Quitting Index

Recently, General Petraeus, the head of CIA, suddenly resigned over an extra-marital affair. This brought about puzzlement among folks used to having been exposed to such affairs by many well known figures such a Berlusconi, Bill Clinton, General Eisenhower, and even Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India who is rumored to have flirted with Lady Mountbatten, the wife of the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. None of these people quit, and some, like the first person in the above list had to be pushed out.

So, how does one know who will quit and who will not?

In my opinion, it all boils down to an equation that calculates the Quitting Index (QI)---the higher it is, the more likely it is that the person will quit after being caught for indiscretion. 

QI= Thinness of skin X (actual behavior-expected behavior)

So, for the Berlusconis of this world, they are expected to have affairs, so the actual behavior does not shock anyone. Clinton's behavior was unexpected, but he is thick skinned (low thinness), so a low QI and no quitting. 

As this country has progressed, so has the tolerance for indiscretion. Thus, the "expected behavior" in the above equation is really a function of time and not a constant. That would explain why people tolerated Eisenhower’s or Kennedy’s behavior. The expectation that the leaders of this great republic be saintly is a fairly new phenomenon. 

Nehru's behavior is still considered a matter of speculation. For the above equation to work, there have to be witnesses or firm evidence. People are generally not expected to incriminate themselves and quit, even if their QI is high, as would have been the case with Nehru. No “self-deportation" here.

That brings us to the General. He was caught, and the expected behavior was that of a saint. After all, one cannot behave in a way that would provide fodder for blackmail while being the top spy in the country. He is also thin skinned (high level of thinness), and honorable man. Thus he had a high QI, and FBI was attaching him.

So he quit even before an investigation was conducted. 

A Well Balanced Life

In my opinion, we should live a well-balanced life in terms of activities we pursue.  Putting on my management consultant hat, I believe that these activities can be classified into four boxes, two for intellectual activities and two for physical. This is shown graphically below.

I have shown some examples of activities in each box.  Now, you can argue that some of the examples are incorrect. For example, writing should be a right brain activity and entertainment like dancing is really a high energy activity. You can also take an exception to the titles of the boxes. I am OK with all that, because the main point I want to make does not depend on precise classification or labeling.

What I find interesting in this structure is that most of us spend time in a couple of boxes and need to have discipline (and sometimes courage) to move to the other ones.

For example, many of us---the analytical engineering types---spend most of our time doing the left brain and low energy activities. We need discipline to get into the right brain and high energy activities. On the other hand, most artist types spend their time in right brain and low energy activities. For them it would require discipline to shift left on the top boxes, and right in the bottom ones. Once again, I am providing an opening for arguments, especially from my type of left brained people. But I hope you do agree that we, left to ourselves, have some preferential boxes and would need an effort to move into the others.

From my own experience in moving to the right boxes, I can tell you that the effort is worth it. Over the years, I have learned to appreciate and even participate in the right brain activities and have tried to remain physically fit.  Doing so opens up a whole new world of possibilities and even allows me the perform activities in my comfort zone more effectively. Overall, it makes me feel that I am living a more balanced and fulfilling life.

Now that I have the luxury to establish my own structure for the day, I do so by dividing it into activities that touch all four boxes. Sometimes, say on Friday evenings, I combine these by multi-tasking---reading economist and listening to music on my iPad, while at the same time sipping a good Bourbon. I call this a “left brain, right brain, and no-brain” combo.

Try it. 

Picture Taking

We all love to take pictures, especially when we travel. On a recent trip to Ladakh, I took over a thousand pictures. My camera was always with me and I was always looking for opportunities to take memorable shots. Given the beauty of the place, my shutter was constantly clicking and electronic images we piling on fast and furious in my 16 GB card.

However, at some points in my furious picture taking episodes, I wondered---

“What would it be like to enjoy a vacation without a camera?”

Of course, there are some simple responses to this question.

I will spend more time enjoying the beauty of the place and people without the constant tension of making sure I appropriately capture the moment. I will see the scene through my eyes and not through the viewfinder. I will consign the beauty of the moment to my brain instead of some lousy electrons.

On the negative side, I will have no record of the trip. There will be no re-living of the experience later in life. The brain, already fading, will be incapable of producing the images of what we saw. Worst of all, I will not be able to share all these pictures and get envy-tinged accolades from friends and family.

All that is fine but I suspect that there is a deeper connection between picture taking and experiencing an event.  This is supported by the fact that I get a nagging feeling that the event is not over until the pictures are processed and shared.

This reminds me of the Zen koan, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound?” Along those lines, I would raise a question, “if I do not have any evidence of the trip, did I really experience it?”

Before you shout, “Of course you did,” let us see what philosophers say about the tree falling question (borrowed from Yahoo answers by an anonymous expert).

“Philosophers have said that what we really mean when we say there would be a sound is that, if a person were there, they would hear a sound. When you try to imagine the scenario of a tree falling in the woods with no one there, and you imagine that there is a sound, you are actually imagining being there yourself. You're imagining the tree falling from the viewpoint of an observer, even though you're supposed to be imagining that there is no observer.”

So, sound making by a tree requires an observer. The same way, trip experience requires photographic evidence. No observer, no sound---no photos, no trip ;-)

Extreme Travel

The recent deep dive by James Cameron to the bottom of Mariana Trench resonated well with me because I have always been fascinated by extreme travels. How can a person go to the far ends of the earth?

Some extremes require great deal of physical fitness. An average Joe cannot climb the highest point on earth, Mt. Everest. I have personally been up to 16,500 feet and, believe me, it is tough to get even that high.

Some extreme travels require, in addition, a bit of luck and being at the right place at the right time. It is not easy to go to the farthest point away from Earth---going around the Moon for example. Lots of people are physically fit to do that but the last trip to the moon was more than 40 years ago.

I am talking about places that an average person can go. Some of these require a lot of money, but some can be reached by spending a modest amount, particularly if you are willing to accept something not quite as extreme. So, here is a list.

Going North

The Northern most place in the world is of course the North Pole, and you can get there for about $25K. Check out http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/arctic-expeditions/north-pole-cruise-ultimate-arctic-adventure/overview

However, for a much more modest amount, you can get to Longyearbyne, on Svalbard island of Norway. There are direct fights from Oslo and the cost is 600 Euros round trip. You would not be at 90 degree, but at 78 degree it is as close as you can get without spending a ton of money. Personally, I have not been there yet but have been close to the Arctic Circle three times---in Alaska, Iceland and Baffin Island.

Going South

Similarly, one can travel to the South Pole if one has oodles of money. Adventure Network International offers flights to the South Pole for about $45K. http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights

However, for significantly less amount of money, say about $5K, you can take a ship from Ushuaia which takes you to about 65 degree south, to the Antarctic Peninsula, which in fact is a far more interesting place with mountains and penguins than is the South Pole. I took such a trip in 2006 and had a great time.

Going High

Virgin Galactic will take you to space for about $200K, but hurry, only a few seats are left. This adventure will whisk you to 68 miles above earth, and give you the bragging rights few human beings would ever get. http://www.virgingalactic.com/

If you are a bit short of cash, there used to be an option---Concorde, which flew more than 10 miles above earth (56,000 feet). I had the good fortune to take it twice in 1995, entirely out of frequent flyer miles (125,000 miles). However this option is now gone. So, the regular commercial flights that go about 7-mile high are the only option available.

Going Deep

No one is taking deposits for a tour to the Mariana Trench, which at 36,000 feet is the deepest location on earth. However, there are plans under development to do just that. When would it be feasible to go that deep and how much it would cost is anybody’s guess but a figure of $200K or so will not be out of bounds.

 If you don’t want to wait and burn through that kind of money, there used to be a less expensive option. On Cayman Island, there was a deep dive submarine excursion in which one could go up to 1000 feet deep. I took that in the 90s but it looks like they do not offer that ride anymore. For only about $275 I experienced a world without light but containing a variety of corals and creatures that exist on the great wall of Cayman.

There are other submarine rides you can take. For example you can ride an Atlantis at several locations (Hawaii, Cayman) http://www.atlantisadventures.com/ These submarines take you up to 100 feet deep and the view is quite nice.

I hope I have whetted your appetite for doing some extreme travel.

Doping and Sports

Doping seems to have become a fixture at major sports events. As the organizers deploy increasingly sophisticated means to detect the use of illegal substances by athletes, the athletes seem to come out with techniques that are ever harder to detect. It looks like an endless cat and mouse game.

I would like to propose a radical solution and say---let us stop policing this “abuse”.

First, it costs an enormous amount of money and there is no guarantee that we are catching everyone. The technology is marching forward, and it is quite possible that the next generation of doping substances may become completely undetectable. Someone recently mentioned, “Only the stupid are getting caught.” So, that day may already be here. On the other hand, I am also sure that we probably are punishing innocent athletes who end up testing positive as a result of perfectly legal drug or something they ate.

Second, and more to the point, I do not buy into the argument that sports are fair and those using banned substances are getting an unfair advantage. At some level, sports have never been fair. If the playing ground needs to be leveled, how about every athlete competing in a sport being provided access to identical training and facility? Is it fair that an American marathon runner gets the advantage of the most modern sports technology and medicine, while someone training in Kenya can only afford to run around in his neighborhood? (The irony is that the Kenyan still beats the American---imagine what he would do if he had access to the best training and tools.)

And, how about legal prosthesis? Oscar Pristorous, the South African “Blade Runner”, who runs on leg prosthesis, may be able to gain an advantage over a regular runner. Is that cheating? Instead of admiring his heroism and grit, should he be banned from competing? Where will we draw the line?

Also, what if we suddenly discover that a legal medicine---say that required for controlling blood pressure--- provides an athlete that small edge? Will we ban that medicine and deprive the athlete of what he needs to remain healthy?

Finally, there is an argument that the doping substances are harmful to athlete’s health. I am sure some of them are. However, we have not banned alcohol, and the cigarettes are banned only for the minors. The users of these potentially harmful substances know the risk and are willing to take it. Why don’t we apply the same logic to the doping substances, at least those that are on the borderline in terms of potential for adverse reaction? If an athlete wants to take a chance…let him.

I remember that Wimbledon used to be open only for amateurs. The fear was that if professionals were allowed, it would not be a fair competition. The problem was that it became harder and harder to seperate amateurs from professionals, and the participants went through all types of Shenanigans to prove that they were not professionals. Finally, they opened up the game and guess what? It just became a better event.

It is time to do the same in case of doping. 

Tradition and Darwin

The Darwin’s theory of natural selection is amazing. It neatly explains how various species evolved through mutation and subsequent survival of the fittest. Originally developed for explaining how nature operates, the theory has found applicability in explaining all types of things.

If you replace mutation by innovation, new products evolve all the time, albeit at a faster pace than mutations. Of these products, the ones best meet the needs of the customers (‘fittest”) survive. The others die.

Same thing applies in activities we learn and perform. We all need to keep up with the times. If we do not learn how to use the modern communication tools or conveyances, we will be left behind. No one would employ us and socially we will be rejected.

People adapt, businesses evolve and products change---just the way it happens in nature. The old gets replaced by new.

The only place where old remains old is in traditions and rituals. The world changes but the rituals do not.

At a recent wedding, the groom rode a horse and the bride arrived on a palanquin, the way she would have hundreds of years ago. The music was created using conch shells. The priest conducted the ceremony in Sanskrit that no one in the audience understood.

If the Darwin’s theory held true, the groom would have arrived on a Segway (more efficient and consumes no grass), the bride in a golf cart (four wheels instead of four people). The music would have been modern (uses less energy and is more appealing) and the priest would have transferred the wisdom through a power-point presentation--- in English.

But that was not the case---why?

Simply because the attributes such as efficiency and effectiveness of what is being done do not apply to rituals. The groom is in no hurry and the priest is not obliged to explain anything to the audience. Correctly performed ritual is supposed to ward of evil and bring peace and happiness. Why that should be so is not questioned.

Under these circumstances, an old ritual that does not adapt to the modern circumstances does not die. Further, there is no incentive to innovate and so nothing ever changes. Perhaps there is even fear of making a change, lest it would upset some deity.

The Darwin’s theory has finally met its match.