21 फ़रवरी 2018

निखिल ज़ी ने लिखा है

दिनांक 18.02.18 को हुए सत्संग का सार हमारे गुरू भाई निखिल ज़ी ने  लिखा है।  यह  महत्वपूर्ण बिन्दुओं में:
1. आध्यात्म का सारा concept सिर्फ़ अच्छे लोगों के लिए ही है, बुरे लोगों का आध्यात्म से कोई लेना-देना नही.
2. किसी व्यक्ति के मन में आत्म्हत्या का विचार अचानक किसी दिन नही आता, यह काफी दिनों से उसके मन में चलता रहता है और सिर्फ़ अच्छे लोग ही ऐसा सोच सकते हैं. बुरॆ लोग सिर्फ़ दूसरो के नुकसान का सोच सकते हैं.
3. अत्यन्त corrupt व्यक्ति का वध शिशुपाल के समान ही निश्चित है क्योंकि जो व्यक्ति भगवान को अपमानित कर सकता है वह दुनिया के लिए अत्यन्त बुरा करेगा.
4. Cognitive behavior में परिवर्तन से sucidal tendency एवं depression को खत्म किया जा सकता है.
5. जीवन के प्रति प्रेम(expertise in surviving) मानव-मात्र का inherent character है.
6. मानव मात्र जीवन के लिए सबसे अधिक fit है.
रॉबेर्ट ग्रीनी की  थिओरी ऑफ़ कंट्रोल

A Theory of Control

 My idea of happiness is directly related to the concept of control. First and foremost there is the idea of self-control. The only real power that matters in the end is power over yourself and the ability to master your emotions. Top on the list is impatience, your need for immediate gratification. Other emotions would be fear, which must be confronted and faced down. The desire to be liked and admired is an equal impediment, as is uncontrollable anger. You can never gain complete control over these emotions, nor would you want to. All that is asked is more control than you had in the past, more control than your rivals. The clearer your head is of such emotions, the better strategies and decisions you will hit upon. 

Directed outward, this means controlling to some extent the actions of your rivals. Observing various war I came to the conclusion that the winning side had inevitably gained control over the dynamic. This idea started to obsess me. I realized that this was a key to not only warfare and strategy, but to almost all aspects of life in which there is competition. 

20 फ़रवरी 2018

स्टम्ब्लिंग ऑन हैप्पीनेस

 मनोविज्ञानिक डेन गिल्बर्ट ने ख़ुशी के मनोविज्ञान पर अपनी किताब स्टम्ब्लिंग ऑन हैप्पीनेस में बहुत से रोचक और उपयोगी बातें लिखी है।

What is real happiness? Is happiness that we make up true happiness?

According to social psychologist, Dan Gilbert, there are 2 kinds of happiness. One is natural happiness which we experience when we get what we want and the other is synthetic happiness which we manufacture when we don’t get what we want.

Here’s a question for you: Is one better than the other?

Let’s find out.

In denial or truly happy?
I am sure you have heard about people who after experiencing a bad event or a disappointing setback tells others and themselves that they are better off despite not getting what they want and that they wouldn’t change that for anything in the world.

Well, it turns out that these people aren’t overt-optimists who are in denial about their misfortune. It turns out that their “synthetic” happiness did make them happy. For real.

In his Ted Talk, social psychologist Dan Gilbert talks about people fabricating happiness after not getting what they want or experiencing a real nasty experience such as being wrongly convicted and served decades worth of a jail sentence for something he has not done.

The sentiment expressed by the man who was wrongly convicted was that it was a “glorious experience”. Really? Surely that is not the right feelings to have after serving time for so long for something you did not do?

Naturally, we think that these people must be lying to themselves, they can’t be truly happy with their experience but we could be wrong….

Using unconscious memory to test happiness
Well, in an experiment Gilbert conducted on patients with anterograde amnesia who cannot form new memories he first asked the patients to rate a lineup of 6 Monet prints from 1 being the least-liked to 6 being the most-liked. Then, he told them that as a gift they would be given either print number 3 or 4 as a gift and most of them picked number 3 over 4 just because of preference. The researchers then left the room and returned (bear in mind that the patients do not remember the research team nor what transpired before) and the patients was asked again to rank the 6 paintings from least-liked to most-liked.

Here’s the interesting bit:

The individuals now rank the number 3 painting at number 2, higher than before and the number 4 painting which was rejected was now ranked even lower than before at number 5. The results indicated that they are happier with the painting they had owned more than before and they liked the rejected painting even less even though they do not have any conscious memory of the paintings.

With this experiment, Gilbert found that individuals make their own synthetic happiness unconsciously. Gilbert also found that this unconscious ability to synthesize happiness happens more often in situations where we do not have control over the situation.

In essence, we are really good at making ourselves feel better about an outcome that occurs from a situation that is out of our hands.

Now, what does this mean for you and why should you pay any attention?

Here are 3 reasons why you should pay attention:

1. Synthetic happiness is not fake. It is not something you make up when you are pissed off about not getting what you want. Synthetic happiness is a natural mechanism we all have in our brains that lets us see a not-so-ideal situation in a different light and learn to like our situation which in turns does let us become happier in time to come.

2. The ability to synthesize happiness is a vital skill to have because we cannot have everything we want all of the time. The truth is we will all face disappointment at some points in our life and we need to be able to manufacture happiness and become adept at seeing the better side of life.

Here’s a point to ponder: clinically-depressed individuals do not have the ability to synthesize happiness in most situations of their lives and that is why they find it harder to see the greener side of life.

3. We often grossly overestimate or underestimate how naturally happy we will feel in any situation. Truth is we will only truly know how happy we will feel and continue to feel when we are actually experiencing thus being able to synthesize happiness helps us cope with the uncertainty of our future outcome.

In Conclusion:
The joyful state that we feel is made up of both synthetic and natural happiness. Neither is better than the other because to lead a balanced life we need both: Natural happiness lets us experience the good stuff and synthetic happiness lets us adapt and appreciate what we do have when the outcome is less than ideal. When you start exercising the ability to synthesize happiness, you may find that some situations are not as terrible as they appear at first.

Key Take Aways

Dan Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, teaches us that synthetic happiness is just as real and enduring as real happiness.  Dan also teaches us that our longings and worries are overblown because we have the capacity to create happiness within ourselves rather than depend on experiences.

 Here’s my key take aways:

Our prefrontal cortex is our experience simulator.  In 2 million years our brains grew almost 3 times as big.  As they grew, we got a new structure, the prefrontal cortex.  The prefrontal cortex acts as an experience simulator.  None of our ancestors and no other animal can simulate experience the way we can.

Our mental simulator works badly.  We have impact bias.  Impact bias is our tendency for our mental simulator to work badly.  We imagine one scenario to be dramatically different from another scenario in terms of impact.  For example, the differences between winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test have far less impact, less intensity, and much less duration than we expect.  The differences between winning or losing and getting or not getting is less significant because happiness can be synthesized.

Synthetic Happiness.  Synthetic Happiness is what we make when we don’t get what we want.
Natural happiness .  Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we want.

Synthetic Happiness is as real as natural happiness.  Synthetic Happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you get when you get exactly what you were aiming for.

Experiments show we can’t predict our happiness.  Experiments show time and again we can’t predict our happiness.  We overestimate our pleasures or overestimate our pains.  For example, we overestimate that winning the lottery will increase our happiness and we overestimate that losing the use of our legs will ruin it.

Experiments show that choices can negatively impact our happiness.  When we have choices we worry about opportunity lost.  When we don’t have choices we come to like what we’ve got, more than what we originally predicted.

Freedom is the friend of natural happiness.   When you get what you want, this is the playground of natural happiness.
Freedom to choose is the enemy of synthetic happiness.   When you don’t get what you want, this is the playground of synthetic happiness.

Our longing and worries are overblown.  Our longings and worries are overblown because we can manufacture our own happiness from within.

अल्फा फीमेल

फ्रांसेस डी वाल विश्व के अग्रणी प्राइमेट वैज्ञानिक हैं।  उन्होने वाशिंगटन पोस्ट में लिखे अपने ब्लॉग आर्टिकल  में कई विचारणीय बातें बताई है।

 Alpha female i have known by Frans De Waal

key take aways

- We tend to think that high rank is based on being the strongest and nastiest, but much of the time it means being the best-connected.

Several primate lessons may apply to human politics:

 1Age helps a female more than a male .Since physical strength and stamina are largely irrelevant in the female hierarchy, getting older, more experienced, and better connected offers females an advantage.

2 -Female solidarity is the key to female leadership. Since males respect power better than age and personality, the alpha female must be heading a large coalition to effectively deal with males.

3-An alpha female needs to be able to rise above the parties. This is hard for females. Older female primates often head large families and have a natural tendency to be extremely loyal and committed to every member. This bias may be fine in relation to kin, but if extended to friends and politics, it becomes a problem.

4-While high-status males enjoy great sex appeal, the relation between power and sex is different for females. Designer, Donatella Versace advised Hillary Clinton to tap into her feminine side by wearing dresses and skirts instead of pants, but being attractive and feminine only gives sexual power - a flimsy basis for political power.






I was born in Den Bosch, where the painter Hieronymus Bosch named himself after. And I've always been very fond of this painter who lived and worked in the 15th century. And what is interesting about him in relation to morality is that he lived at a time where religion's influence was waning, and he was sort of wondering, I think, what would happen with society if there was no religion or if there was less religion. And so he painted this famous painting, "The Garden of Earthly Delights," which some have interpreted as being humanity before the Fall, or being humanity without any Fall at all. And so it makes you wonder, what would happen if we hadn't tasted the fruit of knowledge, so to speak, and what kind of morality would we have.

Much later, as a student, I went to a very different garden, a zoological garden in Arnhem where we keep chimpanzees. This is me at an early age with a baby chimpanzee.


And I discovered there that the chimpanzees are very power-hungry and wrote a book about it. And at that time the focus in a lot of animal research was on aggression and competition. I painted a whole picture of the animal kingdom and humanity included, was that deep down we are competitors, we are aggressive, we are all out for our own profit, basically. This is the launch of my book. I'm not sure how well the chimpanzees read it, but they surely seemed interested in the book.


Now in the process of doing all this work on power and dominance and aggression and so on, I discovered that chimpanzees reconcile after fights. And so what you see here is two males who have had a fight. They ended up in a tree, and one of them holds out a hand to the other. And about a second after I took the picture, they came together in the fork of the tree and kissed and embraced each other.

And this is very interesting because at the time, everything was about competition and aggression, so it wouldn't make any sense. The only thing that matters is that you win or you lose. But why reconcile after a fight? That doesn't make any sense. This is the way bonobos do it. Bonobos do everything with sex. And so they also reconcile with sex. But the principle is exactly the same. The principle is that you have a valuable relationship that is damaged by conflict, so you need to do something about it. So my whole picture of the animal kingdom, and including humans also, started to change at that time.

So we have this image in political science, economics, the humanities, the philosophy for that matter, that man is a wolf to man. And so deep down, our nature is actually nasty. I think it's a very unfair image for the wolf. The wolf is, after all, a very cooperative animal. And that's why many of you have a dog at home, which has all these characteristics also. And it's really unfair to humanity, because humanity is actually much more cooperative and empathic than given credit for. So I started getting interested in those issues and studying that in other animals.

So these are the pillars of morality. If you ask anyone, "What is morality based on?" these are the two factors that always come out. One is reciprocity, and associated with it is a sense of justice and a sense of fairness. And the other one is empathy and compassion. And human morality is more than this, but if you would remove these two pillars, there would be not much remaining, I think. So they're absolutely essential.

So let me give you a few examples here. This is a very old video from the Yerkes Primate Center, where they trained chimpanzees to cooperate. So this is already about a hundred years ago that we were doing experiments on cooperation. What you have here is two young chimpanzees who have a box, and the box is too heavy for one chimp to pull in. And of course, there's food on the box. Otherwise they wouldn't be pulling so hard. And so they're bringing in the box. And you can see that they're synchronized. You can see that they work together, they pull at the same moment. It's already a big advance over many other animals who wouldn't be able to do that. Now you're going to get a more interesting picture, because now one of the two chimps has been fed. So one of the two is not really interested in the task anymore.




and sometimes appears to convey its wishes and meanings by gestures.] Now look at what happens at the very end of this.


He takes basically everything.


There are two interesting parts about this. One is that the chimp on the right has a full understanding he needs the partner -- so a full understanding of the need for cooperation. The second one is that the partner is willing to work even though he's not interested in the food. Why would that be? Well, that probably has to do with reciprocity. There's actually a lot of evidence in primates and other animals that they return favors. He will get a return favor at some point in the future. And so that's how this all operates.

We do the same task with elephants. Now, it's very dangerous to work with elephants. Another problem with elephants is that you cannot make an apparatus that is too heavy for a single elephant. Now you can probably make it, but it's going to be a pretty clumsy apparatus, I think. And so what we did in that case -- we do these studies in Thailand for Josh Plotnik -- is we have an apparatus around which there is a rope, a single rope. And if you pull on this side of the rope, the rope disappears on the other side. So two elephants need to pick it up at exactly the same time, and pull. Otherwise nothing is going to happen and the rope disappears.

The first tape you're going to see is two elephants who are released together arrive at the apparatus. The apparatus is on the left, with food on it. And so they come together, they arrive together, they pick it up together, and they pull together. So it's actually fairly simple for them. There they are. So that's how they bring it in. But now we're going to make it more difficult. Because the purpose of this experiment is to see how well they understand cooperation. Do they understand that as well as the chimps, for example?

What we do in the next step is we release one elephant before the other and that elephant needs to be smart enough to stay there and wait and not pull at the rope -- because if he pulls at the rope, it disappears and the whole test is over. Now this elephant does something illegal that we did not teach it. But it shows the understanding he has, because he puts his big foot on the rope, stands on the rope and waits there for the other, and then the other is going to do all the work for him. So it's what we call freeloading.


But it shows the intelligence that the elephants have. They developed several of these alternative techniques that we did not approve of, necessarily.


So the other elephant is now coming ... and is going to pull it in. Now look at the other; it doesn't forget to eat, of course.


This was the cooperation and reciprocity part.

Now something on empathy. Empathy is my main topic at the moment, of research. And empathy has two qualities: One is the understanding part of it. This is just a regular definition: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. And the emotional part. Empathy has basically two channels: One is the body channel, If you talk with a sad person, you're going to adopt a sad expression and a sad posture, and before you know it, you feel sad. And that's sort of the body channel of emotional empathy, which many animals have. Your average dog has that also. That's why people keep mammals in the home and not turtles or snakes or something like that, who don't have that kind of empathy. And then there's a cognitive channel, which is more that you can take the perspective of somebody else. And that's more limited. Very few animals, I think elephants and apes, can do that kind of thing.

So synchronization, which is part of that whole empathy mechanism, is a very old one in the animal kingdom. In humans, of course, we can study that with yawn contagion. Humans yawn when others yawn. And it's related to empathy. It activates the same areas in the brain. Also, we know that people who have a lot of yawn contagion are highly empathic. People who have problems with empathy, such as autistic children, they don't have yawn contagion. So it is connected.

And we study that in our chimpanzees by presenting them with an animated head. So that's what you see on the upper-left, an animated head that yawns. And there's a chimpanzee watching, an actual real chimpanzee watching a computer screen on which we play these animations.


So yawn contagion that you're probably all familiar with -- and maybe you're going to start yawning soon now -- is something that we share with other animals. And that's related to that whole body channel of synchronization that underlies empathy, and that is universal in the mammals, basically.

We also study more complex expressions -- This is consolation. This is a male chimpanzee who has lost a fight and he's screaming, and a juvenile comes over and puts an arm around him and calms him down. That's consolation. It's very similar to human consolation. And consolation behavior --


it's empathy driven. Actually, the way to study empathy in human children is to instruct a family member to act distressed, and then to see what young children do. And so it is related to empathy, and that's the kind of expressions we look at.

We also recently published an experiment you may have heard about. It's on altruism and chimpanzees, where the question is: Do chimpanzees care about the welfare of somebody else? And for decades it had been assumed that only humans can do that, that only humans worry about the welfare of somebody else. Now we did a very simple experiment. We do that on chimpanzees that live in Lawrenceville, in the field station of Yerkes. And so that's how they live. And we call them into a room and do experiments with them. In this case, we put two chimpanzees side-by-side, and one has a bucket full of tokens, and the tokens have different meanings. One kind of token feeds only the partner who chooses, the other one feeds both of them.

So this is a study we did with Vicki Horner. And here, you have the two color tokens. So they have a whole bucket full of them. And they have to pick one of the two colors. You will see how that goes. So if this chimp makes the selfish choice, which is the red token in this case, he needs to give it to us, we pick it up, we put it on a table where there's two food rewards, but in this case, only the one on the right gets food. The one on the left walks away because she knows already that this is not a good test for her. Then the next one is the pro-social token.

So the one who makes the choices -- that's the interesting part here -- for the one who makes the choices, it doesn't really matter. So she gives us now a pro-social token and both chimps get fed. So the one who makes the choices always gets a reward. So it doesn't matter whatsoever. And she should actually be choosing blindly. But what we find is that they prefer the pro-social token. So this is the 50 percent line, that's the random expectation. And especially if the partner draws attention to itself, they choose more.

And if the partner puts pressure on them -- so if the partner starts spitting water and intimidating them -- then the choices go down.


It's as if they're saying, "If you're not behaving, I'm not going to be pro-social today." And this is what happens without a partner, when there's no partner sitting there. So we found that the chimpanzees do care about the well-being of somebody else -- especially, these are other members of their own group.

So the final experiment that I want to mention to you is our fairness study. And so this became a very famous study. And there are now many more, because after we did this about 10 years ago, it became very well-known. And we did that originally with Capuchin monkeys. And I'm going to show you the first experiment that we did. It has now been done with dogs and with birds and with chimpanzees. But with Sarah Brosnan, we started out with Capuchin monkeys.

So what we did is we put two Capuchin monkeys side-by-side. Again, these animals, live in a group, they know each other. We take them out of the group, put them in a test chamber. And there's a very simple task that they need to do. And if you give both of them cucumber for the task, the two monkeys side-by-side, they're perfectly willing to do this 25 times in a row. So cucumber, even though it's only really water in my opinion, but cucumber is perfectly fine for them. Now if you give the partner grapes -- the food preferences of my Capuchin monkeys correspond exactly with the prices in the supermarket -- and so if you give them grapes -- it's a far better food -- then you create inequity between them. So that's the experiment we did.

Recently, we videotaped it with new monkeys who'd never done the task, thinking that maybe they would have a stronger reaction, and that turned out to be right. The one on the left is the monkey who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The one who gets cucumber -- note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly fine. The first piece she eats. Then she sees the other one getting grape, and you will see what happens. So she gives a rock to us. That's the task. And we give her a piece of cucumber and she eats it. The other one needs to give a rock to us. And that's what she does. And she gets a grape ... and eats it. The other one sees that. She gives a rock to us now, gets, again, cucumber.


(Laughter ends)

She tests a rock now against the wall. She needs to give it to us. And she gets cucumber again.


So this is basically the Wall Street protest that you see here.



I still have two minutes left -- let me tell you a funny story about this. This study became very famous and we got a lot of comments, especially anthropologists, economists, philosophers. They didn't like this at all. Because they had decided in their minds, I believe, that fairness is a very complex issue, and that animals cannot have it. And so one philosopher even wrote us that it was impossible that monkeys had a sense of fairness because fairness was invented during the French Revolution.


And another one wrote a whole chapter saying that he would believe it had something to do with fairness, if the one who got grapes would refuse the grapes. Now the funny thing is that Sarah Brosnan, who's been doing this with chimpanzees, had a couple of combinations of chimpanzees where, indeed, the one who would get the grape would refuse the grape until the other guy also got a grape. So we're getting very close to the human sense of fairness. And I think philosophers need to rethink their philosophy for a while.

So let me summarize. I believe there's an evolved morality. I think morality is much more than what I've been talking about, but it would be impossible without these ingredients that we find in other primates, which are empathy and consolation, pro-social tendencies and reciprocity and a sense of fairness. And so we work on these particular issues to see if we can create a morality from the bottom up, so to speak, without necessarily god and religion involved, and to see how we can get to an evolved morality.

And I thank you for your attention.


19 फ़रवरी 2018

उसके प्रति अवमानना ​​और तिरस्कार दिखाओ

इच्छा अक्सर विरोधाभासी प्रभाव पैदा करती है: जितना अधिक आप किसी इंसान को   चाहते हैं, जितना अधिक आप उसका  पीछा करते हैं, और वो आपसे उतना ही दूर हो जाता है।  आप जितना अधिक उत्सुकता  दिखाते हैं, उतना ही वो आपको अपने से दूर ढकेल देता है।  इसका कारण यह है कि आपकी दिलचस्पी जरुरत से जादा  है- यह लोगों को अजीब और भयभीत महसूस करता है। अनियंत्रित इच्छा आपको कमजोर, अयोग्य, दयनीय बना देती  है।

आपको जरूरत है उस इंसान के प्रति बेरुखी दिखाने की,  उसके प्रति  अवमानना ​​और तिरस्कार दिखाओ। यह एक शक्तिशाली प्रतिक्रिया है जो उस इंसान को  को पागल बना देगा। वे अपने स्वयं की इच्छा से प्रतिक्रिया देंगे, जो आपके लिए बस एक प्रभाव पड़ेगा-   जो  शायद आप को घर कर जाये या कभी दुःख भी पहुंचाए।

Robert Greene (1998), The 48 laws of power, p. 305, Penguin Putman

प्यार और इच्छा की विरोधाभासी प्रकृति  से हमेशा मुझे डर लगता रहा  है. यदि संसार  एकदम सही और तर्कसंगत है , तो हम बिना किसी चालबाजी के सरलता से अपने प्रेम की  हमारी इच्छा को   व्यक्त कर सकते थे। लेकिन मुझे समझ में आया कि वास्तविक धरातल के सामने मेरा यह विचार बिलकुल अस्तित्वहीन है। लोगों को जैसे ही यह लगता है ये इंसान तो हमारे बस में है ही उनके बीच का प्रेम तुरंत ख़त्म हो जाता है ।

 मैंने देखा कि लोग उन लोगों की आकाँक्षा  करते हैं  जिन्होंने उन पर कोई दिलचस्पी नहीं दिखाई, जिससे उन लोगों की अनदेखी की गई, जब अपने  प्यार को उन्होने जाहिर  किया। कुछ ने तिरस्कार और तकलीफ दी । ज्यादातर लोग इस भयावह विरोधाभास को ही  की प्रेम के स्वभाव के रूप में व्यक्त करते हैं, जैसे कि प्रेम एक जादुई घटना है , बिना किसी वास्तविक आधार में।

इस ज्ञान ने मुझे  इंसानी आकर्षण के विषय  के प्रति मेरी  मूर्खता  और डार को दूर किया।

मैंने आकर्षण  पर रोबर्ट ग्रीनी की सलाह को तरजीह दिया   क्योंकि उन्होंने बहुत ही स्पष्ठता से इसके बारे में बताया है. इंसानी आकर्षण के विषय में उनकी सलाह  मनोविज्ञान के सत्यों पर आधारित है। 

सरल सोच के कारण हम लगातार गलतफहमी का शिकार होते है

जीवन की रणनीतियों के बारे में रॉबर्ट ग्रीनी के विचार :

हम इंसानों की  तर्क शक्ति की   एक विशेष सीमा होती है जो  हमारी अनगिनत समस्याओं का कारण बनती है.  जब हम किसी  घटना या व्यक्ति के बारे सोचते है ,  तो हम आम तौर पर सरलतम, सबसे आसान  व्याख्या का विकल्प चुनते हैं।

 एक परिचित अच्छा या बुरा, उसके इरादे महान या नीच; एक घटना सकारात्मक या नकारात्मक, लाभकारी या हानिकारक है; हम खुश या उदास हैं।  हमारी सोच का तरीका बहुत सिमित है।

सच्चाई यह है कि जीवन में कुछ भी कभी इतना  सरल और आसान नहीं है. लोग हमेशा अच्छे और बुरे गुणों, ताकत और कमजोरियों का मिश्रण होते हैं।  उनके इरादे एक ही समय में हमारे लिए मददगार और हानिकारक हो सकते  है, जो कि हमारे प्रति  प्रति उनके दिमाग की भावना का परिणाम है। यहां तक ​​कि सबसे सकारात्मक घटना में एक नकारात्मक पहलू है और हम अक्सर एक ही समय में खुश और पक्ष महसूस करते हैं।

 सरल शब्दों में चीजों को कम करना हमारे लिए आसान बना देता है, लेकिन यह  वास्तविकता  नहीं है.

 इसका  अर्थ है कि ऐसी सरल सोच के कारण  हम लगातार गलतफहमी का शिकार होते है  और गलत अंदाज लगाते रहते है.  से पढ़ रहे हैं।  जीवन में लोगों और घटनाओं के बारे में  ज्यादा  बारीकियों और उनकी विपरीतताओं , उनकी क्लिस्टताओं  का चिंतन  के लिए हमारे लिए बहुत फायदे का  होगा।

रॉबर्ट ग्रीन (2006) युद्ध की 33 रणनीतियों, पी 428, पेंगुइन बुक्स लिमिटेड