The issue of rape and sexual abuse

This is one of the most serious things I ever wrote on, or will write about. It will be long, but I plead everyone to read this to the end. This article has made me pack my DDP work for a while to write on the issue:
http://tehelka.com/what-are-we-doing-to-our-kids-2/?singlepage=1
There is a strong movement in social media now against this issue. I strongly believe that the people who are involved in speaking up on the issue are missing a fundamental point- The strong exploit the weak. Rape and sexual abuse is just one manifestation of that. While we sit in our rooms condemning rapes and men in general for this attitude towards women, millions are dying out of hunger. We say all men (and women) are born equal, but they're not. Some are born strong, some are born weak. Circumstances decide that. A European is in general stronger than an African, simply because the former has better facilities than the latter.

Before I write further, I have an appeal to make. I believe that a lot of people who read my blog  disagree with my views, but not based on logic and reason. People do not want to think that I, just another student, can understand things better than themselves. They want to believe that I am not better than them, and hence disagree with me without even caring to think about whatever I write. Some agree with me simply because they think that I am a reasonable guy and hence whatever I write must have some merit. I urge whoever's reading this to think clearly, on the merit of the reasoning, and not based on who's writing this.

Coming to the issue at hand- sexual abuse against women and children. It is not just sex, it is about the strong exploiting the weak. It happens everywhere, with countries attacking others, with economic classes, with social classes, with bullies in school, with intellectually strong people stealing jobs from intellectually weak ones. It is a fact of nature, a rule of life. This issue of rape blames men for their conduct. That is just senseless. It is just about the strong trying to exploit the weak. If the women were stronger than men, they'd do something else to exploit men.

Throughout history, strong tribes have annihilated weak ones. Women are weak. I'm no male chauvinist, I'm just stating a fact. Women are physically weak. And men will look to exploit them, forever. Unless women can show that they are not weak. The only reason that women, as a species, are not extinct is that men had realized that women are needed to entertain their sexual desires and to perpetuate their race. The whole equal rights to women, job opportunities to women or anything else you see is just a way to pacify them, to give them an illusion that there's a chance for them to not be exploited. And this is all a simple result of the fact that men are, in general, physically stronger. Physical strength was the important thing when civilizations started. Men have defined the rules of the game, the constructs of society. If women had pioneered the rise of our species, we would be living in an entirely different world.

This can be seen in other situations too- whenever the economically strong are threatened by the economically weak, they pacify them by making populist policies, promising better living conditions, offering some hope. When the socially lower classes threatened the upper classes, the upper classes gave them some social rights. All of that is just a way for the stronger ones to survive by pacifying the weak ones.

This is all just a rule of life. All of us want to dominate others, we want to be better than others, we want to have more cash, more fame, more happiness than the others. That's the reason we play sports- to win and hence show our domination over others. We want that we are better than most of the people. We have the top 10% of the people having way more cash/power than the other 90%. But what would happen if the 90% revolted against the 10%? It is too scary for the 10%, so they devise ways to pacify the 90%.

Would stronger laws change anything? No. Read the article I first referred to. Its not just the law, its a failure of the system. There are laws. But what good are they if no case ever gets to the court? First, the victims don't dare to speak about sexual assaults against them. Even if they do, they are humiliated. Their families threaten them to be silent. They cover things up. If the family dares to file a case, the police won't accept it so easily. The society threatens or even banishes the family. If the police do register the case and it finally comes to the court, the victim must then go through even more humiliation. And even after all that, there is no guarantee that the case would stick.

And then, what about an average citizen who doesn't have the means to go through a case? Not everyone has the support of activists or NGOs. Or a child who doesn't even know what to do? How would a law help any of it? Who will save a child from being molested by her own father? And even the law has certain standards. What about groping or molestation or teasing? Can a law take care of all that?

The only solution to this, or any other such problem, is for the weak to get stronger. We hear about 5-6 guys gang-raping a girl, but have you ever heard of 1 guy raping 5-6 women? Its not possible, 5-6 women would easily overpower a single man. That is what must happen, more women must be present in offices, in buses, on the streets. That will discourage any man who sees a woman to be weak.

How can a mother save her child from being harassed by her husband? Physically overpowering him is rarely possible. Even if she does, what will she do without him if she is not financially secure? First thing for a woman is to be financially secure, she must not be dependent on a man for her basic needs. Being financially secure is not enough, she must be ready to end her marriage with any husband who does not respect her and her children's rights. All the women in a community must be ready to support each other whenever a man threatens any of them. They must be well connected socially.

This problem can't be tackled by just sitting and commenting on it. Women must take to the fight. Protests and debates achieve nothing, things have to change at the grass root level. All women must understand the threat and come out of their houses into a larger community. Remember how it was with the Indian freedom struggle? There were traitors within the country. Millions of Indians could not take on thousands of British (due to the modern weaponry of the British, each British soldier was stronger than a single Indian soldier, just like a single man is physically stronger than a single woman). The first revolutionaries were brutally killed. Even sympathizers with the cause were punished. But when it turned into a mass movement, the British had no option but to leave the country. This has happened through out history- the weak must rise in numbers if they are to defend themselves.

But then, this is no war, even the enemy is not clear. How can any woman say which man is an enemy? The only option is to have a sufficient number of women in every aspect of life to discourage any attempt to assault women. The families are what decide what children do, and families are still headed by men. Its not going to be easy for women to come out of their houses. Speeches are not enough, a mass movement is what is required.

Having said all this, am I willing to give up on my career and fight for the cause of women. No. I am not going to fight for it. Not because I don't believe in whatever I said, but simply because it is pointless. It is the women that must rise and fight. There are enough strong and secure women to take it up. I have my own demons and battles to fight.
Throughout the article, I maintain that women are weak. If someone thinks that I'm wrong and women are in fact stronger than men, then women must be plain stupid to have men exploit them for so long. Solving any problem is possible only by first accepting that there is a problem. Living in denial changes nothing.

Being nice

If in an exam most of the students score 70 out of 100, and some guy scores 95, then 95 is a very good score. But if everyone scores 95, then 95 is just an average score. By definition, most of the people are  average, ordinary, just like the others. Everyone cannot be special. If everyone is, then the word "special" makes no sense. But the ego of people makes them think that they are better than the others, that they're special. We like to be complimented by others, appreciated by others. Being praised makes us "happy".

Consider a guy, Mr. A. Lets say he tries something and does an average job of it. He asks Mr. B and Mr. C to judge his work. Mr. B gives an honest opinion, he says the work is mediocre, nothing great about it. Mr. C tries to be nice and says that the work is extraordinary, outstanding, wonderful, best ever and all that crap. Mr. A is happy with Mr. C and is offended by Mr. B. Being "happy" is said to be a wonderful thing, the ultimate goal of life. People think happiness is so important that "pursuit of happiness" was mentioned in the US declaration of independence.

In a society where most people are mediocre and yet expect others to appreciate their work, where happiness is one of the most important goals of life, is it better to be honest or to be nice? In the above example, it is very clear that Mr. B will make a lot of enemies just because he speaks the truth. That is what statistics say- too many mediocre people asking for opinions, and honest opinions are not appreciated. Another advantage of "being nice" is, from the above example, Mr. A will also "be nice" to Mr. C and praise Mr. C for his mediocre work later on, because Mr. C was nice to Mr. A. And so the world goes on, praising each other for their mediocre work.

I personally prefer being honest to being nice. That is one reason why I can't get along well with people unless they're good friends of mine. My friends know that I don't easily appreciate their work, but others do not know that about me. Every time I go to meet any of my relatives, my mom strictly warns me to "be nice". People who don't know me think that I am shy or arrogant or whatever else, but the thing is- I like to be peaceful. I don't want to get into arguments or offend anyone.

Whenever I talk, I piss people off because I prefer honesty to "being nice". Sometimes people say such stupid things that it becomes very hard for me not to point it out, and I just have to get away from there if I want to avoid offending or arguing with them. I don't mind a debate, I actually welcome one since it'd test my own reasoning. But the problem with these kind of arguments is that people get extremely personal and unreasonable. They go nuts, their statements contain no logic whatsoever. If you want to see what I mean, go to an acquaintance of yours and ask him/her why she believes in something (religion, some important ideal, favorite sportsman, etc..).

I didn't give serious thought to this whole "being nice" thing until about a week ago. First it was our hostel night. I was there, it sucked. My friends say the food was tasty, but otherwise, it was no good. But that night, and for the days to follow, the hostel's facebook page is filled with posts like "awesome hostel night", "best hostel night ever", "No hostel night is as good as ours" and stuff like that.And I just kept wondering, "Really? Did I miss something? What was so great about it?". Of course, the rules by Dean made it impossible to have hostel nights on the lines of those that we had a few years back, but still, our hostel night wasn't so good.

Then, I was putting enthu for Lit-Soc dramatics. Pampa was going to perform a play. We adapted a movie, practiced some 10 times and then performed. On stage, we totally fucked up. I walk out of CLT (the hall where the play was performed), thinking "That was a disaster, we seriously fucked this up... " but the rest of the cast come out and congratulate each other. They were all thinking we did an awesome job, we owned the stage, we mesmerized the audience. And then we celebrated. Everyone started praising everyone else. They believed we were going to win, or atleast get one award (there were special awards for best actor, director and set).

Pampa doesn't have a great tradition in these stuff like other BTech hostels do. The hostel night needed quite a bit of effort from the organizers. For our play, we had only a little practice and most of us never performed in a play. But still, we could have done a lot better on stage, and our rehearsals were better than our on-stage performance. Some of us were just not good enough. We put in some effort, and under the circumstances, we pulled something off. That was a good thing. But it was in no way "the best ever" or "worth winning awards". No, we sucked. It took me a great deal of restraint to not say it out loud after our performance- they were all happy and celebrating, I didn't want to offend them there. I choose to remain silent, as I most often do.

 I do accept that it is good to "be nice" to others, it helps build better social relations. It keeps a positive spirit among people, it encourages them to go on. But at what cost? It seems that it is just too hard now for people to accept that they are not good, that they fucked up. People are so used to being nice and hearing good things that criticism is just unacceptable to them. If anyone ever offers an honest opinion, that person is labeled as rude and arrogant. I have just one thing to say here- If you are not open for honest criticism, don't ask for an opinion.

Every time people realize they screwed up, they just blame others or their circumstances for it. I once read an article on the notice board of a prof, about self-pity. How it could be the worst enemy of a man. Instead of accepting a mistake and trying to correct it, people just pity themselves for the situation that made them screw things up. If being happy is all you want in life, then self-pity and "being nice" are very appealing. But if you have a serious goal in mind, then this whole "being nice" business would do you no good. How can you ever know how much more you need to work if you are always told that you're awesome just the way you are?

How men see women

In almost 5 years of insti life, I have noticed that guys think girls are very arrogant. That the girls go to guys only when they need some help and then ditch the guys later. All around I hear stories about break-ups, friendzones, crushes, etc.. Girls have a different opinion- they think that guys are just sexual predators. The confessions page was full of this stuff. This way of thought is not limited to insti, it's the same story everywhere. Men are stereotyped as sexual predators, women are stereotyped as selfish bitches. These kinds of things interest me. I know for a fact that girls are in general not arrogant and selfish, and that sex is not the only thing in a guy's mind. So why this popular opinion?
The problem is mostly because of the way men see women. What I'm going to say next is my theory based on what I know about how men usually think. I know very little about how women think, so whatever little I write about that is just speculation. I only intend to explain the general mindset, exceptions are always present.

Before I say anything more, I must say that the bigger problem is that what people think and what they say are rarely the same. That is usually because of the fear of being judged by others. I'm sure that if a girl reads this post, she'll be like "Are all guys like this? That's really gross. Why can't you see a girl for what she is..." and all that crap. Some guys may deny that they think like this. My theory is based on the hours of discussions we guys usually have when we're joblessly having tea or gen fart about relationships, and a bit about how I think too. But then, I may be wrong or my theory applies only to the kind of people I know. Whatever it is, if you're not open to theories on such sensitive issues, I strongly recommend that you don't read the rest of the article. 

Quite often men become friends with women. That usually happens when they are involved in the same activity, like taking a common class, working together, being neighbors, etc.. I'm not talking about the kind of friendship where it doesn't really matter if the friend's a guy or a girl. What I talk about is when a guy gets "interested" in a girl without even talking to her. The interest is based on only her appearance. He may or may not know her.  Sometimes they're just acquaintances, and sometimes they're complete strangers. Whatever the case, when a guy's interested in a woman, he usually looks at her as one of these two things - 1) A potential sexual partner, 2) A transcendental beauty. How a particular guy looks at a particular girl depends on the guy.

1) A potential sexual partner
I don't have to say much about this. Guys love to have sex. We tend to think of most girls as possible sexual partners. And we find some girls to be particularly seductive. That doesn't mean we want to force them into anything. It means that, in general, we try to make things move in that direction. It also doesn't mean that we talk to a girl only to have sex with her. Sex is not the only thing in our mind, but then it is also there in our mind. We see some girl who is particularly sexy, think it'd be nice to do it with her, and then get back to the more important things in life. Just like with anything else, there will be some guys who'll be obsessed with sex and have all of their life built around that, but that's a very small fraction of the population.
We are in general not subtle, and we are also quite loud. We talk about a lot of things- politics, movies, sports, sex, policies, philosophies. Some guy would indiscreetly talk about girls he finds sexy, among a lot of other things we talk about. Girls usually pick up that single sentence, which they find extremely offensive, and stereotype guys as sexual predators. Consider a guy and  a girl who know each other quite well- they could be friends, relatives, be in a relationship or are just neighbors. Sex would always be in a guy's mind, and at some point or the other, the girl may see that. That only adds to what girls think about guys- sex is the only thing guys think about.
The fact is, we think about a lot of other things but they are not of much interest to girls. The gen things we say are mundane, nothing special, and always go unnoticed. But sex, however low priority it may be, however rarely it is talked about, catches the attention of girls and hence the perception.

2) A transcendental beauty:
I say transcendental because, for a guy, nothing else compares to the beauty of a woman- not sceneries, not paintings, not the cute faces of kids, not majestic animals, .. nothing. Sometimes guys may find some moves in sports to be very beautiful, but those things come and go. The beauty of a lady, that is something that stays in a guy's mind for a long long time. When we see a girl and find that she's gorgeous, we usually stop thinking of her as a person. All of her qualities- good or bad, are totally forgotten. She could be the rudest and the dumbest girl ever, it doesn't matter. When she's there in front of us, we think only about her beauty. When we think of her, her beauty is all we notice.
Being beautiful is not just about the color of a girl's skin, its different for different guys. Sometimes its the way she conducts herself, the way she talks or smiles or laughs or walks, the look in her eyes, sometimes its her figure, sometimes the way she dresses. Whatever it is, that is the only thing that matters to a guy. The girl's beauty is held way above everything else, we crave to see her, meet her, talk to her. Guys do all kinds of things just to be noticed by the girl, so that if she notices the guy, she may want to spend time with him.
If a beautiful girl walks by, we can do nothing but admire the beauty, we can't take our eyes off her, the world stops. That's why a lot of times guys are found just staring at girls. The girl may find it offensive, but it is meant as a compliment. Against the backdrop of the few sexual comments on some girls, this admiration of a lady's beauty is almost always seen by girls as "checking them out".
We admire a beautiful lady for a long time, forget about everything else about her, do whatever she wants us to do just so that we get to spend a little time with her. The ladies are like goddesses, not to be judged, not to be bad-mouthed, not to be embarrassed, not to be denied any kind of service, but only to be admired and worshiped. But after sometime- days or weeks or months or even years, when the guy either takes her for granted, or when he's frustrated that he doesn't get to see her anymore, or she gets a boyfriend or gets married, or he talks to his friends about something or whatever else, that guy starts to look at the girl as a person. The dream world he built around her shatters to pieces, the lady he had seen as an object of perfection is now just another person with all kinds of defects, and its hard to make peace with that. Every quality in her that he does not like, starts to hurt the guy. All her mistakes are now magnified.
Once the guy starts seeing the girl as just another person, he would think about everything he did to woo her. Instead of accepting that it was him who decided to do all that stuff to win her over, he blames the girl for being arrogant and using him. He doesn't understand why the girl did not choose him over the others, he cannot think that he may not be good enough for her. He starts comparing himself with any guy she goes out with. His ego strongly confirms to him that the other guy is just a douchebag. Like the jackal that couldn't reach the grapes, the guy ends up believing that the girl's a bitch. This happens with a lot of guys and we end up stereotyping all girls as arrogant bitches who think very high of themselves.

Breaking Plateaus in Squat and Bench Press

(Note: This post has turned out to be the most viewed post on my blog. I strongly testify to the routine I suggest here, and it is a definite ball-buster. I am curious to know how many people actually implement the routine I suggest. I am a little suspicious that a lot of people read this post only in hope of finding some tweak or short-cut, and do not actually go for such a non-orthodox routine. So, please drop a comment if you have implemented this routine, or a variation, along with your gains. )

Plateaus are very common in Weightlifting. I have only been training for about 4.5 years, so I'm not sure if I can label my no-gain periods as plateaus. Most of the time, I wasn't focusing on any single lift and hence it hadn't improved. Especially my squats- I squat throughout the year with a frequency of about twice a week. And yet my gains did not reflect my training- I have been improving about 10-12kg per year. The slow improvement is quite frustrating. What I write now is the routine I used to speed up my gains. Although I haven't used it to break through a plateau, I believe the same can be used to break plateaus. First, I'll briefly mention the gains I'm talking about.
In 2009, my max squat was 100kg. In 2010, my max squat was 110kg, in 2011 it was 117.5kg. In April 2012, I hit a max of 127.5kg in a Powerlifting competition.
In my 9th semester (Aug-Nov 2012), I was focused on Olympic lifting. I did not hit a max squat during the summer. The improvement in my lifts from August 15 to November 5 was:
Back squat: 130kg to 150kg
Front squat: 115kg to 132.5kg
Push press: 70kg to 87kg
Power snatch: 70kg to 77kg
Power clean: 90kg to 97kg
Snatch: 80kg to 92kg
Clean: 105kg to 117kg
Jerk: 105kg to 117kg
Even after these significant gains, I was hungry for more improvement. Instead of going easy on the intensity, I maintained it through November. Around December 10, I injured a knee (still recovering from it) and a rhomboid (recovered at the end of January)
During this time, my bodyweight went from 73kg to 77kg, which is kind of inevitable.

My bench press max was 80kg in 2010, 85kg in 2011, and 82.5kg in 2012. I do bench press only from January to mid-April. The rest of the year, I never do bench press, except some close grip bench press 2-3 times a month. On January 10th this year, I benched 80kg. But in the first week of March, I benched 95kg for 2 reps and 99kg for 1 rep.

During both periods, my improvements were quite significant for me. In 2.5 months, I improved more than what I would usually improve in an year.
Please keep in mind that I have been training for 4 years when I tried my new routine. Such routines may not be suited for beginners and must be used only in times of desperation. 

I once read this somewhere (not the exact lines, but with the same gist)-
"How much would you usually improve on your squat in a month? 5 lb? 10 lb? What if someone came along and kidnapped your family and said that they would be released only if you improved 50lb on your squat in 1 month, or else they will kill your family? Would you still squat only once a week? F**k that, you'll be squatting every freaking day. You would either gain 50lb in that month, or kill your legs trying to do that."
"A lot of people talk about why its not good to squat more than once or twice a week. But look at factory workers, or workers in construction and in mines. They lift some serious weights. In the first few months, they may find it very taxing on themselves. But later on, they get used to it. They get used not only to lifting heavy loads, but also to lifting them everyday. You can do the same to your squat or your bench press. If you start squatting everyday, your body will get used to squatting everyday."

So, between August and November 2012, I started squatting 4 times a week instead of my usual 2 times a week. I cycled the intensity and reps. One day I would do 105kg for 3 reps, one day I'd do 100kg for 5 reps, one day I'd do 115kg for 2 reps, or 120kg for 1 rep. Sometimes front squat, sometimes back squat. But I kept squatting in every training session. I did good mornings and push presses on alternate days, with the same approach - varying intensity and reps. I did the same on my pulls. Usually I'd do snatch or clean pulls only once or twice a week, I started doing pulls 4 days a week. I trained for about 15-20 days like this. The following week, I dropped down on the volume- only singles upto 120kg, and squatting only twice a week. I took 3-4 days of rest after my previous squat session, and boom, I hit a max after that. 2 cycles of this routine, and I hit 150kg back squat and 87kg push press.

To summarize the routine:
1) First 15 days: Perform the exercise more often- 4 or 5 times a week. Cycle the load and the reps between 5 reps at 80%, 3 reps at 85%, and singles at 92%, all of them for multiple sets. Maintain a sufficiently high volume. Expect to feel like shit after the two sessions.
2) Next 7 days: Reduce the frequency of the exercise to twice a week. Reduce the volume drastically. Hit heavy singles- around 90% -95% for 3 to 5 sets.
3) Next 5 days: The second or third day after the previous session, do the exercise with very light weights for very low volume- 3-5 sets of 3-5 reps each at 50% should do. Two more days after this, attempt your max.
For a week after your max attempt, train with light weights- 50-60%. Go for another cycle if you dare.

Do not start on this routine right after a break from training. I have left out a lot of details such as warm-up, rest periods, assistance works, diet, etc.. This routine is not intended for beginners, and I expect anyone with a few years of training experience to fill out the details depending on their goals, conditioning and weaknesses.

Notes of caution:
1) There is a strong reason for not training like this through out the year- there is an increased chance of injury, and you'll hate going to the gym. So attempt this only in times of desperation.
2) When training with a team, it'll be very hard to use an exclusive routine. Adapt it accordingly.
3) In routines like this, weights must be properly chosen. They must be light enough to allow you to train continuously for 8-10 sessions, but heavy enough to stimulate growth.
4) Its very easy to give up with these kinda routines- after 3-4 sessions you may not even want to set foot in the gym. You must go through that phase and keep training.
5) Attempt this only if you can listen to your body. There is a fine line between massive gains and serious injury, ensure that you can differentiate them.

I did get injured, but about a month after the gains I mentioned. I was preparing for a competition due to be held on December 20. My training from November 25 to December 10 was unforgiving. My body was already screwed up, and I was doing 110kg cleans and 80kg snatches everyday (and training 3 times in 2 days, as opposed to 4 times in 7 days). It was just bad management on my part. But the routine I mentioned was very good.

The above is all about my routine from Aug-Nov 2012. During Jan-March 2013 I used a similar routine, plus one addition, to add 15kg to my bench press. I benched 4-6 days a week. I alternated heavy sessions (80kg for singles or 70kg for 3 reps, multiple sets) with dynamic sessions (40kg or 45kg for 10 sets of 3 reps). I hit 95kg for 2 reps and 99kg for a single during the routine itself. The difference between this routine and the one I used for squats was the dynamic work- sets of 3 fast-reps at 50%.
I didn't build up to a max as I'd usually do for a competition or as I did for my squat. The basic idea for this routine is based on what Louie Simmons uses at Westside Barbell (google it up), and the one I explained earlier (of squatting everyday).

I didn't try anything new. I took principles of periodization, high frequency training and westside barbell's conjugate training and mixed them all up. I was training with a team and hence couldn't try any particular training routine exclusively. I had to adapt, and I experimented with this routine. Fortunately, it was a great success for me.

A beginner's journey through research

With 2 more months left before I have to finish my Dual Degree Project (DDP), I am now in a restless position. I have always been interested in my work, but I procrastinate a lot. My work is computational. I have written codes for two techniques, both part of my DDP, by January. Since then I have just been debugging my codes and modifying my approach. I now have proper codes and accurate results, but the results are not what I have expected. I'm now left with only one option- to tweak my approach in whatever ways I can till I can make some sense out of my results. If this were a textbook problem, I would have had some feel for the answer and tried to work towards that. But with my DDP, not even my guide knows what the answer would be, and so goes on my search for sense.

I have taken up a decent number of projects in my insti life- a few experiments and models for course work, some simulations, hazaar codes, and three big ones -
1) An SOE (Spirit of engineering) project (sems 2 - 5)
2) Internship at GE (Summer 2011)
3) DDP ( July 2012 - present)
And all of my course projects, I did myself.
As I'm now clueless about how to proceed, and pretty frustrated for being in such a situation, I was reflecting on the way I've approached my project so far and realized that there is a common trend among my approaches to projects. In this post, I'll outline that approach. It may help other beginners who are about to start taking on new projects, and hopefully I may realize something I've been missing as I put it in words.

Phase 1: Groundwork, reading
The most boring part. I'm very enthued to do something but I know very little about it. Sometimes, as in the case of my internship, I'm not even aware of the problem. I do know that reading some stuff will help me later. Reading things when needed has always been more appealing to me. I'd just glance through the textbooks, just to know what it is all about, without trying to remember anything. Later, when I am faced with the real problem, I come back to the textbook and read the relevant part thoroughly.

Phase 2: Let's do this s**t
The problem is introduced. I think I understand what the issue. I lay down a strategy to attack it and get to work. I would be quite sure about the outcome when I start working. This phase ends as quickly as it begins

Phase 3: Problems, problems
I get stuck. Sometimes I can't get results - code doesn't work, code gives infinity or NaN, experimental setup  does nothing, Simulation won't start, software won't install, software won't run, and so on and on... Sometimes I get results that are garbage. The strategy I was so confident about cups badly.

Phasae 4: Loss of enthu, infinite procrastination
After the initial enthu and the spectacular cupping, with no obvious route to take, I start losing enthu. I'm so pained with the cupping that I don't try to look for ways to make it work and desperately, but with huge time delays, keep trying the same thing over and over.

Phase 5: More reading, problem definition
After a lot of procrastination, I would lazily explore other options. When searching for new ways to attack the problem, I usually end up questioning my understanding of the problem itself. I would then set down to clearly define the problem itself and what I expect from it. This will be accompanied by a round of reading existing literature to see if I can relate my problem to something that already has been studied. At the end of this phase, I'd gain a better understanding of the problem and a better appreciation of the challenges it offers.
A lot of times, phase 5 is accelerated by talking to others- mentors, guides, colleagues, etc.. Most of the time, what I would realize in phase 5 is that I did not pay enough attention to detail- to the assumptions usually. Like in 11th or 12th I might have sometimes applied conservation of mechanical energy when there is friction in the system. In the context of my DDP, I usually work assuming that the system is close to a linear system without trying to verify that assumption. Or when I get results that don't seem to make sense, I do not analyze them properly.
Bad results tell a lot more about the system than results that seem meaningful. They usually tell us why the system is not ideal, or to which parameter it is most sensitive. Analyzing them is a very important part of research, but I rarely do that out of laziness.

Phases 2 to 5 repeat a few times, with each round giving me better insight into the problem (irrespective of whether I'm actually getting closer to solving the problem or not). Phase 5 usually ends prematurely. Once I realize that my previous approach was wrong and that there is another route I can take, I go back to phase 2 without completely considering the results of the previous round. That is usually a very big problem, but its very hard to fight the drive to try a new, promising, approach.
I do not know what comes after phase 5. I have just realized that in the last 5 years, I have never gotten past phase 5. I have never had problems with classroom problems or the simple tutorial questions. But I'm yet to solve a real problem. I had given up on my SOE project, left my internship before I could see the project through completition, and am still working on my DDP. There were several course assignments that were quite challenging. In my 9th sem, 2 courses required some computational assignments to be completed and another course required me to make an experimental measurement. Aerospace Engineering Department at IITM has some very good professors who give interesting assignments. My course projects gave results that were sufficiently satisfactory to earn a good grade. Throughout my coursework and with my 3 big projects, I have always ended up appreciating the problem far better than when I started working on it. But completely exploring the problem- that is something I haven't done yet.
With my DDP, I am now hopeful that I will see it to completion. I have already been through phases 2 to 5 atleast 5 times (I am using a technique called 'Dynamic Mode Decomposition'. Right now the code I'm running is called "dmd_mixlayer_ver7" - the 7th version since January). I believe I have a fair understanding of the problem. Hopefully I'll have explored it fully before I pass out.

Yoga and Meditation

                A yoga workshop was conducted in insti on 3rd March. It was announced in smail and I registered for it (it was free). I went to the place and there were about 30 people there. The instructor asked each of us why we were there. People had different, but related, reasons - to learn yoga, to get toned, to lose weight, to get healthy, for a change in their usual physical exercise, etc.. I wasn't there for any of those reasons. I was just curious. Yoga has been around for a millenium may be. It has spread to the west too and quite a lot of people practice it. I wanted to know why so many people believe in it, and maybe pick up something interesting from it. There had to be something in it if so many people approved it for so long (but then people blindly follow religion too, so I was skeptical). When I was in 6th grade, I practiced yoga for a couple of weeks in my school, before karate appealed more to me and I switched to it. Unfortunately, the karate classes in that school were packed after some 6 months after I joined.

                In the yoga workshop, after the usual "we all have problems, yoga will help you to fix them, it will help you with this, it will help you in that, etc..", the instructor started us up on some warm up exercises - stretching and rotating wrists, elbows, shoulders, knees, etc... Then came the famous Suryanamaskara. With all the tightness accumulated from weight training and the loss in conditioning due my laziness in the last 2 years, I found the asanas a little uncomfortable, but I went through them. After 2 hours, I felt I understood what this was all about. I know its not fair to judge an art based on just a 2 hour intro session, but I believe the rest is all an extension of whatever was taught in those 2 hours.

Apparently, yoga is a series of exercises involving static stretching and bodyweight isometrics performed with synchronized breathing. In addition to that, the practitioner's mind becomes peaceful due to the slow pace and focused stretching and breathing. And there are a lot of asanas and mastering them all is quite challenging. There seems to be a spiritual side to it too, but I'm not really interested in that. Ofcourse, as with any such art, a lot of discipline and rules for lifestyle are involved.

                So, after the 2 hours, I decided that if anyone ever asks me about yoga, I'd definitely recommend it. It involves a fair bit of exercise, good breathing and gives a peace of mind. A pretty decent package. For a guy who's just lying in his room for most of the time, it must work wonders. But I didn't find anything that may be useful to me. At some point or the other in the last 4 years, I had already done all of the stretching that was taught. There are a lot of exotic asanas that involve a lot of flexibility and strength at uncomfortable positions, but I do not expect them to carry over to any of the things I'm interested in. So, for a committed sportsman who knows a fair bit about stretching, muscle mechanisms and injuries, yoga won't be very appealing. It is okay to try it for a change of pace, but I do not expect any significant returns. Ofcourse, there is the improvement in breathing and the peace of mind. But then, I get these from a set of heavy squats or an all-out sprint too, and they make may stronger and faster.

                Then we had a break for lunch. After the lunch, we had some breathing exercises (go for a long run, or put a sprint. Nothing beats that). A lecture on healthy diet (I don't care much for that, I'm okay with eating whatever I can find, unless I'm on a strict diet aimed at something). How asanas can affect your behavior and thinking (I felt the claims to be greatly exaggerated). Then some general discussion which I didn't find interesting. Finally, we came to meditation. The meditation, according to the instructor, is not a part of yoga per say, but she wanted to teach us.

                Meditation has always intrigued me. I hear a lot of claims on it and always wonder how it can be so effective. So we all sit down and close our eyes. The instructor says things that usually hypnotists may say, like "you'll feel relaxed now, you are fully stress free, etc...". Before we started the meditation, the instructor told us that the mind has a frequency - 6 corresponding to our normal life, 8 to a stressed state, and 4 to a time when we're consciously not very aware, but are in sync with our subconscious. I understand that the mind may be divided into the conscious and the subconscious (the intuitive part as I understand it, nothing magical/spiritual). The instructor said that if we can tune down our mind to the frequency of 4, we can get into contact with the universe around us and reach wherever we want to. I didn't believe the theory, and as an engineer, was itching to ask for how this frequency is defined and also the units in which it's measured. But I decided not to argue, so I just listened.

                Towards the end of the meditation, she (the instructor) asked us to tell ourselves, not out loud, that we will make whatever changes we wish to make in ourselves. She asked us to fix this deeply in our subconscious. She said that if we did this kind of meditation enough times, it would get strongly fixed in our mind. I didn't find it new at all. We tell ourselves the same thing enough times, we start to believe in it. And belief in ourselves can be very effective. An incident from the summer before last comes to my mind. I was in Bangalore, training in my office gym. My squat had hit a plateau at around 100 or 105kg. A friend of mine, who dropped out of insti, was telling me about a training routine he was following and in the conversation he said something like, "squatting is all in the mind. If you believe you can't squat more than your old max, you won't. But if you believe you can push your max, you definitely will". After 3-4 days I decided to squat heavy. I was a little scared but decided to to give an all out effort and not back down - I pushed my max to 115kg, an improvement that would usually take me about 3-4 months. So what we were asked to do as part of meditation is nothing new, it is a very old principle- if you want to do something, you must start believing in it. Half efforts rarely succeed.

                This brings me to the very last part of the meditation. The instructor asked us to visualize white light all around us, and I did. Then she asked us to think of "a lot of positive energy coming into you from the universe, the universe is helping you to get strong". All my focus and peace of mind broke at that point. I tried hard to regain focus, but the best I could do was think about dragon ball Z, how the characters in that anime get very strong by taking in stuff from the universe. After a while, the meditation session ended. The instructor went on telling others how the universe cares about each of us and will help us if we can connect to it through meditation.

Some time last year, I was in full mood to watch documentaries and started downloading a lot of them on LAN. There was someting called  - 'The secret'. Expecting some kind of medieval conspiracy, I downloaded it. It started with mentioning the names of a lot of thinkers, scientists and politicians and claimed they all knew the secret, and the documentary was going to give it to me. Then came a series of people claiming to be quantum physicists, psycologists, etc... who reiterated the power of the secret and how the life of the audience can change by the knowledge of it. I was curious. After watching it for 10 more minutes, when the secret was slowly being revealed, I closed the video, unable to watch any further. It was the same thing that was told to us at the end of the meditation - if I want to do something very badly, the whole universe conspires to give it to me. I only have to wish for it very hard. Though this was not mentioned in the meditation session, the documentary went on to say that our thoughts attract things towards us, so whatever we think about too often, it just happens- good or bad. So they say we must always think positively.

                All the time, when watching that documentary and during the meditation, only 1 thing kept flashing in my mind- 'The universe is like 300 billion years old, many billion light years wide. Why does it give a damn about any of us?' I was very tempted to say this to the instructor, but decided against getting into an argument in her workshop. I did get into one though. She asked if any of us believed that we were not controlled by something outside ourself. I said I believe I have freewill, so I did not believe I was controlled. Then she went on to give examples of luck, failures despite best efforts, etc, trying to show that I don't have full control of myself, or atleast that's what it seemed like to me. I decided not to argue further. Actually, I wasn't even listening. That was the end of the workshop and I was trying to address the reason I attended the workshop. What is this all about? Why do so many people believe in it? After some thought, I reached a conclusion.

                The exercise and breathing part, it obviously benefits all those people not involved in a lot of physical activity, or those that don't know how to stretch in case of spasms and injuries. The meditation, well it gives people some peace of mind. A little time to reflect on life, make resolutions and keep telling themselves what they want to do. The thing in the end, about the whole universe trying to help us, I didn't buy that. But then, people don't care for reason. People who meditate are usually those who are stressed out. Spiritual gurus and saints meditate too, but then I think they are just jobless people not contributing to society at all, and instead living off others' hard work. If someone tells a depressed or a stressed out guy that there is hope for him and that the entire universe wants him to succeed, that's a lot of good news. They'd probably become more confident and work better, believing that they have the whole universe helping them and hence their problems can be overcome.

                So, bottomline, for a normal person who isn't skeptical and believes everything their instructors teach, yoga and meditation can do wonders. For a person who already knows his stuff, they don't make any difference and are just plain old principles given in an illusive package with lots of exotic names. If anyone asks for my opinion, I'd definitely recommend yoga and meditation to them. 

What does it mean to be human?

After workouts in the gym, me and some of my teammates usually go to Taramani to get some meat and drink some fruit juice, etc.. A couple of days back we were in Tarams having a glass of juice when we started talking about what each of us wanted to do 10 years down the line. The popular opinion was to open up a business that offers a higher potential for income than conventional jobs. I have been clear about what kind of career I want for atleast 3 years now. The details keep evolving with time, but the basic idea remained the same. But when we were talking about what options we have and how much money we can make through each of those, I started to explore my options. I still knew I would go into a career of research. But this time I really felt the need to justify my decision to go for one thing and not the other. We drank the juice, got chicken fried rice parceled and returned to insti. When I was going back to my room, I started asking a lot of questions but finally landed on one that seemed to be the most important- What is my life all about?

     These kinds of questions have no single answer. We can have groups of people debating forever without ever coming to an agreement. Not surprisingly, these are the kind of questions religions try to answer. A lot of people are satisfied with answers given to them by someone else, I am not. I decided to go atleast as far as I can comprehend. I have found that the best way to propose answers to this kind of questions is by comparing our modern civilization to tribals or animals. A lot of questions, including those about religion and ethics can be investigated by this kind of comparisons (I've been planning to write on these, but never got around to do that). So I started to look for the things that make us different from animals.

    I believe that the most important factors that have shaped human history are the following: comfort, domination and passion.
From living in caves to peacing out in AC rooms, from walking for miles to driving cars, from hunting animals to industrialized farming, it has always been about leading a comfortable life. That's the major reason for doing science and developing new technology.
War- political, religious or otherwise, is always about one group dominating another. Very rarely two countries may go to war because of reasons like scarcity of resources and such, but even in this case, one country wants to live at the expense of the other. The point of most sports or even job positions is the same, showing that you are better than someone else.
Comfort and domination are something that we share in common with even animals. Animals also want to have food without trying too hard, they want to sit in shade, lay down and sleep, etc... A lot of animal groups have alpha and beta males that are the most powerful in the group, they enjoy more privileges than the others. There is another thing that affects our lives- emotions. Everyone wants to be happy. I prefer not to talk about it here.

             But the third factor I mentioned- passion to do things, is one thing that is specific to humans.Animals care first about their survival. Once there is no threat to survival, they seek comfort and/or domination over the others in their group. They just do whatever they feel like without really bothering about anything else. But with us it has been a different story. We have long term goals.We want to do things, not because someone asked us to do it, not because our survival depends on it, not because we expect something out of it, but just because we want to do it. Animals, even the smartest ones like say apes, don't really bother about any long term stuff. They live in the moment, and maybe plan ahead out of caution when there seems to be some threat, but that's all.
             This passion is why the human race is the way it is today. For as long as we have existed, people always sat down and said, "Ok, This thing is interesting. I think I can do something about this. I will spend more time on this and see what I'll get." Sometimes it was to make life comfortable, sometimes it was to win wars, sometimes to impress others, but a lot of times we decided to do things for no reason other than that we wanted to do something. This was how philosophy was born, this was how science was born. Suppose everyone stuck to religion, spirituality, ethics etc and no one bothered to venture on new ideas. Suppose no one ever tried to think beyond the absolute requirements for survival and the rules prescribed by religion. In that case, we would still be living in caves, probably without even inventing fire or weapons.
             Another thing that we do is, we try to define some values and stick to them. Like say, honesty. Or gratitude. Or plain sadism. Why do we have such values? Why do we try to stick to them? The only answer I can find is, because we choose to. Animals don't seem to care much about values. Atleast not on an individual basis. Very often an entire species has a particular trait, such as loyalty for dogs. They are probably just made that way. We, humans, on the other hand are not. We decide what values we want to have in our life.
             So finally, what I realized is, it is our passions and our values that make us different from animals. Do I really want to be different from animals? Or rather, why should I be different from animals? Simply because I can be and I have chosen to. That has always been the most important thing about humans. We choose to do things, we choose to follow some rules. If we, as a species, stop being passionate about our goals or give up all our values and just live like whatever we want to live like, our whole civilization would collapse into anarchy and we'll live like animals (ofcourse, if an individual chooses to have a radical set of ideals, the society, whose most important value is to punish those who fall out of line, would just kill the individual).

              Now my choices are justified. I have some values that restrict what kind of careers I can choose. I have a passion for some particular thing. I can go after only money and try to live comfortably, but then I'd be ditching my passion and my values, which are what make me human. These days there is a lot of stuff going around about careers, what you should do in life and all. I'd never tell anyone what to do and what is right, because the other person has his own set of values and passions and what is important to him may be just a load of crap to me. If you have patiently gone through the whole article, I urge you to take a few more minutes to sit down and list a set of values that you want to live by and make a very small list of things that you are most passionate about. Stick them both on your wall and try to live exactly by the lists for just a couple of days. Most people cannot. But after you try this, you will definitely have a better clarity about what you are and what you want.