Category: Mental Models

Hello, iPhone

I dont know if you noticed that I moved to an Android phone sometime last year. The objective was two fold. A, I wanted a phone with a longer battery life. This means that iPhone was not gonna cut it. And B, I wanted to be more efficient by not wasting time on social media (twitter, insta etc). And I dint want to just mute notifications but also remove the access to these apps that are big time-syncs.

So, been on Android past few weeks and while I am getting used to the shenanigans of an Android fast, I am going back to an iPhone. Why?

A, Aesthetics. An iPhone offers a far better experience. In terms of navigation, reading, phone features and others. Ofcourse Android allows for a deeper integration with Google Suite (I literally run my life on Google) but I am willing to give it up for usability. And there’s a lesson there. Form over function. Lol. In the real life you ought to have a balance of two. More on this some other day, in some other blogpost.

B, Battery. I use a MI Phone as my Android device. When I got it, the battery would outlast the iPhone’s. But now, after like 3 months of usage, the battery performance is worse than than of an iPhone. And no, I dont have the heart to invest in a better Android phone for a longer battery life.

So, back to the iPhone and back to being tethered to a battery pack!


C, Privacy. I am told that Apple offers better privacy and protection against data theft, hackers and all that. Not sure. I mean who would want to hack into my life? I gave it up when I queued up to get the Aadhar enrolment done.

P.S.: At this point, lemme take backup of my blog, lest some hacker gets offended. Done.

D, Self-moderation. I want to try self-moderation rather than enforcing abstinence from distractions. I have traditionally sucked at this. But I want to try and see how this goes.

Thats about it. Nothing more, nothing less. Guess its a thing I want to do for some reason and rather than having all the rational answers, I am merely rationalising. And thats’ the thing to learn from this post – rational vs rationalising.

P.S.: My average blogpost runs into1000+ words. This one is like 500 words and something seems off. No?
P.P.S.: And no, this is not part of any of the themes that I had said I will write about. So, this goes under #miscBetter. 

What to order at Starbucks?

The thing is that I love sitting at Starbucks and working on my book.

Even though I am alone when I am there, in my head, I am on a date with Nidhi Kapoor. Or may be with Renu on some days. There are days when I there with Tarana. Like today, I was with Renu and I had a wonderful time.

Coming back, irrespective, there is someone or the other to talk to when I am at Starbucks. I mean someone from my book. A character or two that I have cooked up. And when I am with someone, I love having conversations with them. In fact, conversations with these imaginary characters have helped me write.

Rather than thinking about the next line, I ask Nidhi about it. Or Tarana. Like today I asked Renu about her past and what made her the way she is. She had a lot to say. So much that I had to type fast. Really fast. So these answers from imaginary friends help me write. A friend told me that I am not an inherently creative individual. She may be right but then I think that this superpower that I have to converse with these imaginary characters help me craft what I am working on.

To be honest, the entire Nidhi Kapoor story is a result of these conversations.

The book is coming to an end. About three more days before I finish the first draft. I am hating that the book is coming to an end. I dont know how to keep it alive. Soon, I’d be the saddest and loneliest man that I know of. Why? Because all this while I had company of these three amazing women and in some days, I would be alone.

Guess such is life. But then, there is something that I am looking forward to. The next plot. I am hoping to write this one with a friend. We are still discussing it but if it goes as per plans, it would require me to sit at Starbucks even longer. But, but the challenge is, I do not like coffee. Or the iced-tea. Or anything that has any milk in it. Except ice-cream. I also don’t want to eat any snacky things that they offer at Starbucks; after all I am on a weight inch loss spree and I want to avoid anything that is fattening.

And I don’t want to sit at Starbucks and not buy anything. You see, reciprocity is a brilliant mental model and of all the people I know, I am the most severe case. If I am going to spend three hours everyday at Starbucks, I ought to buy something from them. No?

What do I do? What do I order? Someone help!

Originally posted here.

The Invisible Foot – Garrett Hardin vs The Invisible Hand – Adam Smith

Recently, I came across a reference to Garrett Hardin and his Invisible Foot. Also known as the Tragedy of the Commons, in simplest terms, it is the battle between the individual interest and common good on a resource that is finite. Wikipedia says "It is a structural relationship between free access to, and unrestricted demand for, a finite resource". Its called the Tragedy of Commons because every individual is acting rationally and still ends up destroying the resources and Commons because the resources under scanner are free for everyone to use.
 
The Invisible Foot is often used alongside Invisible Hand by Adam Smith to explain the principles of economics. " The Invisible Hand" says that a person acting in self interest acts as if he is guided by an individual hand trying to work for the good of the mankind. So basically every time there was a breakthrough (evolution or business), the individual did it for his own benefit and ended up benefiting the entire mankind. For example, in Natural Selection – Individual started differentiating itself from others to gain an edge over members of the same species and it ended up making the entire species stronger ( Survival of the fittest). In business, with every new breakthrough product, individuals trying to corner more market share and making money actually helped mankind take a leap (example use of CDs instead of Tapes).
 
According to Adam Smith every subsequent improvement by an individual brings that individual benefits and helps the world to move forward. Here resources are infinite and everyone can capture large market share happily.
 
And according to Garrett Hardin, every subsequent improvement by an individual brings benefits to that individual but degrades the quality of resource. This resource is limited and with every subsequent chunk being taken by an individual reduces the availability and quality of the resources.
 
Both of these are very interesting theories. Both talk about actions of individuals. Hope I could understand them better.
 

Delhi Autorickshaw Drivers – A Fare Deal … ?

Autorickshaw (aka autos) drivers in Delhi have always been notorious for fleecing customers and demanding exorbitant fares from passengers. Autos are supposed to charge by a fare meter (installed on the auto). A fare meter is an essential part of any public transport system. All the autos had a meter but no driver ever used them. Even people in Delhi got used to haggling with the drivers before they took an auto. I have spent good part of 25 years in Delhi and have never travelled in an auto that runs on fare meter. Even Lonely Planet Guide and other Delhi travel advisories told people to fix rate before they get into the auto.

I moved to Mumbai three months back and on a recent visit to Delhi, I was surprised to see that somehow all autos were going by meter. All means all autos on the road. I took autos at 2 AM, 8 PM, 6 AM and all the time I paid by meter. This was something new to me. How can this radical a change happen in less than 3 months? What changed? This is equal to a social epidemic. The very basic behaviour of people (in this case autodrivers) changed in less than three months. What brought about the change?

It took almost a day to figure out and this is what I could find.

In last three months, few things changed.

1. The per kilometre tariff for auto was hiked (from Rs. 4.5 per KM to Rs. 5.5 per KM).

2. The fine on not going by a fare meter was hiked. From Rs. 100 to Rs. 2000. In case of second default, the autos could be impounded.

3. Policemen were given incentives for catching defaulters. I asked a cop, he did not share the exact numbers but he said that if they catch even 5 defaulters a day, they make same money as they would make in bribes in a week.(This is what a cop told me when I acted as an innocent college kid 🙂)

Now these three changes had following effects

1. Auto Drivers: Most of these auto drivers do not actually own the autos they drive. These are rented (Rs. 250 per day). It was easy for most of the drivers to cough up 100 bucks if at all they were caught. They could either pay Rs. 100 or bribe a cop Rs. 50. To compensate, all they needed to do was over charge 2 other customers. Now with fine at 2000, if they are caught even once, they are in a soup (large fine and possibility of not getting the auto for next day). And with super-incentives to cops, chances of getting caught and fined became higher. It also became difficult to bribe cops as they make more money if they issue challans (traffic violation ticket).

2. Cops: Earlier, cops were happy catching autos for petty things (no driving license, improper uniform etc) and getting Rs. 50 as bribe. With high incentives, they cracked down on autos like anything. They stop autos at random and instead of asking the driver, they ask the passenger about the fare and if the meter is being used or not. Suddenly cops were making quick and easy money and above all, this money came in form of awards. This probably became the tipping point and suddenly every auto driver wanted to go by meter.

So basically it took two simple step to solve an age old problem of over-charging. An awesome application of what Robert Cialdini, Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell and a lot of other unknown social scientists have been doing (I am taking the liberty of categorizing all of them as social scientists).

Moral of the story is that next time you take an auto in Delhi, make it a point to go by meter (spread the Ideavirus – become a sneezer).

Post BFBV, everything is reduced to application of Mental Models.There are quite a few evident Mental Models in the entire episode. The ones I could spot immediately are

1. Reciprocation – we have increased the fares, now you start using the meters and stop fleecing the commuters.

2. Incentives – catch defaulters and make fast money.

3. Punishments – large (comparatively) and enforced strictly.

4. Positive Feedback Loop – Initially cops made money, they got stricter, autos started going by meter to avoid getting caught, cops getting even stricter with lesser autos defaulting.

If there is a different opinion, please share. Please point out flaws in arguments.

I have also made following two assumptions

1. No one paid fines earlier and most cops were happy to take bribes than issue challans (aka traffic violation tickets)

2. Assumed that this exercise is success. However the effectiveness is yet to be proved. Until commuters start demanding to travel by meter and use of meters becomes a norm, the effects would start fading in some time.

Also posted on PseudoSocial at Delhi Autorickshaw Drivers – A Fare Deal … ?