In the book ‘The Upside of Irrationality’ author Dan Ariely has dedicated a chapter to ‘The Case of Revenge: What Makes us Seek Justice’? Ariely doesn’t just talk about the phenomena of shouting and screaming customers—but focuses on why ‘getting back’ becomes an obsession for so many agitated customers. He shares a lot of personal experiences/ experiments on what drives us to spend time, money and energy and even take risks just to make another party suffer. Ariely illustrates with examples how at times revenge can be ‘useful’ too!

Some of Ariely’s insights include:

1. Given the opportunity, most of us are generally more than happy to seek revenge, though few of us take it to the extremes. Revenge is one of the deepest-seated instincts we have. Throughout history, oceans have been spilled and an endless number of lives ruined in an effort to settle scores- even when nothing good could possibly come of it.
2. Trusting societies have tremendous benefits over non-trusting societies, but when the social contract- founded on trust is violated- we sometimes take physical risks to punish the offenders.
3. As consumers encounter offensive service, we become angrier and tend to take it out on the next service provider- whether or not he or she is responsible for our bad experience. The people receiving our emotional outbursts then go on to serve other customers, but because they are in a worse mood themselves, they aren’t in a position to be courteous. And so goes the carousel of annoyance, frustration, and revenge in an ever-escalating cycle.
4. Most companies don’t have a clue about the cause-and-effect relationship between their offending behaviour and the retaliatory urges of their annoyed customers.

I’m sure you’d be livid if I told you to forget the past or just forgive every business or service who caused you tremendous inconvenience, loss or pain. So in the book, Ariely also shares a lot of interesting ‘revenge stories’, how and what customers did to communicate to others about their bad experience. Like the amusing power point presentation, “Yours is a Very Bad Hotel” a businessman made on his horrible experience at a hotel—and which got circulated all over! Or what Ariely himself did because of the terrible service he got from Audi—he wrote a fictional case study for the well-known business magazine Harvard Business Review posing the question “how should Atida Motors (the made up name in place of Audi) have reacted to the customers anger? After the case study got published Ariely mailed a copy to the head of customer service at Audi. He never heard back from them, but he says “I now feel better about the whole thing—though I am not sure whether that’s because I took revenge or because enough time has passed since the incident.”

What have your ‘Angry’ customer moments been like? Perhaps, like me you’ve reacted differently at different times? You ‘Blew-up’ whoever stood in front of you because he represented the inefficient business. Or you decided not to create a scene, but you stayed angry for many hours thinking what you should have done or could do in future.

Ariely propels us to look at more possibilities. And from what I gather he believes being ‘angry’ or ‘livid’ for a short while is absolutely fine; but then we have to ask ourselves ‘Is it worth my time or money’? If the answer is yes, explore all possible options so you get what you deserve. Else if you can come up with a creative way to spread the word about whoever screwed up; then just forget about whatever happened or what all you could do next.

The feature reproduces a lot of the predictable information quoted by marketing-savvy counsellors and eager-to-get-business therapists. But one of the articles in the feature presents some interesting insights. My writer friend Namita Devidayal in her article titled ‘The Shrink Wrapping of India’ expresses concerns over the over-prescription or inappropriate diagnosis by psychiatrists. To illustrate this, Devidayal gives an example: “Routine anxiety from day-to-day affairs may be “over diagnosed” as depression or an anxiety disorder and the patient may be told to start popping a pill, when in fact a regular walk in the park or a holiday or some counselling could easily be the solution.”

Devidayal tells us about the flip-side to the growth of the non-pharmacological area of therapy too. Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar in an interview to Namita warns: “Since modern psychological remedies are Western in origin, they also incorporate some basic assumptions which the therapist may be passing on to the client without being fully aware of their implications. The most important of these assumptions is of a person being an individual- which is true enough- while downplaying (the fact) that the person is also a part of his social order and cultural context. The danger of individualism, for all its pleasures, lies in encouraging a tendency towards narcissism, the ‘looking out for a number one’, and an addiction to psychological navel-gazing in which the therapist is a willing colluder.”

Nobody is disputing that psychiatric help helps in extreme cases; or that counselling helps to some extent. But while help from a psychologist may be presumed to be the panacea of all ills or mental challenges, it is time someone does a reality check to talk about the limitations of the approach adopted by Indian counsellors; and why everyone should not always depend on any counsellor for quick analyses or solutions. Devidayal in her article states: “One of the problems with the profession is lack of regulation. For instance, anyone can get a short diploma, put up a shingle, and start calling himself a ‘counsellor’ even though he may not be qualified to navigate the complexities of another person’s brain space.” Little wonder, in schools, commercial organisations and neighbourhoods, people often talk about why the child psychologist, the organisational psychologist, or the family counsellor are most complex and insecure and that they desperately need counselling, more than their clients.

In another article in the same issue, psychoanalyst Madhu Sarin talks about the limitation of the solution-approach which most counsellors or therapists offer. She explains: “The difference between other therapies and a psychoanalytic approach is that the former is solution-based and, therefore, limited in approach, whereas the latter helps the patient grow as a person. And psychological problems can only be resolved through psychological growth.” Sarin is obviously referring to the mushrooming mind-clinics and the limitations of their quick counselling or healing sessions which may give a temporary high or calm, but may offer no psychological growth.

While ambitious mental health professionals make huge attempts to educate the general public (through articles in publications or quotes to the media) on how psychiatry, psychotherapy, clinical psychology or counselling can ‘solve’ complex human problems, it’s time experienced and senior writers like Namita Devidayal donned the shrink’s hat to continue writing insightful articles on how and when therapy or counselling can help, and not give us mere reports on the burgeoning business of counselling.

We get hurt by the angry words or actions of family members, neighbours, colleagues and unknown people. Sometimes we overcome the pain by rationalising that their outburst was due to their disappointment with us—or some other tensions and frustration. At times, the experience leaves us wounded.

A customer shouting at the service staff, rail commuters cursing fellow-commuters, verbal altercations due to road rage—we witness anger everywhere. The weaker or helpless individuals tolerate ill-treatment due to anger of the so-called superior, powerful or rich. Equals, superiors or elders also tolerate pain caused by anger–for a mistake they make or for no fault of theirs. Angry outbursts give us temporary relief for we imagine we are lightening our tension or relieving our pain. But does our pain actually reduce when we transfer pain to someone who is not the cause of our pain?

The process of anger retaliation and transferring pain to others causes immense stress— strained relationships at the workplace, turmoil at homes, accusations between neighbours and volatile customers at service centres. As fragile creatures we are all hurt to a little or large extent—how we manage difficult people or tense situations depends on how we understand others’ pain and internally manage our pain.

If we are sensitive to realize the other person is hurting us because we have hurt him before, we should respond with patience and understanding. If we have not hurt the one who is hurting us, and if the person is someone we care about, can we help him understand his feelings—so he does not continue hurting those who did not cause him pain?  If the person cannot be helped, instead of harbouring feelings of anger, can we work towards letting our pain go? And move on without passing it on to anyone else?

A few weeks ago, Mumbai Mirror featured Neelakantan Keshavan—a Phd student at IIT Powai pursuing his research on an interesting subject— names of apartments and their impact on popular perception and how builders sell ideas, and not homes. Keshavan states: “When builders prepare the communication plan—the apartment complex typically feature terms such as ‘heights’, ‘towers’ and ‘arcade’—these aren’t just offhand terms, rather careful manipulations”. Keshavan’s findings: ‘All-Indian or All-Anglo terms work better than Indian-Anglo terms.’ So, Indian names like Sneh Sadan, Lok Puram, Vasant Vihar or Nandanvan will be popular while Anglo-Indian names like Kasturi Arcade, Prem Towers or Usha Heights will be not-so-popular. And Anglo or European names like Royal Heights, Casa Grande will be associated with the great promise of ultra-modern and high-tech facilities.

Decades ago, many of Mumbai’s wealthy people opted to live in buildings with Indian names; Marine Drive’s Jyoti Sadan, Shanti Niketan and Prem Kutir; Nepean Sea Road’s Dariya Mahal and Kshitij; Carmichael Road’s Usha Kiran and Kamal Mahal. Then there were the buildings symbolizing prosperity or royalty— Laxmi Vilas, Ashoka, Krishna Kunj, Ram Mahal and Raj Niwas. While Indian names were more common, Anglo or European name buildings were the sought-after addresses in plush enclaves: Peddar Road’s Mount Unique and Sterling Apartments; Kemps Corner’s Grand Paradi; Malabar Hill’s Pallazzo.

Now, in Mumbai and across India we see powerful builders ditching popular Indian terms; and they opt to marry their brand name with Anglo or European terms—Raheja, Oberoi, Godrej, Indiabulls, Lodha, Mahindra and Kalpataru combined with the—Ivory and Aqua; Bellisimo and Belvedere; Exotica and Palais Royale; Crest and Luxuria; Splendor and Sylvan County.

In his interview, Keshavan talks about the dominating influence of Palms in builder’s communication. “All brochures show palm trees around the building! Nobody knows why, but they do. One reason could be that subconsciously it’s related to Arab abundance and wealth”! He further quips: “Both the builders and customers know it’s not real, but both are okay with the arrangement.”  

You have in aamchi, over-crowded Mumbai, popular complexes and enclaves like Royal Palms, Palm Court, Palm Springs and Palm Beach! And as long as it conveys what we  would like to have, how does it matter whether or not it exists?

In this to-be-released book, Vaidyanathan has touched upon many subjects. I liked the chapter titled ‘The Child who is a Poor Eater’ and here his interesting observations are:

1)      More than half the visits mothers make to a child specialist are to solve the problem that their children are not eating adequately.

2)      While some women do not get alarmed if their child is a poor eater, its others comments on her child which get her worried— that the child is eating less, is thin or  looks weak.

3)      Quite often, the child’s tantrums and refusal to eat are a power game. When the mother acts as if she is not too bothered on how much the child eats, the child too realizes that eating can no longer be used as a bargaining tool to get entertained or to get things done.

The interesting chapters in the book include ‘The child who tells a lie’, ‘The child who hates to go to school’ and ‘The first child and sibling rivalry’. The book is a useful read for every parent—regardless of how manageable or unmanageable their children are. Vaidyanathan makes us realise that manageable is a vague term—because the issue is not whether or not the child is unmanageable; it’s about how the parents think of the easy and manageable as difficult and unmanageable; and their false belief that the unmanageable is easily manageable.

http://blogs.wsj.com/india-chief-mentor/2009/12/18/why-am-i-an-entrepreneur-mahesh-murthy/

1) WHY do some people always talk about their problems?

Many people don’t understand the WHY of their problems. Existence has laid our life plans in such a way that is it not always possible for us to know the WHY of everything—a natural calamity that kills our loved ones, an accident that destroys our property. We have to realize that in existence, there are only occurrences and no problems. We only label an opportunity, occurrence or episode as a ‘problem’ when it may not be one.

2) WHY do we label some opportunities, occurrences or incidents as a problem?

When there is an event or an occurrence, we first see whether it is favorable or unfavorable to us. If it is favorable to us we are elated. If it is not favorable and if we don’t know how to cope with the change, due to the occurrence, we call it a problem.

3) But some occurrences may cause immense hardship and require us to put in a lot of hard work.

Absolutely! Some plans laid by existence are beyond human comprehension. And no matter how grave the problem, the moment you start thinking of it as life’s plan, and not a problem, it becomes easier to plan your own course of action, so you don’t get bogged down by the magnitude of the problem.

4) Sometimes they say people create problems. Or dig one’s own grave! WHY does that happen?

When we don’t want something or don’t want to work hard to deal with something—we label it a problem. So if we’ve had an easy time at work and due to new market conditions need to work harder we have a problem on hand. Some people believe talking about a problem helps them communicate with others better, so they keep talking about their own problems. Labeling something as a problem is an escape route too—not only do we get attention from others, our mind rationalizes and seeks justifications too.

5) How does our mind rationalize and seek justifications to avoid ‘problems’?

After labeling unwanted occurrences as a problem, our mind automatically switches to a ‘problem solving mode’ and starts seeking solutions or escape routes, because no one wants to live with a problem. A servant desperately needs money, and instead of working harder to earn a loan, he steals money from his cash-rich employer. He overcomes his initial guilt by justifying his action as ‘my employer has enough money’. The employer considers it a problem to inform the police and he considers it below his dignity to talk to his servant and tell him that he did a wrong deed. So he does nothing about the offense his servant commited but he now has a problem on hand—he distrusts all his workers and servants and is always tense about losing his personal belongings. Accepting a problem as an occurrence or life’s plan and not creating escape routes to run away from the problem will itself ensure we have lesser problems in future.

I recall a conversation with my grandmother— we were visiting a cancer-struck relative and he was lying down uncomfortably in the living room. Concerned about the inconvenience the ailing relative would be experiencing, due to the frequent disturbances in the front room, I later asked my grandmother why the sick man wasn’t lying down comfortably in his bedroom. My grandmother was embarassed yet sad and she replied: “So unfortunate, the man can’t have a bedroom anymore”. I was then a 17 year old and only after some seconds did I understand what she meant— the married, middle aged man was a victim of cancer of the groin and the unfortunate illness meant he could not experience conjunal bliss. My grandmother’s unspoken words were– the man has now lost his right to use a bedroom in his own home! A clear case of understanding that a bedroom was only meant for sex!

In traditional societies the need for privacy and restricting others access to one’s bedroom is almost considered a ‘bad’ need. A daughter-in-law who expresses anger at her in-laws using her bedroom is perceived to be ‘bad’ or ‘difficult’. An aunty who does not like her nieces and nephews jumping on her bed is not a nice aunty. A young girl who tells her siblings not to ‘use’ her bedroom frequently is selfish or self-centred because she doesn’t love and share. A boy who attains puberty is conscious that his mother uses every opportunity to enter his bedroom to check his stuff—when he protests his mother is upset, and her silent communication is “son you’re now a big, bad boy and you don’t care for me anymore”!

Most of us enjoy our private space. But when we have too much space, people feel sorry for us. ‘Poor guy, he lives all alone in that big house.’ We’re happier to share with our loved ones and be loved- a youngster who shares his bedroom with visiting cousins, a couple who move out of their bedroom to accommodate guests, or a child who shifts from his room to the living room to make space for his grandparents. But sometimes and on some occasions we want no one else in our bedroom—and are livid because there is an intrusion into our space. In these moments it is important for others—parents, siblings, spouse, friends or relatives to respect our need, consider it normal human-rights to protest about the intrusion and not judge our behaviour. And also realise that it’s none of their business to know what we want to do when we’re alone.

Trouble is, in a city like Mumbai, and other over-populated cities, houses are small; so practical considerations take over and we are forced to be good children or adults who put up with life’s small inconveniences and ALWAYS ‘share’. In moments when we can’t have solitude even if we desperately want it, we rationalise on our ability to remain patient, tolerant and exercise mind control.

A recent social awareness campaign highlighted how you can behave like a socially responsible citizen and yet respect other’s space and not intrude into a family or couple’s privacy. The campaign aimed to create awareness on domestic violence shows neighbours hearing a woman’s shrieks from a flat— due to her husband or father’s beatings. The neighbours don’t call in the cops or come in a large group to embarrass the culprit. They don’t act like attention seeking heroes who ‘rescue’ the abused woman. One neighbour rings the doorbell—the beater man opens his home door—the neighbour asks the dazed looking beater if he can make a phone call, at which point the neighbour’s mobile phone rings—the neighbour walks out—the beater then looks very ashamed. A campaign that highlights the importance of acting responsibly, yet respecting other’s space— whoever they may be or whatever they maybe up to!

I can’t comment on how fancier salons do a better job with women’s haircuts—but in India, my guess is that most elite salons and stylists are incompetent or uninterested in cutting mens hair…. unless it’s a bollywood hero’s hair. Their interest lies in cutting and styling women’s hair—recommending highly priced products that add ‘volume’, ‘bounce’ or whatever. I’m sure most of these products, massages or spa treatments make hair healthier. But when it comes to haircutting for men, my hunch is that the fancier salons staff are no better ‘cutters’ than the simple barbers next door— the barbers are fairly courteous, they cut hair at a good pace but where they fall short is the hygiene levels and the roughness with which they run the comb and scissors. So the overall experience is very average. But the good thing is that they end with a fabulous free champi (head massage).

Writer Rajiv Bhattacharya in his article in Business Today has rightly quipped: “At fancy hair salons they offer you a choice between a regular hairstylist and a more senior hair consultant for a few hundred rupees more. I have always opted for the latter hoping the one who holds the fancy title will do a better job. But I was wrong. The titles mean nothing.” He talks about the lack of well-trained staff for men’s haircuts in India, and why he prefers to get his hair cut during his trips abroad: “The sad fact about modern India is that for all our Infosys and modern weaponry and whatever, you can’t get a decent haircut in the country, unless you know the stylist personally. The only time when your haircut looks good is just after the haircut- the culture of the quick fix rather than the long-term solution—it looks great when you come out of the salon, full of styling and products. But a week later it’s no different from any haircut.”

Clearly a case of how they make you feel temporarily and not the way they cut your hair. Illusionary benefits of styling and not capability in cutting. So guys would you pay Rs 500 instead of Rs 50—so you can have some coffee at the salon and have gentler hands service you in clean surroundings? Perhaps! Only makes a small or big difference to your wallet. Not to your head, heart or hair.

Almost no place seems to be a ‘private space’ in this low-trust world. The teenaged girl who goes out partying with her friends, has a software installed by her parents that keeps a tab on where she is— a husband who suspects his wife has hired a detective who gives him a daily detailed account on her moves- the company management has installed hidden cameras all over and they keep tabs on all email/ phone conversations. The initial intention as my friend   Minal points out would have been the safety factor- children should be secure online, youngsters should not fall into bad company during late nights and corporate secrets should be safe. But talk on these spycams/ detective agencies or media reports on the pervasive presence of ‘private eyes’ can make us a little paranoid— and the easy availability of these tools could tempt many into controlling situations over which they have no control—what their near (not necessarily dear) ones are doing or talking at all times during the day.

Isn’t it an enriching (sometimes disturbing) experience to rely on our own instincts instead of scouting for that definitive ‘proof’; the initial doubt, more suspicions and how time clarified our doubts. Whatever happened to the good old trust factor- the need to trust adults, giving them the space to experience what they wish to. Sometimes, on looking back we call ourselves ‘fools’ for sweating trying to figure out what our close one was upto—and we kick ourselves for having wasted our time over it. And if we think —would it have helped to use a ‘private eye’ back then? Would it have made any difference if we got no proof or some sound proof?

One of my favourite authors Richard Farson in his book ‘Management of the Absurd’ states: “Those who rely mainly on control are lost. In my experience, effective people do not regard control as the main concern. They turn confusion into understanding. They trust the wisdom of others. Their strength is not in control alone, but in other qualities- passion, sensitivity, tenacity, patience, courage, firmness, enthusiasm and wonder.”

I believe control has many dimensions- but spying on someone (unless there is a grave security threat to us or our loved ones) is nothing but the desire to control someone else’s life. And when we can’t control ourselves, why do we live under the false illusion that we can control somebody else.