Trust: an outcome or a foundation of relationships

Trust, as applied to people relationships is a complex mixture of faith, expectation and reliability. There is also an element of predictability, when it comes to trusting another person.

I have read in social sciences, that trust is defined to originate from four elements: competence, reliability, integrity and communication. But what does this mean for relationships? 

Is trust a starting point in relationships? how can that be when one does not understand or does not have enough information to assess the competence or reliability of the other person. Definitely not enough to establish integrity. Maybe communication, but is that enough to develop trust?

If its not a starting point, but rather evolves over time, then how does this impact the development of a relationship? A relationship without a starting point of trust, might be, at best, a roller-coaster of emotions, or at worst, doomed to fail.

While I believe trust is a rational well-analyzed outcome, this may not always be the case. We develop 'a sense of trust' when we interact with different people. This may be a result of communication (people who communicate well), similarity (e.g., same nationality), or competence (experts in a certain field). In such scenarios, we develop, what I would call a 'null-hypothesis' of trust. This is our way of saying - 'I trust the person, unless they prove me wrong'. 

I am dealing with trust here as a binary outcome (either you trust someone or not). However, in reality, trust is always qualified. For example, one can trust almost anyone to reply to a message, but trust fewer people with their car. The levels of trust required in both scenarios are quite different.

While the null-hypothesis helps establish a starting point, the level of trust is maintained as an active 'trust account'. The level of trust gets reinforced or diminished based on people's actions. When people act/react in a manner that reinforces trust, they contribute to their 'trust account' held by you. Conversely, when they act/react in a manner that diminishes the trust, they withdraw from their 'trust account' held by you.

I believe that understanding what the 'null-hypothesis' is, and evaluating the trust-balance in the 'trust account' can help build strong and 'trusted' relationships.

PS: this post is based purely on personal reflections and inquiries. Does not reflect or borrow from any existing material.

The 'gender' of yoga!

I recently heard a good friend mention something like 'Yoga is for girls...' (Another matter that friend is a girl.. Topic for another blog :) ), and this got me thinking...

Yoga, brings association of, either Baba Ramdev on the one hand, or Shilpa Shetty on the other. And neither of them truly depict what yoga is! All that people know about it, is its a fitness tool. And hence, it's in a reference set which includes things like: the boring, yet masculine gym, the beaten up and middle-aged aerobic fitness and the more exotic like Zumba.

Now that's a difficult place for any fitness service, look at the competition. Can yoga ever be more sweaty n masculine than workouts in the gym? Or more exotic and fun than the Zumba? 

But there in lies the problem. It's a comparable reference set. The key Value Props of yoga has nothing to do with the ones offered by the others.

Let's step back a little and understand yoga.

Based on my learning a from the days of my yoga classes and further reading, yoga has three parts to it... Physical fitness, emotional fitness and spiritual fitness. The much talked about and famed 'asanas' are what help you with your physical fitness. Then there is the Pranayama, which through breath control teaches you to control your emotions. But the two put-together are only stage-gates to take you to the more exhilarating spiritus fitness. You cannot really be happy, unless you are spiritually fit and you cannot really be spiritually fit, unless you have some control your body and emotions.

Now that is something, nobody else in the reference set can offer you!

Now the real question, is yoga only suited for the feminine gender (gotta thank Shilpa Shetty for at least encouraging guys to look at it)? Now that you understand what yoga really is, hopefully the answer not too difficult. 

As a physical fitness exercise, it's definitely not masculine and by deductive logic, can be construed to be feminine. However, as a form of gaining emotional and eventually, spiritual fitness, it's definitely not feminine. In fact, the feminine sex has a significantly higher emotional fitness, as a base, and hence, relatively, the males have a lot more to gain!

I would only want to encourage people to do their research on yoga and understand it better (before you accuse me, I only claim to understand it a wee bit more than the average.. ). 

Just so it's clear, I'm not a regular yoga practioner, nor a yoga proponent. Just putting my thoughts out there.. Is all!

God(s) or the one super power... Same difference?

In the last few weeks, months really, the 'intellectual discourse' in India has been primarily on one topic.. I.e., Mr. Narendra Modi. In all my understanding of his supporters, they can be catagerozied into two distinct segments:

One group of people, mostly comprising the relatively less intelligent community, consider him as the harbinger of change and development. The party to which he belongs, is, undoubtedly, as important as the man himself. There is no separating Modi from the BJP. And if Modi has to achieve anything of importance, he has to abide by the party's founding principles, not deviating to accommodate for changes in the world and it's ever changing people. These I would like to call the Religuous (not to be confused with Religion - they could be from any religion, but believe in religion as the most important identity of any individual)

Then there is the group, who believe, Mr. Modi and the party has very little in common. In fact, he would hardly seem to represent the typical BJP worker! This section would like to place it's bets on the Man and not his party. Trusting, that he can overcome the social boundaries and norms placed by his party and perform beyond any human can! These, I would like to call the Spiritualists - people who do no believe in God, but believe in an omni-potent super power.

In fact, I think this behaviour defines the divide in present India. The Religious, who like to serve as the watchdogs of social norms and the Spiritualists who like to believe social norms are only one possible path to deliverance!

In effect, the success of Mr. Modi, is largely due to the majority support from both sides of the divide. I have never before seen more heated debates, in matters of nation and politics, between people on the same side of the fence! Both factions, supporting Modi, have tended to provide reasons, after reasons, supported by verifiable facts and articles of the intelligentsia, as to why they think he has to be the next head of the Government.

From the parallels I have drawn, I would like to say that proponents of religion and spirituality are on the same side of the fence! They very kindly ignore the presence, of another side of the fence, athiesm. I am not, by any stretch of exaggeration, an athiesm. However, I have been drawn in numerous debates between religion and spiritualism and with a little perspective lent by Modi, come to realise that they are both same side of the coin.

PS: I would like to highlight that references to Modi and his supporters - some of whom from both factions are good friends of mine, is purely illustrative!

PS2: History notwithstanding, I would like you to believe that I would soon contribute to this debate, very soon :)

"The naturals"

"There are novices, experts and masters... and then there are the "Naturals"" - David Baldacci

Naturals are the those who we call "specially-gifted", the "game-changers" like one of my friends called it. The likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Don Bradman, Warren Buffet...

Have you had a situation where you are doing for the first time and, yet, they tell you " you're good at this!"? 

Have you ever met somebody, who's trying their hand at something for the first time, and yet seem to be the best at it? 

If you answer to the above two questions is Yes!, then you agree with the existence of 'naturals' in every sphere.

By corollary, everyone is a natural, at some sphere or another. (I intend to leave the proof to debate)

What are you a natural at?

The following questions can serve as an indicative (definitely not exhaustive) guide:

- What do you absolutely love doing?

     Not the sorts that you would give up hours of sleep, but the sorts that would not let the thought of sleep enter your consideration set. The sort that drives your adrenaline to absolute highs!

- From your past, what achievements of yours have surprised you the most?

     The first question only checks for interest level (which is a must), but pure interest level does not mean your a natural at it. This questions filters the list down to ones where you have exceeded your own expectations.

- Pick the top five from the above list and find the common skills that helped you complete those activities. Do you find a few common skills?

- Are there any other activities/responsibilities that you can think of, where those same skills would be essential? 

I do not expect the above questions to provide an answer, but rather provoke thoughts on assessing your 'natural skills'. A good understanding of what you are a natural at, can go long a way in shaping your career decisions.

Amibguity in emails

A simple example to illustrate how amibguity can creep into emails:

The "incident" involves two persons:
P1: sends an email with voting options to determine how many people would like to take part in a cricket match at a particular date and time.
P2: one of the voters, reviews the status...

9.30 a.m.: P1 sends a mail saying:
"I have received only 7 votes so far, others please vote"
P2 responds to the mail by voting his option.

4.30 p.m.: P1 sends another mail saying:
"Since I have received only 3 votes, we will not have the match tomorrow"
P2 is confused and replies:
"How can 7 votes become 3 votes?"

What P1 really meant with his second mail was that he only received 3 votes for the match, hence the match will be cancelled.

P1 was not wrong, but he left room for ambiguity. Two possible ways of correcting it:
1. "Since we do not have enough votes, the match will not be held tomorrow"
OR (more specifically)
2: "Since I have only 3 votes for the match, which is less than the minimum 10 votes, we will not have the match tomorrow"

Indispensability vs freedom

Some food for thought... I have been thinking about this for some time now!

Bonding with someone, family, friends and loved ones, brings with it a certain sense of dependency and connection. This gives me a sense of importance and purpose in life. But I find, it also curtails my freedom and prevents me from doing some things I would have otherwise done.

Independence and freedom on the other hand makes me feel on top of the world when I am able to make decisions and live life they way I want it. But it doesn't seem to last long enough to keep doing it every time and I end up craving for the bonding to get some intent and purpose to life.

I m always confused with having to make a choice, in every step of life, or is it really a choice? (To quote Merovengian from the Matrix, "Choice is an illusion, created by those with power to those without")

I guess, sustained happiness and satisfaction is in some way dependent on what makes you happy at that instant. But doesn't that mean you are looking at being free?? A paradox?

well.. i m still confused :)

The OSI model for effective communication

Communication (pertaining to communication among humans), is as important in the day-to-day world, as any other skill. Many people, with otherwise excellent skills, do not seem to succeed in their endeavors owing to their handicapped communication skills. Much of this can be attributed to a lack of proper understanding of the basic tenets of effective communication.

Humans have evolved complex communication capabilities compared to any other living being on the face of the earth, yet we find that communication is a growing challenge. What are the factors that make effective communication so difficult? Here are a few important ones:
1. Disparity of cultures
2. Multitude of languages and the need to communicate in a foreign language
3. Insufficient exposure during the formative years
4. Lack of understanding of the shortcomings and how to correct them.

A good place to start addressing these points is to look for examples around us.

Looking back, not so far in history, computers had very similar problems when they evolved as 'thinking machines'. Computers, even today, are from such varied origins that the only thing common among them is the fact that they are electronic machines. And yet they are able to communicate quite effectively. You could connect your linux-based Sony laptop onto your Broadband service provider's Solaris-based Sun microsystems server to access a webpage that probably resides on a Windows enabled Dell web-server (just to name a few). How is this possible?

The key work here is Standardization. And this has been made possible by the OSI (Open Systems Interconnect) model which many of you might already be aware of. If you are not, you can look up "OSI model" on wikipedia before continuing.

Lets now take a look at how this model can be applied to communication amongst humans.
The simplified OSI model provides five layers for a network protocol.

Physical layer - The vocals, tone, pitch, octave, tempo etc...
The channel (telephone, in-person discussion etc...)
- As in the OSI model, the emphasis here is on the physical transmission of signals (your voice) through an error-free channel with minimal loss of signal and no loss of information. It is very important to develop a good voice and maintain the right pitch and tempo in any discussion. If you cant be heard clearly, then you will never be understood correctly.

Datalink layer - Words: your vocabulary, semantics, grammar
- In the OSI model, this layer enables two nodes to address each other correctly and understand each other's 'commands. This, for humans, comes from language (English, Hindi, Tamil etc...). Language presents the biggest challenge to most people. When entering into a dialogue, it is very important to understand what languages the other person can speak and find a common language which both of you are comfortable with. The semantics and grammer are very important in ensuring that you avoid miscommunication.

Network layer - Group Discussion skills
- This layer in the OSI model takes care of setting up communication between a group of nodes. Which node transmits to which other node and how to reach to another node in the same group or even outside the group. When in a group discussion, it is very important to understand your role in the group and be able to communicate by following the group's unsaid rules of communication. One erratic communicator can easily hijack the entire discussion spoiling the agenda of all the people present, including his own.

Transport layer - Leadership/moderator skills
- The transport layer of the OSI takes up responsibility in setting up routes/ channels for effective information flow in a large network of nodes. Similarly, the moderator of a group, shall be capable of channelizing the flow of information. In most discussions, there is no clear moderator defined. In such cases, it is imperative that all the members in the discussion have a common understanding of the channels for information flow during the course of the discussion.

Application layer - A good IQ and good analytical skills!
- The Application layer in the OSI model provides the right interface to the end-user (YOU) so the layers below can interpret the information correctly during any communication. A good IQ level can provide a person with the right set of information that can guide a person's thoughts and good analytical skills can provide him with the ability to interpret the information effectively.


As can be seen from the above comparison, it is important that a person is able to match with the other people in all of the above layers so he can be recognized as an effective communicator.
It is therefore important to grow your skills in each of the above layers, not just by learning a language, so you can match with the group that you are in, and not be left out in a discussion. Just as your computer, if you cannot connect to the network, you are a stand-alone and of not much use to anybody in today's world. So don't just learn a new language, but grow your skills in all the layers.

**This thought occurred to me on a fine Sunday morning as i was lazily shaving my stubble off! Comments and discussions welcome :)