Reading between the lines on a social network..

Just like learning about a person more than he/she wants to reveal by studying their body language, one can gain a better insight into the life of a person by taking a glance at his/her Facebook Wall. For instance, usually a change in display picture means that there has been a recent change in their "real" life and perhaps you can take a good guess as to what it is by looking at their recent activity. You don't have to be a hacker to gain that information. Just being his/her friend.



Before I get in too deep about this, I'd like to point out that I'm not formally educated in the field of psychology and I might be wrong. These are only my general observations and as with anything general, there are bound to be exceptions.



The first and most important aspect of the facebook profile is the 'Password'. Psyche profiling can start at such a basic part. We can know how sensitive a person is by their password. Usually many people, in the intent of keeping it easily memorable, use the name of their spouse, a pet, the day of their marriage etc., such as something that has meaning to them in their actual life. Such people tend to be empathic to their peers and value relationships in life. A kind of romantic and have an optimistic view of everything.



Then come people who try to keep their password secure by using obscure characters and words. It's obvious- They want to keep their secrets to themselves. They are somewhat introverts. They take a logical approach to life. Because they remember such tough passwords, I can take a blind shot and say they have good memory power too. But the passwords are private and are not meant to share. So let's not dwell on this and go to what is publicly shown.

------

Then comes the profile. For sake of this, let's say he/she is your friend and you can see their wall. Then you exactly know what he/she likes and dislikes, what intrigues them, what irks them, what drives them etc. That's enough information to have a psyche profile on them.



You know what movies and books they like, what their hobbies are and where they work and what level in the administrative hierarchy they are. Based on their updates(assuming they do that regularly) you can understand and predict their reactions and manipulate them accordingly, if you please.



As an example, you might have come across someone sharing a 'cute puppy' or 'little kitten' via a video or a photo, not just once, but a lot of times. He/she is probably very sensitive at heart and you might want to think twice before you say anything or you might hurt them unknowingly.



If a person puts up a profile picture that's not his/her own and it's a picture of a celebrity, that would mean he's overcompensating for his/her lack of something in him/herself. Sometimes people tend to put up some of their valuable moments caught on camera(graduation, award winning, any achievement, wedding etc.). I don't need to spill that out for you. There's another category who put up a baby(not their son/daughter nor their childhood pics) or a lovely flower or a kitten or a pup (or anything cute and 'borrowed' from the interwebs). I don't wanna talk about them coz they're too sensitive to handle an opinion even if its validity is questionable.



People who put up pictures of themselves - They are most comfortable and confident at the place, position and time at which the picture was taken. They tend to look back at the same picture even after years, to remind themselves of that incident/location.

------

Status updates are too complicated to generalise but they do have contextual implications. Reading the update in context to the previous items shared can reveal a lot more, but it is subjective.

------

Photos shared could be the most valuable sources of information of all. You can know not only about the person in question, but also about his relationships with other people in the picture. If the most of the pictures are of him/herself alone - then he/she leans towards narcissism. If there are more people in the picture, you can judge them by their body language. You get to know who's important to him/her and how much, on a comparative scale.



Also, I've known personally some people who do things and visit places for the sake of sharing pictures on facebook rather than enjoying the actual activity. What seems trivial to most others, turns out to be very serious to such people. They're posers. They have a hidden side of them that's not as pleasant as they appear to be.

------

I almost forgot about the applications. Some applications that are titled "how are you feeling today" or "how much he/she loves you" or something that it tends to reveal that possibly can't be, only show how much insecure the person is regarding that. Let's say you've seen an update from a friend about the app "how much he/she loves you?" - Independent of the result he/she has a crush on someone in their friend list and they comfort themselves in thinking that the computer knows more about their relationship than a real person(!!).



Most other apps are games and it's a no-brainer why people do that.

------

One also might try to falsify their facebook profile and seem to be a person he/she's actually not. It's like trying to do an impression of others (in the actual world, not the online reality) and with an observant eye, it can be found.

------

This is what usually runs through my mind when I share something on facebook. I do think through as to how it reflects on my personality and what others might discern about me when they read/see it. I also check my profile periodically so that it only portrays me as I want to be seen and no information is shared in excess to what I want to share.



I do tend to take a similar approach in my actual life too. I maintain a journal and retrospect on the events that occurred to me and how I could have handled them better, if possible. It also helps me know how much I have changed. But that's a post for another time.



So, to summarise be careful with what you share, coz I might use it against you if I can. Not just me, but it could be anybody.

------

To you-know-who: On the surface this might seem to have been written with an altruistic intent but look closer and you'll find the narcissistic agenda.

To all: This was first posted as a note on facebook and the article was written with that on mind. However, the same rules apply in any other social network.

Love makes the world go round? Think again!

Love doesn't make the world go round. It actually prevents progress and advancement. Curiosity is one of the things that make the world go round, besides angular momentum, and other laws of physics.
People say one can't live without love. But I ask, why shouldn't? Love never inspired any advancement, nor any breakthrough nor any pinnacle of achievement not even a simple shred of progress. You may say there are many works of art, poetry etc., which were inspired by love. It's not love. It's lust. That's what inspires the so called people who are "in love". It is just an evolutionary instinct to go after the best looking/mate who has more chances of survival in this competitive world. People are too afraid to meet their conscience and accept the fact that beneath the facade of love, there nothing but mere need and selfishness. Need and selfishness - They too contribute to progress.
Let's see what has the so called love achieved over time.
The trojan war was fought because the prince was attracted to Helen, destroying many lives and wasting so many man-hours.  How many wars have been fought in the name of love... Historians know better. Coming current times, numerous murders and rapes have been committed (only that I know of) in the name of love. If love leads to peace, why is there a war everywhere there is love? The wars are sometimes psychological and may not be noticed by everyone. For an observant eye there is war everywhere there is love.
So far I have only used love only in the  romantic sense, i.e. between two lovers. Coming to non-romantic love, such as parent-child, siblings, etc.,- This is too obvious to explain in the terms of evolution. Since I came this far, let me put it in words. Trying to survive by supporting each other. I've spent enough time ranting about the pointlessness of love.

Coming to sympathy, it did nothing. Period.

So this raises a question: If love doesn't make the world go round, what does?
This is a question that can't be answered in one word. There is money-the most important one, greed, jealousy, need, hunger, happiness, and nearly all human feelings except love and sympathy.

Greed drives one crazy enough do something to quench one's desire. If one is looking for something more than one can achieve, greed makes them take new paths to grasp it.
Jealousy - It can lead to greed or inspire one to create something more important/valuable than the object in question.
Need - Necessity is the mother of invention, aptly said.
Most other feelings can be finally reduced to one of the above, thereby proving my point.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

As an Atheist...

Let me begin with this: All this started while I was listening to the story of birth of Lord Ganesha. (FYI it is customary to listen to the story on the eve of Ganesh Chathurthi.). Interestingly there are some weird references and connections between Christian, Hindu, Roman Mythologies and some science fiction/fantasy myths such as the philosopher’s stone.

My theory is that all the so called gods are mutants- Mutants as in science fiction: Humans with super human capabilities. This statement especially holds true for hindu gods, for it is said there are three crore (thirty million) gods and goddesses out there.

Rain god Varuna for instance, possesses the same powers as the Storm holds in X-men.

Lord Shiva’s third eye is mentioned to be capable of burning everything in its sight. This is reminds of Cyclops in X-men, except that he doesn’t have a separate eye to burn things. (For Naruto fans out there, Amaterasu is something similar, isn’t it?)

The “Samanthaka Mani” has the ability to give its possessor a mass of nearly 16 kgs in gold every day (as mentioned- 8 manugulu). It is an obvious reference to the Philosopher’s stone.

Cupid is the Roman version of the Indian Manmadha. Manmadha’s wife is Rathi, who is the goddess of sex.

Athena – The goddess of knowledge and wisdom refers to the Goddess Saraswathi.

Moses/Jesus shows his power of telekinesis when he parted the Jordan river to pave way for his followers. This is demonstrated by the powers of Jean Grey in X-men.

Sai Baba is said to have transmuted water into oil, when his devotees couldn’t buy oil to light lamps. Also, he’s said to have dispensed ‘holy’ water from his toes.

Hanuman is the Hindu equivalent of ‘Superman’. He has super human strength and he could fly too.

Vali and Sugreeva brothers are ape-men who could communicate with both humans monkeys alike.

The God’s omniscience could be an amplified version of Charles Xavier’s power to read, write and modify one’s thoughts. (Yes, that’s a pun on computers)

The King of Heaven Zeus is analogous to Lord Indra who is the king of Heaven according to Hindu mythology. Also there is a striking similarity between the weapons wielded by both. Zeus’ weapon was the Lightning and Indra’s weapon was Vajrayudha which by my understanding commands lightning. (Referring to the lightning rain Indra caused on Gokulam when people started worshiping Mt.Govardhana instead of Indra, himself.)

All this references I found only by the limited knowledge I have on each of the mythologies and I wish I knew more so I could find some more.
The reason the so called son of god/prophet is born once in thousands of years is that he is a mutant in real life. Out of all the possible combination of genes, there is still a definite non-zero chance that such a mutant will be born some day and that wouldn't come often. Even the Hindu mythology says that the god shall take a human form to help mankind once every yuga (it is a period of several thousand years). It's nearly the same as the odds of super human taking birth on the planet earth.

Lie to me, House, Mentalist and Leverage...

Lie to me, House, Mentalist and Leverage...

Have you watched atleast 2 or more of these? Then read on...
What's common in all those series? Loads of stuff!! Don't believe it? Then here's a description of one of the series and find out which series I am referring to... game? then go...

A middle aged man, with a passion to solve puzzles. Helps people - directly/indirectly. Socially awkward but considered handsome by middle aged women. A bossy female who keeps him from going insane. The subordinates, one female and two male. The two males being one muscular and the other lean. They are constantly overpowered by the lead. However they confront him when his going too crazy. None of the subordinates know what the lead is planning to next. However, if it's too crazy the bossy female has a way of knowing and stops him. In the end the lead ends up humiliating some, making fun of others, and enjoying himself while all the others go head over heels to solve the problem.

Any guess now?

No? Then here's more..

Each episode starts with a scene not even remotely suggesting the field it is related to. But somehow the writer finds a link to relate it with the series. Also the lead has a past with a female - a memory that haunts him. There is a chemistry going on between the lead and the bossy female. Also one of the male subordinates is attracted to this female subordinate while the other has no interest at all, though he is not gay. Coming to the bossy female- she is single and has trouble committing to another man (anyone other than the lead). Though it is not said or mentioned, the bossy female has feelings for the lead. She being the boss, takes his side against commonsense most of the time. This puts her in certain embarrassing moments. Her way of flirting is arguing violently over petty things, that arise out of his childlike stubbornness. The lead, being very adamant, sees something where everyone ignores and that's what helps in solving a case mostly. Very rarely does the lead get some real help from his subordinates.

Generally, the subordinates are like walls, for a bouncing ball- the lead. They stand there doing nothing but they are the ones which make sure the ball is going the right way.

Any guesses?

My point exactly.

The formula involved is:

Drama = Bossy female + Narcissistic, self righteous, "pain in the arse" male + one weak willed female + One guy who has a thing for the weak willed female + a non-gay guy who doesn't have any feeling for her.

Pour some medicine over it and it's 'House'.
Throw some blood and it's 'Mentalist'.
Invlove some lies it's 'Lie to me'.
A legal loophole/conspiracy? 'Leverage'.

P.S: I like all the series a and I only hope the writers could come up with a hierarchy different from each other.

Good and Evil

"Good and evil, Yin Yang, the balance of forces blah blah"

I happened to overhear two of my classmates talking about that, hence this entry.

From what I know, there are no such thing as balance of forces. What is good and what is bad? Is it decided by majority? What if the majority is wrong? And that often happens to be the case. all along the history the so called "GOOD" has been winning only coz it's majority. We only saw the history from one side and decided that some people are good and others are bad. I don't think we had a "balanced" perspective on what happened just by that.
The movies and literature have been some of the mankind's greatest sources of thought provocation and they inculcate the same. "Good" always wins and "bad" always loses. Did anyone ever feel "Hmm.. there's something fishy going on here..??!"

Let me put this into perspective.. Imagine a football game. For the example let's consider there are only two teams competing against each other, say Red and the Green. Both the teams quite good. But no matter how many games they played, Red always won and Green never won. The score sheet was like this

Matches Red Green
100 100 0
200 200 0
500 500 0

So immediately your response is "WTF? Is there even a green team? are they alive? Then WTF are they doing?"

So, without the captain's consent nor knowledge, some of the players changed sides. And even now the results are the same. No change.
What's your response now? Logically we deduce that the game is rigged. That's us outside the game.

Now let's get into the player's heads and think. You are a player of the Red team. You are always winning. There's no reason to look back and retrospect on the game and you are 100% sure that you are going to win the next match no matter what. So what do you do? PARTY!! Who cares of other team so long as we remain the victors?? Hope to win the coming match and respect your captain for leading the team to victory.

Now time for the Green team. You are always losing no matter what you do. Even trying to recruit some members from the red team failed. Imagine the frustration of the players and the pressure on the captain. This forces him to eliminate any weak links in the team even though it's painful. Each time, at the end of the match, the captain saying "Damn you red team!!You frikkin cheater! There's no way anyone can win without losing and there is going to be a day I will defeat you!" The players are forced into being silent.

Looking familiar?? Being outside the game, we think that someone's cheating but being in the "Red" team makes you think you are right. So if there is a balance, there should be equal wins and losses for the teams. But there isn't. Being outside the teams, we think red is using some "EVIL" trick to achieve the feat. So by definition red falls under suspicious "GREY" area between the good and the evil. There are two options now.
Option 1: Red is evil and Green is good.
Option 2: Green is evil and red is good.

Option 1: Red is evil and Green is good.
Let's say it's true. Then the good never wins. But that beats what we learnt till now. Doesn't it??

Option 2: Green is evil and red is good.
This is the only option left. So now we say Red team is good. We are at the point of saying "Good" is suspicious. Good by it's own definition is not "Good"
Therfore a contradiction. Now we are left with nowhere to go!!

But fortunately for those who can SEE, there is a third option. To deny the very classification of being good and bad. That puts us outside the game and when every one is outside the field, there is no game. No battle. No war. Isn't this what we've fought for over the thousands of years?? All we need is just a little perspective. Instead of lending power to the narrow minded masochists, take the power to your own hand.

The waterbombs - Modified

The waterbombs - Modified
Originally uploaded by Bharath Kishore

One sheet of paper - no cuts - only folding

On one of the corridors

On one of the corridors
Originally uploaded by Bharath Kishore

As most people think, spiders are not insects. They belong to a family of the animal kingdom called Arachnids. They are some oof my favorite creatures. The webs often mystify me. I stand in awe in front of the spider's web.