Dashavathara of a PhD student

As a follower of PhD comics, I have always wondered at the different roles a PhD student takes.  So here is a funny take with the ten incarnations, among the many, of Vishnu.

Matsya - First they gave him the coursework. He completed them. Then the qualifier. He passed them. Then comes the literature review. He digested them. Then the idea and the dissertation. With each task (new environment) he grows (like the Matsya), and in the end ready to contribute something on his own with ideas borrowed from everywhere.

Kurma - The funding agencies have to be churned (the ocean), the professors become the "devas", the univ/admin becomes the asuras (necessary "evil" who want a share), science becomes the churning rod (Mt. Mandara) and the various tools and techniques becomes the rope (Adisesha). Then they look for a solid base. Enter the PhD student who bears the brunt of everything by offering himself as the base.

Varaha - Whether it's for the gaps in the literature review or for the life partner amidst the ruins, it's up to the PhD student to dig deep and bring out the one. And he has to be quick to display it. For someone else might take it (her) and he might have to do the digging all over again.
 
Nrisimha - He can neither say nobody else has done it (for they will say you forgot to quote "his" work which is also related) nor can he say others have done it (for there is no novelty). It should neither be easy (very limited scope) nor should it be too broad. It is neither a full time job (for he is at a university) nor is he a student (for he gets a stipend and he "works").

Vamana - All he asks for is three things: Funding, Fame (publications) and Free stuff. He then has it all covered ;)

Parashurama  - Oh, he can get angry. And when he does it is the generations of undergrads (over the time it takes to finish his PhD) that will inevitably suffer. Grading hundreds of papers that takes him into the wee hours, he slays each one of them. No mercy.

Rama - The favorite student, straight As. Life has been treating him well. And just as the fat offers (corporate) walk in, he rejects them and chooses to do a PhD (vanavasa). Of course, all is well that ends well (the coronation during the doctorate). He will also have his own PhDyayana (the journey of my PhD).

Balarama / Buddha - There is always a question "Do we belong here? Aren't we the odd man out among our friends and relatives?" (much like - what is Balarama or Buddha doing among Vishnu incarnations?)

Krishna - This is tricky. For he is almost never charming to the girls and quickly labeled "too nerdy". His one big discourse does happen during the defense in what can be a battlefield. Alas, Dharma wins.

Kalki / Unknown- For he will always have a hidden dimension/hobby that is rarely revealed. Others have to wait, for the time has not yet come.

P.S - Sorry to all the female PhD students, as I used the male gender through out. It is only to go with the "gender" of Vishnu.

Play it in your mind, I say

It can be simple. All you need to do is make your mind play it.

Call it positive thinking or magnetic waves or telepathy but I think our mind is more capable than what we think it is.

All of us dream, literally and figuratively. While Freud might be more qualified to explain our dreams, we cannot deny the simple fact that dreams are some kind of thought patterns. There are things we want to do and stuff we don't want to do, and they find their way into our thought process and then get played out in our dreams. Of course, most of which we just forget!

Can we make this sub-conscious thought process, conscious? Can we do what Dr. Kalam suggested? And transform our thoughts to action, to reality? We have all heard of this - an action plan. A well thought out sequence of things that we will do/follow to accomplish a particular task. We may play it in our mind to see how the sequence of events will pan out. But is it possible to stretch this and extrapolate?

Here is a personal example. The first year in  my PhD life was easily the most difficult period in my academic life. Courses and topics were bouncing off the top of my head. I questioned myself my choice of doing a PhD. Wondered if I had it in me. What was I doing there? While later on I realized that such thoughts were only too common among PhD students, it was quite a lonely feeling then.

I only took comfort in one thought, in fact an entire scene. I imagined what I would do after I hear about the qualification result. There was a volleyball field just outside my home. I saw myself rushing to the field and leaping in joy, uncontrolled. I could feel my bare feet touching the grass. I could see that my jumps were awkward like that of an out of sync ballet. Each limb moving to its own frequency. There were no eyes watching me do this absurd act, at least not any that I noticed.

It turned out that I ended up doing nothing like that, not even close. I did pass my qualifier. And thankfully for the community residents, my emotions were well in check. :P Tasks look daunting until we finish them. Once achieved, we know they are doable and move on, I think. Of course, the imaginary "ballet" dance was not the reason I passed the qualifier. But it reinforced the thought that I would pass the qualifier. And that could have subtly helped.

My second example was of course my PhD. While my PhD was taking so long and there were thoughts about whether I should quit in between, I again dreamt. Played it out in my mind. This time it was about my graduation day. How would it be posing with my parents, family and friends, wearing the prestigious gown, and so on. Looking back, I am convinced that this process helped me sustain. Of course, graduating is not the reason one does a PhD. But it was necessary, to achieve what I wanted to.

I believe each of us is unique. What that translates to is that, the only person capable of completely understanding us is ourselves. While our friends and well-wishers, can give us words of wisdom, often it is just up to us to deal with the situation. It may not be possible for an external person to (thoroughly) empathize with our situation and here is where our minds can play a crucial role.

Of course, I don't take any credits for this idea. I dare not. I am sure there are many who do this, consciously or unconsciously, creative visualization or day dreaming, wishful thinking or otherwise. This in fact finds a mention even in our age old scripts (Hanuman's words to Sita in Sunder Khand, Akrura's thoughts during his yatra to bring Krishna and Balarama to Kamsa and so on).

P.S - Scary, but can we make bad things happen as well? A good enough incentive to think positively?

Game theory for the last over

This post was motivated of course by the last over of the World Cup (2015) semi-final.

When Elliott was batting, Steyn had several options and he is well capable of bowling everything. Yet he chose to bowl a length ball, almost a sin during the slog overs. So, why did Steyn choose to bowl length? Pressure? I don't think so. Here is a game theory explanation. For simplicity, let us discuss just two options for Steyn. Yorker vs Length. Similarly, Elliott also had a few options. For simplicity I am going to consider two: Stay put and Play across.

Now, here are the pay-offs.
1. If Steyn bowls a yorker and Elliott decides to Stay put, it's at best a single for Elliott (So, advantage SA)
2. If Steyn bowls a yorker and Elliott decides to move across and flick, because of the short boundaries, the ball might just go for a boundary. (So, advantage NZ)
3. If Steyn bowls length and Elliott decides to Stay put and slog, it's a boundary. (So, advantage NZ)
4. If Steyn bowls length and Elliott decides to move across and flick, because of Steyn's pace, Elliott is likely to miss the flick (It's not easy to time a flick against Steyn's length ball vs a yorker). So, advantage SA.

So, here is the pay-off matrix. (SA, NZ)

	Stay put	Play across
Yorker	(1,-1)	(-1,1)
Length	(-1,1)	(1,-1)

People who understand game theory will immediately realize that there is no pure strategy Nash Equilibrium in this case. That is, there is no one "best" path of action for both players. So, each player has to mix up their strategies a little. In fact, 50% for each action. But if Elliott decides to play across and Steyn know this, then Steyn's best action is to bowl length.

What actually happened? Elliott moved across before the ball was bowled. Steyn tried to outsmart him and bowled length (instead of the yorker). Elliott slogged onside instead of flicking. Game Set and Match!