Missed Miss's call

I was on leave yesterday, and a beautiful colleague of mine called me. Damn it! I missed her call. Perhaps I should inquire before taking a leave.
"Hey! I hope you are not gonna call me tomorrow because I'm planning to take a leave."

Just kidding. I can call her on Monday anyway.

Rise of wikileaks and information age

What does the rise of wikileaks signify? Does is signify an age where there is no personal privacy? With the rise of micro-cameras and microphones, with the rise of sting operations, with the rise of Google, have you arrived in an age where you have no personal privacy.

But what does this mean? From an optimistic point of view, I see this as an age where honesty will be valued again, transparency will be obvious. I see this as an age where a killing in Baghdad moves hearts in New York. I see this as an age where planning a war will become impossible without the enemy getting to know about it. I see this age as वसुधैव कुटुम्भकम

Give your best to whatever you do

Perhaps this is not what I want others to read. This blog is accumulation of negative thoughts that I don't want to disclose in public and more importantly I don't want any sympathetic comments.

This world is not place of genius or perhaps it is (which means I am wrong). This world is a place of mediocrity; by it's definition mediocrity should be the be the most prevalent adjective in the world. Best is one and worst is one, rest all are mediocre's. In a population of 6 billion people, to win over mediocrity we need 1.5 billion skills/sports each having different *Best* and the *Worst*.

I am trying to prove this because I am a mediocre. And I don't want to condemn myself on being a mediocre. Yes, I do want to improve but in case I don't succeed, perhaps it's OK. May be I am not doing what I wanted to do, but I can give my best to whatever I do.

I hope this clears my mind and let me give my best to whatever I do.

My life my morals

Morals of a persons are specific to himself. My morals are negative in nature; that is they define things not to do. Furthermore, perhaps my morals are the minimalist subset of what a normal person's might be. Here's a key principle that can define most of my morals.

1. Never do a thing to a person that you won't like to be done to yourself. In case you are expecting an unfavorable action from the person, it's permissible to take a similar action that avoids the unfavorable circumstance for you. The unfavorable circumstance created for the other person should be less or equally severe to the unfavorable circumstance that you expect to be created by the person. The order of severity for the other person is same as yours. 
2. Never do a thing that, if extrapolated, makes sustainable life impossible on the planet. By extrapolation I mean that if every person on earth starts doing the same thing. 

The first principle enforces the morals of honesty, equality, healthy competition etc. but allows the possibility of self defence. The second principle enforces global responsibility like fighting against global warming etc. Interestingly, second principle classifies voluntary celibacy as immoral.

My experiments with Pick Up Science (Part - 1)

Abstract

This series of paper discusses four experiments on two different strategies of inducing attraction in humans. Incidentally, all the humans involved in this experiment were men and subjects were women, hence this paper presents may mislead the reader to skewed perspective of laws governing attraction among humans. I want to clarify that this paper discusses only 1 of 4 permutations (not combination because attraction is vector having direction) of attraction among normal species of humans.

Experiment 1 on passive disinterest

Experimenter : A, a male with handsomeness = 7/10 and conspicuousness = 3/10.
Subject: P, a female with beauty = 7.5/10 and conspicuousness of 2/10
Environment: Office. A and P are in different departments, no one deals with each other professionally. The probability of random interaction between the two is illustrated by the following equation:
P(x) = (1/number of employees) * (time when they are drunk/time they stay in company)


Procedure

Day 1: A adds P on company chat engine. ( active interest ? )
Day 4: P accepts chat engine request.
Day 7: Conversation begins

P: As stupid it may sound asking you, but as far as I remember we have never talked, met or interacted before. May I know why did I you add me as a friend on the chat engine ?
A: I had some work in HR deptt., so I added you, but now that is resolved. You may not worry about it.
P: I am not in HR deptt., I am in Resource development.
A: Oh! I thought both are the same, anyway "Resource" is common.
P: No, Resource Development deals with developing resource, HR deals with exploiting it.
A: ok, i can't understand a word you are saying.
P: So, how come you know my name ?
A: I was going through HR area, somehow your name stuck with me. I believed anyone who sits in HR area must be an HR.
P: You read my nameplate ?
A: I heard someone calling you ....
P: lolz, strange that you remembered only my name.
A: Sorry for all the trouble that I may have caused, please feel free to delete me.
P: no, no, I didn't mean that

Post this interesting conversation there have been a few friendly and unfriendly exchange between A and P.

Analysis:

In the above mentioned experiment, A violates all the principles laid down the literature so far by pioneers like Mystery, Ross Jeffries . 3-second rule, first demonstrate value rule, active disinterest strategy are only a few of the principles being violated. Still A is not only able to open up P, but also produce a mild attraction towards himself. In spite of the deviation from conventional strategies a few patterns must be observed.

1. Initial, addition on chat engine and inactivity by A for 3 days looks similar to activeness followed by disinterest. Mixed signals.
   
2. It must be noted that A was successfully able to avoid a barrage of questions from P, thus demonstrating his smartness hence value. Such a demonstration of value was sufficient enough to hold the final push "feel free to delete me". Pull-push theory.
   

Conclusion

Although the experiment do not complies with most of the strategies documented in the literature so far, it do contains some identifiable patterns which further strengthen the efficacy of those patterns especially Push-pull pattern. Having said that it must be noted (as it will be demonstrated in next papers) that this pattern is too difficult to repeat and is largely subjective to the subject as well as experimenter.