Thoughts on multi tasking, podcasts and 2023?

 Like all years, 2023 has been a blur. A lot may have happened, but I am as usual thinking huh? was it just not 2022? What even was I doing in Jan? Other than change up my phone lock screen to a different one every month, I dont have much awareness of time flying by. 

Last week I read Anne Kadet's newsletter on a week of no multi-tasking. Fascinated, i decided to adopt a slightly muted version of it. Eating while not watching something was a no-go right from the beginning, but not listening to random podcasts while getting ready in the morning has been surprisingly easy. While travelling, at the airport instead of spending it in a distracted blob of scrolling + impatience, I decided to be calm and watch people- Wasnt particularly interesting in that I didnt get an epiphany about humankind- and I did end up checking my phone a few times, but I felt slightly ( very slightly) calmer. When I tried at work, the first day was a lot more successful. But like everything else I think it needs a lot of practise, and I have to consider that my only job is getting back on the wagon- because falling off the wagon is an inevitability ( multiple times a day) 

While thinking of reducing inputs, one of the first things that I am thinking of eliminating is podcasts- not ones where experts talk about their area of expertise- but where successful people interview other succesful people on what makes them succesful. I dont recall where I read this, but it is like lottery winners annoucing their winning lottery numbers and hoping that it will be useful to the rest of us. 

It might be interesting and it needs to be considered as entertainment, but I dont want to consider it useful information. If I am seeking entertainment I would rather watch Seinfeld, and if I feel like doing something useful I should do tutorials or listen to podcasts where people talk about their business/ tactical podcasts on how to improve your FB ads or whatever. Not one where Nikhil Kamath interviews some uber-succesful friend of his, who gives gyaan about how you need to be poor to be hungry. Look around and you will find 5 examples that completely go against that. So whats the point? 

So there is my resolution - Mono tasking. Will see where it gets me. I mean we are all being rushed towards 2024, hopefully Ill remember a bit more of these days when I am more mindful 

The no-pareto rule

20% of X contributes to 80% of Y. This is Pareto rule and it applies satisfactorily in business/work. 20% of your products contribute to 80% of revenue. 20% of customers contribute to 80% of business. 20% of things you do, contribute to 80% of your results and so on. 

Its also straightforward where Pareto does not apply. In deeply emotional spaces- You cant say 20% of your kids contribute to 80% of happiness. Although I wonder if it is just a matter of having less than 10 kids. Maybe if you had 16 kids, the Pareto principle will apply. (So its true even in emotional spaces? ) As a rule, for less than 10 of anything, either it is too hard to quantify or it is likely to be unique/dissimilar enough that you cant apply the rule. For more than 10 of course, there is potentially a bit more homogeneity and thus the rule starts coming in. 

I am thinking of a place where Pareto doesn't apply even when the numbers are greater.  Are we unable to devote focus to more than 20% things ? The other nuance with Pareto is that a lot of times we dont know which is the 20% that works unless we do 100% of the things. So while it may be true that only 20% yields results we cant just do away with 80% 

If there is a point to this post, I havent found it yet. 

Why I like Daphne Bridgerton

 The biggest criticism of the female lead of Bridgerton Season1 is that she is too bland and delicate. In other words she is too much of a girl. People love feisty spunky heroines - Elizabeth from P&P or her Bridgerton equivalent- Kate Sharma. They are defiant, strong, opinionated characters and dont conform to what society expects of them. If they were to be born in 90s, they would be the conformists, but by virtue of being born in Regency Britain or wherever they are considered rebels. 

Daphne and her ilk on the other hand are conformists, even within their society. Their expectations and desires are more or less in alignment with society or their mothers expect from them. Usually the language of the TV shows portray such characters as insipid with no ability for original thought. Mostly they exist as a contrast for the feisty character, to show us what the heroine is not. However Bridgerton the TV show takes a slightly different stance on the heroine. They have made her a conformist heroine, but one with a mind of her own. One who makes her way in the restricted opportunities open to her, without whining about how unfair life is to women. 

This makes sense, because of course most women are smart, know what they want.  And whatever the reasons may be, a lot of their desires maybe similar to what society wants for them. Daphne recognises that she is a conformist, and she is not dismissive of her spunky sister ( Eloise). The problem with non-conformists is that they come from a place of condescension towards the conformists rather than treating it as a preference. Daphne in understanding herself and the others in her universe, comes across as someone you would like to be around because she is authentic and understanding, rather than pissed off and intellectual.  

Not sure why the writers chose this heroine, because the book heroine is similar to Kate than the TV Daphne. But am glad they did. And I think it is important to normalise that it is okay to be conformist. Being in majority doesn't necessarily make you inferior or mediocre. What's important is to be authentic to who you are, and that is sufficient. 

New year new post

 and all that

Thinking a lot about Scandinavian and Japanese cultures. So different, so fascinating ( one because of the other? ) Earlier the West used to be obsessed with France- lot of francophiles trying to wrap scarves in a stylish way. Now the fascination is with hygge, ikigai and what not- What triggered the change? Just exposure? Or is it a feature of the generation - The older ones aspired for achievable stuff- France is just different enough to be achievable- ikigai belongs to another world ( another world view ) altogether. 

I am fascinated by Jap stationery/washi tapes/ and the artwork style. I dont know what the style is called but the mount fuji covered by cherry blossom look is my favorite artwork style. I have not fallen yet for the Korean craze although the Korean skin care brands are totally my thing. 

What specific look does India have? is it just the profusion of colour? The chaos & madness?