India has a very strange law.
It does not allow dual citizenship. Funny thing is: there is absolutely no logical, social, economic reason for not allowing dual citizenship. Most countries in the developed world have it already.
SO weird.
Picture a man with a big family - living happily with his wife , kids and (elderly) parents. Suddenly, there is a random "law" that proclaims :
a) either live with your wife and kids, or
b) live with you parents.
You cannot do both. Nope, just not allowed.
Seriously, WTF !! Why ??
Sorry, no explanations for arbitrarily tearing apart happy families.
That is exactly what India's dual citizenship law does. It forces you to choose between wife and mother.
Tough choice indeed.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
PhD and Entrepreneurship
I have been thinking lately on what it takes to do a PhD (or pursue an academic career), especially given that I am already in one!
Someone at an online forum remarked that doing a PhD is akin to entrepreneurship. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced :this analogy is right on the money!
Academics : Ideas :: Entrepreneurship : Products.
To oversimply things a little, as an entrepreneur, your main job is to create and sell products. As an academic, your main job is to create and sell ideas. (Yes, selling ideas is as important as 'creating' them)
The analogy doesn't stop here.
The other crucial dimension where the two are similar is ownership.
Suppose you are an entrepreneur in the restaurant business. Few weeks into your new restaurant, you get a late night call that a fire broke out in the dining area. Your immediate response? Drop whatever you are doing, rush to fire-fight and try and save your enterprise.
Contrast this to a traditional job in a multinational company. If you got a call at 11 pm that your office building was on fire, you probably might get annoyed but you will go back to sleep! You might even rest assured there will be a no-work day tomorrow (depending on how much you love your job). In any case, it is not your responsibility. Your job is well defined enough to not involve extinguishing fires.
The example might sound over-dramatic, but notice the crucial difference: as an entrepreneur your responsibility in your business is complete and total. The buck really stops with you. You make all the decisions. You are completely responsible for everything that happens. You can never say, for instance : "I only work from 9 to 6. That was not my job".
This is exactly how an academic career is.
"Everything" is your job. You are wholly responsible for what direction your enterprise (= research agenda) will take. Nobody will tell you what area to research on, you will have to find it yourself. Just as no one can tell you what business you should start. Again, you are not answerable to anyone if something goes awry with your research agenda, because nobody really cares! If your restaurant caught fire, there is no convenient "manager" to lynch you. (Yes, giving yourself a beating is harder!)
Think of academics as being given an empty room and directed to "research". (however vague that might sound). That would exactly be as vague as putting an entrepreneur in an empty office space and asking him to "enterprise".
In both cases, you not only need enormous discipline to stay on 'track' (stay profitable) but also need something that helps you "self-start"(pick up from failed ventures and try again).
Someone at an online forum remarked that doing a PhD is akin to entrepreneurship. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced :this analogy is right on the money!
Academics : Ideas :: Entrepreneurship : Products.
To oversimply things a little, as an entrepreneur, your main job is to create and sell products. As an academic, your main job is to create and sell ideas. (Yes, selling ideas is as important as 'creating' them)
The analogy doesn't stop here.
The other crucial dimension where the two are similar is ownership.
Suppose you are an entrepreneur in the restaurant business. Few weeks into your new restaurant, you get a late night call that a fire broke out in the dining area. Your immediate response? Drop whatever you are doing, rush to fire-fight and try and save your enterprise.
Contrast this to a traditional job in a multinational company. If you got a call at 11 pm that your office building was on fire, you probably might get annoyed but you will go back to sleep! You might even rest assured there will be a no-work day tomorrow (depending on how much you love your job). In any case, it is not your responsibility. Your job is well defined enough to not involve extinguishing fires.
The example might sound over-dramatic, but notice the crucial difference: as an entrepreneur your responsibility in your business is complete and total. The buck really stops with you. You make all the decisions. You are completely responsible for everything that happens. You can never say, for instance : "I only work from 9 to 6. That was not my job".
This is exactly how an academic career is.
"Everything" is your job. You are wholly responsible for what direction your enterprise (= research agenda) will take. Nobody will tell you what area to research on, you will have to find it yourself. Just as no one can tell you what business you should start. Again, you are not answerable to anyone if something goes awry with your research agenda, because nobody really cares! If your restaurant caught fire, there is no convenient "manager" to lynch you. (Yes, giving yourself a beating is harder!)
Think of academics as being given an empty room and directed to "research". (however vague that might sound). That would exactly be as vague as putting an entrepreneur in an empty office space and asking him to "enterprise".
In both cases, you not only need enormous discipline to stay on 'track' (stay profitable) but also need something that helps you "self-start"(pick up from failed ventures and try again).
Monday, November 4, 2013
Gun Control
Somebody famous said, " If you don't have facts, we'll just use my opinions"
So here are SOME facts. They are pretty compelling. There is more, but I am having a lazy day.
As a social scientist, I know that such debates are rarely purely "scientific". The facts are on our side (indeed, I am picking a side!) but how do you convince people who get all emotional and political about it ? More importantly, how do you break the lobbying cesspool ? These are bigger problems.
Let's address the simpler ones. Especially the supremely dumb ones.
Supremely Dumb Argument 1 : "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"
This argument is dumb on so many different levels. Yes, people kill people. But guns make it easy for people to kill people. Get that ? Give me a good reason why we should make it easy for anybody to take innocent lives? Who gives you the right to make it easy for a random nut job to kill children? Who gives you the right to make it easy to deny someone their fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Let's turn the logic for all the gun-obsessed folks who make the stupid guns-don't-kill-people argument. Guns don't kill people, it is the bullets inside those guns, silly. So hand over the bullets and you can keep your stupid guns! See how illogical these arguments are?
If you buy the guns-don't-kill-people argument, then you should buy the nuclear-weapons-are-harmless argument. After all, it is not the nuclear warhead that kills people, it is the person who presses the 'launch' button! So by your twisted logic, we should encourage nuclear weapons. See how dumb your argument is?
Supremely Dumb Argument 2: "Cars kill people too. Will you ban cars next?"
This is really the height of ignorance. Cars serve a purpose. They help people get from point A to point B. What purpose do guns serve other than making it easy to kill living beings?
Don't give me crap about how it helps protect your family! You live in a country where law enforcement is extremely good. Trust me you have no idea. Back in my country, a "911" call has almost zero chance of being responded to. With a great law-and-order system such as the one here, there is absolutely no need to own guns.
The answer to guns is not more guns, it is less guns!!
I shudder to think of the day when our entire society turns into a wacko gun-loving violent one.
So here are SOME facts. They are pretty compelling. There is more, but I am having a lazy day.
As a social scientist, I know that such debates are rarely purely "scientific". The facts are on our side (indeed, I am picking a side!) but how do you convince people who get all emotional and political about it ? More importantly, how do you break the lobbying cesspool ? These are bigger problems.
Let's address the simpler ones. Especially the supremely dumb ones.
Supremely Dumb Argument 1 : "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"
This argument is dumb on so many different levels. Yes, people kill people. But guns make it easy for people to kill people. Get that ? Give me a good reason why we should make it easy for anybody to take innocent lives? Who gives you the right to make it easy for a random nut job to kill children? Who gives you the right to make it easy to deny someone their fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Let's turn the logic for all the gun-obsessed folks who make the stupid guns-don't-kill-people argument. Guns don't kill people, it is the bullets inside those guns, silly. So hand over the bullets and you can keep your stupid guns! See how illogical these arguments are?
If you buy the guns-don't-kill-people argument, then you should buy the nuclear-weapons-are-harmless argument. After all, it is not the nuclear warhead that kills people, it is the person who presses the 'launch' button! So by your twisted logic, we should encourage nuclear weapons. See how dumb your argument is?
Supremely Dumb Argument 2: "Cars kill people too. Will you ban cars next?"
This is really the height of ignorance. Cars serve a purpose. They help people get from point A to point B. What purpose do guns serve other than making it easy to kill living beings?
Don't give me crap about how it helps protect your family! You live in a country where law enforcement is extremely good. Trust me you have no idea. Back in my country, a "911" call has almost zero chance of being responded to. With a great law-and-order system such as the one here, there is absolutely no need to own guns.
The answer to guns is not more guns, it is less guns!!
I shudder to think of the day when our entire society turns into a wacko gun-loving violent one.
Friday, March 22, 2013
How high is your V.Q ?
We live in an age where parents are constantly obsessing over how high their children's I.Q scores are. B-O-O-R-I-I-N-G...
Indian parents! Please, give I.Q the boot - what your kid really needs is V.Q !!
[ If you didn't already know, I am bringing you good news - V.Q is already in your blood...It might get a trifle supressed in your children though, especially if you raised them outside India but then it probably just needs the slightest possible nudge ]
Of course by V.Q I mean 'Vasool'giri Quotient. There, there - did I hear someone patting my back already, but let me fully explain first :
In true Mayflower style, when the first 357 (yes, I cooked that up) Indians arrived on a ship to USA they brought with them their culture, their spices and guess what else - their exchange rate !!
It is true !! The exchange rate between India and US is the life-force of V.Q. It is what makes us walking human calculators (for those who wondered why Indians are good at arithmetic). Next time you see us shopping in Macy's, try coming close to us...and assuming you don't mind the creepiness factor....come close to our heads, 'cause they will be warmer than those of other shoppers. And if you get close enough, you can surely hear the whirring inside them - the exchange rate conversion - the rapid calculations $32.64 * 53 ~ Rs.1700 should I pay that much for a pair of jeans, I can get the same for 2K with 17% discount during Diwali sale and if I use my 234 credit points on......
Still not convinced ? Read on..
Paisa Vasool
Act 1, Scene 1:
The Wife and I (two representative Indians) at the Art Institute of Chicago
We see the paintings. No - I mean we literally see every single painting in every single room and listen to everything on the (free free free!) audio guide. While other art connoisseurs are slowly waltzing their way from Manet to Monet, we are gasping for breath as we leap from Rembrandt to Van Gogh and lunge toward Picasso (we can't tell the difference - French/Dutch/Spanish - who cares) - So the scene ends with the museum curator being so impressed that she offers us jobs as supervisors that we finally politely decline.
Anyway, Paisa Vasooool. Yea !! We paid 20 bucks - of course, we want to extract as much value as we can!!
High V.Q .
High-five The Wife.
Paisa Vasool
Act 1, Scene 2:
Indians and Vonage phone connection.
Apprently for the money we pay them, the folks at Vonage give us free calling rights (evil evil smile) to 64 countries. Biggest mistake of their lives. Have you noticed news reports from around the world that random people in completely unrelated countries are getting missed calls for no reason.
Paisa Vasoooool. Yea !! We have paid for all 64 countries, haven't we ? So what if we don't know who is on the other end of the phone line. Just dial man!!
I can give more examples. But you get the drift.
Teach your kids some V.Q, or beware - they might lose their Indian-ness. Boo.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Arundhati Roy and her boring conspiracy theories
I wonder what is wrong with Ms. Roy. Is she just trying to be DIFFERENT for the sake of being different ? I never understand such people. They are...pathetic.
India hanged a terrorist. He deserved to die. The death penalty is awarded in the rarest of the rare cases. This was one of them.
And here Ms. Roy goes spreading conspiracy theories
If you read her article, you can see how cleverly she attempts to dissuade her audience from the main point in question : She asks " What are the facts ? " - and ironically NEVER presents any new ones herself.
Argument 1: Ms. Roy says that he was not part of the 'team that opened fire'.
So ? Does that PROVE he is innocent ? How does not being part of the 'team that opened fire' make him LESS guilty ? A really dumb argument!
And then she makes outlandish claims about how the movies we watch on TV make us believe that he is guilty. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such statements.
Argument 2: Ms. Roy says that there is a 'material contradiction' because the police did not clarify whether they got to the terrorist through his comrade or they got to the comrade through the terrorist. So according to her, if A does not imply B, then C cannot imply B.
Terrible logic. How do you argue with something like this ?
The good thing about facts is that they are.....facts. You can't dispute them. Afzal Guru had flirted with terrorism for a long time before he planned the attack. Get your facts right, Ms. Roy.
Argument 3: A SIM card found in possession of the terrorist was operational BEFORE the date it was sold to him. Hence he is not a terrorist.
The SIM card was used by someone who was planning the attack. These are the facts. If it didn't belong to him, what was he doing with it then ? Oh, he just happened to come across a random cellphone that was used by terrorists and picked it up off the pavement ? Ms. Roy is ready to believe the incredulity of this story but she not ready to accept that dates of purchase and dates of operation often get mixed up in day to day life (In India, an item bought today can virtually have ANY billing date on its voucher - nobody really bothers about such things).
Bottomline: If you haven't done any investigative journalism yourself, then you have no strong arguments whatsoever.
Finally, she completely ignores the FACT that Afzal Guru fought for clemency at various courts and there was more than sufficient time to build his defense. The very fact that he couldn't do so for such a long time should convince you that the case against him was air-tight.
Before she took to writing, Ms. Roy taught aerobics in 5-star hotels. She should reconsider this profession. Twisting and bending (facts) is what she excels at.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Lewis Caroll
I had no idea that Lewis Caroll was a mathematician at Oxford ! So impressive.
I am taking a course in Analysis at Wash U and we discussed a deep concept in mathematical logic called Modus ponens in class.
More than a hundred years ago, Lewis Caroll wrote a short story around familiar characters to explain this idea. Watch out for some lame puns of that era ! LOL .
I am taking a course in Analysis at Wash U and we discussed a deep concept in mathematical logic called Modus ponens in class.
More than a hundred years ago, Lewis Caroll wrote a short story around familiar characters to explain this idea. Watch out for some lame puns of that era ! LOL .
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
India and Darwin's theory
Anybody who is exasperated with the social behavior of Indians, especially those living abroad, must get one fact right. First.
That we were born in an overpopulated country with severe resource constraints and a mostly dysfunctional government.
Yes, we tend to be indisciplined, impolite and discourteous. Yes, we never seem to follow queues. And Yes, we tend to find "workarounds" (has jugaad already entered English dictionaries?) even for things that work. And, at every possible opportunity at that.
But how did we get this way ?
Is it in our 'blood' ? Can't we never learn to be 'civil' ?
Tom Wilkinson in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (an excellent movie, if I may add) makes a brilliant point. In India, life is a privilege, not a right.
In my country, we don't 'assume away' the basic necessities of life. We struggle to get them. Access to water, food, hygiene and electricity is NOT assumed. Not "obvious".We fight to get them. If you never lived in India, you might never understand what that means.
ONLY the top 1% of India's population can take these for granted, everywhere they go. Here's a scenario : The average Indian takes an 8 hour bus ride from point A to point B. After 4 hours, the driver stops the bus in order that passengers 'relieve' themselves. Now, how do they do that ? Use public toilets ? You must be joking! We know all too well that (unmanned) public toilets are unspeakably dirty and infectious, so what do we do ? We look for trees ! I claim that ANY sane person, from any part of the world, would behave exactly in the same way - if put in this situation.
You see - it is not in our 'blood'.
Again - Why don't we Indians learn to follow queues ? If you queue up in India for public transport, you will never be able to board an overcrowded bus or a train. Lets try the following social experiment in your favorite developed country - Cancel all bus routes except ONE , and keep the frequency at crazy low levels during peak time. Make sure there are only 20 seats in the bus for a passenger demand of 200. Allow the passengers to complain about this, but simply ignore them. Finally, report that the sun rises in the west if you still see people queuing up!
You see. In India, we need to fight to survive. Struggle to exist. We push, we shove and we make a place for ourselves. It is the only way we have learnt to live.
So, the next time you see us jumping queues or forgetting to open the door for you, admonish us. Counsel us and correct us. But PLEASE, understand us too.
That we were born in an overpopulated country with severe resource constraints and a mostly dysfunctional government.
Yes, we tend to be indisciplined, impolite and discourteous. Yes, we never seem to follow queues. And Yes, we tend to find "workarounds" (has jugaad already entered English dictionaries?) even for things that work. And, at every possible opportunity at that.
But how did we get this way ?
Is it in our 'blood' ? Can't we never learn to be 'civil' ?
Tom Wilkinson in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (an excellent movie, if I may add) makes a brilliant point. In India, life is a privilege, not a right.
In my country, we don't 'assume away' the basic necessities of life. We struggle to get them. Access to water, food, hygiene and electricity is NOT assumed. Not "obvious".We fight to get them. If you never lived in India, you might never understand what that means.
ONLY the top 1% of India's population can take these for granted, everywhere they go. Here's a scenario : The average Indian takes an 8 hour bus ride from point A to point B. After 4 hours, the driver stops the bus in order that passengers 'relieve' themselves. Now, how do they do that ? Use public toilets ? You must be joking! We know all too well that (unmanned) public toilets are unspeakably dirty and infectious, so what do we do ? We look for trees ! I claim that ANY sane person, from any part of the world, would behave exactly in the same way - if put in this situation.
You see - it is not in our 'blood'.
Again - Why don't we Indians learn to follow queues ? If you queue up in India for public transport, you will never be able to board an overcrowded bus or a train. Lets try the following social experiment in your favorite developed country - Cancel all bus routes except ONE , and keep the frequency at crazy low levels during peak time. Make sure there are only 20 seats in the bus for a passenger demand of 200. Allow the passengers to complain about this, but simply ignore them. Finally, report that the sun rises in the west if you still see people queuing up!
You see. In India, we need to fight to survive. Struggle to exist. We push, we shove and we make a place for ourselves. It is the only way we have learnt to live.
So, the next time you see us jumping queues or forgetting to open the door for you, admonish us. Counsel us and correct us. But PLEASE, understand us too.