Archis's Blog

June 15, 2009

Addicted to Failure

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — archisgore @ 5:07 am

I did comment before on how I find many, if not most, parents determined to grow their kids like horses on a stud farm for the purposes of display in a zoo. Yes, and I mean this quite close to literally in some cases. I can’t come up with a fancy or catchy name for this behaviour pattern yet, but I’m open to suggestions.

This is just a commentary and I make no point here, and I’m certainly not saying what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s just an observation I made and wanted to verbalise it and get your thoughts on it.

Parents’ defensive maneuver
I’ve covered the basics before – parents choose to shower their kids with everything they could possibly do – waiting in long lines for weeks to get admissions in the best kindergarten schools, sending kids off to extra coaching, and super-extra coaching to make sure they top their kindergarten, and if time permits send the kids off to extracurricular activities which are precisely timed and measured. Some learn music, some learn sports, but all in a measurable and quantifiable format. Why you ask? So that when the kid “fails in life” (failure again defined by said parents), the parents can claim they did everything they could possibly do. What more could they have done? Now this would be perfectly fine if it worked, but I’m now convinced beyond any doubt that it doesn’t. (For those not familiar with scientific terminology – all this means is that it has no effect on the outcome whatsoever, so don’t cite examples of where it worked and tell me it doesn’t ‘necessarily fail’ – if it doesn’t consistently succeed – or even succeed with any statistical significance, it’s called a failure. You might as well be throwing dice as your predictor for success.)

Two years after I pass out of college I can confidentaly say that some of my supposedly stupid friends from back in school and college turned out to be greater successes than most contemporaries from prestigious technical institutes who used to look down on us. I can now boast of ex-classmates who are reputed professional singers, an actress, a guy who runs an advertising company, a guy who failed his 12th exam (a BIG deal in Middle Class India) now lives on the sea-shore of Wales discovering oil, and countless others who became successes in things that I’d have hardly imagined were accessible to commoners. These are kids whom I’ve known to have never attended a single class, spent their time in coffee shops all day and spent time doing what they loved to do (which isn’t saying a lot). These were people who did everything wrong with their lives, by social norm. And yet, every time I talk to them when I visit Pune, I experience an intellectual high I no longer find in my own field. These people can talk about everything from literature (and I mean real literature – not Harry Potter books), wines, complex cheeses, intricacies of musical styles from different continents, history, philosophy, movie production, social dynamics, discrete mathematics, quantum physics, nanotechnology, and whatever else you can think of (had to cut down the list up there). These people are truly happy, and fun to be with.

If I contrast them with the people who did everything right with their lives, those were labelled by society as some of the best technical minds from the country, university toppers, 4.0ers, etc., I feel a great sense of frustration. The very people who went to a million coaching classes, did extra school work, would feel guilty for having missed out on the first five minutes of a class they were accidentally late to, are now the ones who spend their lives squabbling over marginal pay raises, fighting for promotions, cribbing about work-life balances, and bitching every evening about managers, co-workers and their companies. You’d have imagined these people spending spending their time discussing advanced algorithms, new breakthroughs, or products that change the world, and you’d be wrong. Then again we know what the smart MBAs from the best business schools, who were funded from taxpayers money and glorified in the press, have done to our economy – we’re all feeling the effects of that. It’s a gloomy and depressing scene in the technology and financial world today – where supposedly the smartest people exist.

Looking back on my life, I feel these people are the real failures in life. The reason we don’t hear about it as “failure” in common society is simply because all possibility of blame has been removed. Parents did all they could – they gave these guys the best tuitions, the best schools, the best of everything. They did everything Middle Class Morality expected of them. It was so much easier to push all responsibility on society rather than show a little backbone and take the risk of being right. You just send the kid to whatever the majority calls the “best thing to do” and you’re now no longer responsible for the kid’s failure – the majority will never admit they made a mistake – and the world moves on.

The Addiction to Failure
You heard that right. It is my observation that such parental behaviour encourages an addiction to failure in kids who are brought up this way. The I-did-all-I-could-do attitude comes from an inherent addiction to failure. During my last trip to Pune – which was my first trip in the middle of the recession, I realised something. My “loser” friends have fun and happy lives because they are really afraid to fail. They don’t know when they might fail, and they’ve experienced some really bad failures in their lives. They know the difference between hitting rock bottom when nobody cares for you, and the mushy-mushy failure when you have sympathisers. This means that they know what real failure tastes like (all you Indian readers can imagine what failing 12th standard feels like) and will do everything they can to avoid it. It also means that whatever fear they had of hitting rock-bottom has been faced and nothing frightens them easily. Someone who scores horribly in exams and goes to bad colleges will know that there is no pity to be expected in real failure – there’s only condescension, insult, and humiliation. You learn to live with the fact that you have nobody on your side. You are relegated to reading in newspapers about various opportunities, initiatives and whatever being offered exclusively to students on fancy colleges or those meeting certain criteria knowing that you have no chance in hell of ever being noticed.

The winners however, are addicted to failure because it gets them pity – an addiction worse than drugs, mainly because it cannot be easily identified. If you do everything right, and yet fail or are miserable, you have a bunch of people to pet you and pamper you. Over time, you start looking for trouble because it’s the lab-rat or dog-training reinforcement behaviour. You do something – you get sympathy – you do it again. When you’re a socially-defined winner, the majority won’t ever admit they were wrong, and instead enable you to feel sorry for yourself in order to justify themselves.

I know this seems a bit counter-intuitive and crazy, but look around you, the evidence is there. If I weren’t in Microsoft, or hadn’t gotten far in Code4Bill three years ago, how many sympathisers would have I had? Would you have said Microsoft doesn’t know how to hire good people? Now put me in the best college in India, and rethink the last two sentences. Would you have told me that I’m simply that bad which is why I failed? That’s real fear of failure – when you know that if you fail, you’ve got nobody to symapthise with you, and instead the entire world is waiting to tell you how much you truly suck. Now when I look back seven years ago at those aspiring singers, actors, writers, musicians, etc. I realise that the reason they learnt to be happy and fun is because they got to experience first-hand what it means to be ignored, rejected and not cared for, and I can safely say that boy are those people afraid to go back there again! The winners though, experienced early on that so long as they do what society asks them, and keep whining about how their life sucks, they get that many more admirers and sympathisers, and I can imagine why they’d want to go back there over and over and over again.

Fear of Failure provides objectivity

Another counter-intuitive statement and yet one that will make sense by the time I’m done arguing it.

People who’re afraid of real failure, know what it takes to win. They do whatever is in their power to win. What they don’t do is irrelevant stuff in a defensive maneuver. People were always surprised to find me and my friends watching movies during exams, and we’d open books at the maximum one hour before an exam. I can honestly say the maximum I’ve ever studied for any paper would be 4 hours before – much less than the countless weeks and months that the winners would spend on. I wasn’t the only one in class though – I’ve known tons of people who wouldn’t touch a book.

Once again, the answer is true fear of failure, as opposed to an addiction to failure. If I screwed up, there’s nobody to sympathise with me. The winners know as well as I do that most courses don’t have a whole lot of content that requires studying for weeks and months, but their sympathysers are the ones who really require to see them study for weeks and months so that when they screw up, they are assured of another sympathy fix, “Aww… you poor dear. You studied so hard. It’s alright, there’s nothing more you could have done!”

I’ve noticed this most commonly in humans. If they are assured they have no shoulder to cry on, their decisions are inherently rational and objective, than if they knew they had someone’s shoulders to cry on. When you know you have nobody on your side, you give up the sham of “hard work” and really begin working hard because you start focussing on what you want as opposed to what you need to prove in order to get sympathy. You really start exploring all your options. You become desperate because you’re afraid. You really end up doing all you could possibly do.

I noticed this in exams and I notice this in all the different companies where my friends talk about promotions, pay raises, whatever. Those who’re really afraid, just do whatever it takes and are happy when they get it. Others will do everything else except what their evaluators are looking for and will keep cribbing year after year about how they’re stagnating, because actually getting what they want would be detrimental to their sympathy-fix.

Part of why I had to verbalise this is that I began to realise I was falling in the same trap lately – especially in the last six months. When life becomes too easy, and you find yourself surrounded by people who won’t tell you you suck, its time to shake things up a bit!

April 27, 2008

Getting a new system up – Pendrive Linux +1, Sify Broadband -10!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — archisgore @ 1:18 pm

I bought a new PC recently and thanks to an increased awareness of piracy (and moreover since I work at Microsoft), the dealer gave it to me without even a formatted hard disk. Not having bought a PC in the 21st century yet, I faced quite a daunting challenge – how do I get the damn thing up? Every tool depends on every other tool until you don’t know what to do.

I wanted a system up and running in minutes without hassle and get a basic browser working (I’m going out of town for a couple of weeks vacation), and didn’t want to bother with elaborate setup.

My mind turned to Damn Small Linux – I had used it once before to extricate myself from a major problem. It has a fairly simple process to put itself on a USB drive. However, I found Pendrive Linux which has an even yet simpler process – just extract the zip onto your drive, run a batch file, and it’s ready!

Yes, even though I work at Microsoft – I prefer a small commandline system at home – takes a record five seconds to boot, I use Lynx for most of my browsing, which is downloading e-books from gutenberg, and can play music in the background. When absolutely necessary, X + Xfce (no Gnome/KDE for me, thank you very much), serves very well for movies/tv-programs. (My friends don’t take very kindly to spending a night due to the unreasonably complex nature of every task they have to perform.) But I love it! I’m planning to try a FreeDOS + Arachne combo sometime – if only my videos could be played – then I’d be a complete individual!

My only complaint is that Sify is such a horrible broadband provider – and so very presumptous that I can’t run it on my config – it’s client on Linux (and Windows) positively sucks:
1. It is obsessed with “your safety” and forces you to install an A/V on Windows.
2. It somehow links tracks the firefox process it starts with it’s ads – which if you close, the client crashes.
3. There is no way to automate the damn thing.
4. Requires gtk libraries to run (and links to specific .so files so you have to add some symlinks in /usr/lib to get it working) – no commandline support.
4. Looks plain ugly! Nags me a lot! Windows won’t automatically shut down because the highly concerned Sify client wants you to confirm whether you *really* want to quit – it probably assumes you’ve got a monkey punching keys who might have asked windows to shutdown accidentally.

April 13, 2008

Why mathematics is *really* scary

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , — archisgore @ 4:23 am

This blog is not mathematical. It’s about exploring the “real” fear we have of mathematics. The fear isn’t about numbers and factorials and stuff. Some people can change a punctured tire on my car, and I’m not intimidated by that fellow. Some fellow discovered penecillin and I don’t find that threatening to me. I think most of you figured out I don’t know how to spell “penecillin”, and that doesn’t bother me either. However, some fellow is a professor of logic and somehow all of us become defensive (come on, accept it) in front of him/her. In order to overcome this fear, we must verbalise it. This blog attempts to do just that.

The fear is about definitions. Mathematicians live by definitions and they can hold you accountable for them. We don’t even fear definitions so much as we fear the way mathematics applies definitions – absolutely, impartially, impersonally, objectively.

I recently had a discussion with a junior of mine who wanted to do “something creative”. Readers familiar with my “Project Guidance” blog will understand just how much that must have frustrated me.

I tried to give him an idea of what “problem” means, and the fellow went on about some grand world-saving philosophical schemes. A typical “Impressive Project” (Definition here) enthusiast. I realised perhaps my explanation on problems wasn’t clear, so I took the trouble of writing a followup to that entry.

I know it’s very difficult and frightening and scary to define use-case scenarios. And I know it’s very difficult to live with “definitions”. And I know no authority figures in any of your colleges live by definitions. But that’s just how I’m built. Without definitions there is no accountability. I am always eager to upgrade definitions. I never said they don’t need to be fixed from time to time. As a discussion progresses, a definition can and must change. However, to not have a definition itself, is something I am not willing to live with. You have to take me as I come – else don’t deal with me – it keeps you happy in your subjective world, and it keeps my frustration levels low.

Let me explain by what I mean. I’m sure 99% of readers are going to dismiss this entry as some kind of “mathematical” crap, or “everything isn’t hard and fast”. But if you’ll bear with me a minute, you’ll realise that I don’t claim everything is hard and fast either. I don’t claim everything can be absolutely understood and mapped out. However, I do claim that everything can be absolutely defined. Let me illustrate.

When you pass out from high school, there is a certain criteria that determines what college you get admitted in for higher studies. The criteria is almost always based on some marks. Within this, the criteria is somehow connected to marks you obtained in your high school courses. Now, this is a “definition” of admittance to the college. We live with it. Not because it’s what everyone is happy with, or because it defines intelligence. Simply because we need to admit _someone_ and that needs to be done in a finite period of time. It so happens that generally those who do get admitted are the ones who go on to have good careers and help in breaking down the need for definitions themselves (while still applying many definitions around them for their benefit).

The topper of your high school board exam won’t admit that the definition of a “top scorer” is simply “answering the set of questions amounting to a larger total of marks than anyone else, while maintaining the answers as close as possible to the model answers available with the examiner”. (Doesn’t that make them seem a lot more human and vulnerable than what they would like you to believe?) It so happens that this person most probably goes on to become a major celebrity and thereby perpetrates the notion that high school scores define “intelligence” itself. However, if a lower-scorer claims that’s not necessarily true, the topper will answer by, “Yes, but everything isn’t absolute. You can’t define a top scorer as simply someone who answered all questions as close as possible to the model answers.” (You’ll notice I don’t use the word “correctly”)

All around us, society is afraid of definitions because those in power would find themselves brought down to the level of us mortal human beings. Ironically, those of us already mortal humans don’t want definitions either, because by hook or crook, we hope, someday, that we shall be in power, and God-forbid we be haunted by the very definitions we helped create. More and more I realise why the Greeks thought the last of the evils to come out of Pandora’s box was “hope”. They didn’t mean hope as in, “I hope someday crime will stop”, but rather, hope as in, “I hope someday I become that crime lord I’m so jealous of. I’d better not demand laws against crime, lest my hopes should be realised.”

The more commonly encountered version of this is the ‘not-all-questions-have-a-yes-no-answer’ argument. We all know whether or not to send a soldier to certain death has no clear answer, but we either do it or don’t do it. It is this scenario of mathematics that frightens us. Maths makes us responsible. Maths makes us accountable. When India is attacked, regardless of the propriety of our soldiers being sent to death, the mathematical fact that they died does not change. And that’s what frightens the shit out of people. And that’s one reason why regardless of what you may think, I respect our elected leaders. Either they don’t send our soldiers to die, and I possibly die out of it, and they are accountable for my death. Or they do send our soldiers to die, in which case I may be saved, or even so the enemy may overpower them and kill me. Regardless of what happens, good or bad, the elected leader made a choice.

The reason we’re afraid of the yes-no answer not because we’re unsure of ourselves, but rather because we’re sure of ourselves. We’re sure we’re going to be dishonest in the future. We’re sure we’re lying our ass off! We’re sure any “answer” will haunt because we use dual standards everywhere.

To illustrate my point of how “impressive projects” are cowardly, I found an interesting joke:
A guy is celebrating his 25th anniversary of happy marriage without arguments with his wife. A fellow sitting next to him asks, “How come you went through 25 years without a single argument?”

The first guy says, “That’s because we have an understanding. I don’t bother her about all the minor and insignificant issues, and I only think about the things that matter. She looks after the groceries, cleaning, cooking, etc. I only speak about Bush’s war on terror, and Saddam Hussein’s capture.”

I never found a more fitting parable to the “impressive project” syndrome. Those people only talk at the meta level on how to design a grand all-unifying OS, or how to define a grand UI framework to end all UI frameworks. The minor problems like shipping, delivering, etc. are not their concern.

However, enter mathematics (or any real science for that matter) and all of a sudden you have definition. You have words like, “discriminants”, “quantifiable”, “measurable”, “repeatable”, etc. which scare the shit out of anyone.

Mathematics says, “Don’t tell me what opinions you have. Show me the quantifiable difference made by your opinions in this world.”

And suddenly, regardless of how insignificant her contribution may be, your wife seems to have an epsilon-above-zero contribution to say the least. Your contribution (unless you’re Bush himself – even this many people will debate) is nil! And that’s when crap like, “Hey everything cannot be measured” comes up.

You’re sitting in a board meeting pretending to be a bigshot who knows his stuff and while you’ve pretend to be paying attention all along, what’s really going on in your head is, “Hey there was a hot blonde on my way to work today. Need to strike up a conversation with her. Wonder what happens if my wife finds out?”

Then suddenly you’re asked, “Hey so do we sell this product or not?” Your rival is sitting across the table and had laid out an impressive argument against selling it. But he doesn’t matter anything to anyone (yet). Now if you say “yes”, and if it works out, you win bigtime. If you say no, and it turns out it became a big hit anyway, your opponent wins. That’s when you use the old, “Well, you know… there’s no real answer. It’s a product. It depends on whether the customer will accept it or reject it.”

Well done! Bravo! All of us fools in the meeting thought the product would make money off trees. We had no idea customers need to accept it! You got some real genius there, sport!

Of course the freakin’ customer needs to buy it! That’s what we’re asking. Do you think the customer will buy it or not? That’s what you’re being paid for you retard! And suddently you realise that if everyone understood mathematics or science even remotely your position would go to a chimp scratching his butt with sticks and being paid bananas.

With enough people like you in the world, and it’s not surprising why:
a) People think of mathematics as purely numbers and figures.
b) People think mathematics is all about absolutes and unchangeble definitions while the world is “fluid” in nature.
c) People think mathematics doesn’t apply to “real world” problems.

I am myself personally the paradox of having definitions, but I do not break them. I may oppose a definition and will fight my whole life to have it changed. But under no circumstances will I allow anyone to say, “There is no definition. It cannot be hard and fast.” Not for some grand long-term philosophical benefit of mankind either – but for my own benefit, and possibly the benefit of my kids (I meant that as a figure-of-speech).

I am by definition stupid and dumb. I scored horribly low in my high-school and college exams. By definition, I went to a bad college. By definition I am supposed to be in a “bad profile” (I prefer the word job, but I live with current definitions). Ironically, I have a job that toppers would die for. This paradox clearly indicates that either of two contemporary definitions needs to be upgraded. Either high school standard scores are not indicative of intelligence, or the job which most people seem to want is in reality a very horrible one.

There’s a very specific reason why I won’t say “remove the criteria for college admissions.” Because that puts me in a situation of unwieldable power myself. It makes the system subjective. Subjectivity is more dangerous than stupid objectivity. I am ready to face torture due to a definition, so long as there exists one, because it is uniformly applicable.

You can visit a certain department in the Pune Univ to find out for yourself. Over time, they acquired so much power, that now that can literally (yes, I kid you not!) “grant marks” based on overall student’s “intelligence”. The positive side now is that there is no way to beat the system. You can’t just score high if you fit in their “definition of intelligence” (the way it happens with high school). It seems great on day one. All alumni from even colleges (who understood nothing of this system) supported this move. Afterall, it was the perfect system! “True Intelligence” was rewarded, because there was no definition!

And suddenly, one day, one guy woke up and found himself being failed in a subject where he feels sure of being able to defend his answers even in front of Alan Turing if need be. What the heck happened? Now what does he do? How does he beat the system? He asks for the professor to evaluate him – and they do evaluate him, and he answers everything correctly. However, the scores come out again, and he’s still failing. He goes and asks the prof what happened, and the prof says that he thinks the student has no intelligence to speak of. So the student asks if there is anything he can do to convince the prof of his intelligence. The prof replies that all the alumni have certified him as being able to measure intelligence and by that authority he is failing the student. The student has beaten such systems before – in High School by mugging up answers to “come as close as possible to the model answer”, in College by using various rules and regulations to gain marks by default. And wait – he forgets – his seniors have created an unbeatable system! A system where there are no definitions except one – the prof defines every student’s intelligence.

That student was me!

Blog at WordPress.com.