Happines and purpose (and self identity)

I had written in an earlier post about how our life should ideally be a mixture of happiness- where we want things(food, chocolate, love) and get them, and purpose- where we commit to doing something meaningful and achieve it over a period of time (scoring good marks, getting a good job, having a family etc.). The first kind of happiness alone is not sufficient for a person to be happy in the long run, since it lacks meaning by itself- this probably has some relationship with Maslow's hierarchy as well, where you get your basic wants and needs satisfied, and then you need to discover self-actualisation to be truly happy.

Another way to look at happiness and purpose is on the basis of who you are, and what you identify yourself as. For most of my life, I've tried to act like the normal human being when it comes to interacting in social settings, but over time I've realised that it's more fun to just be yourself. You get a lot of happiness by doing the things that define you- the things that you really like doing. As a relatively introverted kind of guy, I might prefer to stay home on a saturday night and play an RPG or watch a movie instead of going out and over time I've realised that it is OK to do this since this is the kind of guy I am and that I don't have to necessarily go out with people for the sake of going out.

Over the course of some more time however, I've come to realise that people who combine different types of characters- especially the strengths, tend to be much more succesful than people who stick to one or few traits. For example, a guy who is naturally soft hearted by nature and who is sensitive to other people- if he puts in a big effort and manages to do all the fun things and just be the normal guy in a crowd, can be incredibly powerful as a leader in social settings, as well as in the corporate world. Similarly, a girl who is talkative and fun and outgoing by nature- if she puts in a big effort to understand the softer and quieter side of life can have a huge impact on her surroundings and be much more succesful than otherwise and indeed more succesful than independently quiet/talkative people. I'm not suggesting that these are the only two types of people- whatever type of person you are, if you can embrace what you're not comfortable with- then you can indeed become a very well rounded character who has a huge impact around his surroundings (and become a character everyone can relate to), at the workplace or at home.

And now to relate happiness and purpose to self-identity. Being yourself and doing the things that you love doing brings you happiness. If you're a foodie by nature, indulge in a feast once a while to stay happy. This is essential to everyone to stay normal- to embrance one's true love(s). However, if you can also embrace the opposite- being health conscious and working out at the same time, then you bring in purpose as well. Similarly, if you're a kind person who teaches at an NGO orphans during Friday night, it would be excellent if you could go out on a saturday night to pub with your friends. Happiness and purpose- Being yourself, and being what you're scared of.

PS: When I say embrace what you're afraid of I'm only talking about good things- if you're afraid to physically injure a person, please don't for instance :P

"Games like Portal"

There are several automated and manually created lists for games which are like other games. Google "Games like <insert random AAA title here>" and you should get a fair number of hits. Each link generally contains at least 10 games which are 'similar' to the game that you just mentioned. Now, this works well in some cases- for example, googling for games like Bioshock can give you System Shock or Dishonored and googling for games like Mass Effect can give you Knights of the Old Republic etc. but a certain game for which I've barely found similar games is Portal (I know it's similar to Narbancular Drop whose developers were consulted for making Portal, and a few other minor titles but let's be realistic guys). There are games with distant similarities, but absolutely no game comes anywhere near to Portal at doing what it does. But, why?

From the Business point of view, Portal was created by Valve which is known for its brilliant Half Life series as well as other good games like Team Fortress and this helps the cause of course. During development, there was an incredible amount of playtesting done to figure out how players reacted to things in the game and the game was modified in order to make the players feel challenged yet not exhausted by the game. The human touch in the game was also modified to ensure that players did not feel 'alone' while playing the game- a feature that has become very important in the current generation where games are either open world such as Skyrim where you can interact with hundreds of people including kings, mages, farmers and what not.. or MMORPG style or MOBA styled, so that there is interaction with other human players.

Looking at the game itself, there are a few things that stand out: Firstly, the game never tries to 'cheat' on you. All information about the portal gun (which is used throughout the game to traverse obstacles and puzzles' and about the world around you is carefully explained by Glados, the computer in charge of conducting tests on human beings by putting them through puzzles. And in spite of this, the puzzles are actually fairly challenging from the beginning, though learning curve is fairly smooth. Several puzzles which we spent a few minutes on during the first playthrough would be done is seconds during the second playthrough (yes, I've completed both games multiple times). But since we already know the rules of the game and do not have to do a trial and error to figure out how things work (as is the case in a lot of critically and commercially succesful games these days- Dark Souls for example) we never feel cheated.

Secondly, the puzzles naturally fit into the storyline of the game. OK let me explain this- in a game like Skyrim while it is understandable how puzzles would be there for entry into an ancient ruin, there is no explanation to justify how all puzzles can be solved, and on top of that all puzzles can be solved without needing additional equipment/passwords from anywhere else. Also, most puzzles in the game tend to be very similar. The same is the case with several games involving puzzles. In fact, this is not an issue with RPGs/adventure games with puzzles. Take a game such as Mass Effect- the fact that you have to go around collecting the green alien like things in the citadel the first game as a side quest, collecting chocolate frogs in Harry Potter games, collecting random minerals by clicking on planets and scanning them in Mass Effect 2 or even opening locks using the minigames of Fallout 3, Bioshock etc. are all things which are fitted into the game so that we can enjoy the game more eventhough realism is being sacrificed. Portal sacrifices none of these things and there is no minigame to open locks or random items and loots to collect or side missions. The game is pure and feels highly realistic. (It is worth mentioning that the features mentioned in the above games are intended to reward people who explore the game world more- however, people explore these days for the sake of getting bonus items and rewards and not for the sake of exploring. Realistically, very rarely should exploration be rewarded with bonuses, but in the world of video games very rarely does it go unrewarded. The second you find a hard-to-reach location, you realise that there is some epic loot somewhere nearby- which is very unrealistic.)

Thirdly, and most importantly it is a game which considers human emotions. There is handholding through the initial stages of the game when we are explained what to do. The game is genuinely funny with Glados being extremely intelligent with her jokes, comments and practically everything she says. Wheatley manages to be just as funny in the second game. The cute robots which fire laser and insta-kill you are also fun and never appear to be scary. Even they crack dialogues when the protagonist appears in front of them and then disappears (they sense that you're nearby). There's the much talked about companion cube of the first game as well. I could go on with several other things that make the game fun for a human being to play. Now, I say human being because there are certain games which are incredibly fun and realistic but may not connect with us much, as humans. Take a game like Tetris- a classic for its time and it still is. The game mechanics are absolutely robust, but there is no human touch to it to take it to the next level.

I'm right now playing a game called Swapper (2013 game) which is a 2D platformer similar to 'The Misadventures of PB Winterbottom'. Very different from portal but yes, there is say a 10% similarity. The Talos Principle which came out around a week back looks interesting but won't run on my current lap- can't wait to get a new lap and play that.

Learning Gray

As I've written in a few of my posts before, I tend to think a little bit in black and white- that there is either an objective good or an objective bad, objective right/wrong and so on. I realise that the world is Gray but am not comfortable thinking about things like that. Knowing the absence of God (though I also know that believing in him would've helped me) also does not help at all. There are other ways of describing this kind of personality- introvert, thoughtful,quiet etc. and they all would have similarities but I'll stick to my usage of black and white- mostly since I dont think that these sets do intersect fully; plus there are minor differences.

A lot of people criticise the educational system we have wherein we sit in a class full of peers and read about things that other people do(history), the results of what they do(economics/geography) and what we should do(decision making stuff- like how to choose a project which has higher returns) instead of actually doing. Thus the system is criticised for not being practical enough. This is a criticism I've seen across the board- right from primary school days to high school (teachers didnt show some chemical reactions, physical phenomena, some great books by great english authors etc.). And, I've always wondered- what is the amount of 'practicalness' at which the amount of practicalness becomes too much? Surely there is some sort of tradeoff here (as there is in almost every subjective decision in the world). The answer probably lies in the fact that the amount is different for different people.

 For a black and white guy, a very small amount of practicalness is what he would be comfortable with. A lecture on branding strategy for automobiles might be more comfortable for a black and white guy as opposed to a case study where the students have to create one in a team and present it in front of an audience. It doesn't mean that the latter wouldn't help him learn better- it just means that the person would be more comfortable with the former and it is entirely possible that the lecture can help him learn easier than the case study if he's used to learning in such a way (though it's unlikely). The average human being is fairly gray however, and thus would prefer a lot of practical inputs. As I mentioned earlier, black and white people can learn just as well from both methods and it's all about being comfortable with one. Perhaps one reason why I decided to go for an MBA instead of a more technical field (was into Mechanical Engg) is since I wanted to be more comfortable with Gray methods of learning and Gray life in general. Although I can handle the Grayness and learn, I would probably be way more comfortable in a more black and whitish field and would try and balance it out in the future. Academics is relatively black and whitish (at least compared to working in a firm in the same field) and I might end up there. 

Work experience is greatly valued by employers since it indicates a tendency to excel in the Gray world. Someone who has worked somewhere and been fairly successful is good at handling the Grayness around him or is fairly Gray himself. This can be a huge complement to your Black and White credentials (marks (not 100% Black and white since group projects and stuff are there but fairly black and white), certifications etc.). Around 2 years of experience is probably enough to judge the Grayness quotient. Someone with good marks and a good short stint of experience is the ideal candidate (given of course that he will stay with the company for a fairly long period). This kinds of reminds me of looking for a like partner- you should look for all the features that make him/her the right candidate but always keeping in mind to be practical, since super-amazing people may not give a shit about you. Anyway, catch them young they say- these people are targeted by B-School recruiters since they are currently jobless (so no hassles of making them want to switch etc. ), have a proven track record by themselves, have the track record of being selected by a top B-school (if it IS a top Bschool i.e) and also if the candidate turns out bad, the college also shares a bit of responsibility.

While mentioning in the previous para that Gray compliments your black and whiteness, I forgot to mention that Black and White thinking is also extremely important. You should ideally have a mix of both. Actually, when it comes to inexact sciences, I'm very skeptic about everything. If someone says that Modi is going to make India grow, my question is how do you know? If someone says Tata Steel is going to do well, my question is- how do you know, plus have you not heard of the efficient market hypothesis. It is perhaps a fallout of by black and whitishness that I'm very skeptic in inexact fields of study (like say economics).