The startling conclusion of a recent survey published in the highly reputed journal- ??? We Investigate Anything:

Since the advent of Orkut, there has been a remarkable proliferation of bedrooms where good old Mess reigns supreme (as evidenced by the responses to the question, "In my bedroom you will find.....". The researchers admit, that this may perhaps be justifiable on the grounds that access to a socially approved medium for the expression of repressed impulses has given rise to the increased candour in reporting on the condition of one's bedroom. A student at the Institute for Changing Social Realities concurs and adds, that the findings are revelatory of the need to"come to terms with the storm and stress in our lives and to...well.........connect!" Prominent behavioural scientists have highlighted an interesting aspect of the controversy, in asserting, that it is the pressure to conform, that leads an ever increasing army of youngsters to adhere to the norm of considering Mess to be the defining feature of their bedrooms. This can also be explained in terms of the "self-ideal discrepancy", they continue, meaning, that respondents base their responses not on how messy they are, but on how messy they want to be.....There were a few dissenting voices that pleaded, that the responses were instead based on the fact that their rooms were infact messy. However an expert from the Centre for Lateral Thinking dismissed these, maintaining, that the results are symptomatic of a deeper malaise- the failure of our society to systematically cultivate a love for unstructured, ambiguous stimuli in each child.

The researchers, however, aver that, they are happy that their work has sparked off a lively and informed debate on a crucial issue and conclude their analysis with the comment, "Are the findings of this investigation true? The answer to this is more complex than a simple 'Yes' or 'No'..."

The Tip of the Iceberg

People love being mysterious. And they love to talk about their being mysterious. “I’m extremely moody” or “No one knows the real me” are a couple of affirmations that make up the fabric of the cozy cocoon called ‘identity’. Legions of self styled ‘thinkers’ have expended astonishing amounts of energy in approaching that conundrum: Who am I? Am I an aggregation of all my characteristics, or something more? Am I really distinct from what I do? Am I this…Am I that…and of course, the far more fundamental “Am I?”

So, who are we? Do we get to decide? Does it matter who we think we are? No it does not and yes, it does. It does not, as what we think about ourselves changes nothing about us (let’s for a moment ignore the purported benefits of ‘positive self evaluations’). Yes it does, as, in the ultimate analysis, all external factors being what they are, we can choose to think what we want to about ourselves, by selectively attending to some of these external factors, while discounting others. ‘Symbolic self awareness’ is the term used to denote our ability to think about our thoughts; it is in fact, in a sense, an intricate web of defenses designed to maintain a consistent, non threatening ‘version’ of reality, to serve as an armor for our inviolable ‘identities’. Consciousness is, after all, the tip of the iceberg, with the overarching need to maintain ‘consistency’ in our pictures of ourselves (and of others). The edifice of consciousness is constructed through an elaborate pattern of distortions and deceptions. Positive self evaluations are, in a sense, deceptions…and deceptions are not necessarily bad; they are coping mechanisms.

So, when a ‘mysterious’ person convinces others (and herself) that no one knows the real her, she does not have to try to be anything at all and any aspects of her ‘being’ that have the potential to appear unpleasant to anyone should be of little concern to her, as “that’s not the real her”

People guard their identities zealously and selectively perceive information that reaffirms their self images. I often feel, that the surest way to ‘motivate’ a person to perform a task is to link the outcome to her self image; her ‘identity’. Of course, in some cases, this activates another common defense: shifting the basis of our identities or changing the source of self worth. So, if Math remains your bête noire, you can always shift over from the “no-wait-I-can-do-this” camp to join the ranks of the “I’m-not-cut-out-for-this-stupid-subject” section.

Deception is not necessarily bad, but it can, at times, be exceedingly pernicious. An acknowledgement of the failings of our cognitive faculty should induce us to exercise caution in making decisions and judgments by carefully evaluating information from the environment and astutely studying our own reactions to it (trying to find out why we do what we do). And then again, there are ways to justify yourself without having to undergo this rigorous exercise: Perhaps you’re just extremely moody!

Friends of the FOE

Every intelligent, well-informed, law-abiding citizen knows Foe. He is revered by most, found unassailable by many, as He springs on them Hydra-like and even understood by a few. For the uninitiated, Foe is Freedom of Expression...and ironically Foe will prove to be my most valuable friend in critically analysing Foe, as any objection to my portrayal of Foe would effectively impinge on my Foe!!! So, as I was saying, Foe has many friends... I distinctly remember one from a well known college in Pune, who cheerfully sported a shirt that said (with an air of silent contemplation)..."Reality is but a Rorschach ink blot" And the face of the owner seemed to beam in the self evident correctness of the assertion and held a look of gentle sympathy and understanding for those, who had not attained the wisdom to spot this self evident correctness. (Although, how anything can be correct, whether self evidently or otherwise, when reality is an ink blot, was a question that used to baffle me a lot) During the three years that I spent in that well known college in Pune, a highly recurrent theme (even more recurrent than global warming) was "accepting that one's opinion is as correct as that of the other" This and similar statements were bundled together and tossed at unsuspecting victims, since these, apparently, embodied...the Freedom of Expression (FOE). If having an opinion has, as its inextricable component, accepting that the opposite is equally true, why have an opinion...or why call it an opinion, in the first place? Something like 'general consensus' would be a more apt description.
Does respecting Foe mean accepting, that we are all equally right? Even a moment's thought, after having shaken off their messianic zeal, would convince most Friends of the Foe, that this, in fact, is not true. Respecting the Foe does not mean believing that the other is right, but respecting his right to believe he is right! Could anything be more self evident?
Today, Foe is revered to the extent, that most of us cannot sleep soundly, if we have not uttered the sentence, "Of course, that's just my opinion...you are right too" about 22 times in a day. Is THAT freedom? If so, whose freedom is being safeguarded here?
"Self appointed guardians of Morality" have been facing relentless waves of opprobrium, even from the high school kid, who has never ventured beyond the Bombay Times. It's perhaps time, we subjected their equally overzealous counterparts,the "Self appointed guardians of the Freedom of Expression", to the same degree of scrutiny. They will, of course, have to respect our freedom to indulge in such an exercise!