Random acts of kindness

A long long time ago when I had just graduated from college, I had gone for an interview at a manufacturing facility. It was a large complex and was over half an hour walk in from the main road to the building where my interview was taking place. As I was leaving after my interview a cab came by to drop someone off. I hailed it not wanting to walk back to the train station in the noon-day sun. On the way I got chatting to the cabbie and he was telling me about his kids and how it was them when they were just looking for jobs etc and empathizing with my job hunt. We arrived at the station and when I made to pay him he refused it on account of my jobless state wished me well and drove off. While I appreciate he would have driven back that way anyway to leave the complex, it was a nice gesture on his part and it made my day then and for some reason has stuck with me till now ... 10 years later.

Why Lego Why?

Growing up Lego was probably one of my favorite toys. I had one or two things that were "sets" but the rest was a jumble of bricks that I could build pretty much anything I felt like. I can't say whether it was educational or improved my creativity but it was a lot of fun as I remember spending a lot of time playing with them. Even as an adult in college I couldn't resist taking two courses which involved using the Lego Mindstorms sets - I felt like a child again! Looking in the stores I now see more and more "sets" and fewer free-form Lego. It seems as if the end result (the ship or vehicle or city) is the point of playing with them rather than the result. Even with the sets I recall there were several different things you could build and modify there wasn't just the one thing. Now they have separately packaged bits for each thing in a "scene". I suppose eventually kids owning them might go off the prescribed model or would they just make it the one time (or have an adult make it) and then just play with the finished things?
Another thing I loved about Lego as an adult was that it was the epitome of a gender neutral toy. There was no pink and blue packaging - the ads and pictures had both boys and girls playing with it. It didn't make a child conform to a stereotype. Sure there were more "male" figurines - but really a lot of them could have been of any gender they were all little blocky figures anyway. And then lo and behold a few year ago (?) a new line of Lego showed up - they called it "Friends", it had pink and purple packaging and pastel coloured bricks. Gone were the generic bodies of the figurines, the Friends had shaped bodies and makeup on their faces. Ok lets live with that maybe the friends will be exploring space or the artic, rescuing trapped mountaineers? Or how about saving lives in the city fire department or hospital? Nope the Friends have a hair salon, a mall, juice bar etc... The stereotyping extends all the way from the packaging to the figures to the makeup of the sets themselves.
While there seems to be some general outrage and controversy there has been support for the product as well - some say it tells girls that it is ok to play with Lego. But there is the problem, it was never not ok to play with whether you were a boy or a girl. Sadly the massive sales of the Friends indicates that most of us have conformed to what we should and shouldn't play with.

Impostor syndrome

Wiki defines impostor syndrome as a"psychological phenomenon in which people are unable to internalize their accomplishments. Despite external evidence of their competence, those with the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved." Hmm sounds all too familiar...

Recently we have been struggling with trying to convince some of our highly intelligent and promising students that there were indeed brilliant. Their self doubt seems to make them convinced that they won't graduate or get good jobs when they do - all the while we are telling them that they will in fact graduate and trying to convince them to apply to good places. The common consensus was that as grad students we had all felt self doubt, so this was normal and we should only keep encouraging them.
A subsequent discussion among the "younger" post-docs and we voiced sentiments like "I don't know what I'm doing" "everyone else seems to know more" "I'm not sure why I was hired". So much for this being a grad student issue. Some general looking into each others contributions and skills ensued and we all felt a little better...maybe... A senior post-doc then joined us, someone who we think is very knowledgeable, skilled and has got it together. He had been applying for an award...he slumps down with a "I don't think I'm good enough"! - does this ever end?

Are you Indian?

Not a lot of things make me annoyed as much as being asked this question. Not a lot of things brings out the "rude me". Asking this question as a conversation opener is almost guaranteed to make me rude. It is also a source of great amusement to my friends. So why does this question have such an irrational effect on me...
Well to start with I look south Asian - so generally I don't mind an assumption from people who are not from the region, that I may belong to the largest country in the region. Statistically there is a good chance that I am from there. My problem stems from having to insist that I am not from there and still have people refuse to believe it. I am born Sri Lankan, and I cannot link any ancestry back to India (and I can trace back as far as 6 generations). I have also never been there so I have as much local knowledge as can be gained from TV/Internet.
First annoyance started when I moved to Singapore and was required to declare my race. Let's move on from the need to declare a race in this day and age - that is a discussion for another day. I was given the option of Malay, Chinese, Indian or Other. As far as I am concerned Indian is a nationality and not a race. I don't identify with it as my race (whatever that is). So I go for Other and put Sri Lankan as my race seeing as how the other options were nationalities too. I have trouble with officials accepting me as "other" when they see me in person. In fact I have had cases where my form as been "corrected" for me.
Throughout my travels or living and working in other countries, I've had several conversations which have opened with "Are you from India?"/"Are you Indian". When I answer in the negative, it is generally followed by "But you look Indian". So? Another classic "So do you speak Hindi?" - no! "Why not?" - why would I? It is not a language officially spoken in ANY of the countries I have lived in. "But you have a bhindhi/pottu/dot" ... Er yes, I am Hindu/Tamil - neither of which are exclusive to India. Just as much as wearing a headscarf is not exclusive to someone from Pakistan for example. Or being a white caucasian doesn't mean you are from Britain or must speak English.
Why does it make me rude? Often these questions are asked of me by random strangers who are from the region. I have tired of insisting. I am also tired of people from the region who seem to only want to have something to do with me if my answer to the question is yes. Am guilty of generalizing that everyone who asks that question is going to be the same... but having had the formula repeated countless times in countless locations I have grown wary. Next time maybe just talk to me about the weather!

Resurrection

A recent conversation with friends about their blogs reminded me about this blog, and I thought why not resurrect it. When I write things down here, I tend to write as I would speak almost. This helps a lot to avoid the kind of passive voice writing I tend to revert to in report writing or academic writing . Looking back at the posts, I started the blog about 10 years ago somewhere during my undergrad, (yikes how time passes) and last wrote something about 4 years ago.
I decided to remove some of the extremely random (and seemingly angst ridden) posts and leave in those that I may still identify with. A lot has changed since I stopped writing in it long ago - in both my personal and professional lives - and I hope that maybe some of my posts will be more mature (hah!), but a lot of it will continue to be in the same vein of being very random. Will I keep it going better this time? Who knows - only time will tell.

Preah Vihear

Starting off at 5am on the 30th of Dec 2009, our destination was the temple of Preah Vihear situated in the north of Cambodia near the border of Thailand. After two hours on a smooth highway we are at Anlong Veng which was the last stronghold of the Khmer Rouge and also the supposed final resting place of Pol Pot. 2 more hours along a dusty but smooth road and we are at the base of the Dângrêk Mountains. We chang over to an army pickup truck and go up along the streep road up to the temple, along an army guy jumps into our truck and seems to be our supplementary guide and escort for the rest of the journey.

Constructed mainly during the reigns of the Khmer kings Suriyavarman I and II dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva, Preah Vihear has been a sight of dispute between the Thais and Cambodians. In 1962 the Internation Court of Justice awarded the temple to the Cambodians. After the end of the Cambodian civil war in 1998, the temple was opened for tourists from the Thai side - from where it could be easily accessed via an expressway. Even after the construction of an access road up the cliff from the Cambodian side, there was still limited access by tourists from this side. Preah Vihear was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in July 2008, but fresh disputes broke out in October 2008 and April 2009. The access from Thailand was closed during this time, but is supposedly reopened now, though we didn't see anyone approach from that side. The visitors center with the Thai flag flying above it can be clearly seen.

After a 20 minute ascent, we arrive at the temple near the first Gopura. The staircase below leads to a market which was destroyed in April by Thai shelling. Most of the stones of this gopura have fallen off but some are precariously balanced. Walking up along the stone path we pass through the other 3 gopuras which contain carvings from Hindu mythologies. At the topmost gopura we are greeted by the sounds of music being played by the soldiers there, apparently to call the gods to the temple. Inside we receive blessings from some Buddhist monks there.

Beyond the topmost gopura, we come to the tip of the cliff from which there is a breathtaking view of Cambodia and to the north Thailand. Below the rocky outcrop is a small space in which we were told the civilians around could hide if fighting broke out again. Coming back down we are shown the wells like area which have now dried up due to deforestation in the area. The Cambodian army also proudly point out their artillery and anti-aircraft weapons on our way down while our guide gives us a history and politics lesson. On our way down we see a few Thai soldiers who are still stationed in a small monestary along the road (though it is on the Cambodian side).

Four hours later we are back in Siem Reap. The journey was not as ardous or treacherous as the guide books make it out to be, and neither is it as expensive as some tour companies in Siem Reap make it, if you privately arrange for a guide and transport. Though most of the mines around the temple have been cleared, the area around it is still not so it is a good idea to stick to the worn paths and follow your guide. The experience and the sights were well worth the trip. Once the road between Anlong Veng and the temple is completed the journey should be much smoother and the Cambodians expect more tourists to come. Right now not many make the jouney as we saw only about 2 or 3 other groups while we were there and a few locals.

Personality Issues

I suppose that when a person is hired into a regular job their personality which comes across in an interview would be considered, for example how they would fit into a team and so on?
What if you were deciding on a person who would take charge of a piece of equipment (with no benefit to them except maybe the experience :|) and you have two candidates one who is very technically sound but severely lacks people skills and is known to cut corners when doing procedures. And another who is technically weaker (due to lack of experience) but can work well with other people and follows procedures correctly. Bearing in mind that the person would have to teach other new people coming into the lab and deal with technical issues that crop up. I am inclined to pick the less later person as his technical weak points could be improved with more experience and training but personality issues are not so easily overcome.

In another scenario where a person wishes to use a piece of sensitive equipment without supervision; They do a demonstration to the person in charge without any flaws in their technical skills, however they display impatience and not caring too much about following certain checks which ensure the machine continues to work properly. During the demonstration all the proper procedures are followed but here and there certain impatience is displays which makes the person in charge wonder if they would skip things if left alone. Would it be prejudicial or wrong to not allow that person to use it without supervision based on these "feelings"? In this case the persons work may be affected as they now have to wait for the person in charge to also be available.