Tu Hi Meri Shab Hai...

@ the inter-hostel singing competition at IIML :-)

2nd runner up!

Play at full volume ;-)

Creative Talent

To tap creative talent is one of the toughest challenges for Managers, who, for one, are themselves expected to be creative. The present systems are incapable of identifying creative people for jobs that need them. Consequently, even the present Managers are poor in the right creativity, since they too have been recruited from the same system. This calls for a huge flush & cleanse exercise in our organizations. (I believe it's needed for most systems in this world anyway).

Creative people

• May not have good communication skills. Very few do. It's natural, and true for all skills which are not our core competences.
• May not want to compete, even for what they are good at.
• May not be aggressive and assertive.
• May not have the so-called Leadership skills.
• May not have the same creative potential in every damn thing.
• May not get motivated with what the management sciences prove are best for satisfaction and productivity.
• May not think long term. May not want rewards. May not think profits. May not listen.
• May not have any desire to succeed or to rise in the organization.
• May not want greater responsibility.
• May have no interest in leading a team. May even hate people and team work.

 

...and so on... The point is, that it's foolish to expect people with creative potential to think and feel like others. And so the management principles, which appeal (questionably though) to normal minds, would definitely not work in case of most creative people. Coz on the one hand they are different, and on the other, they are different from each other, and with significant differences!

Creativity often seems to be one of the most misunderstood concepts. We often tend to associate it with artists without any strong basis. Perhaps, we tend to assume that all artists are like painters, the ones who imagine, interpret and depict stuff in new and beautiful ways. Someone who is adept at making your portrait if you sit in front may just be skillful, but not creative. Another example is photography. Nothing artistic and creative about it if it's just about clicking pictures, some of which turn out to have elements of creative difference by chance. A singer may not be creative. A composer is. One must judge creative potential of people from what they do, not from what they are.

One of the favorite questions asked in MICA Entrance interviews is 'What's the craziest thing you have ever done?' Another wrong notion - that creative people do crazy things, or rather things which ordinary mortals consider crazy. While this is really not true, such assumptions (many others besides this) kill the prospects of many deserving people entering MICA. The problem here, as I feel, is that of what we are conditioned to expect from people of a certain kind. For example, we would like to see creative people do crazy things. And we end up promoting crazy people, rather than creative people. Imagine, how big a disaster that is.

An analogy here is the way children are looked at by grown-ups. They are expected to be funny, cute and crazy - all that within bounds - besides being smart, intelligent and innocent, rather than what they actually are. Rather than giving importance to the fact that kids are real individuals with real personalities, thoughts, emotions and capabilities, parents burden them with expectations based on pleasant stereotypes.

Have any creative solutions to the creativity problem?

Random...

Randomness springs from a relatively structured root, whose parent ought to be even less random. I reached this conclusion after analyzing my own thought process. Behind all the random thoughts that I (or anybody) seem to have all the time, none of which lasts long or I can carry much ahead, I feel there must be a more structured framework of opinions, thoughts, ideas and instincts. Perhaps I skipped a few layers of randomness in between. But the point is that thoughts, like the universe, decrease in randomness as we move upwards towards their origin - the law of entropy as applied to thoughts. The external structure that we assign to what we speak or write is not really the structure of our thoughts. Nor do our thoughts emerge at such a slow rate. The spoken structure is a conscious alignment of desired thoughts which are retrieved in appropriate intervals and arranged in the right sequence so as to make sense as a whole, and with a specific direction.

The concept of energy was taught to me in the middle-school. It was introduced as capacity to do work, and the definition stayed at that even later. I always viewed the concepts of work and energy with skepticism (and I still do). I first expressed it when I was in the 11th standard, to some of my friends, but they didn't seem to bother. Just this morning, as I was jogging, I realized that defining energy as capacity to do work reflects how science and its perspectives emerge from our very human nature. (Are you wondering how?) It seems natural, of course, because we are human beings, and we have to think like humans. (What does it mean to not think like a human? Are there other ways of thinking? Are there limits to how or what we can think? If yes, is it possible to breach such limits by conscious effort?) And science, above all, is expected to solve human problems, explain phenomena in ways useful to us, create stuff to make human life easy. (Discover the truth, How & What God Thinketh... but think why we want to know that.) If there are bounds to who or what we work for, then are we not selfish? (Self here is an enhanced image of oneself, seen in association with all the entitites one relates himself/herself with, and to the extent he/she chooses to.) If yes, and I think the answer is yes, what does it mean to be not selfish?

Being selfish is not really considered bad by most people. Yet poeple are confused between the conflicting axioms of life taught to them, and the ones which drive their instincts. For example, the whole world thinks capitalism, each working for his/her own self-interest, would serve the interests of society the best. But then we are also taught tenets of team-work, cooperation etc., which, probably, are necessary to get things done in the first place - strong means for a great end, which has its importance and motivating ability only if one is selfish enough, which the concept of capitalism on top ensures. And the society sees progress, since both the means and ends achieve the best form within this framework. But such frameworks are for people devoid of feelings, emotions and desires. In real world, people are capable of, need to, want to and crave for love. But our institutions are designed for machines. Our formulas can't incorporate human power struggles - the strong, the weak and the shades of gray, the limits placed by cultural differences and natural (hate to use resources) endowments working together.

Furthermore, is society bigger than a human being? Is a country bigger than a human being? Is a culture more important than human life? Why should one be patriotic? why should there be inner (coz one is selfish beyond) bounds to selfishness? Love is certainly not the opposite of selfishness. But can someone truly Love and be Selfish at the same time?

PVR Cinemans, Lucknow

PVR Cinemans in the Sahara Ganj Mall at Lucknow has a serious serious problem. You cannot carry bags inside. Nor do they have any arrangement for keeping bags at any place in the mall, even outside the multiplex. I can't think of a more stupid way a multiplex can screw its sales, inspite of being located in the busiest shopping mall of a big city like Lucknow. The irony with this PVR is, that though it wants to attract the mall goers by offering them a movie experience along with shopping, nobody who does any shopping in the mall can watch a movie there, coz he won't be allowed to go inside with whatever he has purchased and he won't be allowed to keep anything anywhere in the mall either. Women are sometimes allowed to go inside with their handbags. I guess the definition of handbag is quite flexible, and who can argue with women about their bags! Men are not allowed to keep handbags. Men have pockets. Men have smaller things to keep. Men have fewer things to keep.

Me and my friend got pissed off last night when we were told we couldn't watch a movie there coz we had a small bag with us, which would have qualified as a handbag if my friend were a woman, and unfortunately, he was not. The bag had 2 cameras, and this was even more scary for the security guards at the entrance of PVR. They said taking a bag inside was out of question. And taking that with cameras even worse. Isn't that weird? X is not allowed. Y is more not allowed!

I got frustrated after trying to negotiate with the guards for some time, and gave up. Then went to the food court there and enjoyed my favorite Cheeze-Burst Pizza at 20% IIM discount at Dominos! I am really addicted to this Cheeze-Burst thing. I never liked pizza until I came to know you can do Cheeze-Burst and make it one of the tastist things on earth. I eat so much of it these days that Dominos people take my order with reluctance, mainly when I tell them I am IIM and ask them to give me the 20% discount that they offer to the others of my kind in Lucknow.

I have a history of interesting addictions like these. More on those some other time. Right now, I've got to rush for my Business Environment Class.

Movies

Today am going to talk about movies. Why do we watch movies? And what do we like to watch in movies? Please note that all views and thoughts here are mine. And all generalizations done here about people and mankind are either extrapolations of what I think/believe or are my assumptions/guesses, based on my fundas of the world. (It's funny, one declaration and you have licence to talk any crap!)

There are two schools of thought (there ought to be) on what movies are meant for. None of them exist as far as I know, and I don't know much anyway, more so in this area. But there must be 2 schools, coz they make sense to me. Here they are - (i)People watch movies to see their dreams, fantasies & nightmares in action. Now dreams, fantasies & nightmares can be good, bad, ugly, dirty, scary and whatnot. That's why we have myriad varieties of movies. (ii) People want to see reality in movies.

The second school of thought, I believe, is not true. It is actually an illusion people have in their minds, and comes from the (i) itself. People want to see their ideas and perceptions of reality live on screen. (Could have included this in (i) along with dreams, fantasies & nightmares. But chalta hai :P.) It gives them immense satisfaction and self-assurance. Works a great deal in boosting the self-esteem of any individual.

I think I have somehow answered both questions we started with - Why do we watch movies? And what do we like to watch in movies? Please comment to express your views on this topic. (I'll reply/respond with mine.) There is a lot of shit we can talk on this topic. I have not even scratched the surface properly.

the 'me' paradox

The population of Tigers in India has been dwindling very rapidly over the past few years. There are appriximately 1300 tigers in India right now. In 2009 alone, 72 tigers died according to the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), an NGO; and 54 died according to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), a government body, which is meant for conservation and is hence conservative!

I often wonder whether we are right or wrong in dominating the earth the way we do, and in screwing the lives of most other animals of sizes comparable to ours. As we are also animals, and part of the same nature, perhaps we are also a force operating in taking the nature to a different configuration or a stage of evolution. As we gradually end most animals our size, through reluctant selfishness inspite of attempts (that are even more reluctant and compromised in their seriousness) to save these endangered animals from us, the earth is gradually moving to a place majorly inhabited by smaller species. At the micro level, they have been beyond our control and imagination anyways. And it is natural for us to want to be all powerful and dominating, if we can, in the ranges in which we thrive. So we ruthlessly cage animals, kill them, fake wanting to save them. May be we don't fake. It's genuine. But the rationale behind it is probably still selfish - perhaps many of us fear the death of these animals may somehow lead to our own death. Why? May be because - (a)we don't think we are responsible for their death. So somehow their dying signals to us that something's wrong and we might also die because of it; or (b)we know that we are responsible for their death, and it scares us big time that we committed a sin of ending life, of which we are also a kind. I am not sure what's the actual reason. May be it's a mix of both. May be it's something else. It's weird, we are not sure what goes on inside our minds when we do things, and what really makes us do them. The brain, if at all it takes all decisions, has various ways of doing that, some of which it does not reveal to the part of the brain which 'we' seem to be conscious of (are 'we' not our brains? minds?), the thoughts, beliefs, etc. that we are aware of. It's fairly complicated how something that is helping 'me' think ('me' is again defined by that something itself) hides a part of itself from that something, which it can't, so may be it hides itself from 'me', which it seems to me is that something itself. It's terribly complicated. God must be crazy!

Have sex, Indian cricket team told

The Indian cricket team players has been asked to have more sex to increase their testosterone levels, and through that, increase their strength, aggressiveness and competitiveness. Click Here to read about it.

I am wondering whether this is good news for cricketers' wives or is something that scares them big time. Can't say how sex-deprived they are, but if they really are, then it's dream-come-true for them. But if they are not, and there could be various reasons why they may not be, then they will now have to bear some crazy fucking (ahm ahm, sorry, it's f*king). God have mercy on them!

But I don't think it is logical to assume that the cricketers will go and have sex only with their wives. Their testosterone is dedicated to the nation, and they shouldn't compromise on that if it takes unreasonably enormous amount of time and effort, because of various reasons, to reach and woo their wives. More so lately, because of the economic recession which must have rendered them unable to buy costly gifts and stuff. I am sure the wives would understand. But there's another angle to it. If any cricketer does not have sex in plenty with his wife now, she can charge him for one or both of the following 2 offences - (i)cheating on her, (ii)cheating the nation.

I must say that I intend no offence to cricketers' wives. I respect them, like I respect all women. I don't respect the cricketers though. They earn too much money and appreciation for doing nothing worthwhile. When I did more important nothings in TCS, GSSL and Satyam, I didn't earn even a measurable fraction of what the cricketers do. That's so unfair.

I've realized I occasionally write very long sentences these days. It's due to Amartya Sen. He's spoiling my english. Hey Amartya dada, I hope you read my blog. See what you have done.

I am sure my female readers (there are quite a few who say they read my blog occasionally) must be frowning like crazy reading my post about sex. It's a bad thing, ain't it? No. And it's not bad to talk about it either. The more openly we talk about it, the better. We Indians were all fine in our fundas on these matters before (say 1000 yrs back). The Britishers came, taught us all bull-shit stuff, Catholic fundas of sex is sin, weird English - which Amartya Sen is still not able to get rid of, killed our self-esteem and left us all screwed. Now the west has abandoned all that crap, is open, speaks simple English and chills out. And we are all confused ki bhai chal kya raha hai. Now imitating the west also isn't going to help, coz they picked up all the gyaan from us and adapted it to their cultures, and in the process messed it up. So we need an unlearning of everything they taught us and everything we learnt thereafter by aping them, and then apply our minds and do what's best for us. Each one of us needs to do this at an individual level and collectively it will take the shape of a culture. So the basic change has to come at the level of the attitude and perspective of every individual.