Extreme NED has been happening at work nowadays. I’ve reached, and perhaps surpassed, the level of NED that had made me quit A T Kearney back in July 2006. Being jobless wasn’t a very pleasant experience (put too much pressure on me to find a job quickly, and also reduced my bargaining power) and I don’t want to go through that kind of stuff again.
To be honest, I’ve been hunting for a job for the last eight months. Took four months to figure out what I wanted, and then the financial downturn happened, and the market isn’t really looking up nowadays.
Now, the basic point is that there is no point in random cribbing. Cribbing should be targeted, and hte person being cribbed to should be in a position to help out. Once in a while it helps, but “it’s ok dude, i’m sure you’ll find something that fits you” kind of stuff doesn’t really make sense. And most of the time you can’t even blame the guy who told you this because in most cases he can’t say anything else. The crib should be packaged in such a way that the person being cribbed to should be able to help you. Rather, the crib should ideally be followed up with specific questions.
So something like “Dude i’m getting pained in my job. This is bad that is bad everything is bad. I’m not finding anything. I’m feeling desperate. Blah Blah” is inferior to “Dude i’m getting pained in my job. This is bad that is bad everything is bad. I’m not finding anything. I’m feeling desperate. Blah Blah. Do you have openings in your firm?” or “Dude i’m getting pained in my job. This is bad that is bad everything is bad. I’m not finding anything. I’m feeling desperate. Blah Blah. Do you know headhunters who recruit for banking?“.
The issue I have now is that whenever I think of it, I hit NED and am not able to structure my thoughts properly. I should be able to take my thoughts, separate them out into logical threads, divide the whole process into steps, and then ask the right questions to the right people – people who can give out answers to the questions that I’ve asked them.
I need to streamline my thoughts. I need to put a structure on them. Organize them. And then channel them. Seems like I need to get back to my old consulting avatar and work on this. However, my NED when I think of this kind of stuff doesn’t allow me to think objectively. Maybe i need a consultant after all. At least a sounding board, who mostly knows what I’m talking about,and doesn’t just nod.
I’m halfway through this excellent article. I highly recommend you to read if you’re even remotely interested in social networks. Duncan Watts (prof of sociology at Columbia; now on sabbatical at Yahoo!),? whose book six degrees was instrumental in introducing me to the concept of social networks, tries to refute some of the ideas talked about by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point. Watts, studying email networks, seems to have concluded that there is no such thing as “influential people”. That everyone else is as influential as everyone else when it comes to propagating stuff.
The point of that verbose first paragraph was that this particular article has reminded me of the word “are”. Not “are” as in plural of “is”, but more in the IIMB context, where it refers to something really good. For example, “livejournal are” translates to “livejournal is really good” in normal english. Or sometime, when someone tells you something which you find to be really great, you can just reply saying “are”. An extremely simple but extremely powerful usage of an extremely simple and common word.
It all started on the first day of Saarang 2006. I don’t remember too well but at least all of the following people were present at the dinner at Eden (at besantnagar) that evening – samanth, vinod, tchami, kodhi, woreshtmax visnu and i. The key characters were samanth and vinod. Theyy had got pained by the IITian usage of “are there” for “is there” and were responding to every sentence with “are” (they were too lazy to say “are there” i guess), and occasionally with “are not”.? Five days later, as we were on the bus to Bangalore, “are” had come to mean what it does now. It’s antonym was “are not”.
Now, Kodhi and I, who claim credit for this particular usage of this word, were extremely active on BRacket, the IIMB internal message board. So what happened was that the probability that someone read a word written by us was much higher than someone reading a word written by the average IIMB bloke. In that sense, yes, we were influential. The next “convert”, I think was
, who is always on the lookout for new lingo, so much so that he uses more IITM lingo than the average guy from IITM.
I don’t recall it being a very conscious attempt. However, we were unwittingly using the word more often in our conversation. We used to respond to posts on BRacket with a simple “are”, indicating our appreciation to the preceding argument. Consequently, we received queries to explain our wonderful responses, and this gave the word fresh footage. Some of the people who thus asked us immediately liked the word and coopted that into their language. I remember
?and
?being especially early adopters.
It was a matter of time before it had unofficially entered the official dictionary.
So coming back to the whole process – it was originated and propagated by a bunch of people who were more active in the community than others. However, most of us wouldn’t by any standards qualify as any kind of thought or opinion leaders. For all you care, we were just a bunch of random guys, only slightly more visible than the rest. One thing is there – all of us were much more receptive to fresh ideas (and fresh words) than the average populace. And our assimilation was quick – the word didn’t take much time in entering our normal conversations.
Now what does this mean in terms of Gladwell’s and Watts’s frameworks? On one hand, yes, we were a set of “influentials”. However, that we were influential in this matter (creating a new word) had nothing to do with us being influential in any other sense. My take on the subject based on only this particular case study – yes, influentials matter. You do need people with a higher-than-average visibility in order to propagate the concept. On the other hand, targeting influentials is harder than most people (admen, etc.) think. The same people who were influential with hush puppies shoes weren’t influential with say popularizing *insert random music genre here*. It is important for marketers to somehow identify who are the kind of people who will be more influential in the current context, and target them.
Are
Nowadays a large number of my batchmates from IIT/IIM are getting married. A disproportionately large number of them. And a number of them are sending me personal invites for the wedding (an email which is addressed only to me, starting with “Dear Karthik”, with the invitation attached).
Now, the thing is that most of these weddings are not in Bangalore, and I’d have to travel to attend them. And I don’t know what to do with them. Most of these are from people whom I knew, but didn’t know too well – I’d go if the wedding was in Bangalore, but I’m not sure if I’d want to travel for their weddings.
So I don’t really know what to do. Should I reply to their invites, and congratulate them and apologize that I won’t be able to make it? Or just put a “well left”? Or don’t reply to the invite now but just call up and congratulate the person after the wedding?
So far I haven’t figured out how to take care of this so I’m just putting a “well left”. I don’t know if this action, rather inaction, is right. But in a couple of cases it’s already way past the wedding to congratulate them now.
Considering that the flood has just started, I think I can expect a lot more such invites in the near future. And I need a concrete plan on how to approach them.
was thinking about it on the way back from the gym this evening. i have a big starting problem. i have a problem in randomly approaching random women and striking conversation with them. i believe once i get talking, i can take care of things from then on and things will go the way they are supposed to.
i remember reading this on the dilbert blog a few months back. scott adams had talked about what it takes to be successful. he had said that you need to be either in the top 1% of the world in what you are good at, or you should be in the top 25% in two or three different things, and should be able to combine them. he’d illustrated it with the fact that though he isn’t in the top 1% of anything, he’s in the top 25% in drawing and humor and understanding corporate life, so he’s made it big with dilbert.
now, coming back to what I started with – on getting started with a conversation. one way you can get talking is to make a really really good impression the first time you see each other, in which case you’ll be able to chat her up. the other way to do this is if you meet her in two or three different unrelated contexts. it’s much easier this way.
for example, if i meet in some random function this female whom i’d seen at some random quiz some time back, it won’t be that awkward to chat her up using the quiz as the initial context. the important thing is that you both vaguely remember each other, so she won’t really think it’s some random bloke trying to chat her up.
and by the way, here i’m referring to contexts where you aren’t really required to speak to each other. for example, say if you meet someone at a group discussion, you’re forced to talk to each other then! so you get to know the other person without really feeling awkward.
i’m sleepy now so not very coherent with my thoughts. but let me know if i’m making sense.
I don’t believe in getting drunk. Or in dope. Or in taking a holiday for that matter. While all these offer good short-term benefits, their problem is just that – they are way too short-term. Once you’ve finished experiencing them, you’re back to square zero. No better off than you were before you undertook the experience. In a large number of cases (piled up work, hangover, etc.) you might even be significantly worse off.
Happiness needs to be sustainable, and the above mentioned methods don’t really guarantee that. It’s like putting a coat of white polish over your white canvas shoes. The dirt remains, only gets covered. You run a few hundred meters and the dirt is there for all to see. Or you can think about it as using a band aid for a really bad injury. Just covers up the surface.
The pricing of coffee at the Samrat restaurant (part of Hotel Chalukya on Race Course Road) is interesting. This is a popular old restaurant, and being in an area full of government offices, is perennially crowded (despite its large size). It is a sit-down kind of restaurant, though you might have to share a table with strangers if you’ve gone in a group of less than four.
He rushed to my room all excited. “Dooode! How was the exam? Did you do the last question?”
The exam in question was the final exam of a course on Technology and Business. It was a mostly objective paper and at the end there was one subjective question I think. Maybe there were more, but I only remember this one. I had returned to my room half an hour earlier.
“Yeah dude. I think I answered it pretty well”, I replied.
“I so cracked it. I found so many things. There were so many angles to the thing dude. I totally raped the question”, he said.
“Ah! Good you found so many things to the case. I just found one major point and just wrote that. Anyways, what took you so long?”
“Oh I totally cracked it. I used this framework that framework every framework I knew seemed to fit in. I took an additional answer booklet solely for this answer. Wrote some five pages”, he explained. (clearly, both of us were elated about cracking the exam)
“Ah! I should’ve thought of using all those fancy frameworks. Never occurred to me. I found one major point and just wrote that. Three paragraphs i think.? Maybe half a page”.
I ended up topping the course. He now works for McKinsey.
I came in to work this morning to see > 400 unread items on my google reader! The only time it was higher I think was when I took a week off to go to Chickmaglur and Goa.
The weekend was long because our office decided that we deserve a Republic Day holiday on Friday to compensate for the day falling on a Saturday. These Americans just assume all the world is America!
And the weekend was busy also. I went to madras on Saturday (by Shatabdi) to attend the Odyssey quiz. Pota, Shamanth and I all had a bad afternoon as we failed to clear the finals cut off by a long way. Before the quiz, I had roamed around the area around Parrys Corner buying DVDs (more on that later). After the quiz, I met Baada and Beedi for dinner at Cedar.
Spent the night watching the Saarang Lone Wolf Quiz finals, hopped on to a taxi at around 5 am, and caught the 6 o’clock Shatabdi back. Had a haircut, watched tennis (was a great final), met some relatives and slept.
Friday was spent finishing up a lot of sundry bank and investment work. And had to take my mom to some Khadi sale. And there was the match in the morning.
What an amazing game it was. Mired in controversy following the “toiletgate” two years back, it was well worth it. Topalov played beautifully and I just can’t stop myself from seeing that game again and again.
I was looking around for some good analysis of the game, and what better than to see the winner explain the thing himself. I’m posting Topalov’s press conference here. It’s in two parts. He shows you the game and also keeps explaining the rationale behind each move and what he thinks Kramnik should have done and stuff.
Amazing stuff. Of course the purists will argue that this was a well prepared line so it wasn’t “that beautiful” but for someone trying to get back in touch with the game after ages, this is simply beautiful. Enjoy the games (I recommend you just see it here in the press conference; Topalov plays out the entire game)
![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}