'Nudge'

 'Nudge' by Thaler & Sunstein

Economics is reputed as a 'dry' subject, even though interest in the field of economics has been increasing by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades.  The newfound interest (one indicator being: cut off for Economics courses for Undergraduate course admissions at most Indian universities is at high 90s, something of a marvel to those who grew up in an era when Humanities courses were relegated to 'also rans'!) seems based on the realization that Economics touches every aspect of our lives.

Still the 'dryness' of Economics as a subject persists, mainly driven by the idealistic formulations of classical economics (and economists!), much of which was disjointed from social reality as it operated on the ground.  It's here that Behavioral Economists like Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, his late collaborator Amos Tversky, and later Richard Thaler have tried to make a real contribution, towards making Economics more of a 'human' subject and bring it down to the level of the common folk.  In fact, Thaler and Cass Sunstein, the authors of 'Nudge', make a distinction between 'Econs', the fictional, idealistic characters who follow all rules of Economics to a T, and 'Humans', the real world folk.

'Nudge', while overtly concerned with the incentives for economic and social actions (and how those can be 'nudged' towards more sensible decisions, with simple actions/measures), do a huge service to the cause of popularizing Economics as a whole.  They explain how 'human' decision making - in myriad areas from joining retirement plans to taking on home loans to using credit cards to buying medicines - actually works, and point to how common people can be 'nudged' to take more sensible decisions in all these areas, without even trying to understand the complex workings of economic models.

Anyone having even a nodding interest in not only economics and sociology, but in human behavior in general, would find immense value out of this book.  Happy Reading!

The SBF saga

 Book review - 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis

For the most part, this (audio)book, narrated by the author himself, sounds like a character study of the main protagonist, the founder and CEO of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried aka 'SBF'.  But anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with corporate life would be horrified at the total lack of structure and controls Sam maintained in his business ventures while handling billions, and that he was allowed to get away with it for such a long time.

The book describes a comfortable but seemingly angst-ridden childhood and teenage for Sam, as progeny of respected academics.  Sam considered himself probably the smartest child and young adult among his peers, in a matter of fact way and not out of deliberate conceit.  An interesting episode from his childhood is when he was shocked on realizing that other people considered God as something real, not as a widespread spoof like Santa Claus!  The Bankman-Frieds also didn't celebrate birthdays, contrary to widespread social norms.

Going into his teens, Sam did reasonably well in his studies.  He considered only math and such quantitative subjects as the real stuff, all else and especially liberal arts was to him a lot of mumbo-jumbo.  He was not fond of reading, and thought 'Books were sort of dumb'.  But after some time Sam got really bored and didn't know what else life had in store for him.  He was known among family and friends to sit silent for long stretches, without being unfriendly. He had started showing signs of a character trait of lack of empathy, though not cruelty. Later in working life, he taught himself how to make a show of attention to others, with certain words and gestures, though he'd keep up for life his habit of playing games online while apparently talking to people over video call.

After graduating from MIT with Physics and Math, Sam joined Jane Street, a quantitative-trading firm.  He excelled at his job there, being quantitatively gifted.  Around that time, Sam discovered the community of Effective Altruists (EA), who basically aim to do good for the world by making enormous sums of money and spending on projects and efforts with huge reach.  Sam was influenced by a leading voice in the EA community, and in turn propagated and worked with other EAs throughout his career.

Leaving Jane Street after some time, Sam created his own venture Alameda Research (the firm in the eye of the storm in the FTX scandal) in 2017, with some other EAs (including some like Caroline poached from other firms including Jane Street), to trade cryptocurrencies on many exchanges across the world.  The age of cryptocurrency had dawned not too long back with Bitcoin and such, and Sam devised some computer algorithms to trade them for enormous profits.  Even then, his total lack of respect for established norms of corporate functioning and accounting was apparent.  Millions of dollars in cryptocurrencies routinely went 'missing', and then were found in exchanges at far away places, mostly in Asia.

But Sam was not satisfied with the comparatively small pickings of a few hundreds of millions that Alameda was making with crysptocurrency trading.  He also had a falling out with some of the EAs who helped him run Alameda, and they wanted to push him out.  Sam then created the cryptocurrency exchange FTX in 2019, with the help of reclusive tech wizard Gary (who was known till the end as the only person who really understood what went on inside FTX computers).  This led to ballooning of 'takings' from hundreds of dollars to tens of billions. Forbes magazine once estimated Sam's value to be approx. $ 22 billion on the lower side.  Same operated FTX and Alameda from a number of locations across the world starting with Hong Kong, toying with Dubai for a time, and filally settled at the Bahamas, setting up at Orchid Penthouse, in a collegial setting, and then building a corporate office designed like a 'jungle' at Albany Resorts.  Besides Caroline, his sometime girlfriend who Sam made the CEO of Alameda, a group of other EAs like Nishad and Ramnik helped him run the whole enterprise.

And 'running' the enterprise seemed to be a euphemism for somehow managing to earn in billions while not caring for the most basic corporate structure and accounting norms.  For a multibillion dollar enterprise, FTX had no designated CFO, and no regular accounting reports or balance sheet.  Sam found the human resources function to be wholly unnecessary - not only the processes, but there was not even an organization chart: nobody knew exactly who or how many were working for FTX/Alameda.  Ditto for marketing, which he equated with useless wordplay - for him, all that marketing required is throwing millions of dollars to a wide range of people: politicians (Sam and other EAs once experimented with capturing a US Congress seat by supporting a candidate with a millions of dollars, but he lost), celebrities, sportspersons, TV personalities.  He was confident that as long as the show was kept up, nobody would try look under the hood.  Sam was fond of saying 'People don't see what they're not looking for'.

So how did the house of cards come crashing down?  It seems in his hubris, Sam made the mistake of unnecessarily needling CZ, the found of Binance, the biggest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, a sometime supporter but with whom Sam had a few run ins earlier. A reaction to an innocuous tweet from Coinbase led to a heated exchange over Twitter.  It was alluded that FTX had a big 'hole' in its balance sheet, of about $ 8 billion, mainly through diversion of customer deposits to privately held Alamdea Research, which had lost it either through market losses or in market making, there was no way to tell.  Things unravelled fast, and after trying other avenues Sam at one point agreed to sell FTX to CZ.  But once CZ took back his offer after due diligence, the writing was on the wall, and FTX declared bankruptcy in November 2022.

The sordid FTX saga is still playing out in US courts, with sentence of anything from 5 years to as much as 100 years being talked about for Sam.  The guy himself seems unrepentant, insisting that what he did was probably a mistake, but unintentional and for a good cause.

While picking up through the pieces of FTX, Constance the Mandarin-speaking member of Sam's top team remarked 'He's absolutely zero empathy'.  But probably the last word on the business, as opposed to the person, was probably said by John Ray, the specialist who Sam assigned as the CEO on declaring bankruptcy.  While an abrasive and sometimes misguided troubeshooter, Ray's initial remarks on taking over were on the dot, that he had never come across “such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information.”

In the Bonesetter's Waiting Room

 No, this is not a reminiscence of my time spent in a Hyderabad bonesetter's waiting room - it's Aarathi Prasad who did that in her book of the same name!

Being a 'promiscuous' reader, wont to plough through parts of half a dozen books on a typical evening, I don't recall fully the last one which gripped my attention enough for me to suspend all other readings and finish one book - perhaps 'And Then There Were None' (or maybe 'The Sittaford Mystery').  So Aarathi Prasad is in venerable company when she forced me to do that.  And to think that I came across the book in a list of Prasad's past works, in a piece on her latest book in 'The Hindu', with the cover being a definite draw evoking intriguing feelings.

I'd imagine it's difficult enough to hold readers' attention in a non fiction narrative dealing in as dry a domain as India's healthcare system, laying out the mortality and morbidity figures in between.  But to do that in an empathetic tone all through, while keeping the reader engaged in delightful stories of both hope and despair, is the work of a master storyteller.

And here's the catch: it's difficult to define the book as belonging to one specific genre.  Is it science, is it history, or is it plain human narrative!  The science part comes in through Prasad's credentials as a PhD in genetics and working with University College London.  Doubtless this enables her to look deep into the intricacies and claims of 'Ayush' systems of Indian indigenous medicine, in an empathetic and non-patronising manner but also keeping her scientific scepticism alive as needed.  The empathy probably comes, as she herself admits, from the fact that her grandfather was a Ayurveda researcher and teacher, and a member of a post-1947 Chopra Committee of Government on integrating indigenous and Western medicine systems.  Prasad's mother filled her in on his work.

Whether talking about the Unani bonesetters of Hyderabad, the Ayurvedic 'fish doctors' of Secunderabad or the myriad other indigenous medicine practitioners, Prasad acknowledge that they 'fill in the gaps' in India's healthcare system, seemingly available on call to the relatively rich but quite inaccessible for the people who direly need it for life threatening conditions, and thus cannot just be dismissed peremptorily.  She details the ways in which many Ayush practitioners have made sincere efforts to get themselves certified as also integrate modern medical instruments and methods where needed into their regimen.

Alongside, Prasad narrates the huge work done by the redoubtable Dr Devi Shetty in Bengaluru and elsewhere, the stellar efforts of the National Ayurveda Dietetics Research Institute and the Sam Pitroda-founded Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, both in Bengaluru, the Central Research Insitute of Unani Medicine in Hyderbad, and a host of other such institutions and individuals.

But clearly, it's the descriptions of the human condition which sets this book apart and raises it above a dry narrative.  The way the doctors and staff at the hospital in Dharavi slums in Mumbai, where Prasad waded through ankle deep slush to reach community workers, work within and with the community, even addressing the long-ignored psychological issues espcially of women.  The factors why a range of people across social divides are increasingly going in for plastic surgery.  How the SEARCH rural hospital, in Naxalite-infested Gadchiroli jungles in Maharashtra (the innovations of which were duly acknowledged even by international bodies and rolled out in other countries), came to be designed and named by the Gond tribal community it serves, to give them comfort.  These she describes in excellent detail and perhaps better than any professional NGO communicator could (it helps that after her PhD, Prasad worked in science policy and communication).

All through, Prasad deftly weaves in the history of both indigenous and Western ('Hippocratic') medicine systems, 16th century onwards and earlier, showing that in their essence perhaps these systems were not as watertight as thought.  And while on history, she waxes lyrical at the way an hour long drive through Delhi is like driving through centuries, or how the history of old city of Hyderbad comes alive in the solitude of night.  That she starts and ends the book with Marcel Proust quotes is the icing on the cake!

This is one book that those who have anything to do with the healthcare and the social development sector, especially in India, should read compulsorily, to inculcate an empathetic but also knowledgeable frame of mind about healthcare in India.  But for an interested reader, it's a jolly good read anyway.

Exodus of the Rich?

A recent report on a statement by a worthy on 'too much tax terrorism', and the resultant exodus of HNIs (high net worth individuals, or the ultra rich) out of India, generated a heated debate.

This was also commented upon by a well knowm media personality.

Some of the reactions to the referred statements were like: 'If one includes the fast route for US and European visa, that will be as much as this and in addition the normal immigration visa offered by Canada and Australia.  Clearly the expectations is what am I getting for the contribution made in the form of taxes or hardships.' (emphasis supplied)

Now, in this global village, nobody begrudges the legitimate decisions of certain HNIs to shift base to greener pastures (sometimes after squeezing the Indian market for all potential opportunities, and getting all gung ho about India being a 'vibrant economy' and all that!).  One part of my mind (the impulsive one) tends to agree with the action and sentiments, what with it being a year-round hastle to optimise personal taxes, with seemingly usurious rates applicable otherwise.

But, perhaps because of my background in social development sector, there's another part of my mind which says such hankering after tax concessions is nothing but the fulminations of the already privileged seeking to further enhance their advantage, due and otherwise.

The issue is, have the rich (who're naturally the ones seeking to flee India if their demands for lenient taxation are not met) really earned all their income and wealth without any innate advantages or privileges bestowed on them (or, in many cases, wrangled by 'managing the environment')? Isn't their income and wealth at least in part (sometimes substantially) attributable to their privileged birth, education and other advantages either inherited or bestowed by the powers that be (if not by virtue of family background/social class)? I'm aware that this is akin to the argument advanced by the Ambedkarites in favour of perpetrating reservation, again something on which there could be two views, diametrically and violently opposed to each other.

Ñow, in contrast to the rich of a few generations back who mainly inherited their wealth (and doubtless enhanced it, though in some cases also squandered it!), the noveau rich and startup founders probably have a stronger claim to being 'self made millionaires/billionaires' who, as a corollary, don't owe anything to society or (taxes to) govt.  But try telling that to those living in urban slums or children of countless farmers, landless and otherwise, who for no fault of theirs (discounting both inherited wealth and inherited penury!) are forced to toil away without any visible progress across decades or even generations.  All while the future startup founders are reaping the benefits of a stable family, economic and educational environment courtesy their 'creamy layer' status (with no allusions to backwardness of any hue).

So, the threatened exodus sounds, especially to the underprivileged, like the Amazons and Googles of the world exploiting their workers at one end and avoiding taxes by basing themselves in tax havens at the other end.  As if only they've a God-given right to earn and enjoy the privileges of wealth!

Perhaps the only factor vitiating the argument against the fulminations of the rich is rent-seeking politicians making high promises to the poor but actively perpetrating leakage of public resources garnered through taxes by graft and inefficiency, something which doesn't seem like going away in my lifetime.

And that's a sobering thought...

Ageing...

Travelling on a vacation with an elderly couple, close relatives, provided some perspectives on the issues besetting ageing in India.

The elderly couple seemed lucky, as typical of their generation, as far as physical support of family members was concerned.  One of them has limited mobility, walking slowly with support of a stick.  Though trying to be as lively as ever, and with the background of a long career in security forces, he was as upright as ever.  

Though naturally not able to accompany the group on some parts of the trip due to limited mobility, he was sporting enough to offer to stay back in the hired vehicle and let others roam.  It was probably equally sporting of others to avoid leaving them behind and instead skip certain destinations, even as the long stretches of road were quite a tortuous experience for everyone and especially so for the elderly couple, what with the 'in season' mad traffic which was standstill for the most part, leading to swollen limbs from sitting in a vehicle for long stretches of time.

But all this got me thinking.  Compared to my generation in India, the previous generation seemed incredibly fortunate, though for them it's matter of fact and nothing special.  Though they may not have been horrified (like their previous generation) if their children had chosen to live separately from them, being aware of energing social realities, there's still the unsaid expectation that the children would look after them in old age just as they had looked after and brought up the children.

In contrast, my generation can hardly expect our children to stay with us beyond a stage.  This is not a lament, just an acknowledgement of reality as it exists now.  Due to education and work exigencies our children, global citizens as they are, are themselves never sure where they'd be at different stages of their life.  

So while most children of ours seem consciencious enough to think about supporting us to the best of their ability, the simple fact is that they may not be able to, frequently.  We're sometimes pleasantly surprised when a child consciously chooses to stay back near(er) to us to the extent they can, while of course not compromising on their education or career prospects.  

So when - and I consciously say 'when' and not 'if and when', as a pointer to the fond hope and confidence - our children offer to support us financially or otherwise, but remotely, it's perhaps incumbent on us to graciously accept such offer and make the best out of it to strengthen the parent-child bonds.  

The other choice is to act petulant and reject such offers, on the ground that the children 'should support' us unconditionally and 'in situ', sometimes even to the detriment of their own education or career prospects!  This'd be extremely 'childish' behaviour, in a reversal of generational roles, in most cases leading to a lot of bitterness all around and potentially even tearing the bonds asunder semi-permanently.

Because let's face it, emotions and feelings are biased by a huge 'recency effect', being determined most often by the complexion of a relationship over the last few years.  Nobody looks back to what someone may've done for him or her decades back! The truth of this would be clear if we're honest enough to look back to our own relationship with our parents.  Did we always treat them with the love and respect they deserved, while disregarding the small niggles in behaviour which are a natural part of an evolving relationship?

So for us it's important to, firstly, keep ourselves as healthy as we possibly can, starting in middle age or earlier, reminding ourselves that, unlike our previous generation, we'd most probably not have our children taking up caregiving responsibilities in our old age.  

As a corollary, it's incumbent to develop hobbies and interests, perhaps jointly with friends and relatives with whom maintaining good relationships is sine qua non anyway.  Amongst interests, travel is probably the best way to keep our mental channels open with wonder and excitement, besides gaining invaluable and progressive perspectives on life and cultures.  But of course ability to travel is affected to a large extent by economic and other considerations, even as our reluctance to travel alone even when we want to may be based more on fear of the unknown rather than any real risks, as in this day and age of tech enabled facilities, any and all services are available at the click or touch.

Which brings us to another facet needing attention at all stages in life but especially in old age - the need to be in tune with technology.  Many of us neglect keeping ourselves up to speed even with normal everyday technology.  I know first hand about seniors who still prefer to come down and go up multiple flights of stairs daily and visit shops to do even essential daily shopping, even while grocery and essentials can be and are delivered at our doorsteps in minutes by quick commerce companies after a few clicks on an app.  Now, we can't deny that at least a part of such daily visits to neighbourhood shops is to keep up traditional links, besides fulfilling the need to at least talk to someone, when children and even friends and relatives are not able to meet that need.  

But being reasonably tech savvy is not a luxury or fad but an essential survival skill these days, for banking, shopping, insurance, health and a host of civic services.  The alternative to this is either to go stand in long queues in inhospitable environments or be dependent on relatives and others to carry through digital transactions which, besides being a hit on self-respect, may also be open to abuse and even fraud.  Even otherwise, it pays to keep oneself aware of the contours of potential pitfalls in cyberspace, essential when it involves one's own money but also in domains like fake news and deep fake videos, to avoid getting caught in fraud and worse.

And while on the subject of travel, if one can't travel in person, those blessed with the hobby of reading and exploration have a relatively inexpensive option to 'go places' virtually, through the printed word or through ebooks, audiobooks and a host of other options.

As for the wider issue of interests, spirituality is also a valid choice for those so inclined.  And while the hoary concept of 'vanaprastha ashram' elucidated in our ancient scriptures is perhaps not fully practical these days, nothing stops someone from persuing spiritual leanings at any stage in life.

Besides all this, one thing to give serious consideration to could be senior living facilities.  With the burgeoning options, driven by the rising number of seniors with means or with supportive children, the stigma attached earlier to the concept of 'old age home' seems on the ebb, though the multitude of unfortunate cases of ungrateful children abandoning their aged parents at hovel-like dwellings is also a reality.

But there are now a number of senior living residences sprinkled across India providing reasonably good services to clientele.  I personally know people who're staying at senior living facility for a decade or more, and are quite happy with their life.  However, in the absence of any active regulatory mechanisms in the sector, selection of an appropriate facility requires very careful evaluation of all relevant factors, especially as it's hardly akin to a one time property purchase transaction, as provisioning of reasonably good level of services on a long term basis is essential.  Besides safety and health aspect of the infrastructure, including emergency and elective health support on need basis, optional services like laundry, cooking or food, wellness and social activities are some of the other aspects to be considered while selecting a senior living facility, necessarily a decision with long term implications.

Of course, a necessary factor in the entire decision to go in for senior living facility may be a certain level of emotional connect and sync between the spouses, if both are planning to opt for it.  Otherwise, if one is willing to adapt to the senior living life, while the companion is pining for the existing level of urban facilities and conveniences and shopping options and more, differences are bound to crop up sooner rather than later.  And this has the potential to actually raise the level of stress instead of leading to a peaceful life as intended, stress which most people may be ill-equipped to handle in their old age.

To sum up, while taking a practical view of things while dealing with the emerging reality of children living separately, whether nearby or on distant shores, we seniors need to maintain positivity till the end of life while taking all necessary steps and life decisions to survive well and not be overly dependent on someone.

I think, therefore I am...

I was recently watching an episode of the hillarious Netflix series 'Cunk on Earth'.  The series, on its surface, starts with exploring the history of the world, in the style of the great Sir David Attenborough in BBC Earth, but frequently lapses into nonsensical questions and remarks.  In one passage of the episode I was watching, Cunk makes fun of the famous philosphical dictum 'I think, therefore I am' (reputedly coined by the 17th century French phisopher Rene Descartes) and goes into some convoluted ruminations on that, and also asks hillarious questions of an expert.

But, quite apart from all that Descartes meant to convey by the phrase, this seems to have a surprising parallel to the world of quantum physics.  As physicists like Carlo Rovelli (in his 'Helgoland', a history of how quantum theory was postulated in 1920s and then developed by a series of renowned scientists, many of them Nobel laureates) like to explain, anything in this world exists only in as much as it interacts with other things.  It's like answering the age old question 'If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did it actually fall' with a 'No', since it didn't 'interact' with anyone.  In that sense, it seems all things actually exist only as... ummm... possibilities or potential, not as real things, and 'pop into being' only when they interact with other things.  In the style of the elusive particles the observed behaviour of which apparently gave rise to the whole discipline of quantum physics.

But coming back to philosophy, it may also be said that even human beings exist only as possibilities or potential, in the rhetorical sense at least.  Positive Psychology guru Martin Seligman says that more than half of us are 'living in the future', that we're constantly thinking about future scenarios moment to moment, sometimes based on things done in the past and often predicted by what we intend to do.  But all such future plans are potential only, good or bad, and fructify as concrete things only when our plans or intentions are translated into actual action...

Book Review - 'Think Again' by Adam Grant

The subtitle of this book is 'The power of knowing what you don't know', and this describes very well the whole premise of the book, that we need to consider letting go of our set ways of thinking, to be able to enhance our understanding and knowledge of how things work in this increasingly VUCA - volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous - world.

The successive chapters of the book describe ways to deal with different aspects of the rethinking process: personal, interpersonal, collective, organizational and for kids.  Certain ideas in the book expand upon well-known strategies for fresh thinking, supporting the same with scientific and behavioural research findings.  Ideas like 'think like a scientist', constructing and testing hypothesis; 'persuasive listening', taking account of the 'question to statement ratio'; debunk myths for kids, stop asking them 'what do you want to be when you grow up'; and (in an organizational setting) foster psychological safety.

Some of the perspectives brought out well in the book hit home accurately.  For instance the thought about avoiding to be 'stranded on Mount Stupid', courtesy over confidence and misplaced reliance on a stand (haven't we met such 'stranded' people so many times!).  Grant also goes into some detail on different aspects of conflict.  First off, he recommends not only being receptive about but actively seeking contrary views, to counteract confirmation bias.  Towards this, he suggests building a 'challenge network', beyond the support network most of all strive for.  He posits the 'benefits of doubt', and suggests celebrating the 'joy of being wrong'.

But Grant also alerts the reader that while 'task conflict' is constructive and beneficial, allowing it to  become 'relationship conflict' is fraught with risks.  He posits that interpersonal conflicts need to be handled more like a dance and less like a battle. Towards this, he shares some strategies.  Like ask more 'How' questions, instead of more 'Whys' which may potentially harden the listener's stance.  Also, 'less is more': don't pile on too many arguments, which anyway makes the opponent put up their defences, and instead lead with a few strong points.  And while doing that, respect the autonomy of the other party, their choice to make their own decisions - don't be a 'logic bully', as one of Grant's former students apparently called him when bombarded with a flurry of arguments for career choices.  Seems many of us may've been at the wrong end of such 'over argument' from 'logic bullies'!

A large part of the book's appeal lies in the counterintuitive thoughts which Grant brings in, things which we don't readily think about.  Things like 'complexify', which goes opposite the buzzword of simplifying everything.  Grant argues that focusing on shades of grey of certain things or situations actually helps bring in more realistic and relevant perspectives, and thus helps us resolve or understand issues better.  Another advice, for oganizations this time, is to abandon 'best practices' (ah... aren't we all upto our gills with this term!), as the term assumes that we're already in the best place possible.  Instead, he says strive for 'better practices' on a continual basis.

Overall, a gem of a book which really makes the reader think about the act of Thinking, and equips us to deal with the ever-changing world in a better way.

Book review - 'Helgoland'

 Helogoland' by Carlo Rovelli

In the last chapter of the book, Rovelli very kindly includes a few paragraphs which save the discerning reader the effort to write a review.  This is helpful, as writing any summary of this book could prove quite an impossible task for a layman, if interested, reader.  As the reader is never sure of having grasped the core of the concepts so beautifully explained by Rovelli.

But that's not a matter of shame.  Not when as formidable a scientist as Einstein himself just couldn't bring himself to accept some of the core ideas of quantum physics, falling back on rhetoric about God not playing dice.  The same remark which earned a retort from the great Niels Bohr.  The same Bohr who inspired a young Heisenberg to journey to the sacred island of Helgoland in the North Sea and come up with the astounding theory.

Without giving any spoilers (as if I could!), the Quantum theory of physics holds that "Everything is what it is only in relation to something else".  So it seems that the question 'If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did it really fall' was not a rhetorical or 'trick' question, but a valid scientific query.  And it's been answered with a 'No' by quantum theory of physics.

It'd fair to say that the Quantum theory took shape with the active collaboration of multiple scientists, among them Shrodinger (he of the Cat fame, the cat playfully depicted on some pages of this book) who initially diverged from Heisenberg on one facet of the theory but eventually came round decades later and accepted his error, even if in an offhanded sort of way.  Many of these scientists went on to be awarded the Nobel, and Rovelli may well be on the way there, being himself a Quantum physicist specialising in the string theory of quanta.

But the high points of the reading experience of this book was not the scientific facts and discoveries, interesting as these doubtless were.  Rovelli brings in his perhaps unique blend of science, history, philosophy and poetry to explain the core theory.  Here talking about philosophical sparring of Marx, Lenin and Bogdanov on the core of communism and private property.  There talking about the musings of 1st century CE Indian Buddhist monk Nagarjuna.  And then liberally quoting Shakespeare and the like.  All the while continuing to weave these disparate thoughts into the mesh of quanta.

One would especially like to recommend reading through the Notes at the end, not only to get more perspective as usual for any endnotes, but as a rich source of literature references spread across an eclectic range of domains.

Temples and changing culture

During my work travels across South East Asia about two decades back, I used to be surprised by relics of Hindu icons languishing behind majestic Buddha statues (in alcoves at Angkor Wat) or lying dejected (at Jakarta Museum).  Coupled with extensive commonalities with Indian languages in countries like Indonesia (Bahasa) and Cambodia (Khmer spoken alphabet seemed almost identical to Bangla, though the words and script are not), this may give the impression of Hindu culture being 'subsumed' by an expanding Buddhism in SE Asia (later to be overriden in some regions when Islam came in).

But recent research (as quoted in 'Coromandel' by Charles Allen e.g. Ch. 4) appears to indicate that similar subsuming of Buddhist and Jain culture, or the temples at least, may've happened right here in India. So it was never a one way street!

Empathy vs. Compassion

I've been quite a bit intrigued at times when certain persons are perceived as insensitive or even apathetic, even when they seem to be doing reasonably well helping the people or causes they're accused of being apathetic to.

Listening to the book 'Humankind' (an excellent ode to positivity, which takes apart all the negative 'tenets' we go by) by Rutger Bregman, the portion in the Epilogue dealing with compassion, clarified the issue a lot. 

The author says that, to really be able to help others, people need to be more compassionate, not necessarily (or not just) more empathetic.  This is supported with evidence from a scientific study of people's brains being scanned while they were told to consciously experience empathy and then compassion about a certain situation - it was reported that different areas of the brain 'lit up' in the two cases.

The author gives the example of a child who's afraid of the dark - to help the child, the parent or caregiver does not cower in a corner thinking about the causes of the fear (empathy), but instead feels for the child and soothes him/her with comforting behaviour (compassion).

It seems to me that people displaying compassionate behaviour have to retain a level of reasoning in their mind, to be able to formulate responses and actions to help out, and that may be why they're perceived as 'dispassionate' and thus 'devoid of feeling', not being able to balance 'thinking' and 'feeling' to the degree possible for the more voluble (who may be perceived as more empathetic but may or may not be more compassionate).

Added to this is the factor that compassionate behaviour may be more 'action-oriented', while empathetic behaviour can be more expressive (verbally or otherwise).  And we all know that the old adage of 'Actions speak louder than words' has been turned on its head in the current age of 'in your face' behaviour and microsecond attention spans where, for instance, love has to be expressed in words rather than just conveyed through gestures and actions.

Which is probably why people with genuine compassion, who may actually act on their feelings of empathy by helping through their actions, may be unfairly characterised as unsympathetic.