Facebooking

8:30 am

Good morning Facebook. Let us see what comments I received for my photo album of fifty types of grasses.

What? No comments? Not a single “Like”? I tell you. These “friends” have no interest in photography or interesting subjects like grass.

Talking about interesting subjects, I bet folks will be really interested in this article on the decline of Inner Mongolia in today’s edition of New York Times. What a timely well-written piece! It is only 50 pages long. Let me post it on Facebook.

11:30 am

Here you go. Dan has posted an album of pigeons. Why does he think anyone gives a damn about pigeons? Who is going to look at them? Waste of electrons.

Also, I see an article about the fine art of Zen Buddhism posted by Alex. How long is it? Twenty pages? Where does he think I will get time to read a twenty-page article?

2:30 pm

It is already mid afternoon and not a single person has commented on the article on Inner Mongolia. I tell you no one cares what is going on in the world.

Oh, I see. Subhash is now in Bogota. Why does he think I give a crap regarding where he is? Besides, what is he doing in Bogota? May be he is involved with drug smuggling!

While we are on the subject of travel, let me post my daughter’s pictures---yes the ones where she is giving a lecture in the elementary school in Sudan. People will be so impressed with how well we have brought up our children.

5:30 pm

Not again. More pictures of Sam’s son singing in the school? Ok, I get it, he is talented, but how many pictures do I have to see?

No comments on my daughter’s pictures. No one cares. I bet no one has yet read the article I posted either. I give up.

But before I do that, I bet people will be interested in this album of my fifty pictures of icicles.

Personal Branding

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.

"Living for Others"

Who comes to mind if I ask you to name a few people who live (or have lived) for others?

Mahatma Gandhi? Martin Luther King? Dalai Lama?

What if I told you that the list of people who live for others is quite long? In fact it includes practically every one? You, me, and uncle Joe!

It is a matter of definition.

I am defining “living for others” as aspects of our lives that are driven by our desire to impress others. So, we live in a house much too big for what we need, we drive a car way too ostentatious for our comfort, or attend a cultural event which we have no desire to attend. All this to make sure the others are impressed with our wealth (or fine taste) and sing our praise (we hope).

If we remove those activities, there will be little material impact on the quality of our lives. However, our ego will be hurt---It will not get as much pampering as it is used to.

Everyone lives for others---in different manner or to a different degree. In fact, the only persons who may not be guilty of living for others by my definition would be the people who live for others by the conventional definition…the Gandhis, the Kings and the other saintly people.

I think there is an easy way for figuring out how much of our life we live for the others.

Here is the way:

What would you purchase or do if you could not show it to others or talk about it?

Your truthful answer to the above question will tell you how much of your life you are living for your self. Anything above it is for the others.

May 9, 2009

Glass House

“Those living in a glass house should not throw stones at others.”

I get it.

Given the incompatibility of stone and glass, you may want to minimize the likelihood of someone throwing a stone at your house. The best way to do so is not to throw stones at others.

So, I ask myself two questions. First, why do we throw stones, irrespective of whether we live in a glass house or that made out of brick? What purpose does that serves?

The second, at what point does our house become a “glass house,” figuratively?

The first question is perhaps simpler to answer. We throw stones because it is fun to do so. It stokes our ego…”Look at that fat guy…he is just being a burden on the society, unlike me, who is so thin. ” “look at that huge house…what do you think is their footprint on earth?”

Sometimes, but not always, the throwing, if openly done, may even result in the change of behavior of the person at the receiving end. In which case, there is some real value to throwing stones.

The second question, that dealing with our house being built of glass, is a bit tricky to answer, because our common sense says that everything is relative. Who am I to laugh at a guy, who I think is fat, if someone skinnier than me would consider me to be fat? How can I criticize someone living in an obscenely large mansion when for a guy in a hut, I live in an obscenely large mansion myself.

What moral authority do I have?

I claim that even in the midst of everything being relative, one can find absolute measures for what is “reasonable” and “acceptable,” and accordingly, I do have the moral authority to throw stones at someone violating those standards of reasonableness.

Take again the example of obesity. Although I am 50% heavier than a 100 pound person of my height, I would not be accused of being obese (and a burden on society) based on quite clear guidelines set by the medical profession. By that definition a person of 200 pounds would be overweight, and more than 300, obese. A 300 pound person can not claim that it is all relative and that compared to a 400 pound person he is thin. No, he is not. He is fat!

When the guidelines are not provided by science, there are other ways of judging what is reasonable. It is tougher, but can be done.

For example, how does one establish a guideline for what size of house is “reasonable” and what is obscenely large?

One can attempt that based on the size of human being and thus the area required for a family of four to comfortably sleep, cook, sit, etc. I think that a 500-sq feet (just to throw a number) house would be considered just enough for that family. 10 times more than that may be considered large (and beyond what is needed) and 100 times that would be considered obscene.

Thus I, living in a house of 2500 sq feet would have moral authority to throw stones at someone living in a 25,000 sq-feet house, even though I live in an opulent house for someone living in a 500 sq-ft house, because my house is “reasonable” by the standards of this society.

However, if I live in a house that is 10,000 square feet, I would start losing that moral authority and my house will suddenly become a glass house.