and children. Ten became twenty. The idea of going back faded, as did the notion of what is “back”---back where? This was home now.
In doing this, I became one of the statistics---that representing brain drain from poorer countries. Instead of paying back to my country of birth and the fine education it had provided, I was helping a rich country become richer and in the process becoming prosperous myself. I did not get to spend much time with my family in India, and started drifting away from a network of friends I had left behind.
Forty years. Much lost….but much gained. Probably gained more than lost.
I can rattle off the usual benefits of living in the West----good living, material prosperity, few hassles, and raising children in a land of opportunity. However, to me an equally important aspect, if not more, is the opportunity for personal development this has provided. Living in a country like US gives you an opportunity to gain a global outlook, widen the scope of experiences you can have, and vastly increase the potential to learn. Being neither an Indian nor an American in the strict sense allows you to become both or, if you wish, a global citizen, equally at home in any part of the world.
Come to think of it, that is not a bad trade-off.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Overcommunicating
Aren’t these great times?
Facebook now allows me to connect on a daily basis with previously long lost friends and relatives. Blogs provide me with a soap box over which I can stand and provide my point of view on any topic I feel like. With my cell phone, and sensible pricing schemes, calling anyone in the world from anywhere has become a synch. Typing in a few words of SMS is now an impulsive and instantaneous activity. Broadcast emails with extensive mailing lists allow me to reach out to lots of people with my thoughts, opinions, and ideas.
For someone like me who gets kicks out of carrying out meaningful conversations with a diverse set of people, these are indeed wonderful developments.
However, I now realize that there are other types of people around in the world---those who are not much into communicating. These are the people who never respond to a broadcast email. They are your friends on Facebook, but they remain invisible. They are the ones who do not pick up the phone on the other hand---the caller ID having revealed that it is you who is calling.
To some extent, I see their point. In most cases it is us who have imposed ourselves on their quiet nook. We can not expect them to behave the same way as us or have the same needs. They have enough things going on in their lives that these overcommunicating activities play a secondary role. Or they just prefer to be left alone, either because of inherent shyness or fear that their communicating skills are not good.
They do not rejoice the availability of these multiple channels. They have no need share what they feel at any moment, their views on Sarah Palin, or what they did over the weekend. They probably think we are too pushy, self absorbed, and opinionated.
We need to respect their wishes. We need to stop being annoyed if they do not respond to our broadcast emails or do not participate in a hot discussion.
However, I feel that the behavior adjustment has to take place on both sides. The undercommunicators need to observe some level of courtesy in their dealings with people like us. A direct email (not a broadcast one) needs to be responded, the phone needs to be picked up. There are ways of expressing your desire that you don’t want to be bothered without being so obvious.
If these adjustments are not made, I am afraid that some relationships are going to end up being weakened, or even wrecked, as a result of these tools instead of getting strengthened.
Facebook now allows me to connect on a daily basis with previously long lost friends and relatives. Blogs provide me with a soap box over which I can stand and provide my point of view on any topic I feel like. With my cell phone, and sensible pricing schemes, calling anyone in the world from anywhere has become a synch. Typing in a few words of SMS is now an impulsive and instantaneous activity. Broadcast emails with extensive mailing lists allow me to reach out to lots of people with my thoughts, opinions, and ideas.
For someone like me who gets kicks out of carrying out meaningful conversations with a diverse set of people, these are indeed wonderful developments.
However, I now realize that there are other types of people around in the world---those who are not much into communicating. These are the people who never respond to a broadcast email. They are your friends on Facebook, but they remain invisible. They are the ones who do not pick up the phone on the other hand---the caller ID having revealed that it is you who is calling.
To some extent, I see their point. In most cases it is us who have imposed ourselves on their quiet nook. We can not expect them to behave the same way as us or have the same needs. They have enough things going on in their lives that these overcommunicating activities play a secondary role. Or they just prefer to be left alone, either because of inherent shyness or fear that their communicating skills are not good.
They do not rejoice the availability of these multiple channels. They have no need share what they feel at any moment, their views on Sarah Palin, or what they did over the weekend. They probably think we are too pushy, self absorbed, and opinionated.
We need to respect their wishes. We need to stop being annoyed if they do not respond to our broadcast emails or do not participate in a hot discussion.
However, I feel that the behavior adjustment has to take place on both sides. The undercommunicators need to observe some level of courtesy in their dealings with people like us. A direct email (not a broadcast one) needs to be responded, the phone needs to be picked up. There are ways of expressing your desire that you don’t want to be bothered without being so obvious.
If these adjustments are not made, I am afraid that some relationships are going to end up being weakened, or even wrecked, as a result of these tools instead of getting strengthened.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Karma and emails
In the beginning there were Nigerians. They perfected the art form of sending spam emails to millions of people enticing them to untold rewards, if only they would give out their bank accounts and deposit instructions. The emails generally are like this: “I am Mr. Obutu. I met your relative who gave me your name. Well, he died and I need to give his $10,000,000 to you...” Believe it or not, there were people who fell for the scam, and some Nigerians became quite rich.
I don’t get such emails any more. I guess my name has now been removed from most of the Nigerian mailing lists.
However, I do get lots of emails originating in India. The latest one told me that on June 21st I would see two suns in the sky, because a star called Aderoid (yes, that is the name) will be so close to earth that it would be as bright as the sun. I suppose the person who sent it believed in it and thought of alerting me to this amazing event lest I miss out.
This is just one example of many such emails I receive. Most are a collection of photographs, with elevator music playing in the background. The photographs are quite beautiful, actually, but they are the same ones repackaged countless times. The messages that accompany the pictures have to deal with pithy advice such as being nice to cats and other living things, because God loves you. Some others are threats---telling me that bad things will happen to me if I do not find 20 suckers to forward this email describing the power of God such and such (remember India has thousands of them).
Unlike the Nigerians, the Indians have developed a very sophisticated production and distribution system. Volunteer distributors, ‘nodes’ for those familiar with network jargon, are created and the message spreads virally. These emails come to me from people I trust----my friends and family members, not Mr. Obutu. So I open them, at least most of the time. The originator packages an email (where does he find the raw material?) and sends it out to a handful of initial fire starters. Then it goes in the Internet Ocean of volunteers who are keen to educate and entertain the world.
So, how do people become volunteer ‘nodes’? I receive my daily quota from several volunteers, and if you meet anyone of them, you would not suspect him/her to be a part of such an elaborate network. Nice, ordinary people. So, were they approached by someone in the middle of the night and asked to become a node or did they get an epiphany that this is what they should be doing? Also, how do they get their quota of messages of the day? Do they get them from anonymous sources every morning--like packets of information arriving at an Internet node--- ready to be forwarded to the next destination?
Of course, the big question is why such messages are created and spread around? Unlike the Nigerians, no one is getting rich. Yes, some of them spread the word of God, and so could be construed as a modern channel created by some religious zealots, but why would anyone send an email about two suns?
These are the mysteries of India and the answer perhaps lies in the belief that you need to do what is in your Karma. The email distributors have determined that this is their Karma. The Indian philosophy further states that you should not expect fruits for your labor. So now everything makes sense. It also leads me to believe that such an email factory and distribution system will continue to exist only in India. The Nigerians will have nothing to do with it.
I don’t get such emails any more. I guess my name has now been removed from most of the Nigerian mailing lists.
However, I do get lots of emails originating in India. The latest one told me that on June 21st I would see two suns in the sky, because a star called Aderoid (yes, that is the name) will be so close to earth that it would be as bright as the sun. I suppose the person who sent it believed in it and thought of alerting me to this amazing event lest I miss out.
This is just one example of many such emails I receive. Most are a collection of photographs, with elevator music playing in the background. The photographs are quite beautiful, actually, but they are the same ones repackaged countless times. The messages that accompany the pictures have to deal with pithy advice such as being nice to cats and other living things, because God loves you. Some others are threats---telling me that bad things will happen to me if I do not find 20 suckers to forward this email describing the power of God such and such (remember India has thousands of them).
Unlike the Nigerians, the Indians have developed a very sophisticated production and distribution system. Volunteer distributors, ‘nodes’ for those familiar with network jargon, are created and the message spreads virally. These emails come to me from people I trust----my friends and family members, not Mr. Obutu. So I open them, at least most of the time. The originator packages an email (where does he find the raw material?) and sends it out to a handful of initial fire starters. Then it goes in the Internet Ocean of volunteers who are keen to educate and entertain the world.
So, how do people become volunteer ‘nodes’? I receive my daily quota from several volunteers, and if you meet anyone of them, you would not suspect him/her to be a part of such an elaborate network. Nice, ordinary people. So, were they approached by someone in the middle of the night and asked to become a node or did they get an epiphany that this is what they should be doing? Also, how do they get their quota of messages of the day? Do they get them from anonymous sources every morning--like packets of information arriving at an Internet node--- ready to be forwarded to the next destination?
Of course, the big question is why such messages are created and spread around? Unlike the Nigerians, no one is getting rich. Yes, some of them spread the word of God, and so could be construed as a modern channel created by some religious zealots, but why would anyone send an email about two suns?
These are the mysteries of India and the answer perhaps lies in the belief that you need to do what is in your Karma. The email distributors have determined that this is their Karma. The Indian philosophy further states that you should not expect fruits for your labor. So now everything makes sense. It also leads me to believe that such an email factory and distribution system will continue to exist only in India. The Nigerians will have nothing to do with it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Walk for Hunger
Early in May, we participated in a fund raising 20 mile walk, called “Walk for Hunger,” which raises money for the hungry people in Boston. Some 43,000 people walked and over $4 million were raised.
Fund raising by volunteers is an American phenomenon. For a cause they believe in, a large number of volunteers undertake an activity to get money from others. This greatly leverages limited resources a charity has and, in addition, gets the society at large involved, instead of just a few rich philanthropists. That makes a lot of sense.
However, for those not from here, the idea of this voluntary activity being physically so challenging may seem strange. Why would a charity make volunteers subject themselves to “torture” instead of just making phone calls?
I think it is brilliant variation of the theme because of several reasons. Let me take this Walk for Hunger as an example.
When I first started participating in this event, the folks at “Project Bread”—the charity responsible for the Walk—told us that 20 miles represented what an average poor person in a poor country walks as he/she forages for food. If that is so, this walk would make me realize how difficult it is for a poor person to fill his belly, and make me empathetic to this cause instead of just being sympathetic. An empathetic volunteer is a good volunteer.
There is also a deeper reason for raising money in this manner. The fact that you are subjecting yourself to a difficult experience gives you a higher moral authority while asking for money than just volunteering your time to make a few phone calls. It is harder for you friend, relative, co-worker or whoever to turn you down.
Finally, the beauty of this fund raising method is how it enrolls the younger generation. When I looked around at the other walkers, I was struck by the demographics. Most of the hoard of walkers surrounding---and by passing me--- were younger than 20! For them, this event provided a perfect opportunity to spend a nice spring day with their friends and family members, chatting, singing, joking, screaming, and cursing along the way. There were mini-groups of white, black, and oriental kids---many wearing T-shirts describing their affiliations. They were having fun and their elders were perfectly happy to have their kids learn the deeper meaning of giving while doing so. What a great way to bring in grass roots support from the youth and making sure that the activity never goes out of existence?
This is a sustainable, robust method for raising money for a good cause, and represents a great innovation from USA that the world should emulate.
Fund raising by volunteers is an American phenomenon. For a cause they believe in, a large number of volunteers undertake an activity to get money from others. This greatly leverages limited resources a charity has and, in addition, gets the society at large involved, instead of just a few rich philanthropists. That makes a lot of sense.
However, for those not from here, the idea of this voluntary activity being physically so challenging may seem strange. Why would a charity make volunteers subject themselves to “torture” instead of just making phone calls?
I think it is brilliant variation of the theme because of several reasons. Let me take this Walk for Hunger as an example.
When I first started participating in this event, the folks at “Project Bread”—the charity responsible for the Walk—told us that 20 miles represented what an average poor person in a poor country walks as he/she forages for food. If that is so, this walk would make me realize how difficult it is for a poor person to fill his belly, and make me empathetic to this cause instead of just being sympathetic. An empathetic volunteer is a good volunteer.
There is also a deeper reason for raising money in this manner. The fact that you are subjecting yourself to a difficult experience gives you a higher moral authority while asking for money than just volunteering your time to make a few phone calls. It is harder for you friend, relative, co-worker or whoever to turn you down.
Finally, the beauty of this fund raising method is how it enrolls the younger generation. When I looked around at the other walkers, I was struck by the demographics. Most of the hoard of walkers surrounding---and by passing me--- were younger than 20! For them, this event provided a perfect opportunity to spend a nice spring day with their friends and family members, chatting, singing, joking, screaming, and cursing along the way. There were mini-groups of white, black, and oriental kids---many wearing T-shirts describing their affiliations. They were having fun and their elders were perfectly happy to have their kids learn the deeper meaning of giving while doing so. What a great way to bring in grass roots support from the youth and making sure that the activity never goes out of existence?
This is a sustainable, robust method for raising money for a good cause, and represents a great innovation from USA that the world should emulate.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Flashing your teeth
Some of the recent digital cameras have a smile feature. That means that the camera will take a picture only if the subject is smiling. This smile has to be of the type that exposes your teeth. Otherwise the camera assumes that you are not worth taking a picture of and refuses to fire.
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Who am I?
In the next few days I will receive a packet from US Census. Once again I will be amazed by the absurdity of the question that relates to classifying us.
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
...so his son can be a poet.
Someone once asked a soldier, “why are you a soldier?’
“So my son can be a farmer, and his son can be a poet.” He replied.
In the modern day parlance, one can ask the question to a factory worker, and he would probably say that he is working hard so that his son can be a doctor or an engineer, and, if he enlightened like the soldier above, continue and say, “…so his son (or daughter) can be a liberal arts major.”
This was one of the major themes of an Indian movie called “Three Idiots” that I saw last month. It chronicles the life three students of a prestigious engineering college, modeled after the Indian Institute of Technology. The enlightened one amongst them keeps telling his buddies that they should follow their passions. “If photography is what you like, become a photographer, stop trying to become an engineer,” he tells one of them. Indeed, photographer is what he becomes.
This is an appropriate message for a nation where parents are obsessed about their sons becoming doctors or engineers.
It is also good message. At some point in a family’s history there should come a time when passion can trump practicality in choosing one’s profession. This will help the future generation in achieving happiness of the kind that does not depend on material things. The society at large will also benefit, because it is through passion that a culture can move forward.
However, remember that the soldier did not say that his son could be a poet, he would rather have his grandson become one. He sensed that without the prosperity brought about by someone in the family lineage, the farmer, such a dream would be impractical. He realized that without a financial cushion provided by his son, the poet would have a tough time.
Also, the little story stops at the third generation. It is unclear what the poet’s son would be doing. Could it be that the poet would say to his son, “Don’t do what I am doing. Go get some practical education and make a good living. This passion thing wears out after a while and the reality of hard living sets in.”
So will the cycle go into reverse?
May be.
May be not.
March 2010
“So my son can be a farmer, and his son can be a poet.” He replied.
In the modern day parlance, one can ask the question to a factory worker, and he would probably say that he is working hard so that his son can be a doctor or an engineer, and, if he enlightened like the soldier above, continue and say, “…so his son (or daughter) can be a liberal arts major.”
This was one of the major themes of an Indian movie called “Three Idiots” that I saw last month. It chronicles the life three students of a prestigious engineering college, modeled after the Indian Institute of Technology. The enlightened one amongst them keeps telling his buddies that they should follow their passions. “If photography is what you like, become a photographer, stop trying to become an engineer,” he tells one of them. Indeed, photographer is what he becomes.
This is an appropriate message for a nation where parents are obsessed about their sons becoming doctors or engineers.
It is also good message. At some point in a family’s history there should come a time when passion can trump practicality in choosing one’s profession. This will help the future generation in achieving happiness of the kind that does not depend on material things. The society at large will also benefit, because it is through passion that a culture can move forward.
However, remember that the soldier did not say that his son could be a poet, he would rather have his grandson become one. He sensed that without the prosperity brought about by someone in the family lineage, the farmer, such a dream would be impractical. He realized that without a financial cushion provided by his son, the poet would have a tough time.
Also, the little story stops at the third generation. It is unclear what the poet’s son would be doing. Could it be that the poet would say to his son, “Don’t do what I am doing. Go get some practical education and make a good living. This passion thing wears out after a while and the reality of hard living sets in.”
So will the cycle go into reverse?
May be.
May be not.
March 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Siblings
As I observe relationships among siblings, I can not but think that this is one of the most complex ones among human experiences.
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
A New Beginning?
So, a new decade has begun.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
