Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Ancient Rome by Simon Baker is a history book written like a thriller. It leads me to say something nobody ever says about a history book: it’s a page turner! Rome, from the time of its foundation, hated the idea of being dominated by one man rule. Their solution? To form a republic. It was a trial and error system of government that evolved with time and events: -          They create a body of aristocrats called the Senate. The Senate, however, could not pass laws and had no legal powers. Instead, all adult male citizens voted in the assemblies for the passing of bills. But, of course, the money of the aristocrats still wielded influence. -          From amongst the senators, two were elected as “consuls”, not by the people, but by the senators themselves. The two consuls would have the power of a king. But just for one year, after which they returned to the Senate. Why two of them? So one could “act as a restraint on the other”. And long gaps were prescribed before one co

Citing the examples of Trump, Brexit and Modi, Santosh Desai fears that the very nature of democracy world over is changing: “A new grammar of democracy has begun rooted not on the lofty ideals of how humanity should aspire to be, but on what it might really be deep down. The fears and hopes that are being funneled through the political process today come from a place of anxiety and insecurity.” But what exactly is this older form of democracy, the one called “liberal democracy”? Yuval Noah Harari, in his book Homo Deus , explains both its history and values. Once upon a time, people believed (and feared) that “if humans stopped believing in a great cosmic plan, all law and order would vanish”. So what happened once God was dead, as Nietzsche famously put it? Who or what stepped in to fill the moral void? The answer: the (then) new creed of humanism. It is best described, says Harari, by these lines by Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Listen to yourself, follow your heart, be tru

It is well known that girls can see far more shades of color than guys. Really. It’s not just that guys don’t care (we don’t); what we consider as shades of a color are often different colors to girls. I learn such things… by being insulted by my daughter. A couple of years ago, we went to this mall and decided to let my daughter pick a nail polish of her choosing. She pointed at one; and I told the sales girl to get us the yellow one. I was promptly and loudly corrected by the kid: “That’s golden, not yellow.” More recently, she asked me to name the color of the nail polish on her mom’s hand. Brown, I said. No, it’s maroon, she corrected. My wife then explained to her that guys can’t differentiate as many colors as girls. I often play matador-and-bull with my daughter (she’ll charge like a bull at whatever cloth I am waving). The other day, while watching some bulls on Discovery , I explained to her that bulls are color blind, and so it’s not the red cloth that trigger

In an earlier blog , I wrote about Jared Diamond’s theory that agriculture was the pivotal point in deciding why Europe (instead of Africa or native America or the Aborigines) went on to dominate the world.  That leads to the next question: why did the next big transformation, the Industrial Revolution, largely happen in England, not some other European country? William Rosen’s answer to that question is part of his terrific book, The Most Powerful Idea in the World . It all started when the British began to think there was a way for anyone to become rich. At that time, “everything of value… was either land or the produce of land”. Since land was limited, by definition, it could be redistributed, but not created anew. Was there some other way? Enter Edward Coke. He carved out a law that legalized patents that could be awarded to the “person who introduced the invention to the realm”. Next on the scene was John Locke, who felt that “rightful property is derived from the labor

I found these points by Krish Ashok to be very useful advice as to how people like us (“privileged, urban, middle class”) should avoid dealing with fraught topics, be it “demonetisation or Jallikattu or whatever tears us apart next”: 1)       Remind yourself that the media will only highlight the rare/out of the ordinary event: “What would   you   report on? That most Jallikattu events are largely injury and death-free? Or on the one instance where chillies, lime juice, and alcohol were involved?” 2)      Resist the urge to take a side: “After being misinformed in the first place, we now take that misinformation, add our confirmation biases, and grab the pitchforks to battle for the stance we’ve decided to take.” 3)      Remind yourself that, quite often, you are hardly qualified to understand the topic, let alone form an opinion: “I have zero emotional attachment with rural life or the remotest appreciation for its cultural milieu and traditions.” 4)      Avoid expand

When you have a guy like Yuval Noah Harari who is well versed in multiple fields and who can communicate brilliantly, the books he writes are inevitably awesome. Like his recent book, Home Deus . Among the hunter gatherers, religion, says Harari, was animist in its world view: “They believed that there was no essential gap separating humans from other animals… People talked with animals, trees and stones, as well as fairies, demons and ghosts.” Then came the religions of the post-agricultural era, like Christianity, by which time man was into agriculture and used cows and horses as tools: “While animists saw humans as just another kind of animal, the Bible argues that humans are a unique creation… (In a book full of miracles) The only time an animal initiates a conversation with a human is when the serpent tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge.” Harari thus concludes that religions reflect the relation between man and nature at the time of foundation of t

At school, my 5 year old gets tested on the spellings of 10 new words each week. The list of those 10 words is published upfront; and so parents have to make the kid practice and learn them during the course of the week. The first week, she got all of them right; an “Excellent!” and 2 stars from the teacher; and applause from the class (the applause was for all the kids who got all 10 words right). Boy, was she proud and happy! As we worked on the words for Week #2, by Day 5, I was irritated that she was always confused about the spelling of “parents” (is it “pa” or “pae”?). Upon which she snapped and we had this very amusing conversation: She : “So you want me to get all 1o right all the time, is it?” Me : “Yes, that is exactly what I want.” She : “Why? Even if I get 9 of them right, my teacher will still give me a star.” As Hobbes once told Calvin , she had me “wriggling in the crushing grip of reason”. Anyways, I stuck to my guns, and by the day of the test, it

In his masterpiece, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond seeks to answer a question many ask: why did Europe go on to dominate the planet? Why didn’t the native Americans or Africans or Aborigines invade and dominate the world? And however much we dislike the possibility, is race the answer to such questions? Agriculture is supposed to be a turning point in human history. But they never explain how much and why . Diamond explains that and in doing so, also hits upon the answer to all of the questions in the first paragraph. First, agriculture could only start in places with certain characteristics, all of which are geographical, not racial: -          (Edible) plants in the region must grow easily and fast : If the plants took too much effort and/or time to bear fruit, our ancestors wouldn’t have bothered switching to agriculture. -          Animals that are relatively easy to domesticate as farm animals : Animal power for agriculture far outreached what humans could ac

Companies are full of people with different ratings on the intelligence and energy scales. Combine those 2 attributes and you have 4 possible combinations, says Shane Parrish : -          Stupid and lazy : Companies handle them by breaking down tasks, creating processes and doing everything possible to “remove any need of judgment”. Sound familiar? -          Stupid and energetic : This set is quite dangerous. Albeit not malicious, they often end up creating more work for others. -          Intelligent and energetic : Obviously, every company needs such people. -          Intelligent and lazy : This turns out to be the most interesting category; so I will discuss this at length. A)     Such people can be tough to work with because they are very atypical: they delegate, don’t micromanage, and (shudder) question dumb ways of doing things. B)     In addition, “they don’t run around with solutions looking for problems.” (Why do anything when doing nothing is an option?) C)

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes said that technological innovations would soon allow us all to work just 15 hour weeks. Today, even the French don't work that few hours! The rest of the West feels pressurized to work longer and harder since otherwise the jobs will move to Asia. And Asians work long hours since otherwise the jobs will go to, well, other Asian countries! But even on a personal front, most of us cannot stay idle for long. Rainer Maria Rilke's statement that we “be idle with confidence, with devotion, possibly even with joy” is practically impossible (for most of us). And that is the central theme of Andrew Smart’s book, “Autopilot: The Art and Science of Doing Nothing”. As Smart says, we have this “contradictory fear of being idle, together with our preference for sloth”. But doesn't too much idleness lead to boredom? Sure, but that boredom can sometimes lead to self-knowledge, argues Smart: “What comes into your consciousness when you are idle ca

Ever noticed that the morals of many stories meant for kids are way, way beyond their comprehension? Even worse, the wording of the moral is such that no kid could possibly assume that it applies beyond the one scenario described in the story! A few examples to prove my point: -          “Those grapes are sour” : This reaction to what we can’t get comes as we grow up, certainly not to kids. -          “A stitch in time saves nine ”: Long term thinking. Like that’s what kids do! -          “Boy who cried wolf” : Track record matters. Like kids can understand that. -          “Who will bell the cat?” : Planning is easy if you don’t worry about the execution part. Don’t you need life experience to get that? I could go on, but you get the point… Recently, my 5 year daughter, who’d been part of a pack of brats on the school bus who refused to listen to the bus ayah, turned a new leaf. (Courtesy being read the riot act by her parents). “But does the bus ayah notice or acknow

When we think of regulations, most of us curse the bureaucrats and politicians responsible for them. Elon Musk, the boss of Space X and Tesla, shares that view. But Musk went a step further: In his biography of Musk , Ashlee Vance quotes Musk’s assessment why regulators rarely change the rules: “If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they can easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens, they don’t even get a reward. So, it’s very asymmetric… How would any rational person behave in such a scenario?” (As you can see, Musk is hyper-logical. Like Steve Jobs, he demands the impossible from his employees. But Musk, coming from a science background, will also tell his employees that if they can explain to him how the laws of physics don’t allow for what he asks, then he will back down.) But what would happen if we minimized (and in some cases, even eliminated) regulations, outside of areas where people would die e.g.

In a recent blog, Santosh Desai says that democracies seem to be increasingly supporting actions that have a common theme: “These are all focused on dismantling existing systems without having a clear idea of what the consequences are, and what needs to be put in their place. Each dismantling is in response to an angry impulse for sweeping change and each is a product of the democratic process.” He was basing this on Trump, Brexit and demonetization. He worries that this isn’t just a “short-term and cyclic phenomenon”: “A new grammar of democracy has begun rooted not on the lofty ideals of how humanity should aspire to be, but on what it might really be deep down.” But is Desai right? Haven’t people always feared change and its consequences? Remember why Plato was worried about the invention of writing? “If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembr

The Internet was supposed to breed greater understanding because it eliminated physical boundaries, and allowed anyone to post their views. Why didn’t that happen? Why did the opposite, i.e., extreme polarization, as seen on social media, happen instead? A 1971 experiment by the economist Thomas Schelling might explain: he wanted to understand why racial segregation happened in residential areas of the US. After all, he felt, most Americans aren’t racists; and yet the residential areas seemed to indicate clear black and white regions. Why? Schelling drew a grid of squares. He randomly placed black and white markers on the squares. He ended up with a more or less even distribution of black and white. No segregation. He then added a simple assumption and a rule based on that : “Each family would prefer to have some nearby neighbors of the same color as themselves. If the percentage of neighbors of the same color fell beneath 50 percent, a family would have a tendency to move…