Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Courting danger and smoking

On some occasions, I have given into the urge of smoking. And every time I have smoked I have questioned why people who smoke do so so regularly or find it so difficult to quit.

So here's some theorizing.

For one, 'style' is a strong reason for people to smoke. The holding of a cigarette and smoke coming out of mouth is quite a leisurely style statement. Moving beyond style...

I am always in awe of someone pulling off a difficult motorcycle stunt. I respect the cyclists who can do cross-country riding. I admire the men who scale difficult mountain peaks. In each of these I suppose there is a danger of losing life or doing serious damage to oneself. There's something about courting danger. About taking arduous tasks. It's a signal of 'strength'.

After knowing that SMOKING KILLS, if a person continues to smoke as intensively and regularly as earlier, clearly he's given into a show of strength. That he can risk his life. That nothing can happen to him.

If I go by Rupert Shedrake's theory of morphic resonance, then there's a slight twist to this. Even if people no longer feel that smoking is stylish or manly or a show of strength and still continue smoking, why is it so?

Few decades back, smoking was definitely considered beneficial or manly. And loads of people accepted it as a worthy habit I guess. Going by my understanding of Morphic Resonance, once a good number of people start doing something, then others are likely to do the same (and more quickly) with or without much reason. Repetition of the act of smoking induces habit formation even among people unknown to each other, across distances. Once a novel act, smoking was reinforced by its acceptance by a huge number of people and that still resonates.

Of course, many more factors might be in play but I choose to smoke them out in this piece of writing :).

Thursday, April 7, 2011

The non-responsive is dead

In a situation of 'explicit' communication, I observe (many a time, my own self) these phenomena among people. I am talking specifically from the point of view of the person who 'initiates' the communication. 'Initiate' could mean that one has prompted the other person for a response. So, let's say that the initiator invites the other person for something. Now, given the initiator's propensity to stay reasonably patient, he sees it like this; mind you this isn't exhaustive:
  • The other person responds
    • 'yes' (exhilaration for the initiator)
    • 'no' (disappointment for the initiator)
    • indecisive
  • The other person doesn't respond 
    • coz he/she doesn't care for the person
    • coz he/she is indifferent to the matter
    • coz he/she just forgets
    • coz he/she is still thinking
    • coz he/she wants to 'play'
      • wants to show 'importance'
      • wants to elicit better deal
      • wants whatever
    • coz whatever
You see non-responsiveness is such a challenge for the initiator. And it seems that non-responding is such a great strategy for the other person to inflict any kind of torture on the initiator.

My thought: consider the non-responsive person as dead and make alternative arrangements. It's sort of tragic but that 'assumption of the dead' is as great an answer as the one received from anyone who responds.

What happens when the dead suddenly wakes up? Rejoice. Or think and decide at that moment. You also have a choice - to respond or not to!

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Raw Zone

What do I call a thing like moving from Mumbai to Bhilwara? Or, from Communications to Hospital Management? Just trying to articulate this move. Stepping outside the comfort zone seems like a good description. Or flip it and shorten it, and capture the essence of a place like Bhilwara (as seen from the eyes of a person who has experienced Mumbai). And I call it Raw Zone.

Raw Zone = Out of/Outside Comfort Zone, which leads me to ask what is it that we call a Comfort Zone?

Wikipedia says:
The comfort zone refers to the set of environments and behaviours with which somebody is comfortable, without creating a sense of risk. A comfort zone is a type of mental conditioning that causes a person to create and operate mental boundaries. Such boundaries create an unfounded sense of security. Like inertia, a person who has established a comfort zone in a particular axis of his or her life, will tend to stay within that zone without stepping outside of it.

Alasdair A.K. White, a British Management Theorist, has to say something about comfort zone and performance management. He and John Fairhurst formulated the White-Fairhurst Performance Hypothesis which states that “all performance will initially trend towards a steady state, particularly after a period of performance uplift, and that steady state will then develop a downward curve leading to a significant performance decline”.

They gave a model called TPR Life-cycle Model. TPR = Transforming, Performing, Reforming. It looks like this:



White argues that what is important now is to determine trend-change points on the performance curve so that the most appropriate performance management actions can be applied. Guess this is my trend-change point!

Not that I knew all of this. Was just trying to explain the decision to myself and Google and Wikipedia just made it easy. Important discovery for me.

In the subsequent posts, I'll go beyond this theory. Actually into the Raw Zone!