It is always better to...

A conversation with a dear friend of mine led me to post what I consider to be some inescapable truths to a happier life. It is always better to...

Be nobody, than be somebody creating a negative impression of himself/ herself...

Not be in love, than be in unrequited love...

Be an above-average individual, but lucky, than be highly capable, but unlucky...

Have many acquaintances and a few 'close' friends, than have many 'close' friends and a few acquaintances...

Do something you like and earn a decent amount, than do something you love and not earn much...

Have many plans to get to the same place, than have just one plan to get there...

This list shall be updated as and when I stumble upon more such statements.

A Business Perspective...

Yet another short blog given the constraints of life here, BUT...
Once again, at the risk of drawing flak from everyone in my audience, I will e-pen what I call a business perspective on life. In the many conversations I have had with friends, the amount of planning done by me has always been a point of mockery. Let me provide them with further ammunition then.
I believe that everything in life is an investment. Should I choose to take a walk, it is to invest time in myself for the purpose of relaxation. If I choose to exercise, then I am investing in myself to maintain my health in the future. If I should choose to sleep (and sleep excessively too), it is to invest time in my rejuvenation. Spending time with someone is investing in that relationship for whatever reason - I am not here to judge.
Now this is not to say every decision made is a 'good' investment decision. Everyone (including myself) is guilty of making poor decisions and, by transitivity, poor investment choices. But if we understand this concept, that is all our choices are a reflection of an investment decision, we must also accept that there is a cost and benefit associated with each decision. If that is also true, then should we not think before we make each decision? Should we not choose to spend every moment maximizing this 'return on investment'? Should we not choose wisely whom to invest our energies in? People generally think about investment decisions as something along the lines of which school to attend, which career to choose in which company, and perhaps even whom to marry. People rarely think about something as trivial as how to spend the next hour, being friends with someone, or spending time with someone, as investment decisions which will have payoffs.
Every decision we make that maximizes our benefit and opportunity cost is then equated to a better outcome, which then in turn leads to a better life... right?

What kind of fish would you like to be?

Life in most situations can be equated to living in a pond as part of a school of fish. Whether you agree with this analogy or not is not the crux of the discussion here; in fact it isn't my prerogative to convince you of this statement. What I do want to point is that once we assume this statement to be true, we must then decide what kind of pond we want to live in. In other words, the quintessential question becomes 'Is it better to be a big fish in a small pond, or be a small fish in a big pond?'
For example, a brilliant student joins the best of business schools only to discover the intense competition among others like him. He has therefore become a small fish in the big pond. Now, when it comes to jobs (which, I am told, is the main reason for coming to a graduate program in India), our 'small fish' might not get the best jobs because there are so many other small fish just like him. The job he gets has the potential of being equivalent to the job he would have gotten if he was ' a big fish' in a 'small pond'.
Similarly, if our candidate once again joins the best company, one that is then equivalent of a large pond, he becomes the small fish yet again. He then discovers the intense competition in the firm due to other small fish just like him.
The intense competition in both the aforementioned cases means that while his best effort in a small pond might have been really the best amongst other 'fish', in a large pond with many small fish, his best effort might correspond only to an average result. Finally, as a colleague of mine pointed out, when mentioning achievements, one need not mention the type of 'pond'. Therefore, being a big fish in a small pond is definitely more advantageous there. So does it behoove someone to be a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond?
Being a small fish in a big pond definitely has its advantages. For example, being in a prestigious business school (the equivalent of a big pond) provides an individual with a brand name and unparalleled networking opportunities. Being a part of a prestigious company once again provides the brand name, networking, and excellent exit opportunities.
Many of us look to join the big pond with the intention of creating good exit opportunities, but at what point of time does this actually stop? When do we finally say this my small pond and this is where I stop trying to be a part of a big pond?
I am not trying to discourage anyone from joining a big pond, but I beg my audience to consider this small introspective thought before making a decision...

Relative Grading...

Jack Welch, the ex-CEO of GE, who rocketed GE (arguably) to its current successful position implemented an interesting proposition in his company. Top 20% of the managers would get bonuses/ other accolades, while bottom 10% would be fired. This is exactly what relative grading is isn't it?
Now consider the following scenario: The entire population competes for some sort of prize. Let us also assume that there are a specified number of people who can this prize. We can then divide the competition into several stages. At each stage, the candidate is compared to his/ her peers and the weak ones are eliminated. We finally come to the winners who are now the best among those who have competed for this prize. Sadistically, another stage is introduced where in those who won the prize must compete for the over-arching trophy. Effectively, what I have done is described the process in IIM. The students at IIM are the best of the population in India (barring certain reservation exceptions). Yet they are forced to compete amongst each other for a good gpa.
Reverting to GE, what happens when you have the best managers in your company? Do you still fire the lowest 10% among the best? Doesn't it make more sense to have some sort of absolute criteria then? Coming to the IIM's, does it really make sense to have someone obtain a 95% on his/ her exams only to be awarded a C? Perhaps it is more rational to ensure an absolute criteria along with a relative grade - all those who get above 90% are assured an A but whether someone gets an A or an A- is graded relatively.
Furthermore, forced relative grading brings politics into the picture. If X is someone's competiton, then rationally speaking, he/ she would try and backstab X to ensure that he/ she gets the best chance at the coveted over-arching trophy. Friendship deteriorates, judging based on gpa and externalities rather than personalities happens, segregation of the population into unwanted strata results, and the seeds of discord and jealousy are sown.
Perhaps it is time for the IIMs to re-think their policy... ?

A Quote on Love

I must yet again beg forgiveness of my audience, for the sentimental blog, but I must post this to 'de-stress' myself. It took me sometime (in days+hours) to find the right quote to summarize my feelings to my potential love, but here it is. Those closest to me will know why I post this. To the girl I love, I would say this:

I cant promise you that dark clouds will never hover over our lives or that the future will bring us many rainbows. I cant promise you that tomorrow will be perfect or that life will be easy. I can promise you my everlasting devotion,my loyalty,my respect,and my unconditional love for a lifetime. I can promise that I'll always be there for you, to listen and to hold your hand,and I'll always do my best to make you happy,and make you feel loved. I can promise that I'll see you through any crisis,and hope with you,build with you,and always cheer you on and encourage u. I can promise that I'll share my dreams my world,and every aspect of my life with you. I'll willingly be your protector,your adviser,your counselor,your friend your family,and your everything.

Should I ever find my love, I well and truly believe in this and this will be my guiding principle in relationships and marriage.

Who is it that...

I have often blogged about friends, about love, and about 'transcending borders'. Each and every person I know will be categorized into 3 categories. 1: Those you love and care for unconditionally. This list contains an individual's parents, siblings, friends, and possibly relatives. 2:Those who you stay in touch with purposefully - and vice versa. You help these people with the expectation you will be helped in the future. 3: Those you burn ties with they are neither good friends (capable or otherwise), nor will they ever amount to anything worthwhile to be of any help to you in the future.
In the movie 'The International', the protagonist says 'The hardest thing to know is which bridges to burn'. I have found this to be very true in my life. As an individual who loves to make friends and who owes unconditional loyalty to my friends, it becomes even harder to know when to stop investing time and energy into friends completely.
This may sound cold hearted and calculative, but it makes perfect sense to invest your efforts in someone who either falls in category 1, or who falls in category 2. However, as much as I would love to ascertain the future, it is impossible to do so and the challenge then becomes figuring out (or trying to figure out) who falls in the tier 3 level of folks... right?

Ranking among IIM's...

Once again, I beg the forgiveness of my audience for the shortness of this blog, BUT...
I have always wondered about the concept of ranking of different campuses of an institute. Take for example the IIMs. To me it would make more sense for the IIMs to be regarded as one and have a rotational program wherein the professors and students rotate one or even two trimesters to different campuses to experience different cultures and the strengths and weaknesses of each campus.
I say this because the new IIM that has sprung up at Shillong is being penalized because it is a new campus - folks are choosing to join other 'better established' institutes. Instead the IIMs could have very well presented a united front to the country and sent students from the 'superior' campuses of A,B, C and others to shillong to experience a trimester there as part of the rotational program.
Instead of competing with one another, the campuses should play off the strenghts of one another and groom better all round students. Recruitment can then happen centrally; there would be no need to distinguish between A and C when it came to placements. Admissions too would happen centrally, and not vary from campus to campus.
Those who say that compeititons between the different campuses forces each campus to raise its standard are absolutely correct. But the same can be said of all the campuses uniting and bettering their standards to remain above the other b-schools like FMS or ISB.
Co-opetiton might be the order of the day and simply compeition...

The side of consulting they don't tell you about...

I do not claim I will ever be successful in consulting, nor is this a guide to become successful in consulting. Quite the opposite in fact! From the naive intern and college graduate to an aspiring business school prospective, I have come a long way to understanding that the career pitches made by companies at career fairs are not just laced with sugar, but dunked in syrup. In my short stint in consulting, I have come to realize the insiders point-of-view of what constitutes the life in consulting.
Identification of consulting talent begins at an extremely early stage - junior year atleast and in some cases sophomore and freshman year. A company with whose workers I am acquainted with is targeting sophomore students to recruit. While this sounds exciting, what it also means is that sophomore college students must act wiser, much beyond their age in order to impress these companies. Even a small mistake is remembered and noted for a significant enough time. A guy with excessive ear hair was rejected and 'not client ready' was written on his profile; it still is written on his profile.
They tell you consulting is exciting work - the projects, the travel, the pay. What they should also mention is the politics, disrespect for work-life balance, and the lack of forgiveness to employees. There is tremendous amounts of 'playing the game'. For instance, even if it is at 12 am at night, a manager calling and asking for help, you must oblige. Not doing so is what the consultants describe as a 'potentially limiting career-move'. Not only does the manager hold a grudge against you for the foreseeable future, but also word about this usually spreads around about the uncooperative nature of the analyst. One particular consulting firm often claims that analysts can work from home; Yet everyday the analyst does not show up, it is noted, even if the work is completed.
Another consulting firm is divided by region and each office has its own head partner. Therefore, making sure the regional-head and office-head partner know you and that you're on good terms with them is of prime importance. A close friend I know got assigned to a project which was headed by a partner of a different region. As a consequence of the travel and work requirements of the project, his own regional and local partners knew little of him, which cost him dearly when it came to 'realignment'. The partner preferred the analyst he knew and had worked with before even than our aforementioned unsung hero. (Incidentally, our unsung hero had a higher performance evaluation than the analyst who kept his job).
The travel for project no doubt takes a toll on family life, but one must also account the travel for networking purposes. There will be events which analysts must attend because that is where the 'big guns' will be hiring for the next project.
Furthermore the projects must be found and picked by the analyst, there is no one assigning you the projects. So in a recession, such as the current one faced by the world, an inexperienced analyst must build up his/ her network even quicker merely to be on the same landscape as the more experienced colleagues. Upset at the loss of the project, excessive happiness on success, showing any sort of excessive emotion is frowned upon.
A dear friend of mine once said it best when he stated 'Utilization is king' and 'Someone is always watching'.
Now I am not discouraging anyone with the above information. In fact, many people are suited for consulting, they enjoy the networking, they like playing the game, they like the handsome rewards that go with it and are willing to make all the tradeoffs. But this is to guide people about the unheard side of consulting and merely help them an informed decision...

Religiously speaking...

People often 'pick' religions because their parents are one religion or because they have not been exposed to another religion. Very rarely does one find a religion being picked by an individual on logical sense. Gun to my head, I subscribe to Hinduism, but I would prefer not to pick one religion over another to associate myself with ideally. All religions are flawed - I mean this in most benign of ways without intending to belittle the existence of a divine force. Yet I have very particular beefs with religions.
For example for me to ascribe to Christianity, I would have to agree that Jesus Christ is the sole way to salvation/ heaven. While this is absurd in many ways (the most notable way being an atheist performing community service and other forms of charity being marked for sin or hell), I argued this particular scenario with a dear friend of mine. Belief in Jesus Christ implies forgiveness of sins. But suppose at the age of 40, as a non-believer, I commit a heinous crime (pick the worst kind). On my deathbed, I am enlightened and I profess my absolute faith in the Lord, then according to Christianity, I am forgiven for having killed someone at the age 40. Do I not get what's due to me especially since what goes around comes around? Or are my sins forgiven 'magically' and I go to heaven...?
Against Islam, the recent laws enacted against women in the middle east is nothing short of marital rape and can never be condoned. It requires only common sense to realize that certain laws should not be enacted in the name of religion i.e. 'holy war', or subjugation of women in a derogatory way.
Even though I profess my faith in Hinduism, I consider the world lucky that one of the prominent pillars of Hinduism i.e. do whatever your duty is without expectation of the result has not been morphed into anything violent. I am glad that people have not taken to war under the concept of 'duty'. I am also glad that people have enough sense to not follow rituals such as Sati in most of parts of India and that common sense has prevailed. In time, as education and technology permeates the third tier cities and villages, I hope this still holds true.
Against Buddhism or Jainism, while I do believe that everything ascribed by them is logical, I do not agree with the fact that they do not consider a form of 'God' as the source of guidance. A minor flaw no doubt, which is why I do agree with most of its principles in the first place.
In my opinion, all religions should be banned, one universal religion must be picked and people then ascribe to it openly. This one religion will have all the good of every religion while letting common sense dictate what is right/ wrong and what is good/ bad. I know that the terms 'good' and 'wrong' are up for debate, but atleast we can all agree that 'Do not rape, do not steal, do not kill; these are principles that every man of every faith can embrace' ... right?

My take on success

As much of a failure my personal life has been, my professional life is back on track for a successful completion given the recent turn of events. Yet this grasp of success is elusive at best and only a small percentage of the population achieves. I have often been asked what the 'secret' to my 'success' thus far is and I have just one answer: Luck. While a part of the explanation that ensues is true for me and me alone, it is also founded on a fundamental belief: a force controls factors beyond my control. An assumption of equivalent talent also holds true.
I believe that success is founded on two principles: hardwork and luck, or fate, chance, probability, God's hand or any other word/ phrase having similar connotation. A combination of these two variables is what determines the success of any activity. Consider the simple case of an exam: Someone who has not studied at all can never excel, yet innumerable times, a student who has give it all falls short of the desired goal. There are still others who study lesser than some, yet score more than their more studious counterparts.
To solve the aforementioned apparent contradiction, I have come up with an equation: X% hardwork + Y% luck = 100% success. Y is never less than 10% and can never exceed 50%. To elucidate this, consider my case. On a test, the amount of hard work you put is only one of the factors determining the outcome. What you study, how you feel on the day of the test, the examiner's mood during grading, your own ability to recall answers and methodologies on the day of, are all other variables out of your control. Therefore, I believe that 60% of sucess is based on hardwork, 40% is based on luck. So if I do not study at all, I believe I will get a 40% on the exam. If am extremely unlucky, I will get 60% on the exam. If I work hard and get lucky i.e. the examiner is in a good mood, the questions are relatively straight forward and I am able to recall answers appropiately, I will get definitely get above 60% and can possibly reach 100%.
This example explains why hardworking people (of equivalent talent) get different outcomes in activities. Continuing the example of an examination, a student for whom everything goes right (professor is in a good mod grading the exam, questions are simple and include everything he revised at the very last minute) is luckier than the student for whom only some went right (perhaps the questions he revised at the very last minute were not the ones in the exam)/ Consequently, the first student will do better than the second student thus aolving the contradiction. Therefore I will attribute 40% of my success to luck or anything equivalent. Yet, for all this uncertainty, this is in line with my principle of giving one's best shot and having no regrets... isn't it?

A word on kids

Perhaps it is unrealistic for me to touch on this issue, given the circumstances surrounding me. Yet in today's world. when people increasingly live in the moment, or do not think for the future generations. The book 'Freakonomics' outlines that the how successful the kids become has a direct relation to how successful the parents are i.e. the choices made by an individual between the ages of 18-25 (25 being the age they have decided to 'settle down') have a significant say in how successful their kids will be.
Children are important on many fronts- baring the emotional aspect and the fact that every parent wants to see his/ her child successful, kids are a preservation of the genes and lineage of an individual. As detached as it sounds, it is true that reproduction is primarily meant to preserve species. Therefore, it is in the parents best interest emotionally and logically to ensure the kids have the highest chance of succeeding in today's world.
After much debate, introspection and speculation (all of which i am still open to), I have narrowed the aforementioned objective to an optimization of three variables: the genes of the parents (and the parents' immediate families), the foundation of specific values (decided and imparted by the parents) ingrained into the child, and the amount of influence the parents have. The genes help infuse the child with potential and talent, without which success is is a rare occurrence. The values ensure that a child stays within limits when questioning the modus operandum of life. It is essential that the child receives the necessary attention early to cement the values. Finally the amount of influence can help the child gain a competitive advantage over his/ her peers. This influence can be via a network, money or a combinatio of both.
The first variable is abundantly lucid when you recognize the GIGO rule. The third variable is plainly factual because it can provde the child with resources otherwise not affordable.
The second variable can be a touchy issue in today's world. A simple scenario can be played out as follows: A young girl of average genes can offer excellent time and energy to raising a kid as opposed to an intelligent girl involved in a demanding career (assuming the parenting skills are equal). The solution must then lie in between optimizing the genes and the time afforded to the child.
An optimization of these three variables is certainly not the only thing responsible for the success of the child, but it certainly is a head start. Given today's competition, who wouldn't like that...?

The ecologically responsible non-vegetarian

Many close and dear friends of mine have pointed out the cruelty of killing animals for food. Some of them have attempted to convert me to a vegetarian lifestyle to "purge me of this sin". When pointed out that plants, akin to animals, feel pain and have neurological endpoints, the standard reply has been minimization of damage to living beings i.e. by eating only plants (as opposed to plants and animals), one is minimizing the loss of life.
As usual, my unusual perspective has been viewed with some acceptance, mostly skepticism and outright denial. I believe that if the entire world were to eat only plants/ crops/ fruits, and nothing else, there would be a severe shortage of food across the world, leading to high prices and even more starvation among human beings (the assumption, ofcourse, being hinged on the availability of technology today). Given this fact, chickens, pigs, goats, cows then become essential to reduce the pressure on food supply, especially given the fact that farm land is rapidly giving away to urbanization and industrialization.
Notice that I have not mentioned seafood, venison, frogs, snakes, and other forms of exotic meats in my list above. These forms of meats should not be consumed for one simple reason: we, as human beings, do not replenish them give the rate we, as human beings, consume them. Our 'balance' within the supply of food must be limited to what we can replenish thereby maintaining ecological balance and nature's harmony of the food pyramid.
Given this thought, it makes sense not to indulge in the aforementioned list of meats... right?

A scary thought on Luck...

Luck, as we know, cannot be scientifically explained; it is a concept rarely understood by even the most skilled experts of philosophy. One definition I have come up with is that Luck is probability occurring in one's favor. But we, as humans, rarely understand what makes it swing one's way and what does not. A person who is believes in luck, yet does not understand the swing of luck one way or another cannot criticize anyone for being superstitious.
A superstitious individual is merely trying everything humanly possible to better his/ her course in life. Feng Shui and Vaastu Shastra, which are concepts involving orientation of objects around the household to maximize the 'luckiness' and 'positive energy', are merely trying to bring about/ maintain positive change. A person who believes in the aforementioned ideas cannot then possibly deny the possession of specific gem stones, or colors as absurd or silly. I beg my audience to convince me otherwise as I am open to an argument on this.
I very recently saw a movie titled "Kismat Konnection'. As shallow as the plot is, a statement in that movie really drew my attention. When the prtagonist is skeptical about the possibility of another human being as the source of his good luck, the witch replies that if it is easy for humans to place faith in gem stones, it should not be hard for that same individual to place faith in a human being.
People believing in gemstones/ horoscopes/ influence of planets and stars then cannot discount the factor of luck obtained by surrounding yourself with lucky people- it is a contradiction. Even in a compatibility analysis for marriage, auspiciousness of the partners towards each other is considered. The inauspicious marriages are immediately red lettered. So if people believe in gems for luck, whether it be good or bad, then those very people must believe in other individuals also for certain effects on luck, such as when in a relationship with your significant other.
So now this brings me to a very scary thought: If we all believe in several of the ideologies mentioned in the previous paragrahps, then should we not pick and analyse who we surround ourselves with, atleast in a relationship, from the POV of luck? Should one assess the impact on luck of a particular individual when in a relationship with that person and possibly discontinue it if it is not deemd 'lucky'? An absurd, yet possible thought...

A word on affirmative action

My take on affirmative action/ reservation is abundantly clear: The intent being noble, the principle on which it is based is completely flawed. Giving a person preference just because of his/ her particular caste/ religion/ race is utter nonsense.
While the intention of our forefathers may have been philanthropic, it makes little sense to allow such a system in place. In an academic institution, allowing a less stringent criteria merely to accommodate a person of a particular caste/ race implies the lowering of the universities standards itself. Allowing the ones with the best resume into the university elevates the standards of the students as well as the overall ranking, which in turns attracts better students thus spawning a spiral upwards. In a private corporation, allowing a person with a less resplendent resume just because he/ she is of a different race reduces the effectiveness of the organization. The private sector has already realized that the role of different races and sexes is essential to success due to varied (and successful) ideologies. The most prominent example that comes to mind is the pursuit of women for corporate and management positions due to their 'soft but firm' nature, which helps in motivation, creativity and negotiations.
Perhaps it makes more sense for the government to provide equal access to resources for a person of a different caste/ race/ religion than have quotas in place and lower the overall standards of the institution/ organization. Providing economic help and setting up facilities (e.g. coaching classes for examinations) must be the quintessential focus of government efforts. Once students are given access to these resources, it is upto the student to utilize them fully and effectively to ensure personal and professional development.
Finally, at the time of judgement, let genes, hardwork, and possible luck, rule the day in enabling the best to get ahead. Perhaps this view is much too Darwinian for many, but it is essential for maximizing the potential of society's growth. That is the goal of humanity as a whole isn't it...?

Comic book heroes...

Perhaps I just needed a good cry, or I was really moved by the recent batman movie; in either case, I must e-pin my thoughts down. I beg my audience to tolerate the... levity of this blog. I have seen several comic strip heroes in action, both on-screen and on paper. In my honest opinion, Batman is what a true hero is made of.
In all the other movies, a comic book hero has had to fight evil, and perhaps restore faith to the people while doing so. Never had any of them had to sacrifice themselves to ensure the well-being of a city. Some might argue that in keeping one's superpowers and undertaking the responsibility to defend a city, an individual sacrifices his/ her right to lead a 'normal' life. However, the Dark Knight is whatever Gotham needs it to be including the villain to restore the citizen's faith in the justice system. While it may be the other writers did not conceive to plot such an ending for the other heroes, these fictional stories lead me to believe that batman is the true hero among all other comic book heroes.
Heroes are whatever society at that time needs them to be, whether it is being the fall-guy/ girl, or the symbol of sanctity and hope. Perhaps the lesson I learn from this movie is that given my (potential and conceived) purpose in life and my priorities, I should be whatever my friends need me to be at any given point of time. I don't intend to be a hero for the world - I do not have the capacity to fulfill such dreams, but I do have the resources to be a good friend to those I care about and love the most. Perhaps this movie validates my beliefs further does it not...?

A word on Suicide

Usually such an argument rests on whether a suicide is legal or not, whether it is selfish or not. My view on it, as deemed by traditional diktat, is unorthodox, and possibly sinful. As termed by Christianity, and possibly Islam, suicide is sinful and consequently wrong. According to Hinduism, suicide is sinful since it is a pathway for an individual to shirk one's duties.
As I have indicated before, my views can be considered rebellious, even shocking by some fundamentalists. I believe that suicide is the right of each individual to exercise as he or she wishes because certain circumstances do warrant suicide. It is just as selfish of the individual's family to prevent the suicide as it is for the individual to commit it.
My purpose here is not to defend suicide, or to chastise people for believing in it, but to bring up an interesting point. I posed this question in regards to the selfishness of suicide to a good friend, colleague and mentor of mine. His response was rather insightful and possibly unusual. He claimed that it was selfish of society as a whole to allow this suicide to happen while idly standing by. It reflects as a failure on society to allow individuals to have reached this degenerative state wherein members of the society are willing to voluntarily give up their life out of misery.
I think this view is something that has opened my eyes to understand the concept of suicide better, and possibly deal with situations akin to some of my personal experiences better...

On Interviews...

Perhaps I am guilty of hypocrisy, perhaps I am not- I shall let my audience decide. As I furtively prepare for interviews, I often find myself glancing over my resume, researching the company/ institution and getting a good night's sleep. I never prepare and plan for different questions to be asked. I believe an interview should be held analogous to a cordial discussion between two acquaintances just getting to know each other.
Yet, as someone who likes to control uncertainty, I always wonder why I do not plan more for these 'discussions'. Perhaps this is an inconsistency in my belief? I am of the opinion that the best interviews (and the most successful interviews) are of a cordial, informal discussion so that the company/ institution sees what the true candidate is, whilst the candidate gets to see the culture of the potential company/ institution to determine 'fit'. Perhaps it is my desire to ascertain cultural fit in a particular scenario, stemming from my fear of uncertainty itself, that overrules my preparatory efforts for these interviews.
Does this classify as Dr. Jekylll and Mr. Hyde or is this is still Dr. Jekyll only? It's something I question and will continue to question...

An update to 'Cupid Unveiled'...

I apologize in advance for the shortness of this particular blog, but as promised, I am updating my checklist for deciding if an individual is in love or not. I must warn my readers that this checklist is something I have experienced, and not something that is exhaustive and the gospel.
Given what has been going on in my life right now, it would be appropriate to say that my 5-year plans are crumbling. Without going into details, it would suffice to say that this weekend had been possibly one of the most testing weekends I have ever been through. Now in this state, given the person I am, I turn to the person I trust the most for solace, comfort and possibly motivation. Succinctly put, I turn to the person I trust and care about the most to vent my feelings. Now as I said before this can be your best friend too, but if there is a person you turn to in times of solace and comfort, who happens to fulfill all the other items on the checklist written in the blog titled 'Cupid Unveiled', then you are in love with that individual., or atleast this is what I opine.

So who is the right one for you re-visited...

Those who know me the best, know that I tend to re-affirm my thoughts and ideas by talking out loud about them. On a recent such conversation with someone very dear to me, I was presented with a hypothetical scenario: Mr. X gets to know a girl who fits the three criteria mentioned in my previous blog titled 'So who is the right one for you', perhaps not perfectly, but well enough that marriage is a real possibility (Mr. X is ofcourse dating this girl). He then meets another girl who fits the three criteria better. Should Mr. X break up with girl A for the new girl B?
From a logical perspective the answer to this question is an obvious, and possibly glaring, yes. However, fortunately (or unfortunately, I shall let my audience decide) logic plays little role in a relationship. Feelings are not rational; the crash of the Dow in 2008, and religious fanaticism are just two of numerous examples. Therefore, when love, or any feelings are added into the scenario, the 'logical' answer to the aforementioned scenario becomes an absolute no-brainer: no!
But feelings aside, from a purely logical perspective I believe this scenario reminds me of a story I read a few years ago. A young man once asked an elder what the logical difference between dating and a serious relationship is. The elder asks the young man to go out into an open corn field to find the juiciest cob in the field. The elder also says that the search could run into hours, days, possibly months if required. The young man wanders in the field and spends the whole day searching for the best crop. He returns empty handed in the evening to the elder, who questions him about the cob. The young man replies that everytime he thought he found the best cob, he decided to spend some more time looking and sure enough he found a better cob till it was too dark to keep searching. The young man also requests permission to resume his search the next day. The elder smiles and asks the young man to now go into a different corn field and look for the best cob, but he must present a cob at the end of 3 hours of searching. The young man, puzzled by the request, obliges nonetheless and ventures into another corn field and returns with cob that, while not the best, is juicy enough to be roasted, buttered eaten. The elder then smiles and says that is the difference between dating and marriage: In dating an individual is in the quest for perfection and keeps searching for a mate who is more perfect than the last one. In a serious relationship (when considering 3 hours to be a proportionate life span of an individual), an individual finds a mate who matches his/ her requirements / criteria to a reasonable extent, stops looking and adjusts to make the relationship work.
I believe this fable is quintessential to understanding that life is not perfect and that compromises have to be made, not just in the realm of relationships, but in any area. An individual who understands this 'win some, lose some' statement will possibly lead a calmer, less stressful life... right?