On Comfort Zone

 Whenever someone asks my take on some topic, or whenever I see two persons debating about some topic, the first thing I do is to ask, "What do you exactly mean by <topic>?" Oftentimes, that unclogs that debate, and some real discussion starts.

Once you start throwing this question at all places where its applicable (even when you hear a debate on YouTube, you can ask yourself, what do these people exactly mean by that thing they are arguing about?), you will realize the insane amount of times people misbelieve what other person means by something.

If the thing is a catchphrase or a buzzword, the probability of this problem existing is nearly 100%.

Anyways, who hasn't heard "get out of comfort zone" and all those stuff?

But it is insane how many people haven't even thought about what they mean by comfort zone. Most of the times people say this, it means "do things that seem difficult to you". But if you think about it, is there even any point in doing something just because it seems difficult to you? Without any conditionality, this is absolute nonsense. Same logic applies to similar phrases like "things that don't kill you make you stronger".

So, Tamseel Kun, are you going to defy the conventional wisdom of ancient masters?

Haha, yes, I am. What can you do? Beat it if you can.

Just kidding.

If you ever take a survey from a population to measure the extremeness of difficulty of things that people think they are supposed to do when it is said "to get out of comfort zone", you will find out a systematic bias in the results. That extremeness of difficulty will be much higher for those people who tend to be weaker in those areas of life that are considered to be more important by their social circle even if they are exceptional in some area of life that is not held in very high regard by the society. Meanwhile an average respondent measures the things he thinks people are supposed to do to get out of comfort zone as much less difficult than the first group.

I believe this phenomenon is general but the specific area that brought me to this concept was socializing. It is very common for introverts to receive the advice to socialize more even when they hate it, and it only drains their precious energy which could have found a much better use in some other thing.

For people having some sort of mental difficulties, it is a torture sometimes to get out of their comfort zone, but it is bizarre how widely we exclaim this thing without understanding it.

Coming back to conventional wisdom, if you think about some giant leap that you made in your life because of doing something difficult, you will realize that even though it felt hell of a difficult, there was still some safety net out there (even if you don't realize at first). For anyone who thinks, it is important to take unbounded risks to achieve some sort of greatness in life, I would suggest you to rethink your ideology, and let me know if you conclude that you are right. 

On Illnesses

Broadly speaking, man suffers from two illnesses, one that he is born with and the other one he acquires from his environment. The former kind of illnesses do not necessitate inheritance of some sort of genetic defect, rather it is quite possible that that illness is born only with the birth of that person, such that the mother became a channel for passing that illness from the environment to the newborn during the gestation period. Of the former kind of illnesses that one does inherit from parents can also be classified similarly, i.e. the parent(s) acquired those diseases from the environment during their life, or they were born with it, and if they were born with it, similar recursive logic can follow.

If one sets to find how diseases are cured, it should be a matter of curiosity to wonder where did the ill acquired his illness. The way many of the diagnoses are done in recent medical practice, the complex chain of illness is often neglected, and only first-level source is inquired about. This often leads to mis-classifying congenital diseases as originating from environment and environmentally-acquired diseases as congenital.

Let me explain using some simple examples.

The well used as primary source of drinking water in a village gets infected with cholerae. All village residents drink the same water; many get infected with cholera, but not all. Why not all? They have a strong immunity system. True. Based on some demographic characteristics, we can find out probabilities of a village resident getting infected, e.g. children and old people have a weaker immunity system and hence higher probability, etc. Among those getting infected, some would have a reason for having their immunity system weaker than the attack of the disease, but some won't have any reason. These people who, if they were healthy, should have an immune system strong enough to combat the disease, but they didn't.

So, in this scenario, among those getting infected, there would be two kinds, (i) for which it is natural to get infected e.g. children, or old-aged people, and (ii) those who have another illness. The people pertaining to type (ii) again either were born with that illness, or acquired it during their life. But it is this other illness that is the actual illness and not the cholera. No doubt, hygienic measures should be adopted to avoid the spread of this disease, but this other illness that a significant portion of population suffer with, too demands serious attention.

Unlike the level-1 cause (Vibrio cholerae), the level-2 cause (the pre-existing illness) is never given attention. The reason for that, is that it is quite possible that a person has some form of illness (congenital or environmentally-acquired) and it stays dormant during the whole life, and the person might live through his life without ever getting in much trouble due to that illness, and hence never noticing that he has some sort of personal illness as well.

Now, let's turn to another class of diseases that is commonly referred to as mental diseases. Many of them are considered to be congenital. I think that among those mental diseases considered as congenital, many actually aren't and are rather environmentally acquired. I don't have any factual evidence for it, but the way I see it, the perspective with which this problem is looked at alters the understanding of it. To explain further the reasoning for my belief, let me introduce two terms, one is the substance, and the other is stimuli. In the last example, I used another term, personal illness, by which I meant that the substance of the person was ill, and the stimulus - the cholerae bacterium, even though a cause in the chain, was a secondary cause and thus it should be concern of our secondary attention. Primary attention should be given to the personal illnesses borne by those members of the population.

If you think about this affair, you'd come to the conclusion that it really is a matter of perspective. It is the matter of whether we call a certain person's substance susceptible to a certain stimulus ill or not. In diagnosis of many of physical diseases, if a stimulus is found to be responsible for the disease, the health of the substance is not brought to question. Contrarily, in diagnosis of mental diseases, it is most often the substance that is considered to be unhealthy and stimuli in the causal chain are rarely held to be the primary cause of illness.

So, the real question that arises in diagnosis of illnesses is that if a substance is susceptible to certain stimuli, is that susceptibility in itself a bad thing or not?

Regarding many of the mental diseases, the susceptibility of certain stimuli is a part of that person's idiosyncratic nature, which I believe cannot and should not be termed as the illness in itself. The very same idiosyncratic nature that make some people susceptible to certain stimuli, oftentimes also grants wonderful intellectual capabilities. Therefore, for mental illnesses, I believe focus should be on taking care of those stimuli instead of altering the substance through medications. Thinking again about the idea that it not correct to call such a substance to be actually ill, one realizes that the term mental illness itself is incorrect for a large variety of problems that we term as mental illnesses.

If we are able to get more clue about even the first few levels in the causal chain for our illnesses, it would be a breakthrough in the way we cure our diseases, keep ourselves healthy, and distinguish illness from what is not actually an illness.

Anti Research

 So one of our professors assigned us some group presentations. And there was one topic or argument, and he asked a bunch of students to present or debate or give arguments in favor of it (whatever that was) and then to a bunch of other students ask to prepare presentation with arguments against that thing. Then, he explained how you have to consult sources, like research papers, news articles, and this and that in order to form basis of your arguments. Like you have to first review such material and then you use those sources to back your argument.

This pissed me off so much. I asked what if the topic that I have been asked to present in favor of, is something I am against, and same thing can apply vice versa. He didn't understand my point and said that you have to use sources and blah blah. But I was so angry and I think I couldn't control my frustration and that's why I was unable to articulate my point clearly, and it came out something like, 'it's not the way it is. Something either is, or it isn't. How can one pre-decide if it is or it isn't.' Yeah, I know it was very weirdly phrased. My voice this time was slightly loud and had some kind of argumentative tone in it. He replied the same blah blah but at the end he said something like, that's what research is; to find things out. I knew it wasn't any use. I said nothing.

Two of my friends later told me that sir didn't understand the question. And on some level, I think that yes he didn't understand my question, but not because I articulated it badly (my friends were smart enough to understand me, he wasn't?), it's because he had been trained and indoctrinated in that manner.

There is an enormous amount of people who don't understand what research is. They think research or science or whatever the academia is supposed to do, is to find out things (which I think is correct). But their way of finding things out is so wrong. They think of it like finding the right source to quote, or finding the right data to analyze, or the right econometric model to apply, or finding some other right thing to do, and this kind of finding will result in production of some academic work. Yes, it will produce academic work but not valuable work.

What a true researcher simply needs to find is truth. Some overlooked, un-discovered piece of truth. That is the end. Rest are all means. Why don't people such distinguished understand a matter that simple. You can't give conclusions to people, and ask them to research arguments in favor of the conclusion because that exactly is the opposite of research. IT'S ANTI-RESEARCH!!

I don't know to what extent this applies to academia at other places but atleast here, we are all producing an enormous amount of anti-research work.

Thank you for coming to my Rant-Talk.