Downfall

German philosopher Friedrich Hegel: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."

To the lay person, Hitler's persona has always been larger than life. We all know the evil atrocities his regime committed. We have been taught about his victories in Western Europe and his subsequent downfall. We know about the xenophobia and the genocide. The popular plot-line is of course that he tasted defeat because he over-extended himself in the vast Soviet hinterland and his forces were unable to cope with the Soviet winter. Partly true of course, but the rot in the Third Reich was much deeper than just the Soviet winter. Very recently I saw two excellent German movies - "Downfall" directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel and "Look Who's Back" directed by David Wnendt. Bruno Ganz has portrayed the role of Hitler in the former and Oliver Masucci in the latter. 

 

Oliver Masucci as Hitler in Look Who's Back

Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Downfall

Both amazingly executed roles in their own way. However, any historian would agree Downfall captures the essence of Hitler much more accurately. While Look Who's Back is more of a precautionary tale, Downfall is a look back. A retrospective. This retrospective forced me to read up in more detail about World War 2. The first book that I took up was "The Second World War." by Antony Beever. This is a holistic account of events leading up to and during the war. The second one was a bit off the beaten track - "Blitzed" by Normal Ohler. This was a very controversial account of how the German army used Pervitin (a form of methamphetamine) to amp up their performance levels during the war. The last one was "Enemy At the Gates: The Battle of Stalingrad" by William Craig. The more I read, the more morbidly fascinated I became by Hitler the person. A man full of contradictions. From a military strategy a lot has been analyzed and written about his blunders. But not enough from the leadership standpoint. Hitler is often credited with brilliant and daring military strategies in the early period of the war. Definitive victories over the low countries, Poland, Czech Republic and then the crowning glory - revenge against the French. He made French general Charles Huntziger sign an armistice tantamount to surrender at the very same spot in the very same train carriage where Germany was made to sign a similar surrender after the first world war. In short, a military genius who came up short against the Soviet winter. However, that's definitely not the case. From a leadership standpoint, we have conclusive evidence that Hitler was weak, insecure and incompetent. The image of a strongman has been cultivated through propaganda. It's all done with smoke and mirrors. That image has persisted through the years. Look at the evidence. 

First off, let's look at The French victory and Hitler's tendency to believe his own lies. All credit for the Battle of France is usually given to Hitler. In fact, though Hitler supported the plan itself; he did not do so because he had any military insight. He supported and endorsed the plan because his generals told him it could be done fast. Field Marshal (then General) Erich Von Manstein came up with the idea. General Heinz Guderian played a big part in executing it. In fact, Hitler refused to believe Guderian's panzer division had rushed so far ahead into French territory; calling it a "miracle". In fact, General Franz Halder recorded in his diary - The Führer is terribly nervous. Frightened by his own success, he is afraid to take any chance and so would pull the reins on us ... he keeps worrying about the south flank. He rages and screams that we are on the way to ruin the whole campaign". Hardly the picture of a decisive leader. In fact, a massive victory slipped out of German hands due to this indecisiveness when Hitler allowed the English to escape across the channel at Dunkirk. Some key problem areas in Hitler's leadership style were apparent in this whole episode - indecisiveness chief amongst them. Other problem areas became apparent soon after; when Hitler didn't give a shred of credit to his generals. Of course everyone understood political credit would be given to Hitler. However, Hitler believed his own delusions; that he was the military genius that envisioned the "sickle cut" strategy of attack through the Ardennes. At the very core were big problems - Hitler did not analyze his own victory closely enough and had fallen prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect (a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their own knowledge or abilities). Importantly, he failed to realize how big a role Pervitin had played in the Battle of France. It is widely documented that German troops used Pervitin, a form of methamphetamine, during the Battle of France. The drug was distributed to soldiers in large quantities, often as part of their daily rations. It was intended to boost morale, reduce fatigue, and enhance alertness. He was only too eager to believe that it was German racial superiority that allowed them to dominate the French and cross the entire country in under six weeks. This tendency to delude himself would cost him dearly. Leadership lesson - Always watch your own game footage; be it victory or defeat and most importantly; stay real, stay grounded!  

FM Erich Von Manstein

Gen Heinz Guderien

The Compiègne Wagon where the French signed their surrender

 

Let's now turn to Hitler's complicated relationship with his generals. He had, for want of a better word; a love-hate relationship with his generals. He craved their approval and thought little of their talents at the same time. He was a politician aspiring to be a military commander. To understand this apparent conflict, one has to understand the Prussian tradition of military nobility. Many of the Prussian aristocracy ended up as military generals. Many of them carried a rich legacy of military training. Hitler's relationship with the Prussian nobility was complex and often fraught with tension. While he admired their military traditions and sense of duty, he also resented their aristocratic privileges and perceived arrogance. Hitler was a product of the lower middle class, and he deeply resented the social inequality that existed in pre-war Germany. He saw the Prussian nobility as a symbol of this inequality, and he was determined to dismantle their privileges. In addition, Hitler never progressed in the military beyond the rank of corporal. He was a messenger (then called a runner) for the army in the first world war. He did see action but not as a warrior (which is what he thought of himself). These prejudices played an important role in his relationship with the army. In fact, these prejudices and his own insecurities were manifested in some harmful ways in his military campaigns. Firstly, he refused to listen to his generals. He micro-managed military campaigns and chided his generals in public. Secondly, he kept moving his generals around and never gave them the opportunity to consolidate their units. The most famous example of this was Erwin Rommel (The Desert Fox) who was, at various points in time, assigned to the African, French and Italian theaters of war in the space of three years. Another example was Erich Von Manstein. In 1940, After his successful leadership during the Battle of France, Manstein was promoted to command the 11th Army on the Eastern Front. Immediately in 1941, despite his successes in the initial stages of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Manstein was demoted to a subordinate position due to disagreements with Hitler over strategy. Cut to 1942: Manstein was reinstated as commander of the 11th Army Group and played a crucial role in the German defense of the Crimea. Finally in 1944, After the defeat at Kursk, Manstein was once again demoted and replaced as commander of Army Group South. Hardly the traits of a decisive and secure leader. Leadership lesson - provide a secure environment for your team to thrive. 

Hitler with his generals in 1943 at a situation conference in Ukraine. The war had turned by this time and experts had opined defeat was inevitable.

 

Lastly, let's now take a look at the relatively well-known and well-documented failure of his - his dictatorial tendencies. These tendencies meant that he absolutely did not tolerate views contrarian to his own. Most importantly, he failed to cultivate people more intelligent than himself, did not listen to the experts and did not retain talent. When asked why the Allies had won WWII, a Churchill aide replied “because our German scientists were better than their German scientists”. Pre-war tensions created by Hitler and his sense of paranoia meant a brain drain in Germany and the rest of Europe. A lot of these people went to America and later played pivotal roles in Germany's defeat. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, Leo Slizard, Werner Heisenberg . . all scientists who fled Europe due to Hitler's policies and were openly accepted in America to continue their studies and/or research. Some other famous examples in fields other than science were Ray Dolby whose parents fled Europe, Marlene Dietrich (an acclaimed actress), Sigmund Freud.  One can't deny the impact that this brain drain had on Germany's innovation and productivity. Leadership lesson - surround yourself with and cultivate people smarter than you even if you don't agree with them.

Of course Hitler was a disaster of a human being. Of course he was xenophobic, a raging racist, a murderer and probably deserved what he got. That's not the point of our analysis. We seek to dispel the myth that Hitler was a brilliant strategist and a leader of men. Why do we seek to do this? Partly, because it's scary to contemplate that just for want of a few leadership qualities, history could have turned out very differently! But more importantly, to understand that there's some amount of these traits in all of us as leaders. Humans are inherently self-deluding (it's a coping mechanism). We are inherently tribal and seek to gang up with our own kind (again, a preservation instinct drilled in by evolution). We have hard-coded insecurities and fears that affect our rationality (a result of early childhood influences more often than not). That's not to say we are all rotten or that I am a misanthrope. There are shades and spectra. For example, the tendency to self-delude is so hard coded because as I mentioned earlier, it's a coping mechanism. Grim realities would destroy our well being. In the field of psychology, it's called cognitive dissonance. There's some research that points to this trait having an evolutionary advantage in terms of it's adaptive value. It might have evolved as a way to maintain psychological equilibrium. By reducing the discomfort of conflicting beliefs or actions, individuals can avoid the stress and anxiety that can be detrimental to survival and reproduction. Point is, whether we like it or not, there's a Hitler in all of us. All we can do is stay on our guard against these tendencies and avoid our "Soviet winter".

Together

How did we spend our 10th wedding anniversary just a month ago? I was recovering from Chikangunya and suffering from joint pains. Sylvia was just discharged from hospital owing to a back iniury. In the midst of a busy work season and a phase of professional uncertainty, we'd planned nothing. There was a huge amount of stress both personally as well as professionally. On the evening of our anniversary we were sitting in our living room, exhausted and spent from the day's stresses. But from that point on, it turned into one of the best anniversary celebrations of my life. No jokes. We pushed aside our quagmire of troubles and ordered a simple cake. We lit a candle, cut the cake and just held each other without talking. No music, no people, no celebration. And that's when it hit me. We were over the hump. We would be together all our lives. There were no pretenses left, no hangups, no facades. For a bit of time, all my troubles melted away and I knew things would be fine no matter how tough it got. Because of moments like these. When all else is stripped away, we realised we didn't need a milestone party or a fancy celebration to commemorate this tenth anniversary. We just needed each other. And conversely we also realised an important fact - through the tough times, the most important thing we needed was each other's support. The rest would fall in place.

Sometimes one envisions and dreams about things that might be. Our version of what we think of our futures. Not utopian dreams but our desires nonetheless. In 2011 I had penned a poem on what I felt a relationship should be like. I was inspired by the biological phenomenon of facultative mutualism, strongly displayed by the sea anemone and the clownfish. 

A hundred fathoms deep,

waters peaceful but swift.

She gently sways in sleep

her tentacles adrift

in currents from afar blown - 

The lovely Sea Anemone.

Shades of ethereal blue

adorn her tentacles.

Ripples lending a hue

to those grim sentinels.

Deadly but beautiful

Masking her fatal pull.

Within her dense petals

lives the simple clownfish

In her warmth he nestles

safe in the polyp's swish.

His vibrant colours bring

her food to her deadly sting.

He flitters in and out

amongst tentacles armed

with poisoned darts throughout

letting him play unharmed

and with his fluid nourish

her every fibre does relish. 

A barracuda stalks him

its ugly mouth agape.

She readies to guard him

and afford him escape,

From his predatory jaws

and teeth like deathly claws.

A butterfly-fish waits

for him to wander out

and leave her in dire straits

prey to a hungry snout.

But he stands by her side

The fish's threat brushed aside.

Such threats oft and common

met with equal measure;

Is symbiosis begun

in these depths of azure.

where enemies so abound

Each other have they found.

This perfect symphony

helps them survive

in mutual harmony

The union comes alive 

To the others every need

Attuned; each other pays heed

I didn't really realise then how accurate this poem was and how strong this phenomenon is. Took me ten years to truly understand what I had composed. And I'm sure it'll take us some more time to truly appreciate what we have too. But we can try. Starting with our tenth wedding anniversary. Here's to us. 

The Era of Absolutes

 We hear a lot these days about the world becoming polarized. It is either good or bad; right or wrong; all or none. So many national and global events today draw sharp reactions from either side of the spectrum. But whichever side of the spectrum you align or identify with, more and more people have sharp opinions and extreme reactions. We hear this often from so many quarters – the world has become divided; politics is becoming polarized, and opinions have become extreme. but what does it mean exactly?

Take the recent example of China. We have people on two sides obviously; but most Indians believe that China is an evil, authoritarian regime that is hell-bent on destroying their competitors (read India) and hell bent on world domination. If you purchase and use Chinese-made products, you are branded a traitor. If you refuse to use them, you are branded a hyper-nationalist. Another polarizing topic is Narendra Modi. You can either love him or hate him. People fall into these two distinct categories. Either he can do no wrong or he can do nothing right. Either he is saving the country and the world from apocalyptic melt-down or he is taking the country down the path of a genocide and/or economic ruin. The most recent polarizing topic is of course the Israel-Hamas conflict. You see opinions expressed strongly on both sides of the dispute – you are either an antisemite or an Islamophobe. There is no middle way!

That is a most curious phenomenon. The question that comes foremost to my mind is – has public opinion always been this sharply divided? Has the discourse always been about two extremes? Perhaps we feel this way because this is the only “age” we have lived in. Statistics suggest otherwise. A 2022 study by Anindita Borah and SR Singh ^[1] on political polarization in India through social media network analysis and mining concluded that there was a significant amount of polarization (non-overlapping social media interactions) for retweets in general and controversial topics in particular. A 2023 study by the Association for Democratic Reforms found that 72% of Indians believe that the country is more politically polarized now than it was 10 years ago. A 2016 study by the American National Election Studies ^[2] found that Americans have become increasingly hostile towards the opposing political party. The study found that the share of Democrats who view Republicans as "very unfavorable" increased from 35% in 1992 to 89% in 2016. The share of Republicans who view Democrats as "very unfavorable" increased from 38% in 1992 to 85% in 2016. Prima facie, these are significant changes. To conclude, statistics from studies around the globe indicate two things - first; opinions are more polarized today than before and second; this trend is increasing.

Being a numbers guy, the second question that comes to my mind is whether this polarization has any correlation with income, education, age etc.? Extent of political polarization being the dependent variable, it would be worthwhile to check the independent variables that have the highest correlation in terms of impact. Are richer people less likely to have polarized opinions? Do highly educated people tend to avoid political extremes? Does political extremism taper off or increase with age? All truly relevant questions which should have some independent studies done for further investigation. But while this can be done by more capable people than me (read TISS or any other educational institution interested in this topic), armchair thinkers like me can sit back and contemplate more anecdotal incidents. A recent conversation with an acquaintance brought home this point in stark and brutal fashion to me. This conversation was with a young person (just under 30) about the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. It lasted around 30 minutes and it almost seemed to me that we were talking different languages. The disconnect was so obvious as to be comical. While my whole fascination with this topic was of a geopolitical nature and I kept trying to draw the discussion towards facets like the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour declaration, the impact of the ‘Law of Return’; this acquaintance of mine kept brushing these topics aside and kept talking of the “ongoing humanitarian crisis” and how one side was the oppressor and the other was the victim. The conviction was absolute despite knowing that the best minds in the world agree that this is a complicated issue. At one point, I had to politely stop the conversation. This (and more such incidents) brought home to me the stark realization that political polarization might be increasing, and that income and education do not seem to have a correlation to it. This of course led me down the rabbit hole of whither did this come from?

One factor that we hear about is social media. It is cited often (and ironically enough, quite vehemently) that a glut of information and echo chambers created by social media algorithms have led to this rise in polarization. But to be honest, I feel that this simplistic solution is like missing the forest for the trees. Could very well be that echo chambers are created by polarized opinions rather than the other way around. I feel we need to go deeper. While social media might or might not be the root cause, there are two particularly important considerations that I would like to lay down – Firstly, reduced attention spans and secondly, the need/gravitation towards instant gratification.

Let us first talk about attention spans. Herbert A Simon, An American economist, political scientist, and computer scientist uncannily prophesized this in a 1971 paper titled “Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World.” ^[3]

In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.

Gloria Mark, a psychologist and currently the Chancellor's professor in the Department of Informatics at University of California, Irvine, lays out the data in her new book - “Attention Span: A Groundbreaking Way to Restore Balance, Happiness and Productivity.” ^[4] In the early 2000s, she and her team tracked people while they used an electronic device and noted each time their focus shifted to something new—every 2.5 minutes, on average. In recent repeats of that experiment, she says, the average has gone down to about 47 seconds. Another study by Microsoft Corp ^[5] published as a consumer insights report highlights that attention spans (defined here as the amount of time consumers spend on one screen before moving on to another app/screen) has dwindled from 12 seconds in 2000 to 8 seconds in 2015. To put this finding in perspective, Microsoft themselves have compared it to the average attention span of a goldfish, which is about 9 seconds. This means that by 2015, on average, humans (at least Canadians as per this study) had a lesser attention span than goldfish. The study goes on of course to discuss the implications of this for marketers but we need not get into that. The point is attention spans have reduced markedly in the last two decades. Even citing high-level data, that hypothesis seems to be true. There has been a 66% increase in viewership for the “Shorts” format from 2022 to 2023. The average length of a typical music video ^[6] has decreased from 259 seconds (about 4 and a half minutes) in the 90s to 197 seconds (about 3 and a half minutes) today. The average length of a typical newspaper article ^[7] has decreased from 1222 words in 2000 to 589 words in 2022. A 2023 report by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) ^[8] found that the average length of a digital video advertisement had gone down from 30 seconds in 2000 to about 15 seconds in 2022.

In an interview with Time magazine, Adam Brown, co-director of the Center for Attention, Learning, and Memory at St. Bonaventure University in New York cited technology (read phone usage) as a key factor in reduced attention spans. ^[9] To quote him verbatim -

Human brains want novelty, excitement, and social connection, and devices play into those desires. Checking a notification flashing across your screen can provide a small hit of dopamine, creating a sense of reward that keeps you coming back for more. When you give in to temptation by pausing a task to check your phone, your brain also has to shift gears to stop what it was previously doing and move to a new task, Brown says. This process negatively affects the overall speed and quality of your work in the short term, research suggests, and in the long term, “the more you engage in task switching, the more your brain wants to wander and look for that new thing,” Brown says. In other words, your brain gets used to constant diversions and engages in them out of habit—hence why you might find yourself mindlessly checking your phone even as you watch your favorite television show.

This “malevolent” design is everywhere. To understand how instant gratification has become inextricably linked to our shortened attention span we need to understand the reward mechanism in our brain. The first analogy to draw on is the spike in blood sugar levels after eating carbohydrates. Refined carbohydrates cause a much steeper spike in blood sugar levels than whole/complex carbohydrates. This is because the fiber in whole/complex carbohydrates need more work to be digested. This happens more slowly and therefore supplies a slower release of glucose into the bloodstream. Unfortunately, refined carbs can be highly addictive. Carbs release glucose into the bloodstream and a burst of dopamine in the brain, and this can act like a drug for some people. There is a reason these foods are called comfort foods. The essential molecular structure of the carbohydrate is similar in refined as well as the complex variants. However, the addition of fiber causes us to do more work to digest it and hence delays the gratification. Another example is the ubiquitous slot machine. When one pictures gambling, one often thinks of poker tables, and people in dinner jackets calculating the odds of various combinations in their mind. This notion of traditional gambling was made very popular by actors such as Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. However, slot machines are far more popular. They contribute over 70% of any casino’s revenue. The slot machine hacks into a very primal reward mechanism of the brain remarkably like Pavlov's dogs. We "salivate” at the sight of those reels lining up and that familiar sound which is a precursor to a reward. We continue to press that button, mindlessly tuned in to the short, quick bursts of dopamine or the painful thrill of disappointment laced with hope for the next turn of the reel. Delayed gratification is mostly not addictive. Instant gratification is. It is that simple. This design is embedded by large corporations into everything they try to sell us – from chips with the perfect blend of salt and fat to cola drinks with the perfect blend of sugar and caffeine to tobacco companies with the perfect blend of nicotine and tar to shopping apps with the perfect blend of deals and customized recommendations to social media and smartphones! The last two are a veritable smorgasbord of addictive choices with instant gratification. Smartphones reel us in with the very design of their UI and the way user experience is built. Notifications keep us hooked. That small red number indicating the number of unread messages, the buzz or ping or beep of the notification sound . . it's a science that is being perfected at alarming rates.

Having plumbed many examples of how instant gratification can get addictive, let us dive a little deeper. What is it that makes instant gratification addictive? Think of the baseline dopamine levels in our brain as an “elastic” string tied across two poles. It is a crude but effective metaphor often used by Andrew Huberman (A Stanford researcher and neuroscientist with a special focus on ophthalmology) on his podcast. From sugar to shopping to sex, any addictive substance has two (amongst others) important characteristics – firstly, the time lag between an activity and the associated burst of dopamine (rate of onset); and secondly, the introduction of a spike in the level of dopamine in the brain. This spike must be significantly higher than baseline. The higher the rate of onset, the more addictive a substance. The higher the spike, the more it's addictive potential. This elastic that I mentioned earlier is impacted by these two factors – the flood of dopamine and its rate of onset. But in a short time after the flood, the dopamine levels in our brain drop back down. The higher and steeper the surge, the more they drop. The more they drop, the more the craving for the same experience again. The more the craving, the more reinforcement for addictive behaviors. It is a vicious cycle. Spike, drop, crave, repeat. Over time with repeated abuse of this reward mechanism, the baseline dopamine level drops too. The elastic loses strength, and it sags down. This leads to a host of other problems such as depression, which is a topic unto itself.

Smartphone manufacturers and social media companies have tapped into these characteristics of the human brain just like all other large corporations have done. Some of the key addictive features ^[10] of smartphones in general and social media in particular are infinite scrolling, instant push notifications, pending notification count, personalized recommendations, constant profile customization and instant messaging. Small things like a slight delay when refreshing the feed are by design! They increase the anticipation of a refreshed feed.

Which brings us to the impact. Over the last 10 years, daily average screen time ^[11] has increased by a whopping 23%! A large chunk of that is because of smartphones which has registered an increase of 43% in the same period! As of 2022, we spend around 7 hours in front of a screen every day and around 4 of these in front of a smartphone. But because of the addictive nature of its usage, we are not focusing on anything for too long. These 7 hours in front of a screen are spent scrolling/browsing/flitting from one screen/app to another. As per research done by Gloria Mark (cited above), the average time we spend on a screen is 47 seconds (8 seconds if you believe Microsoft). Even at the higher end of the spectrum, 47 seconds is just not enough to form a nuanced opinion. At this point we will have to delve a bit deeper again ^[12] into neurobiology and how humans make decisions/form opinions. While it is an oversimplified theory, the Triune model of the brain’s evolution suggest that the limbic system is more involved in decisions and actions involving emotion and the neocortex is involved in higher-order decisions, analytical thinking, and rational decision flows. While decision-making is an extremely complicated process from a neurological standpoint and the triune model is considered an over-simplified framework, it does provide a frame of reference or a point of ingress for us to understand the very crude basics. It is safe to say however, that the limbic system is highly involved in lower order emotional processing of input from sensory systems. On the other hand, the neocortex is understood to be involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, spatial reasoning, language, and analytical decision-making. The effect of social media on how we think has been well analyzed. A 2023 paper by Sergey Yu Tereschenko titled "Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review.” ^[13] found that internet addiction can lead to several changes in the structure of the brain. To quote -

"To date, a large number of studies have been devoted to the pathogenesis of Internet addiction using various neuroimaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging, positron and single photon emission computed emission tomography. These techniques have revealed a number of structural brain changes associated with Internet addiction: Decreased grey matter density in several areas, including prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortical layers and an additional motor area; abnormal functional activity of brain regions associated with reward dependence; activation of sensorimotor synchrony with a concomitant decrease in audiovisual synchrony; activation of brain regions associated with compulsive craving and impulsivity; increased glucose metabolism in brain regions associated with impulsivity, reward dependence and the urge to repeat sensations; increased dopamine secretion with a concomitant decrease in dopamine receptor availability in the striatum.

To sum up, social media addiction leads to two especially important effects – it increases our stress, and it increases our impulsivity. This leads to impaired decision-making (amongst other things). As we saw earlier, the neocortex is involved in higher-order processing of information. However, if the brain is hijacked and does not get enough time to involve the neocortex due to a greatly reduced attention span and a highly active need for instant gratification, the result is not surprising – polarized opinions, extreme reactions, and simplistic solutions. We use the limited time our attention is focused on a particular screen to react emotionally and instinctively to the content. In our hard-coded need to make sense of what we are seeing, we jump to conclusions, search for the simplest solution without analysis and form opinions based on emotion rather than logic/rationality. In essence, we are losing our ability for deep, focused, and nuanced thought. That is truly a scary thought. An even scarier consideration is that the brain is a veritable "learning machine” up to around 25 years of age. Neural pathways are being formed and it is extremely easy to pick up skills and reinforce them. After this age, it is generally considered that neuroplasticity goes down and it takes a lot more effort to "rewire” the brain (pick up new skills or change mindset). Young adults who have grown up with an internet addiction and have never picked up the skill for focused, deep, neocortex-worthy thinking will have an especially tough time dealing with complex topics. If this trend continues, we can expect future generations to be even more polarized in thought and even more easy to influence through nefarious techniques of social media manipulation. A whole generation of brain-washed consumers of information ready to amplify whatever is being fed to them and spread it even faster to other brain-washed consumers of information.

So what is the solution? As someone who has quit a debilitating alcohol and nicotine addiction and has stayed clean for the last decade or so, I can vouch that the path is not easy. To top that off, this is not an individual that we are talking about. We are trying to solve for the addiction of an entire population. We are also fighting the systemic disinclination of the entire establishment (from Big Tech to governments) to do something about this problem; mainly because it serves their needs. A population of these aforementioned brain-washed consumers of information are easy to influence. They’re easy to manipulate and easy to bring to a boil. In this moment of despair, I am reminded of Rabindranath Tagore’s timeless poem which can easily serve as a call-to-action for us and a fitting conclusion to this journey through the rabbit hole.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high

Where knowledge is free

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic walls

Where words come out from the depth of truth

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit

Where the mind is led forward by thee

Into ever-widening thought and action

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

 

References 

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-022-00939-z
3. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/
4. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00019845
5. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/60795084
6. https://dl.motamem.org/microsoft-attention-spans-research-report.pdf
7. https://www.statista.com/chart/26546/mean-song-duration-of-currently-streamable-songs-by-year-of-release/
8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/10/new-york-times-story-length/
9. https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_Report_2022.pdf
10. https://time.com/6302294/why-you-cant-focus-anymore-and-what-to-do-about-it/
11. https://medium.com/swlh/the-secret-design-tools-which-social-media-apps-are-using-to-create-addiction-e6a502ccb79f#:~:text=The%20psychology%20behind%20all%20this,see%20if%20you've%20won
12. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/screen-time-stats
13. https://seattleanxiety.com/psychiatrist/2022/7/22/anxiety-social-media-use-amp-maintaining-mental-health#end1
14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370906115_Neurobiological_risk_factors_for_problematic_social_media_use_as_a_specific_form_of_Internet_addiction_A_narrative_review

The Susegad Bike

It is with a heavy heart that I'd put up my Vulcan for sale before I moved back to India. A good bike, a sound ride and a powerful engine. 650cc of displacement and 60 hp of peak output.  Just for fun, I'd gone to a Royal Enfield showroom in Mumbai. Hitherto I was a bit of a sceptic when it came to RE. I had never understood why the RE stable had such underpowered machines. But as soon as I test drove the Royal Enfield Classic 350 Reborn I knew this was the perfect bike for me. Now I know what you're going to say - here comes another moronic RE fanboy. Who says a 350cc downgrade is better than a 650cc cruiser? I know right!? To clear the air, I'm far from a fanboy. RE really does make only average machines with really old engine tech. As a manufacturer they leave a lot to be desired. 

But they have nailed one thing right - they've got the engine tuned JUST right for anybody who wants a relaxed ride quality with a lot of low-end torque and low peak output. If you fall even slightly outside these specifications, the RE Classic is simply not the bike for you. In fact in this situation it's niggles will outweigh it's USP. But if it's this specific ride quality you want - you couldn't ask for more (well you could if you upgrade to the Bonneville T100 but it'll set you back by 12 lakhs). And since it IS this ride quality that I was looking for, the RE Classic 350 was simply put, an upgrade for me. The Vulcan has the same engine as the Ninja 650. It's basically a sports bike disguised as a cruiser and that's why I was never truly comfortable and relaxed driving it. The engine just kept begging to be revved. It felt like a caged tiger. That's the character of the Vulcan. A split personality disorder - the spirit (engine) of a sports bike and the body (chassis) of a cruiser. As soon as I test drove the RE Classic I realised the difference. The Classic simply rides with you. It's a bike meant for the backroads of Goa or the winding roads of the mountain ghats or the green countryside where you just cruise along at 80kmph and think of life in general and contemplate on the nature of the universe. It's peak torque of 27 Nm is delivered really low at only 4000 rpm. This means you don't have to worry too much about shifting gears too often. It has ample oomph to tackle low speeds at relatively high gears and relatively high speeds at low gears. Not that it's advised to do that but it does make riding easy.  It gives you room to breathe and think of things other than mundane concerns such as worrying about your engine stalling. The engine purrs along at 80kmph and the ride quality just sets you in a philosophical mood. Not the caged tiger kind but the smiling buddha kind. With a kerb weight of just 195 kilos, it's pretty light too and you can maneuver it about quite easily. 

In many ways I realized that's what I'd been doing too before the RE epiphany came along. A split personality disorder. I was trying to be someone I was not. A simple test drive set me right and got me to realize that if one stays true to one's core essence, one is much happier. RE sales numbers bear that out too. The Classic 350 is it's top seller with 39% market share as of Feb 2023. In the 200cc-500cc segment too, it leads the pack with over 35% market share. That's because it knows what it does well and gives you exactly that. It doesn't pretend to be something else. Something to ponder on for my next ride! 

Does Everybody Really Love Raymond?

 There are some mainstream cultural shows or movies that you revisit across the years with a fresh perspective and they just give you a totally contrarian view from the one you had years ago. If you watch them after a long time it's as if you are having an "Aha moment" and you ask yourself why you didn't realise it before! A small example is "Dil Chahta Hai". It's a very well made movie but when I watch it now, all I realize is that the 3 protagonists are basically a bunch of spoilt brats with extremely superficial first-world problems throughout the movie.

A big such "Aha moment" for me was watching "Everybody Loves Raymond". I used to watch this growing up all the time and I used to love it. Then it was just a family sitcom with a bunch of laughs about life as a married couple and an intrusive set of parents. I recently watched the series again and I realized its more of a tragedy than a comedy. The "unhealthily" codependent and dysfunctional family that is portrayed so casually is dark and depressing. Despite the small redeeming acts by Raymond, he's basically an entitled male chauvinist, and a lazy, irresponsible parent to boot. Throughout 9 seasons; episode in and episode out - the comedy created at the expense of basic values like gender equality are mind-boggling. Raymond casually tries to get out of any and all responsibilities as a husband and a parent on the sole premise that he works a 9 to 5 job. It's actually tragic how this is the main theme across 9 seasons! I wonder how this recurrent theme would be received in today's culture. 

But an even bigger "Aha moment" was Marie Barone. I remembered her as a meddling mother and a bit of a nuisance. But this time the evil, narcissistic and manipulative traits just jumped out at me! Not having been exposed to such evil (a huge thank you to my parents for that), I did not realise it when I watched this growing up! Today I can positively say that Marie Barone is perhaps matched only by Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and Col Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds vis-a-vis the sheer depth of evil in an on-screen persona. And I see such personalities in so many families that it's just saddening. In fact, I found a reddit thread titled "Despicable Marie" where users have listed down incidents where Marie comes across as a very hateful personality. And the list is mind-boggling. From sabotaging her son's job interview just so he would stay home and be with her to asking her other son for an apology for an innocent diary entry from 2 decades ago to ruining her son's wedding in order to express her thoughts at the absolute wrong moment. And then I came across a comment on the thread that basically summed it up and hit the nail on the head -

"Marie exhibits all the traits of a pyschopathic Narcissist. Always wanting to get her way. Manipulation by guilt or blackmail. Playing favoritism with her two sons. Not being able to admit shes wrong and even if she apologizes for something she did she finds a way to twist it so she's still putting the blame on someone else. Claiming she the most loving mother ever but it's fake love controlled through manipulation. Never does anything nice unless she can take the credit for it and everybody knows she did it. Everything she does in the show is dispicable. She doesn't love her family because narcissists are incapable of genuine love."

What is sad is that it's couched in comedy and thus normalized as behaviour. And what's even sadder is that you see it everyday in so many families. Guilt-tripping, gaslighting and codependence . . whether mainstream cultural shows like "Everybody Loves Raymond" or for that matter soap operas normalized these traits or whether they were already so mainstream that they were casually portrayed on screen . . the debate is much like the chicken and the egg conundrum. For a long time I got feedback that having such a detached family is a bad thing! Minding our own business and not getting involved in each other's affairs is basically not caring for each other! Today I see that a healthy amount of space for personal privacy and the sacrosanct nature of individual choice (along with owning up to the consequences thereof) really laid the foundation for a self-reliant and self-sufficient emotional range. Today I see the obvious advantages of how I was raised and the environment I grew up in and I cannot be more thankful! 

Using Vanilla Gnome on Ubuntu

Ubuntu is perhaps the most popular Linux distro today. It's got a lot of pros if you look at it objectively speaking. The biggest advantage is of course a very strong and active user community. It's also got a good ecosystem for 3rd party apps and an easy application manager (apt) in addition to the default Gnome store. Since it's debian-based its also got a stable release cycle and pretty strong enterprise support. As of today, about half of all websites using Linux run some version of Ubuntu (just under 49% to be precise). CentOS comes a distant second at 18%. 

Personally speaking, I've been using Ubuntu on my machine since quite a number of years. I've experimented with Fedora, Suse, Elementary . . even tried Clear Linux from the Intel stable. But somehow I keep coming back to Ubuntu. However, the one grouse I have against Ubuntu is its stock UI. With Ubuntu 10.10 netbook edition, Mark Shuttleworth launched its new UI shell which replaced Gnome - Unity. Shuttleworth intended the development of Unity to subsume all other device user interfaces. In fact he said as such in an interview that the future of computing is having a unified interface across all devices. In hindsight, that vision was prophetic and right on the money; but messed up in implementation. Unity never really caught on - neither in the desktop/server space or in the mobile phone space. From versions 10.10 through 16.04 (LTS), Canonical gamely battled on and pushed Unity on all releases. They pushed back against criticism through articles, community engagement, interviews and press nuggets. Shuttleworth finally abandoned Unity with Ubuntu 18.04 and reverted to Gnome. However, this transition wasn't smooth either. Lots of users had gotten used to Unity by then (myself amongst them) and a lot of feathers were again ruffled with this news (again, myself included). Grudgingly and reluctantly we prepared ourselves for the transition back to Gnome. However, Canonical has since retained critical elements of the Unity UI as Gnome shell extensions while discarding the actual UI itself. It retained the Unity Dock but abandoned Unity Dash. It switched its window controls to the right but got rid of the maximize and restore buttons by default. I tried it all as god is my witness. I stuck through all the experiments that Canonical did through the Unity phase. But at one point (somewhere around Ubuntu 18.x) I finally had enough. With every Ubuntu installation, I'd install vanilla Gnome on top of it. Inefficient of course, from a resource perspective; but I loved Gnome. It is clean, functional, minimalist and very easy on system resources. Unlike KDE it's got no flashy animations and effects. Unlike Elementary, it doesn't try to ape some other OS UI. It's got its own philosophy and it makes no bones about it - ease and elegance. 

Very recently I really got stuck into Linux as an operating system and amped up my knowledge of the bash shell, the Linux architecture and open source in general with a bunch of online courses and hands-on DIY projects. With this recently acquired knowledge I started to wonder whether I could avoid installation of Gnome separately and try to just switch off Ubuntu-specific UI elements of the OS itself. Turns out its very easy! You don't need to install Gnome on top of Ubuntu to get the vanilla version. The key differences in pure Gnome and "residual" Unity are - 

• Gnome theme
• Ubuntu dock
• Custom scaling (needed on high res systems)
  
• Minor tweaks

First off, the default gnome theme is Advaita. This includes the colour palette, the icon-set and the general look/feel. To change this, one has to install the gnome-tweak-tool from the software centre. One can do that with

$ sudo apt install gnome-tweak-tool

Once this is done, just go to launcher using the <super> key and type in  "tweaks". Go to appearance tab and change the default theme to advaita or advaita-dark and you're good to go

The Ubuntu dock is basically a gnome shell extension. You can try to switch if off from the tweaks tool but 9 times out of 10 that doesn't work. The beauty of the Gnome UI is its simplistic default panel. The Ubuntu dock really gets in the way. It doesn't gel well with vlc media player and keeps messing up full-screen mode when watching videos. Next up, we switch off the Ubuntu Dock and revert to basic Gnome panel. To do that, we have to first identify what the dock is called. All extensions are stored as files in usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions folder. Just navigate to this folder in the terminal and list the contents of the folder. Like so - 

In this case (and in most cases), the dock is called ubuntu-dock@ubuntu.com (the syntax is usually <name_of_extension>@<author>). Once you have identified the correct filename, just use the gnome-extensions command to disable it. Like so -

$ gnome-extensions disable ubuntu-dock@ubuntu.com

Voila. The dock is now replaced with the default Gnome panel. 

On high-res systems objects looks really tiny. By default, Ubuntu does not support custom scaling. Ubuntu has two window managers (display server protocols) installed - X11 and Wayland. The command for fractional scaling depends on which one you are using. You can find that out with - 

$ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE

Depending on the output, run the following command -

X11/Xorg - $ gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['x11-randr-fractional-scaling']"

OR

Wayland - $ gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['scale-monitor-framebuffer']"

Once that's done, what remains are minor UI tweaks such as restoring the maximize/minimize buttons, adding battery percentage and date to the top bar, switching desktop icons on/off, changing the font to Cantarell and changing the wallpaper (you can download the default Gnome wallpaper from the Gnome repository.

There you have it, once these minor customizations are done; for the most part, you can enjoy the clean, simple and minimalist feel of vanilla gnome. Just as the makers intended.

It was his heart. It just wouldn't go!

Roberto Duran Vs Iran Barkley. 24th Feb 1989 at the Convention Centre, Atlantic City, New Jersey. 1989 fight of the year by Ring Magazine. A fight for the ages! 

In the post-fight interview, Barkley had just one thing to say; "It was his heart. It just wouldn't go". Brings to mind the famous saying; "It's not about the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog". 

On paper, this bout was a no-brainer. A 37-year old pitted against a 28-year old. Duran was 5' 7" tall against Barkley's 6' 1". Duran had a 66-inch reach against Barkley's 74 inches. A 6-inch difference in height and an 8-inch difference in reach. That's heavy odds as evidenced by the betting cards. Barkley was a 2.5 : 1 favorite to win this bout.  Not just the tale of the tape, but the background of this fight put Duran at heavier odds still. Barkley was the WBO middleweight champion who had KO'd Thomas "Hitman" Hearns in 3 rounds in his previous fight just 8 months ago. Duran himself had suffered an embarrassing KO at the hands of the Hitman 5 years ago. Here's the tale of the tape as it stood on fight-night - 

	Duran	Barkley
Age	37	28
Height (ft/in)	5 feet 7 inches	6 feet 1 inch
Weight (lbs)	154.5	159
Reach (inch)	66	74

But the absolute doggedness and ring IQ that 'El Cholo' displayed in the ring was simply inspiring. A rare display of determination and heart in the face of overwhelming odds. The sport of boxing has many such stories and this one is at the top of my list for those inspirational "wow" moments. Considering the "no mas" debacle in 1980 when Duran got frustrated by Sugar Ray Leonard's "smart boxing" which went against Duran's grain of infighting and brawling; this fight was a huge turnaround where Duran employed all the tricks in the book to keep adapting over the course of 12 rounds. One of the key disadvantages Duran went in with was his inability to use his signature wrestling techniques due to his height. His head only came up to Barkley's mid-shoulder rendering self-protection impossible. To complicate matters, Barkley used these opportunities to land some hard body shots which shook Duran early. But Duran withstood this barrage and then dished out some! Duran then switched tactics to employ "smart boxing" maneuvers of his own. No wonder there's a larger-than-life persona built around the "hands of stone". At 37 the head movements and slips he employed to evade Barkley's jabs are a pure pleasure to watch. The willingness to engage with a fighter much larger than yourself takes heart. And boy did Duran take some hard hits! Round 8 truly brought out the best in Duran where he refused to give up despite being staggered by a mean left hook. 

Here the modern martial artist breaks the fight down to showcase some of the techniques employed by both Barkley and Duran. A must-watch for any fight enthusiast 

A fitting swansong for a great fighter.