Not that I remember what a Gaussin curve is. Must mean normal distribution. Saala Gujju, impression jama raha hai.
Anyways, this post is about watching Guru and Salaam-e-Ishq, and finding myself moved (to either extremes)by the latter, and completely untouched by the former.
Why? I think this safely puts me out of the 5% that Saumil has postulated.
Oh well. I guess that rules out the Nobel.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Boiling Blood and Blowing Lids in Delhi
Had the pleasure of introducing M to the family weekend last in Delhi. Lovely time it was, and, quietly, quite momentous too. A slow motion free fall... And all the better for it.
But, I digress. I am on a self-righteous crib fest.
Nobody likes paying taxes.
And nobody likes paying someone else's!
But this is the stark choice that Delhi traders are throwing to the public.
"This watch strap? Rs 250 only saar... What, you want to pay by Debit Card? Then 16% service tax. For the service of putting the strap on your watch! But if you pay by cash, and dont ask for a bill, then 'service tax' forgivem onlee saar..."
Pretty ingenious. If you pay by card, then the money is traceable, hence 'white' and hence, taxable. So the merchant very nicely throws the burden back to you, to pay his taxes for him. Else pay in cash. Untraceable and black!
Its a petty extortion con. Pay on my terms, or pay my taxes.
Bugger all.
But, I digress. I am on a self-righteous crib fest.
Nobody likes paying taxes.
And nobody likes paying someone else's!
But this is the stark choice that Delhi traders are throwing to the public.
"This watch strap? Rs 250 only saar... What, you want to pay by Debit Card? Then 16% service tax. For the service of putting the strap on your watch! But if you pay by cash, and dont ask for a bill, then 'service tax' forgivem onlee saar..."
Pretty ingenious. If you pay by card, then the money is traceable, hence 'white' and hence, taxable. So the merchant very nicely throws the burden back to you, to pay his taxes for him. Else pay in cash. Untraceable and black!
Its a petty extortion con. Pay on my terms, or pay my taxes.
Bugger all.
Of cutting corners...
Come Feb 15 and we have legions of employees standing by the printer, printing fake house rent receipts, medical bills, telephone bills, car-driver salary bills etc., so that they are exempt from more tax.
All look sheepishly at each other, some of the bold ones boldly telling the others about the rouses they have used to save all the money. All looking sheepishly at the others as the printer churns out the fake documents - partners in crime, some more than the others.
And dare anyone comment on this skulldugery, for the pack will gang up on any one stupid or brave enough to point out the truth about "cheating".
"I dont have the bills, but i deserve that exemption anyways...."
"Why shoud the govt. have my money?"
"Who the hell are you to comment?"
"What *your* fucking problem if I do this? Go mind your own fucking business..."
"Who made all these stupid rules anyways? Be a rebel!"
Takes me back several years to Campion, and the rampant cheating that went on there during the assessments and exams. For many, it was a simple question of survival. Maybe I can appreciate that now. A poke in Darwin's eyes. A super-Darwinistic prespective. A higher order than meritocracy. Seldom admitted, but omnipresent. A super-rationalist to the rationalist in the Game of Life. Suddenly, reservation et al makes a lot of sense.
But, the flawed Lahore-Peshawar Theorem prevails. I cannot bring myself to fake my rent receipts.
Not yet anyways.
All look sheepishly at each other, some of the bold ones boldly telling the others about the rouses they have used to save all the money. All looking sheepishly at the others as the printer churns out the fake documents - partners in crime, some more than the others.
And dare anyone comment on this skulldugery, for the pack will gang up on any one stupid or brave enough to point out the truth about "cheating".
"I dont have the bills, but i deserve that exemption anyways...."
"Why shoud the govt. have my money?"
"Who the hell are you to comment?"
"What *your* fucking problem if I do this? Go mind your own fucking business..."
"Who made all these stupid rules anyways? Be a rebel!"
Takes me back several years to Campion, and the rampant cheating that went on there during the assessments and exams. For many, it was a simple question of survival. Maybe I can appreciate that now. A poke in Darwin's eyes. A super-Darwinistic prespective. A higher order than meritocracy. Seldom admitted, but omnipresent. A super-rationalist to the rationalist in the Game of Life. Suddenly, reservation et al makes a lot of sense.
But, the flawed Lahore-Peshawar Theorem prevails. I cannot bring myself to fake my rent receipts.
Not yet anyways.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Game Theory and Group Discussions: The (possible) case for cooperation in GDs
Hi Folks,I think it is possible (just for academic interest) to model what one should do in a GD so as to maximize chances of getting selected. By building a model, listing rules and assumptions, and specifying variables, one can use game theory to predict probable out comes.Now this is just a germ of an idea, and I request forum members to help build this model.You can suggest different variables, factors etc which can be used to play the game.
Basics: Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Game Theory and Group Discussions:To get into several MBA institutes in India, a candidate has to go through a charade called a group discussion (GD). It will involve a discussion on an arbitrary topic by a group of competing candidates (8-15) for a limited number of seats, in a limited amount of time.
The objective of the game is for each candidate to score points, sometimes as the expense of other candidates, so as to maximise their own points.There are several such competing groups all over India, and the top ranking individuals most amongst them get to be on the merit list.
Almost everyone wants to be on the merit list (not ALL want to be).All players in all groups start with zero points.
Possible Rules:
1. You get marks if you are heard speaking by the moderator.
2. You get marks if the point heard above has relevant content.
3. You get negative marks if the content is irrelevant.
4. #2 & #3 are linearly multiplied for (say) 5 second stretches.
5. If you are able to hold attention for 30 seconds, you get bonus marks. (for both relevant and irrelevant)
6. If there is a fish-market situation (40% or more of group speaks simultaneously), then the whole group is penalised if order is not restored within 5 seconds.
6.5 If order is restored, then order-restorers get marks.
7. If you are overtly aggressive/offensive (shouting) you get negative marks. You might have to risk aggression to be heard by the speaker.
8. If you do not speak, you get negative marks.
9. If you start the discussion, you get marks.
10. If you start it badly (content and structure), you get negative marks.
11. Positive Marks if you start it well.
12. The chances of a fish-market increase with the increase in number of participants.
13. The chances of a fish-market increase if the topic given is NOT knowledge dependent (i.e. abstract, case-study)
14. A player gets + marks for cutting another speaker successfully, no harm if unsuccessful.
15. If a player can prevent another from cutting him in the middle of the discussion, he gains + points.
16. If 2 or more talkers talk simultaneously, then the one who dominates at the end of 5 seconds gets + marks, but if they are still speaking simultaneously at the end of 10 seconds, both get penalised - marks.
17. If one gives points that help structure the GD, you get bonus + points. You get additional + points if group actually follows the structure you gave.
18. You get + marks for giving time-related summations of the GD.
19. You get + points if you sum up the topic at the end.
20. Every one in the group gets + marks if the GD has a good impression on moderators, - otherwise.
Please suggest other such rules. The quantum of the marks/points can be weighed in later.
A major complication that is necessary for the game is to define the participants (i.e. aggressive/passive/knowledgeable/dumb etc). The personalities can always decide what the best course for a GD should be, or is likely to be.
One can bring in externalities as Oversmart candidates, who are just at GD to have fun, and don't care to maximise their own points, and malicious candidates, who are there to ruin the GD for others.
Thoughts/suggestions please
Basics: Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Game Theory and Group Discussions:To get into several MBA institutes in India, a candidate has to go through a charade called a group discussion (GD). It will involve a discussion on an arbitrary topic by a group of competing candidates (8-15) for a limited number of seats, in a limited amount of time.
The objective of the game is for each candidate to score points, sometimes as the expense of other candidates, so as to maximise their own points.There are several such competing groups all over India, and the top ranking individuals most amongst them get to be on the merit list.
Almost everyone wants to be on the merit list (not ALL want to be).All players in all groups start with zero points.
Possible Rules:
1. You get marks if you are heard speaking by the moderator.
2. You get marks if the point heard above has relevant content.
3. You get negative marks if the content is irrelevant.
4. #2 & #3 are linearly multiplied for (say) 5 second stretches.
5. If you are able to hold attention for 30 seconds, you get bonus marks. (for both relevant and irrelevant)
6. If there is a fish-market situation (40% or more of group speaks simultaneously), then the whole group is penalised if order is not restored within 5 seconds.
6.5 If order is restored, then order-restorers get marks.
7. If you are overtly aggressive/offensive (shouting) you get negative marks. You might have to risk aggression to be heard by the speaker.
8. If you do not speak, you get negative marks.
9. If you start the discussion, you get marks.
10. If you start it badly (content and structure), you get negative marks.
11. Positive Marks if you start it well.
12. The chances of a fish-market increase with the increase in number of participants.
13. The chances of a fish-market increase if the topic given is NOT knowledge dependent (i.e. abstract, case-study)
14. A player gets + marks for cutting another speaker successfully, no harm if unsuccessful.
15. If a player can prevent another from cutting him in the middle of the discussion, he gains + points.
16. If 2 or more talkers talk simultaneously, then the one who dominates at the end of 5 seconds gets + marks, but if they are still speaking simultaneously at the end of 10 seconds, both get penalised - marks.
17. If one gives points that help structure the GD, you get bonus + points. You get additional + points if group actually follows the structure you gave.
18. You get + marks for giving time-related summations of the GD.
19. You get + points if you sum up the topic at the end.
20. Every one in the group gets + marks if the GD has a good impression on moderators, - otherwise.
Please suggest other such rules. The quantum of the marks/points can be weighed in later.
A major complication that is necessary for the game is to define the participants (i.e. aggressive/passive/knowledgeable/dumb etc). The personalities can always decide what the best course for a GD should be, or is likely to be.
One can bring in externalities as Oversmart candidates, who are just at GD to have fun, and don't care to maximise their own points, and malicious candidates, who are there to ruin the GD for others.
Thoughts/suggestions please
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)