Amitabh, reinvented

Around 1980, Neelakantan's uncle predicted that "by the 10th standard, you would have forgotten about him", the 'him' being Amitabh Bachchan. Check out this short analysis of how Amitabh has managed to remain unforgettable in ever newer ways.

Different places, one struggle

From the ongoing saga of women's struggle for equality :

• Saudi Arabia: Driving an automobile
• Tirupati: Women barbers
• New Delhi: Equal pay for equal work (link via Uma)

Trust, available now in a bottle

Take a look at this report from yesterday's Hindu. Its byline reads "A research finding with potential uses in therapy — and con jobs". Here are some extracts:

Trust in a bottle? That is what Swiss and American scientists demonstrate in new experiments with a nasal spray containing the hormone, oxytocin. After a few squirts, human subjects were significantly more trusting and willing to invest money with no ironclad promise of a profit.

The researchers acknowledged their findings could be abused by con artists or even sleazy politicians who might sway an election, provided they could squirt enough voters on their way to the polls.

Yup! We now have a new one ...

And, that would be ... a universe, of course!

"It is the biggest thing we have ever done," said Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, England. "It is probably the biggest thing ever in computational physics. For the first time we have a replica universe which looks just like the real one. So we can now for the first time begin to experiment with the universe.

"Unlike people who study human behaviour, who can study many humans, cosmologists have been stuck with only the one universe. Well, from today we have more than one."

Emphasis mine. The article goes on to describe the kinds of questions that researchers can now pose to this 'virtual universe'. Pretty interesting stuff.

Back to school!

Our soon-to-be-four-years-old son was back to school this morning after what seemed like an eternity of a summer break. And, what is the first thing I see on the internets? This article in Salon.com, which leaves me with a vague, indescribable fear ...

That Salon article can be read with a free pass for a day, if you are willing to see an ad. Link found via Brad DeLong, who of course, called it the 'funniest thing he has read all week'. I guess his kids are all older than two (or three, or four, or ...;-), so he has the luxury of finding it funny...

Some more of this and that ...

Over at ZooStation, Reuben says he runs into a review, every now and then, that "raises the bar on how to completely trash a movie", and cites this New Yorker review (by Anthony Lane) of Revenge of the Sith as a good example. Talking about trashing someone's work, I found (via Kieran Healy of Crooked Timber) this utter tear-down (by Matt Taibbi) of Tom Friedman's latest book on globalization, The World is Flat.

At Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen has a short post explaining that economists are using, in effect, a microscope when they study "one relationship or one mechanism at a time", and concludes "about half of all criticisms of economics boil down to failing to understand the microscope method".

Through MR, I found this great exam paper. At MR, you can find out why Neil Armstrong is suing his barber. If you have the ambition to ever become a Central Banker, you should definitely need to know about this.

[Via Patrix ]: Ten most harmful books selected by some prominent US conservatives. The list includes the usual culprits: Marx, Mao et al. The Kinsey Report figures at No. 4 in this list. At No. 5 is John Dewey's 'Democracy and Education'. From the accompanying commentary, we have this:

"... he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking 'skills' instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation".

You might also find it interesting that Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique makes the Top 10 list, but Simone de Bouvoir's Second Sex gets only an honourable mention. Similarly, Keynes makes it to Top 10, while Darwin gets an honorable mention.

This and that ...

Kamat has an article about India's arranged marriages. In another post, he says, "No discussion of arranged marriages is complete without touching upon the humiliation of the bride's father during the process", and presents a translation of a moving Kannada folk poem. Towards the end of this post, you find a link to a recent article by Anita Jain on a modern Indian woman's struggle with arranged marriage.

Gargi, over at POV, has an informative post on what went wrong with the FM radio revolution that we should all be experiencing -- but are not.

Today's Economic Times has a sensible editorial on the ban of smoking in movies and television shows. In particular, it points out the hypocricy of it all. First, "the government imposes heavy taxes on cigarettes and bans advertising, yet subsidises the cultivation of tobacco with free power, cheap water and financial rescues if the price falls sharply". Second, "while the cigarette industry is excoriated and taxed for being a killer, the bidi industry is subsidised, to kill", because, according to the editorial, the bidis account for an overwhelming part of the smoking market (cigarettes account for only 20 %). Finally, it points out that "smoking is only one of the many sins or hazards. Adultery, rape, corruption, violence, financial exploitation and many other such problems wreck the lives of people", and asks, "ill the government ban all these themes in films because they may glamourise undesirable, hazardous behaviour?" Is there any way to stop this crazy move?

Friday fashion blogging: special Thursday edition

Do you know which Indian scientist said "While in Europe they dress for dinner, we in India undress"? Do you know the other Raman effect? Check out this piece by D. Balasubramanian, a well known academic who has been writing the column, Speaking of Science in the Hindu for a very long time. His latest column is on how the scientists' couture preferences have changed over the years. There are some interesting, light hearted comparisons of natural scientists with social scientists on this sartorial dimension.

From the archives of timeless truths

In the previous post, we talked about John Baez, who hosts the column this week's finds in mathematical physics on his website. Seeing his name in Brad's post reminded me of something that I wrote a while ago elsewhere.

In the past, there have been many attempts to explain all physical phenomena -- why, Nature herself -- using One Big Idea: unified field theory, universality, self-organized criticality, and so on. I just became aware of a meme that goes even further.

Take a look at a milder version of this meme (emphasis added by me):

If we think of the universe as passing through the course of history from simplicity to complexity, from neutrinos to nematodes to humans, it's natural to wonder what's at the bottom, where things get very simple, where physics blurs into pure logic.... far from the "spires of form". (emphasis added by me) -- John Baez

Now, this second quote, a rather extended one, is from the book "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind" by none other than Roger Penrose:

...I shall also have [something to say] about another world, the Platonic world of absolutes, in its particular role as the world of mathematical truth. One can well take the view that the 'Platonic world' contains other absolutes, such as the Good and the Beautiful, but I shall be concerned here only with the Platonic concepts of mathematics. Some people find it hard to conceive of this world as existing on its own. They may prefer to think of mathematical concepts merely as idealizations of our physical world -- and, on this view, the mathematical world would be thought of as emerging from the world of physical objects.

Now, this is not how I think of mathematics, nor, I believe, is it how most mathematicians or mathematical physicists think about the world. They think about it in a rather different way, as a structure precisely governed according to timeless mathematical laws. Thus, they prefer to think of the physical world, more appropriately, as emerging out of the ('timeless') world of mathematics. [...]

Here we were, living with this comfortable notion that mathematics is such a nice tool -- rather like a key -- for unlocking and understanding physics. We were even willing (well, sort of) to concede the possibility that mathematics may exist all by itself and be its own master, without being burdened by having to explain anything. Now, along come these wise men, telling us that we got it all backwards. "It is all just mathematics", they seem to suggest, "from whose timeless depths the physical world 'emerges', and into which it 'blurs' when it has done its job".

Fabulous, i'nnit?

Inrerdisciplinary wars

Okay, they are not real wars. But, they are not love, either!

First, we have Eszter Hargittai of Crooked Timber firing the first shot with a complaint that physicists who work on the theory of social networks generally do not pay attention to the work of sociologists in the same field (a subset of social network theory is covered by Malcolm Gladwell's bestseller Tipping Point). Some of the work of the former, sometimes, ends up reproducing results that were discovered by sociologists ages ago. Henry Farrell, another Crooked Timber blogger, asked Cosma Shalizi, a physicist, for his perspective. (Cosma has an excellent blog Three toed sloth, and announced -- I think, for the first time! -- to the world a new way of looking at the US election results using beautiful maps; he is a man with an enormous depth of expertise in an enormously wide range of subjects). Now, you have a nice discussion about interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary research, and the responsibilities of those who do such research. Much of the discussion is quite accessible to non-experts.

Then we have this tongue in cheek stuff from Brad DeLong about John Baez's attempt to state Einstein's general relativity equation in plain English.

Pankaj Jalote on the future of IITs

Pankaj Jalote, a prefessor of computer science at IIT-Kanpur, has a nice article in the 'learning curve' section of today's Economic Times on What does the future hold for the IITs?. We have had an occasion to refer to another very good article by Jalote.

He considers several possibilities for the evolution of IITs (a) more of the same, (b) Caltech model (focused, small, research university), (c) Georgia Tech or MIT model (large -- 10,000 to 20,000 students! -- tech-oriented university, with a strong and large research base) and (d) large, general purpose -- may we say, real? -- university, a la Berkeley, Purdue, UIUC. He gives nice arguments for and against each option, but it is clear that he likes options (c) and (d), in that order. There is still the question of how these two options may be funded (he gives a figure of 1000 crore -- 10 billion -- rupees, and more). Jalote also presents a tantalizing possibility that each IIT may be allowed to choose its own course of action.

All in all, a satisfying article. Let me end with a quote from the final paragraph:

IITs are at a threshold today, they have had an excellent first innings, but there is no clarity on the purpose of the second. A clear future vision needs to be defined for these institutes of national importance, such that they, along with the government, can work in a defined direction for their next innings.

Deepak Nayyar on universities

[ Via Uma at Indian Writing ] : Deepak Nayyar, who stepped down recently from the Vice Chancellorship of Delhi University, has an Indian Express op-ed titled "Universities in the sick bay". This article is good in parts, and is certainly better than what we got from the Hindu's interview and the Business Standard's interview; see also my earlier post, and the comments therein. Let us look at some of the points in Nayyar's op-ed:

In the next 25 years [1975 - 2000], two things went wrong. The first was the mistaken belief that research should be moved out of universities, as we attempted to create stand-alone research institutions pampered with resources. In the process, we forgot an essential principle -- that there can be no good research without teaching and no good teaching without research. For there are synergies between teaching and research which enrich each other. And it is universities that are the natural home of research.

In other words, money was siphoned off from the university system (interestingly, Nayyar rejects the notion of a fixed education pie when he talks about primary vs. higher education, while he seems to embrace it when it comes to money meant for supporting research). Where did the money go? In science and engineering, it went primarily to the extensive system of research labs run by different government departments such as defence, atomic energy and space. However, the primary target of the critics of Indian higher ed policy is the civilian Department of Scientific and Industrial Research that runs the CSIR labs (the others cannot be targeted, because of their association with specific national missions and mandates). If I read Nayyar correctly, the social sciences also seem to have their own versions of 'pampered' research institutions. What are these institutions? I don't know. Perhaps some of you may give pointers in the comments.

The second thing that went wrong was that, essentially, what happened to the Republic of India happened to our universities. This was inevitable. Universities are not stand-alone islands. Nor are they immune from the law of averages. They simply mirror society. Our universities witnessed the same erosion of work ethic, the same dilution of values and morality, the same chipping away at norms, that was experienced by polity and society.

This is just plain red herring; I mean, aren't there many other public institutions and organizations (well-run public sector companies, for example) that break free from the 'law of averages' and that don't 'simply mirror society'? In any case, we are talking about a higher education system which, by definition, is unrepresentative. So, what 'law of averages' or 'society-mirroring' is Nayyar talking about? Is this some kind of a code phrase for something he cannot afford to utter openly? If you are in the know, do please enlighten the rest of us!

There is serious cause for concern as the gap between our universities and the best in the world outside has widened. Some symptoms are striking. First, curricula, which have remained almost unchanged for decades, have not kept pace with the times, let alone extend the frontiers of knowledge. Second, the milieu is not conducive to learning or creativity, for it is caught in a 9.30-1.30 syndrome. Third, the boundaries between disciplines have become dividing walls that constitute barriers to entry, as also exit, while knowledge is developing at the intersection of disciplines. Fourth, the academic calendar is no longer sacrosanct, for classes or for examinations, and there are slippages in schedules; so much so that, at places, results are declared with a time-lag of 12 months. Fifth, the infrastructure is not simply inadequate, it is on verge of collapse. Sixth, as in most public institutions, there is almost no accountability, because there are no rewards for performance and no penalties for non-performance.

This paragraph and the next (where he talks about the poor finances of universities) are the best in the entire article. They lay the problems out in plain language. Though the diagnosis seems like we have seen it before, coming from a 'real doctor', it has an added credibility. Alas, this is also where the good stuff stops. Take a look at the last few sentences:

... We must, therefore, do everything we can to combat the inertia and cynicism that characterises our public institutions. ... What it needed is good leadership and cohesive teamwork, combined with a determination on the part of university communities to work together for a common cause. There is, after all, something to the old adage that even God helps those who help themselves.

These words are indeed strange, almost surreal. Sure, good leadership and cohesive teamwork and all that jazz will help. How will all that come about? It would have been wonderful if Nayyar, who occupied arguably the hottest seat in India's higher ed system for nearly five years, had provided some concrete, actionable policies and plans. Is there any way in which he can be persuaded to do that?

Fairness in debate

Ravikiran Rao has commented on my post on the rhetoric of some right wing bloggers. He cites one of my old posts, in which I approvingly quoted some impolite stuff; in sum, his question to me is "if you want politeness in debate, why don't you practice what you preach?". Here is my response.

First things first: while I am all for politeness (why, some of my best friends are extremely polite ;-), my post was primarily on something else: fairness in debate. Impolite words such as 'idiot' cannot be, and should not be, put in the same moral bin as 'subversive' and 'antinationalist' (which, by the way, do not even sound impolite! they actually make the speaker sound erudite...), which are far more hurtful to the concept and content of the debate. Now, there is a huge difference between advocating politeness and advocating fairness, and I take full responsibility for not making this difference clear and explicit in my post.

Let me describe an incident from real life. A well known academic (let us call him Prof. X), then working in a US university, proposed about a dozen years ago a controversial plan for introducing an innovation in higher education in India. It was widely discussed and debated in the Indian press. I think it is fair to say that the opponents of his plan outnumbered its supporters.

Well, Prof. X visited several institutions in India to address the academic community about his proposal. At one such gathering, after he made his speech and asked for questions and comments from the audience, an impeccably dressed, suave-looking gentleman went upto the stage, and said something like this [I am paraphrasing here]: "Yeah, we bloody well know the kind of problems we have with our system, and we don't need any NRI bast...s to come and tell us what we should do". The audience let out a collective gasp, the discussion that followed after this outburst became desultory, the opponents of Prof. X's plan felt compelled to tone down their rhetoric even on points that they felt passionate about. All in all, the 'debate' was a disaster, and everyone was on the losing side that day.

It is this chilling effect of certain words that I was talking about in my post. I will request you to think carefully, not just about the incident recounted above, but also about which of the two words had the chilling effect on the debate there: the normal, every-day term "NRI" or the impolite word "bast...s".

In the political/ideological realm, there are many words available to the left to muzzle their opponents: US stooge, Bush's lackey, on the CIA payroll, etc. In my opinion, the words 'subversive', 'antinationalist' and 'denigrator of Indian culture' used by some Indian right wing bloggers belong to the same category, and they are just barely below the ultimate weapon: 'unpatriotic'.

Irrespective of who uses them, all these words have the same effect in the debate, and that is to unfairly handicap the opponent by indicating (sometimes using code words) to the audience that the opponent's loyalty lies elsewhere, to unfairly deny the opponent the legitimacy to present his/her argument, and to unfairly imply that his/her argument should not be given the same weight and consideration as yours. In short, these words un-level the playing field, and that is unfair.

I know now from Ravi's post that I was unsuccessful in conveying this idea. As I said, the blame for this lies entirely with me, and I should thank him for providing me an opportunity to clarify my position.

What about impolite terms such as 'idiot' (congenital, resident or otherwise)? Frankly, I don't care. I mean, I wouldn't care if someone calls me that (heck, some of you are probably doing it right now! ;-). We have too many articles (even in mainstream media) where we see things like "it is foolish (naive, idiotic, lunatic) to assume that ...", "only a fool (idiot, lunatic ..) would say that ...", etc; these words have become just too commonplace. And, I have, in my own blog, accused others of stupid tricks, and crappy interviews. To me, they convey the writer's strong disagreement, disapproval, and yes, disgust. Nothing more.

If I didn't think 'idiot' is inappropriate in debate, why did I include it in my post? Please read my post again; it has a progression (a regression, actually) of words, starting with a mild word (moron, which is struck out), going through 'resident idiot', culminating in 'antinationalist' and 'subversive', and finally hinting at the ultimate weapon: patriotism. (the progression, however, is not linear, since I put in an aside about Indian Express, etc.) I now realize that it is the inclusion of 'resident idiot' in this progression that has led to the impression that I was arguing for politeness, rather than fairness, in my post.

Update : Got carried away with bold fonts at some places in the original version; just changed some of them back to normal fonts.

Friday fashion blogging

Well, it is Saturday already, but what the hell... Moreover, I am not the one who is blogging about it. Others were, yesterday.

Dilip D'Souza has a priceless post on Gwen Stefani's new fashion line that "is not like the rest" because it includes "cameras, underwear, stationery and baby clothes".

The-Girl-With-Big-Eyes presents six reasons why she "make[s] sure that I wear [my IIM Kozhikode T-shirt] on all Fridays (when casuals are allowed) and whenever else I get a chance".

IT-BHU

Sanjay Dani has a guest column at Rediff making a strong case for why IT-BHU (from where I got my Bachelors degree) should become an IIT.

Yesterday, Yogesh Upadhyaya wrote another guest column at Rediff on the new, new set of colleges, some of which could be made IITs.

There is one word that really sticks out in your mind after reading both the columns: politics. But I guess on high profile, high stakes matters like these, it is inevitable.

Having said that, I have got to say that Upadhyaya's column is a veritable goldmine: it gives lots of figures, relative rankings -- along different dimensions, funding, faculty strength, faculty qualification, faculty/student ratio, and so on. Take a look at funding, for example: IITs get about 900 million to 1.3 billion rupees each per year, while lesser engineering colleges get about 100 million to 200 million each; IT-BHU, being a Central University gets about 400 million (Alas, we don't get a picture of how this figure breaks up into routine and capital expenditures).

Having learnt my lesson from an earlier episode (see my comment -- at No. 5 -- in the post on the Deepak Nayyar interview), I will wait for the Oracle of Chennai (a.k.a. Satya whose blog Education in India has pretty much the final word) to present his analysis. Over to you, Satya!