Sunday, December 18, 2011

Understanding babies/kids

I should have maybe waited for 9.5 months for this blog. But I will accept this post as a premature baby :-P. Though involuntarily the seeds for this blog may have been laid when I saw the movie "Look who's talking", development of our brain has drawn my interest for long. But, what does a bachelor got to do with kids? Hmmm.. In an era when it is actually ok for a 'bachelor' to 'have' kids, I think, I can take some liberty writing about them!

Different studies have been done on how babies learn and a lot of research has been done, as google will show, and I can be sure that this will never be complete. Creation is a 'limit point' for the research 'sequence', an irrational concept (number) for rationals (numbers), the horizon for a voyager. We can only get closer and closer but will never 'reach there'. So, here is a peek at my own experiences and observations.

I have always enjoyed being around babies/kids. To me they represent purity amidst wickedness, calmness amidst commotion, clarity in confusion. Ever asked a kid a very intricate or complicated question? It will blurt out an immediate answer, nonsense/profound truth it may be. But, it is so obvious for the child. It needs no second opinion, no reservations, no approvals. For the kid, the answer is correct and it will resume/continue to do what it was doing. Yet the roles may reverse too - 'wickedness' in the face of purity (snatching its toy back from a younger one and letting it cry), commotion (that brutal, throat clearing, glass breaking cry) and confusion (why is it that mom has a biiiig piece of cake while I am thrown a morsel? Fair?). Because they constantly learn, they are constantly shaped by the environment. (I don't want to get into the argument of nature vs nurture. I believe it is a mix).

It is amazing to even try getting into the thought process of a baby. The first time it manages to hold and lift something, the first time it is able to squeeze something. We ignore these discoveries. We concentrate on the bigger and grander things, like its first few steps on its own, the baby beginning to flip over and hold its head. But the smaller things are too obvious for us. What will be our feeling when for the first time we are able to hold and lift something? We draw a blank. Joy? Yes, but how much?  A baby for sure might question why is it able to move certain objects while moving some are impossible for it and it alone (for the 'others' around it are able to move). Why is it that I am so small while the others are so biiiigggg. Maybe if I climb over a stool I grow taller? A million questions. But none of them bothers them. They just keep moving with their life.

Many of you might not know that a baby's visual zone spans only a few cms. That is, it cannot see beyond a few inches. Must be boring you think. But, it spends days and hours awake entertaining itself in this small zone. Moving, flapping its hands, legs. What exactly must it be thinking? About its career path? Next meal? Next outing? Quite puzzling, isn't it? And if there is some intrusion in its visual zone, say your face for instance, it might draw a smile/giggle if your face is good enough or funny ,or a wail/cry if otherwise. Fortunately I have drawn more smiles and giggles than wails and cries. The trick is not to get too close to it :-D

Their cry is triggered by the drop of your hat or even somebody's hat. They cry when they are hungry or too full, sleepy or as they get up from sleep, miss something, want something, their own inability, for this and for that. Fair enough. The only way they can communicate is by crying. So, fair enough. But what I don't always understand is when they cry without shedding tears. In other words, they mimic the crying without actually crying. They are intelligent enough to realize that crying accomplishes things and you don't have to cry to actually cry! And above all, they start crying if they see or hear somebody cry. If yawning is contagious to us, as we tend to yawn if we see somebody yawn or hear a yawn or even read the word 'yawn' (chances are that you might be yawning now :P), crying is contagious to babies! But, why? I think a sense of competition comes to them. Kids always try to attract attention and they have been trained that crying is the best tool for it. So, they never mind using it.

How difficult is it to catch a child's attention? What does it want/expect? If it is a baby, is it just a funny expression or rather a weird expression? I think babies start giggling when they see something that they don't normally expect to see. But, once they see it and giggle, they expect a repetition and are conditioned. Peekaboo, maybe is effective for this reason.Beyond all, I think even as we grow, we retain these basic attributes. Like, trying to attract others' attention and many many more. Perhaps, there is always a baby/child in us (think Parent-Adult-Child or Sigmund Freud). I am sure a lot of research is being done on how we carry over experiences as we 'grow up', though many don't grow up actually :).

But let me accept. Children, kids or babies can be extremely entertaining in short bursts but can also be extremely frustrating over long periods as every mother would realize. We always tend to see the former and enjoy. Only a 'mother' sees both sides of their gift. So, the next time you interact with a baby/kid try to 'get into its diapers' a little (for they don't always wear shoes :-P). And spare a thought for the mother of 'Dennis'!


Sunday, July 31, 2011

The art of removing the tail and why Zaheer is 'better' than Wasim Akram or even Steyn!

Two separate incidents motivated me to write this article. When Ishant Sharma removed the WI tail in the 2nd test of the 2011 series cheaply (3 wickets fell for 4 runs), I wondered if Ishant Sharma was a specialist in removing the tail. That is, are most of Ishant Sharma's wickets, tail batsmen? Apparently not, as my analysis will show. My second motivation was when Broad and Swann saved England the blushes in the 2nd test of Ind-Eng 2011 series. How important is removing the tail? I think, you still have a chance to pull back things if you allow the tail to wag in the 1st innings. But, in the last innings of the test match, especially if the opposition is trailing? You have until then got 19 wickets in the match. How heart breaking would it be, if you do not remove the last man? Yes, surprisingly it has happened on 20 occasions in 2000 test matches. A perfect 1% as I write! Two of them against India (both against WI, one away (2006) and one home (1978)). India have managed to do it twice too (both against England in England in 1946 and 2007). England and WI have done it 6 times, Australia 4, Pak and NZ once, to complete the list.

So, here I analyze if there are any specialists in removing these tail batsmen among the 'great' bowlers. I define 'tail' by batsmen from No. 8 to No. 11. The keeper mostly comes in at No.7, unless you have 5 bowlers, and sometimes an all-rounder might also come at No.8. So balancing both, No.8 seems to be an ideal place to start the 'tail'. Of course with Broad at No.9 and Swann at No.10, the definition of 'tail' by sheer batting order does not make complete sense, but then all keepers are also not batsmen. So, no analysis can be done if we fret too much on defining the tail.

What % of a bowler's total wickets were from batsmen batting at No. 8  to No.11? The fast bowlers typically start the innings and hence a high % of their wickets will be the openers or positions 1-3/4. The spinners come in the middle and hence a high % of their wickets might come from the middle order 4/5-7. But, the tail enders are equally likely to get out to pace and spin. Of course, you must bring in the nature of the pitch into consideration. Keeping all these aside and purely involving in number crunching, we can expect each bowler to have about 33% (=1/3rd split of the batting line-up) of their wickets by getting the 'tail' out. Here is the actual percentages of the leading wicket takers and a few contemporaries.



Wickets 8-11
Total wickets
%
M Muralitharan
260
800
32.50
S Warne
263
708
37.15
A Kumble
201
619
32.47
G McGrath
142
563
25.22
C Walsh
163
519
31.41
K Dev
123
434
28.34
R Hadlee
129
431
29.93
S Pollock
124
421
29.45
W Akram
145
414
35.02
H Singh
145
406
35.71
C Ambrose
112
405
27.65
I Botham
118
383
30.81
M Marshall
99
376
26.33
W Younis
109
373
29.22
I Khan
104
362
28.73
D Lillee
97
355
27.32
A Donald
86
330
26.06
B Lee
83
310
26.77
L Gibbs
111
309
35.92
F Trueman
97
307
31.60
D Underwood
70
297
23.57
Z Khan
55
273
20.15
J Garner
87
259
33.59
M Holding
69
249
27.71
D Steyn
79
238
33.19
I Sharma
34
120
28.33

The numbers speak for themselves. For Zaheer, only 20% of his wickets were from the tail. You could interpret this in a number of ways. The bowlers are sometimes too good for the tail or the bowler is just not interested in picking the low hanging fruits. They want a more challenging task. I will dare not get into this argument :P

To answer my question, few of the top bowlers are good/interested in removing the tail (< 33%), except Shane Warne and Wasim Akram. So, maybe captains should turn to their second and third best bowlers when the tail is on? And Dhoni should turn to Harbhajan!! Open for a discussion.

Courtesy - Cricinfo

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Why do people lie

Even though the motivation for this blog came after I heard that a 'friend' of mine lied to me (I am still not sure if it was a lie), I will try to abstract the word 'lie' and possible reasons for our urge to lie.
I have always felt "It is not about the number of friends you have, it is about the number of people who consider you as a friend. So a 'friend' is not your friend, but rather one who considers you as a 'friend' ".. seems good enough for a Rajini movie's punch dialogue :P

We all lie, have lied and will lie (how else can we sleep in the night? :P). When a passerby or our friends ask 'how are you', we mostly reply 'fine' / 'good'. And there is one example!

Lying for fun - Isn't this the coolest thing? For a few seconds or minutes we enjoy the moment. We deceived others! There seems to be some joy in it. Maybe it explains the inherent nature in us. Think April 1st.

We may lie to feel happy / escape punishment - The famous statement "I had nothing to do with it" Even though, we know we had everything to do with it ;), is one example. We want others to respect us always, never want the outside world to look down upon us. We don't dare to lose our image, no one shall remove the veil on our face.

We may lie to make sure that the other person does not feel jealous - Remember how we used to reduce or increase our test scores back in school? Childish though it may seem now, it has just taken other forms (income for instance) as we grow up. Once again, we try to mold how others think about us.

We may lie to ward off ego clashes - similar to the above but a subtle difference (jealousy vs ego) in the motivation behind the lie (others vs you)

We may lie to make others feel good - Child: Is my painting good? Father: It's so cute! It's awesome. Wife: I tried this recipe, how is it? Husband: It's delicious! Mother: Are you eating well? Son: Oh yeah, by all means :P

Except for the last reason, every time we lie, I think we gather some negative energy. I can never feel comfortable after I lie. More so if I am able to see that the other person is lying. Some people get used to it, they become immune to it, they just digest it. I am still learning.

And then there are lies that we say to hide the lies that we said before that. Because truth is always the same but a lie has the potential to take multiple forms. So then, we have to keep track of what lie we said and to whom we said (to save us an embarrassment :P). The cycle continues. We all know this, but just cannot stop lying for whatever reason!

I am reminded of the following quotes,
सत्यस्य वचनं श्रेय: | सत्यादपि हितंवदेत् । | यद्भूतहितमत्यन्तं ऐतत् सत्यं मतं मम ॥ Speaking the truth is good. But, more than truth, speak that which will benefit others. That which results in the welfare of beings is the real truth and that is my (Sage NAradA's) opinion.

"பொய்மையும் வாய்மை யிடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த
நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின். " (ThirukkuRaL by ThiruvaLLuvar)- If it will result in blemish-free good / benefit, even a lie can be considered to be true.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know - John Keats

So, when I thought my 'friend' lied to me, it did hurt me. I can never guess why my friend lied to me (if it was indeed a lie). But, my own definition of 'friend' and 'lie' soon made me feel lighter.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Am I *really* a vegetarian

Caution: Some lines might be quite disturbing! Readers watch-out for *skip* lines. Though I encourage you to read everything.

A conversation I will distinctly remember in my life with a Polish/Austrian person (P)
P: So, do you eat meat?
Me: No, I am a vegetarian
P: So, you eat fish?
Me: No, I am a vegetarian
P: How about eggs?
Me: No, I am a vegetarian
P: So, what do you eat? Where do you get your proteins and nutrients from?
Me: Lentils, milk, fruits *bla bla*

The conversation might sound funny to some which was my intention too. But it is also a subtle way of stressing on the fact that there are people who don't even know what vegetarianism is, and they also don't know about other options available to them. I cannot blame them. Diet is a function of so many parameters and geography and climate play a big part in it. You can only eat what is available to you, but that is not an excuse for many in this world. When alternatives are available, there is another word for these people - 'selfish'. But in this 'selfish' world it is not necessarily 'wrong' and hence they exist.

People associate vegetarianism with religion. But just like religion is a way of life (which many might not agree), vegetarianism is also a way of life. To me it is the symbol of non-violence. I have had many childhood arguments back in school supporting vegetarians. Soon, the argument will revolve around 'killing' 'lives'. Do vegetarians consume only bi-products? Don't they 'kill' the plants (rice/paddy/wheat) albeit at the end of their life cycle?

When you move away from things that you took for granted, that is when you miss them. After I came to the US, I started learning more about our (then) 'non-violent' way of life from my grandmother, my elders, my friends and so on. And here I am presenting a few and contrasting it with our current 'way of life'.

*skip*
I was dumb enough to realize very late that a cow can lactate only for a few months and so you need to keep her under lactation! So, never questioned what happens to the calves (male or female) that she gives birth to. Forget even the atrocities that she has to go through (I will leave it to the reader to google for it if 'interested'). 

*resume*
Contrast it with the situation just two generations before, my grandmother's family had their own cow. She (the cow) was called Lakshmi. My grandmother told me about stories of the calf and how it would hop around and they can even leave a baby unattended! The calf will just hop around, up and over the baby. Call it coincidence, bravado or foolishness it highlighted one important point, the mutual love and the trust that existed between the animals and us. And they used to rear the cow for milk only after the calf had consumed enough for itself and the beauty was, the cow still gave enough milk for the whole family (a family of easily 6)! And they exchanged calves. You did not have special male breeds (oxen) for the farms and the male calves were in demand too. And cows were given a proper burial after their life and not sent 'elsewhere'.

And how about plants? Every one knows how current farming is done. Completely mechanized and made commercial. But again a 'few' years back or maybe even now, plants were never uprooted. Spinach for example, only a few branches were removed and the rest were left on the ground. So, they were still 'products'. Fruits were never nipped in bunches. At least a couple of fruits were left in the trees, they were never made to look bare. The same applied to flowers and any plant produce for that matter.

'Non-violence' was written all over. Not only 'written' but also spoken. For instance, my ancestors used the word 'thirutharadhu' for 'cutting' vegetables. It was not 'naRukkaradhu' or 'aRukkaradhu' which actually means 'cutting'. 'Thirutharadhu' literally means 'correcting'. We 'correct' the shape of the vegetables, not 'cut' them. I could not stop admiring our 'olden' and 'traditional' ways. Even the 'produce' was treated with love and care, not only the main plant and animals. 

What is 'sustainable' then, may not be 'sustainable' now. To feed 7 billion people in the world and 1 billion people in India it does need innovation and a change in methodologies and principles. But, the nadir that we seem to have hit upon makes me feel bad that I am part and I am contributing to this system. But, when I see at least a few people questioning such means and relishing old methods it helps in keeping the 'hope' alive. Veganism and Organic are alternates but still not substitutes to our olden days. Though I am not fully convinced of both, organic seems to be a better start than other alternatives currently available. Still looking for better means and I guess will keep looking.



Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Why we do what we do

I kept postponing my first blog on religion because I think I am still not knowledgeable enough to talk about it and not 'mature' enough to discuss it. I still believe so, but my friend's thoughts has evoked a few opinions of mine. Before I opine, here are a few disclaimers:
I am not categorically proving anything. These are open topics and I would be glad to agree with you if it is logical.

Let me start off on a lighter note
There was once this village, where the people performed a pooja every month. Before commencing the pooja, they frenetically search for a cat and tie it to a post and then and only then they commence the pooja. This was obviously amusing to a new comer who watched the proceedings for the first time. He knew this was odd and started to investigate and found that years before (say a generation before), when the pooja was conducted, a cat made its way into the venue. Thinking that it might disrupt the proceedings, the then priest had ordered the cat to be tied up, only to be released later. And lo, this act was included in the set of procedures from then on!!

After you have laughed at the above story, let me tell you another one
There was this another village which had a beautiful pond in its capacity. The village had its own set of rules and it was forbidden to fish in the pond during the waning cycle of the moon (Full moon to no moon). It became a tradition and after generations, another new comer was curious about this rule and argued that it was a superstitious belief and there was nothing wrong in fishing all season. The villagers 'believed' so and soon started fishing on all days. And the pond became dry (of fish) because of exploitation.

Two stories, both of customs emerging from tradition. When we had full information we saw the reason behind the tradition and when we did not have that information and broke the tradition, we paid for it. These were simple and straightforward cases. So, we could cheat and look at the solution. What about not so obvious cases? Can butterfly effect be ruled out?

And here starts my actual blog on religion
Religion to me is based on 'belief'. And this makes it abstract and makes it difficult to explain. And this is why even extremists are able to defend their extreme views. Because they 'believe' so. Why does it make it difficult to explain? Because, you don't know where to draw the line. If you believe in one step, somebody believes in 2 steps and it becomes 'complicated'. If you ask him to reason out why he believes in that extra step, it will not take much time for him to retort by asking you the same thing (Why did you believe in Step 1?). If religion is based on belief, philosophy, I would say, is based on leaders. Dwaita, Adwaita, Vishtadvaita all came about because of leaders who could think beyond a common man can. Based on debates one won over the other. There was only one winner at one instance and it was the leader who won and not the philosophy.

And as soon as I start, I realize it is becoming too big both to my comfort and your comfort. So, let me quickly answer some questions by my friend and continue the discussion 'later' :)

1. Why Abishekams (ceremonial bathing of 'God')?
Though I am not in favor of abishekams because of 'my' belief system, I would still not condemn this. Abishekams were more justifiable centuries ago when there were lavish resources. If literature evidence was to go by, a few centuries ago there was no concept of donation as there was no one seeking for a donation (now a days there is no one to give!). But why don't I condemn Abishekams today when there is shortage of resources? I see abishekam as an act of indulgence by the person who arranges it. And my question to you is don't we indulge? Right from ice cream to other 'wasteful' food to vacation time, entertainment etc etc? Why don't we donate this to the poor and live with the basic necessites? Because we want to be 'happy'. Any idea how much milk the restaurants, the cafetaria, retailers waste every day? A trivial portion of the abishekam, I would say. If that indulgence is ok, then we don't have the right to complain about Abishekams. We feel happy in our indulgence and they feel happy in theirs. If only all parties realize what they are doing, we would at least transcend one 'yuga' before. Alas, the world is not ideal. That is why, though I would not approve of it, I don't have the right to complain.
Why on a 'stone'? If you believe in God (Step 1), then you cannot question the one who believes God is in the 'stone' (2 steps). Where do you draw the line? It is 'his' belief. 

2. Sat Sangh - Men and Women separated to not 'distract' each other
All my answers revolve around the belief system. The question here was if you want to link with God's message, why can't you control your emotions? Why should you be separated from the other sex? Haha, if only everybody had control over their minds. Let's take an example of a person trying to be on a diet. Will you test him by keeping his favorite foodies on the table and ask him to stay away or help him by keeping things away? Yes, control even when opportunities exist is the ultimate goal. But, to reach there it takes time and I would not blame small steps towards the goal. Is physical separation enough? Nope, but baby steps are a good beginning and they 'believe' so.

3. Disrespecting 'fertility'
Our elders had the most respect and concern for women who were in their menstrual cycle. But, sadly I think it was twisted like the cat story. They did not want them to suffer and helped them to take complete rest. So, out of kitchen, need not say prayers (or mantras) aloud, and not even undergo the pain of going to a temple. Just be at home, take complete rest and do whatever they feel like. And this I think has been misinterpreted now as a sign of stripping women off their power. What was a good old tradition, became a customary ritual that is sadly bordering on ridiculing. 

So, to summarize though personally I am not for 1,2 and 3 and  in fact vehemently against 3, because of 'my' belief  system, I would not complain about 1 and 2 as they are relatively 'harmless', when you take it to non-religious extensions. Someone else will come and say, even 3 was acceptable to him for which I will keep arguing (endless). Any 'belief' as long as it does not directly hurt anybody is personally ok with me and that is my belief system. Or may be I should say (being an MBA) 'it depends' :P

Bonus question - Is Hinduism an example of polytheism (more than 1 God)
An often repeated question. And a simple answer is there is nothing called Hinduism which is an artificial terminology (more on this later or you can 'google'/'wiki'). Each one's religion is monotheistic and Vedas say "Ekam sath vipraaha bahudha vadanthi". There is one truth, which the learned call by multiple names. Freedom of choice has been misinterpreted as confused plurality. I can write a separate article on this.. May be some other time..

Comments most welcome.. Hope I did not hurt anybody.. Credits to all the intellectual discussions I have had with so many friends and relatives in my life.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Should domination be shown by demeaning?

I could only fume at this news. Yes, it is most likely that the students were at fault. Yes, it is most likely that they had involved in illegal and fraudulent activities. Yes, 'they' are a superior nation and these students are dependent on 'it'. Yes, they are immigrants. But, is this the way to treat them?

Can't the tags be put as arm bands? as waist belts? as wrist bands? Why on ankles? Even mentally challenged and hysteric persons will be rarely treated as 'beasts'. I am glad they were not 'collared'. In an age when hand cuffs are considered to be demeaning - ankle tags? After all 'they' are the masters here..

Will fume more later.. And I will take back my words if I find their action reasonable..

Update on March 12 2011
It was interesting to see this after a few weeks ( a team of Indian American scientists developing an alternative to radio tags)
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/indianamerican-scientists-develop-alternative-to-radio-tags/article1533660.ece