Things about London

Having visited London last month for two weeks, and having only USA and India to compare it against, here are my first impressions. Caveat is that my time frame and very limited experience may have resulted in wrong impression.

1. London is a very historical city in its architecture and layout. Every building can be counted as monument in itself. I’ve seen similar architectural palaces and forts in princely states in India but those are usually surrounded by simple house of common men, which I didn’t find in London. It is difficult to believe that everybody in historic London lived in stately mansions. Perhaps I’ve not visited part of London not sprawled with ornate dwellings.
2. London has all signs of developed world but it is much less rule driven than States. Jaywalking is all too common and pedestrians hardly follow traffic signals. Cars do follow but aren’t as steadfast as they are in US. Punctuality is not strictly adhered to and up to half and hour delays are acceptable.
3. London is very expensive and common mode of travel is public transport. Therefore, it is very usual to see people walking on the footpath, something I am very happy to note. Despite congestion charging, or perhaps because of it, I didn’t find traffic jam on street anytime.
4. Despite being developed city of the world, ‘mall culture’ is less in-your-face than in US. Whereas in America, one would only see huge warehouses at the end of side road originating from main road which housed big shopping malls and giant retailers, London has fewer large malls and those are less threatening and imposing. I also didn’t see any large malls like in India.
5. There are numerous small shops alongside the road for everything including repairs, electronics, laundry, grocery, stationery and so on. They give London a personal touch and much familiar Indian local shop feeling.
6. People in London love to eat out as there are way too many restaurants on every street. Drinking tea or coffee at the end of meal is customary.
7. Finding vegetarian food is marginally more difficult in London than it is in US. High end restaurants keep worst kind of vegetarian menu.
8. My impression also suggests that Europeans drink a lot too. Every restaurant serves alcohol with food and I’ve seen my colleagues going to bar at the end of dinner after having gulped few bottles of beer/lager pre-dinner and few glasses of wines and cocktails at dinner.
9. London English is very fast and hence difficult to understand. Four years ago I would not have been able to differentiate between British and American accent, but now the difference is stark.
10. British people are very direct in speaking just like those in US, but they can often come out as rude to people from different culture.
11. I now know exact items in English breakfast. Among vegetarians once are fruits, fruit juices, muffins, croissants, toast, corn flakes, tea/coffee, hash brownies, grilled tomatoes, sautéed mushrooms, pan cakes, etc. Non-vegetarian items include various meat pieces, sausage and omelette.
12. British national lunch consists of sandwiches. They have full-fledged sandwich shops. Compared to Indian masala sandwiches, they all are horrible.
13. Greater proportion of women appeared in mini-skirts compared to US controlling for ambient temperature. Public display of affection, though, was relatively less. Few public telephone booths had very visible advertising by “escort services”.

Why do we like Music?

I am surprised at myself that it took me so long to ask this question. While attending a instrumental performance the other day, it occurred to me that I don’t know what makes people like music? Turns out, as it should be, I am not alone in asking the question. No one, though, knows the answer.

Primitive human must have heard music in his environment in form of songs of birds, fall of waterfall, running of horses, and so on. A rhythmic repetitive sound is considered music. Early human must have liked it and sometime would have started making his own music using stones and woods. Some speculate that rhythmic heartbeat of mother’s heart initiates association of pleasure with music. Here is a very detailed speculative argument for it, which, in essence, says that faster heartbeat during rage and excitement and smoother heart beat during rest and peace are beginning of our association of music with those kinds of emotions. Modern science has proven that listening music affects our emotions and moods though release of various hormones. Could that be the reason for our love of music, that we want to feel emotional? Perhaps we intentionally prefer a music which psychologically alters our physiological state of mind.

You can find enough research on why brain likes music: it does because it makes brain feel good. None of it answers the fundamental question that why music makes brain feel good. Why do pleasurable hormones secrete when listening to favourite melody? Why did we became such that we like music? Whales and Dolphins are known to sing but do they really sing or their communication is interpreted as singing by humans? There is some evidence that other animals and even plants enjoy music. Plants are thought to grow faster when exposed to pleasing music everyday. Is definition of music universal in that do animal consider music what humans consider music? Clearly there are cultural differences among humans themselves in their preferences, but question is not whether one likes a music but whether one understands a series of sounds as music. Or perhaps it is mere perfunctory to classify some sounds as music and all sound is music some of which we, as humans, like and some we don’t. Was there evolutionary advantage to type of human who could appreciate and enjoy music, or is it mere side effect of some other evolutionary useful trait?

Some sounds are considered pleasing while others are not. Origin of some is perhaps related to environment around us. Screeching of crows in irritating while singing of cuckoo is soothing, and hence our music grew to incorporate later. But not all tunes can be traced back to nature, so what makes one set of sounds pleasing than others? Here is another blogger asking the very question and his thoughts parallel mine very much (recommended read). I leave you with this paper which goes a little deep but still fails to answer the basic question. Natural extension of this question is why do we like art (picture, dance, painting…) in general?

Once again I must ask you to be lucky, Harry

Anachronic blog posts are expected a raise an eye brow. You would ask, naturally, why write about Harry Potter now when there isn’t any new book or movie coming out soon. Only excuse I have is that I saw the pamphlet for HP6 movie in my hotel’s on-demand list today and learned that sixth movie was out last July. It might as well be time to tell you what I think about the protagonist of this fantasy fiction.

I am as much Harry Potter fan as any sane person can be. I read the books as soon as they came out and adored them. I try to watch movies as and when but clearly you’ll note I am not really following them any good. In list of things to do before I die, I plan to include re-reading all seven books once more. I didn’t, however, stand outside the bookstore overnight dressed as wizard to buy a book nor did I buy Harry merchandize to decorate my room. In sensible fan boyish fashion, I’ve also mentioned Harry Potter briefly in two past posts on this blog. All in all, I like the books but don’t live the books, except that, every so often, I feel jealous of J. K. Rowling. God awful money she made by just writing one fantasy fiction story.

That I am fan of Harry Potter series of books doesn’t mean that I am fan of the man himself. In fact, among repertoire of characters in the drama, limiting myself to those within Harry’s generation, Harry stands far behind in queue after Hermione, Ron, Fred, George, Neville and so on. In fact, he appears just silly boy to me all throughout the story. Silly but an incredibly lucky boy who had everybody else convinced, despite his intentions otherwise, that he was something amazing.

Harry had neck for entering into dangerous business without having any means, skills or plans to get out of it. All the time, he was saved by someone other than himself, except one (of countless) time when he managed a perfect patronus of silver stag. In early years, it would be Hermione or Ron, in later years some elder teachers or his team, but never really Harry did anything worth emulating. Not only he was prankster of kind which got him and his friends into serious trouble on numerous counts, he also comes out as obtuse, obstinate and stupid — unable to learn, obey or follow. If jumping in fire without knowing how to get out is your idea of courage, he’d be the the most courageous person ever. His failure to obey even the simplest order when Dumbledore went to destroy the locket horcrux in Half-Blood Prince shows limits of his brain power. His path to glory in Goblet of Fire was filled with external help (he didn't solve even one of three puzzles himself) apart from unbelievable luck. Last book (Deathly Hallows) is particularly full of all the windfall Harry had in finding and destroying the Voldemart where situations and people conspired to serve everything in platter for him.

Last straw in my respect for the only person to have survived the Voldemart was fact that — and note that this is coming after seven books and over three thousand pages of story about archenemies — Harry couldn’t even kill the bad guy. Voldemart died of own curse rebounding off, thus making Harry completely irrelevant to the main story. What else does one need to do to prove Harry was just one snobbish lucky ….

Tourist-ing your way up

If you have choice, which you probably wouldn’t in most cases, you should tourist your way up rather than down or in random order. So when next time you are looking for a place to visit for pleasure, try one which is incrementally ‘better’ than all the places you’ve seen so far. When I see ‘better’, I mean better in sense of novelty in things to see or do which are likely to bring you joy.

Idea is based on simple reason that pleasure we obtain from marginal novelty will sustain itself only if novelty sustains. Visiting a place which is drastically ‘better’ once will kill all the fun you might have had in future from visiting a place which is only marginally ‘better’. For instance, if you are coming from small village and first city you visit is New Delhi or Bombay then you will surely be ecstatic during your visit but will find visiting small towns or cities dull and uninviting for rest of your life, which are the cities you will probably end up visiting more often. On the contrary, if your first visit is to a small town, your visit will be exciting from the novelty. If your next visit is to a city, you will find something more new. When you visit New Delhi then again you may find something to please you.

This experience has been shared by many and I too have been victim of having to tourist my way down. Having enjoyed thrilling rides of Six Flags in United States, small scale rides in Indian cities don’t interest me anymore, even when I used to be overjoyed earlier. Universal Studio Hollywood killed my pleasure from Ramoji Film City Hyderabad, which, by the way, is an excellent theme park. Experience of New York itself reduced my interest in London manifold. Having seen Port Blair, no other beach pleases my parents anymore. Visit to hill stations fail to invite a family friend having been to greenery of Shimla. Baha’i and Akshardham Temples in New Delhi have muffled any excitement to see any other monument. You can easily recount many examples yourself.

And if you have choice, which you probably would in most cases, try finding a partner for your trip. My fun from travelling alone is one-tenth of travelling with any companion. Of course, there are backpackers and lone travellers who like to travel alone, so it’s personal call.

Honesty is ? policy

Four incidents in a month. Some are small, others not, but they definitely made an impression. Sometimes life throws you a hint. Should you take it, learn, change yourself and move on? Or should you stick by your principles?

When I was waiting to join my current firm, I started teaching high school students in Mayo College in Ajmer. I was appointed to be a all-purpose-teacher who could teach students Mathematics, Science an English and also guide them in career counselling, personality development, resume writing, group discussions, interview skills, and public speaking. Principal thought that my MBA background and eclectic career could be useful in ways mentioned above. It was fine for first two weeks, then things started going out of control. To be honest, I am not very good teacher to reluctant students, which is what bunch of teenagers in their 10^th and 12^th grades are. I do have a passion for teaching and can be extremely useful for those who genuinely want to learn, as I found out in another teaching opportunity I had. So, while personality development and public speaking are extremely essential for success in personal and corporate life, these are things no one appreciates least of all at the age when girls are the number one topic in mind and gay jokes are the most funniest ones (in this particular school). My notion of being friendly to students, to mentor them like a friend and elder brother rather than hardcore disciplinarian was also shattered when soon students started taking advantage of me. So what did I do? I tried to create interest among students but when it didn’t happen I talked to Principal and declared that my usefulness was now very marginal with this group and I should do few other things that I had proposed. Honest thing to do, right? Right, so he said, why don’t you stop coming from tomorrow. Who got fired? It wasn’t bad money either. I could’ve just wasted time in class and none would’ve been wiser.

After I was let go, to use an condescending euphemism, Vice-Principal provided me lead to Principal of sister school, Mayoor, which was also quite good school in the area. I wasn’t even spoken to properly and just thrown out, let alone hired, when other Principal learnt that, surprise of surprise, my views on coaching classes didn’t match his own. Having claimed that I wasted my IIT degree by doing an MBA later, he goes on to state that he wouldn’t let anyone who held views such as mine near ‘his’ children. Now, I agree that views don’t have to match, but is it too much to expect patient hearing or open mind, specially from a person of his class and education? If I had known he only wanted yes-man in his staff, I’d have behaved otherwise. Speaking honestly didn’t help me, even when it was on topic much irrelevant to primary discussion. Perhaps part blame lies with me, not because of speaking my mind, but because of wrong timing. It appears to me that not trying to differ from others is a good way to make relationship work, even if it is not honest.

When I started teaching students for CAT examination for a coaching class, I received another opportunity at other institution. Since I was merely spending two hours at the first, I thought I had time to work on second too. Apparently, they don’t hire you if you are working with competitor. Fair enough, I guess, from their point of view. They would’ve given me if I had not mentioned that and they couldn’t have found out anyway. Self-infliction once again?

The biggest and most remarkable story remains to be told. Before I had offer for my current job, I had offer for another job. First job was to start in April and second was to start four months later in August. Overall, I wanted to second one from long term career point of view. I could have, either, joined first in April and quit in July and joined second later, or, refused first and waited for four months and then joined second. First option seemed unfair to me. To join a job knowing you’ll quit after three months was deceitful. Yes, their was substantial money on the way, but it felt wrong. So I did the right thing and chose second option. I also requested them to convert my full time position into internship for three months. Not only was I refused offer of internship but I was also not even thanked for it, even though I had made it explicit in the rejection letter. Apparently, they could afford me for the same role at full pay but not at nominal one. Was I right or not. I am not so sure. When companies fire their employees without compunctions, and they have right to do so, without bothering about their families or career, is it worth trying to save some money and time to big corporation by taking personal loss by choosing the right path?

Is there thing called too much honesty? Do you think I made wrong decision in any of above incidents? Do you think I should stop doing so at personal cost? Do you think I am over reacting and perhaps seeking sympathy with this post?

Journey on the floor

For some it may be daily occurrence but for readers of this blog, it isn’t likely to be so. For me, I’ve travelled on the floor of bus or train only two times so far.

When I see people on the floors of train or bus, I usually think that these people either couldn’t afford reservation or didn’t plan in advance. They also appear mostly poor people. There is something humiliating (also unhygienic) about having to sit on floor while other passengers sit or stand. Even if I am not travelling and am tired of standing, I find it insulting to sit on footpath or corridor or platform. It’s natural reaction and not a big issue. Point I am trying to get into is that I found this more in India than in United States. It wasn’t uncommon to see students at MIT sprawling on the corridor of campus and doing their homework or chatting. It wasn’t frequent but it stood out more simply because that did never happen in India. Of course, there is no doubt where corridors were cleaner.

First time I travelled unreserved journey on floor of train was when my Grandmother died and we had to make an emergency journey to deposit her ashes to river Ganga. We didn’t try unreserved compartments because they were so cramped that even floor space was not available. I was young and with my uncle who tried to get us seat by bribing the ticket conductor. Perhaps there were more bribers than number of seats, or perhaps bribe was insufficient, I don’t remember, we didn’t get any. Tired of standing over hours and sleepy to core, I just collapsed on the floor and slept without effort. It was strange experience, being woken up when people walk by and feeling embarrassing at heart. We managed somehow and I don’t remember making much fuss, perhaps because I was younger and hadn’t developed ‘tastes’, but it was journey to be remembered over time.

Second journey was for short duration of two hours in the middle of night when only bus we could find back was a private overnight coach which had all seats occupied. Probably driver made few bucks underhanded without knowledge of his owner.

Have you ever travelled on the floor? Would that be experience you remember or want to try?

Temporarily dead aka asleep

It doesn’t incite concern for it’s part of daily life. Yet, if one were to think about it, sleep is a very strange phenomenon. Being asleep is closest one could get to experiencing death and being able to wake up to tell about it. Is it not strange that every day we are overcome by stupor which necessitates us to stop doing whatever we do and just fall unconscious: vulnerably and helplessly? Is it not terrifying that we completely lose passage of time and awareness of our surrounding when we are sleeping? How long eight hours pass in a instant and we don’t even have a clue where our life went then? Would you not be paranoid if you didn’t know what happened with you for those odd hours beyond your own control? This Onion articles tells it as it is. We’d be petrified if not for the fact that it is talking about night and sleeping. Yet, we don’t really think about it at all. Except, when an stranger from alien land displays shock about this strange habits of humans (and other species) and our nonchalance about it, as it did in a small story by Isaac Asimov.

Science has been proving that sleep is very useful for our body. It is so important, in fact, that you would die earlier if you didn’t sleep than if you didn’t eat. It helps us relax our body machine. It helps us digest (notice sour burps after long sleeplessness). It helps process and organize memories (lack of sleep results in loss of memory). It helps repair and maintain our body cells damaged during the day. Sleep occurs in roughly 90 minutes cycles of regular sleep and Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep. Brain repairs body in regular cycle and itself in REM cycle, where we are in very deep sleep. An opinion on internet suggests that if we sleep in multiples of 90 minutes, we may be able to avoid groggy eyes and wake up cheerful even after shorter sleep. There is no scientific confirmation of this. We know what sleep does, but we still don’t know why and how.

Why would sleep evolve through Darwinian evolution? What advantage could an being immovable, unaware and vulnerable over hours  had over those who didn’t sleep? Intuitively, it fails logic. An specie which learned to sleep will soon be devoured by predators even if other which didn’t is slow or stupid (some links* on the topic). Yet, most animal species sleep, indicating that development of sleep must have occurred long ago in evolution tree.

What science hasn’t understood completely, and what has huge implication of our society, is the frequency of sleep. It somehow came to be understood that sleeping once a day during night is the right way. Modern biology has even told us about the required length for good sleep. Most of it is driven by industrial revolution and non-agrarian societies. However, what remains unexplored, is if sleeping twice a day for equal duration or any other combination of duration might work better. People have different personal experience on this one but I find that an hour nap in afternoon increases productivity of rest of day significantly. On a fanciful note, I had always wished that we had capacity to store sleep upfront when there is much time for later when there isn’t enough.

Next time when you hit the sack do ponder over our very little understanding of such an important and obscure phenomenon.

*This argument seems invalid to me because as Richard Dawkins tells in The Selfish Gene, it’s not survival of the fittest specie that is aimed towards by evolution but survival of the fittest gene.

Mystery novels

At least half the mystery novels published violate the law that the solution, once revealed, must seem to be inevitable. — Raymond Chandler

And that precisely tells you why I am in love with Agatha Christie’s work but find Arthur Conan Doyle’s placid at best. I’ve had this discussion/debate with many over the years who recommend me later when discovering my fascination with former. I have almost always tried to convey the above and almost always failed.

Having read about one and an half dozen of Christie’s work, what I am always awed by is that all the facts, thoughts, meanings, gestures, relationships and clues are staring at reader’s face from the beginning — except that one doesn’t realize so then. When Hercule Poirot or Miss Jane Marple reveal a solution, reader is overwhelmed by incredulity for not noting something so obvious, embarrassment for being so fool and amazement for the genius of Christie. Always, it will be one simple dialogue or action which will be crux of solution, and always, it will be burried somewhere inconspicuously in whole novel. Her best novel, regarded so by me and most other fans, even has murderer telling the story in his own words.

On the contrary, master of deductive logic Sherlock Holmes, unravels facts one by one himself when dishing out answer to the mystery. If one is free to introduce new information, hidden from readers so far, then reading the novels feels mere meek witnessing of drama rather than a actual participation (however pathetic) in mystery hunt. If I can tell you at last minute that butler was long lost nephew of rich aristocrat whose mother was wronged by him, then it brings out new meaning to ‘butler did it’ out of the blue. It also provides author the leeway to be incomplete in the screenplay since all information pertinent to solution can be made to appear out of nowhere at the end, and mere meek connection is required to prove why detective choose to pursue that line of investigation leading to new information. It is problem reverse with leaving threads hanging at the end: new threads appear in the end. In contrast, Christie is required to apply much rigid standards in her writing where she has to provide all information beforehand without actually making it easy for reader to put together the pieces of puzzle. This is not to say that Doyle’s novels are not interesting in their own right, but they can’t really be called mystery novels and rank far below Christie’s work.

What’s your take if you have read both Doyle and Christie, or on mystery novels in general?

Concept of Nation State

Increasingly, we all are tolerant of differences within our country. A person from whichever corner of India finds welcome, at least in theory, in any other corner of India. Laws make it easy to move, to work and to settle wherever one wants. Such intra-country freedom is common in most other countries. What we are still fiercely protective about are our national borders. Somehow, barbed wire fences there attach so much meaning that killing and dying for them is considered laudatory whereas doing same for borders within the nation is considered ridiculous and dangerously divisive.

Will there come a time where concept of nation state will dissolve to permit real global citizenship? It seems impossible. Despite our acceptance of different cultures, nationalities and races, country still gets number one priority spot in our loyalties (after family and clan, for some). One would rather save one life in his own country than ten in other. Yet, this distinction stops within different states in a country. A geography under highest government is expected to be inclusive. Will it be possible to have one government for the world in future? This is mere hypothetical question but it will mean that policies will be designed for overall welfare of humankind rather than that of citizens of a particular nation at any cost to other people in the world. Will it ever be understood that all lives are really equal? What will it do to idea of patriotism which will be a defunct concept then.

These are thoughts I never harboured or had inkling about until that day about four years ago when I happened to meet this women at AID’s picnic. She strongly championed elimination of concept of nation state and questioned my views on patriotism. I am not really sure where I stand but idea has been fascinating enough to stick with me this long.

Penny for your thought

You probably have heard about this joke puzzle:

When it’s a penny for your thoughts and you put two cents in, who gets the other penny?

Having recently incurred substantial cost in exchanging INR to GBP, answer dawned on me suddenly while walking to work today. 2 cents corresponds to about 1.25 pennies. 0.25 penny is simply transaction cost of currency exchange. I feel pretty good now.