Sometimes Prevention is not better than Cure .

After Delhi became the rape capital of India the government passed an ordinance that bars and pubs should not employ women after 8PM. While I believe most of the people in country would be in agreement with this move by the government, a majority of the twitter folks and other main stream media elites were aghast and expressed outrage. Their outrage stemmed from the fact that the government let rapists walk away free but penalize employment of women who are innocent. 

While the topic of why tweeters and "common man" have divergent opinions is an interesting topic by itself - lets set that aside for another day. This post is about why I think GoI is correct and why I disagree with feminists, many journalists, and most tweeters writing on this topic.

Allow me to express my disagreement via these five categories of elementary logic that many arguing on this topic don't seem to understand.

1. A person is a rapist only if he commits rape:  

I generally assumed this to be common sense. Its as simple as saying only fruits that are mangoes can be branded as mangoes. But such is the sad state of affairs that this needs to be spelled out. If a person has already committed the act of raping someone, he is a criminal. It would be accurate to brand him a rapist. The police should be searching for him and work on arresting him. That is a separate topic. Not directly relevant to the topic of discussion here - which is preventing rape. 

From reading the news it appears that the police/government have identified that there are areas, time-of-day, situations where the probability of women getting raped is very high. This means that there is some evidence and statistical backing to conclude that in these situations the observed instances of rape is alarmingly greater than the mean. If a government is a sensible one - it is common sense to prevent exposure of women to that kind of probability. 

This preemption does not mean that government is letting rapists walk-away free. And you know why that is so? This is because in this instance the occurrence of rape has been prevented. By not letting women be in that dangerous situation, the act of rape did not happen. 

Unless there is a pre-existing threat by a specific person, you can't arrest arbitrary strangers who may have raped a woman if given an opportunity. Legally, they aren't rapists. therefore should walk free. You can only arrest people who have raped. So claiming that government let rapists walk away scott-free while punishing women is an inaccurate statement. There are no rapists in this situation.

2. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is: 

Pause and reflect on the previous phrase for a moment. This paragraph is based on this theme. My biggest accusation of tweeters, journalists and social media experts is that they are very theoretical about laws and constitutional provisions. I accuse them of being greatly out of touch with some practical reality. 

For example; I can leave the door of my house open and legally expect that no citizen will steal from my house. In theory this works. In practice this wont. If all citizens open their doors, they are entitled to expect that the police will prevent criminals from entering. In theory it is the responsibility of police to ensure this. In practice the size of police force will not scale up to match the crime rate increase in this situation. In theory and practice the people who steal in such situations are criminals and deserve jail sentence. But there aren't enough policemen in the force to arrest everyone. 

The only way the government can deal with this situation is make it illegal for you to leave the door open. Extend this to wearing a Rolex watch, wade of $1000 bills in your pocket and a Ferrari and go to a crime neighborhood. If you do this everyday - you will get robbed someday. 

Yes, the people who mug you are criminals. In theory you have the right to expect police to protect you at all times. In practice they can't. In theory the police shouldn't be judgmental on you and protect you. In practice, they will be and they won't. In theory you can go in a bikini to a pub, get slosh drunk, hitch a ride with complete strangers in an call-taxi and not expect to get raped. In theory the police force should assign 1 policeman with  a revolver to protect every single woman who exposes herself to such dangerous situations. In practice...

3. Human Beings can do more than 1 thing at a time.  

This may sound surprising to many tweeters but human beings can do two things at the same time. I can watch TV and eat a muffin at the same time. Really, I can. I have seen many people do two things at the same time. Some comb their hair and whistle. Some talk on the phone and type on their computer. But many tweeters assume mutual exclusion when none exists. 

If you accuse a person of being careless because he left the door of his house open, these feminists assume you are forgiving the criminals who entered the house and burgled stuff. This is patently not true. Blaming someone does not mean "shifting the blame". It is not a zero sum game. I can accuse the victim of being careless and at the same time agree that the burglar is a criminal. You know why? because human beings can do two things at the same time. 

So if police has given explicit instruction to women citizens to not venture into dangerous areas beyond a particular time, consume alcohol and hitch-ride with strangers. And if a woman ends up doing all the above and gets raped. I.. (wait for it) (wait for it) will blame her for being careless and irresponsible. I will blame her for not putting a premium on her personal safety. 

This does not mean I condone and forgive the rapists. They are criminals and will need to be arrested. Punishing a criminal and calling someone careless isn't mutually exclusive. We can do both things. And we should be doing both.

4. Post-rape situation is different from preventing rape:  

If policemen act indifferently to complaints of rape they are not discharging their duty and deserve reprimand. My personal view is that rapists deserve capital punishment. Eve-teasing deserves multiple years of jail sentence.There are no situations where a rapist can be condoned and the blame shifted to the victim. No girl ever "asks for it" because of the way she dresses or walks or drinks.  

It is true that many times women lie about rape. It is also probably true that the instances where they are genuinely raped far outnumber the other instances where it is a cooked up lie. Once it is established that someone has been raped the police should not be biased by the other cases they have seen where women have lied. They should act in an unbiased manner to pursue justice. 

However, when it comes to preventing rape - the 'prevention' must be given maximum priority. If this comes at the cost of marginal economic opportunities for women then - so be it. If a government is forced to make a trade-off they should always trade-off economic opportunity to prevent rape.

5. It is not 'All or Nothing'. It rarely is: 

Sometimes RBI doesn't allow me to transfer  larger amounts of money across countries at the same time. I am inconvenienced but not dead. I can still transfer some money. I can't go tell the RBI that if they don't allow me to transfer $1 billion it means that they are a non-entity. It doesn't mean I live in stone age. It doesn't mean that I can't transfer $1 if I wanted to. I can still transfer some money. 

Some kind of jobs may not available in the place where I live. That could be my perfect dream job. But that is okay - I can find a job that is reasonably close to what I want that matches my skills. If  the government has failed in giving me employment that is 100% to my liking, it doesn't mean that they have killed all my hopes for employment. They haven't failed. 

Unless I have enormous sense of entitlement, the fact that I have employment means the govt is doing a good job. Theoretically they are supposed to help me. But needn't satisfy my every whim. So lets face it. The government has asked women who work in pubs after 8PM to not go to work. This doesn't mean we have regressed back to the Mughal era where women have to be covered head to toe and never venture out of their house. You guys need to get some perspective. Working in a 'saaraya kadai' doesn't require you to have 3 PhDs and embellish a 3-page resume. You probably have transferable skills to work somewhere else. It doesn't mean the government will completely stop women from working everywhere. 

This is not a slippery slope. It doesn't mean government will prevent women from working in a place/time/situation where 1 instance of rape happens. It is not "all or nothing". It is an equilibrium. It is  a trade-off or balance where reasonable employment opportunities are provided for reasonable costs/restrictions. You may ask "who decides what is reasonable". It is the elected government. Live with it. If you don't like it change the government. Any other questions on this will fall into one of these 5 categories.

In conclusion: This is a situation where a government has traded-off employment opportunities for women in pubs after 8PM to reduce their exposure to rape crimes. It is probably because of practical difficulties in ensuring safety for women in all bar/pubs across the country/city/state. It is not a kick back to stone age for women. Its a practical trade-off. Stop over-reacting. This leads to "grease the squeaky wheel" situation. The upper class elitist twits make such a big deal about careless women who get drunk, party and hang out with questionable strangers. And there is generally no noise about impacted women who dont fit into this class description.

The underprivileged voiceless women are used in an argument only as an embellishment. They are never the main topic. just a side act. And they are talked about only as a support act when some rich delhi girl gets raped when she's partying at 1AM. In this context the poverty ridden Ranganathan street cloth shop women are mentioned in passing to give the journalist a noble purpose. If these feminists and jounalists truly cared they would've protested against a specific (very very specific) element of injustice in that space. Its not like it never happens. It happens everyday but its never news.




On the other hand nonsense news such as kudigaara bar hopping reckless teenagers (and in the kolkata case: 37 yr old kudigaara mom-of-two was bar hopping and hitch-rided with strangers) getting raped is front and center news. This drains the resources and focus of the govt and makes them focus on unimportant issues. The fakeness of this issue makes an average guy cynical. which further contributes to poor response to real issues.

Hum Aapke Raincoat Family..

When I first saw Hindhi people write the words 'Seetha' and 'Geetha' as 'Seeta' and 'Geeta' I used to get very annoyed. They wanted to write सीता and गीता in roman script but ended up writing सीटा and गीटा. Then later I realized that these hindhi people used the roman alphabet 't' to represent the Devanagari alphabet 'त'. But when learning basic English phonetics I always thought the roman alphabet 't' sounded closer to 'ट'. All English words pronounced 't' with a ट sound. 

I can't think of an English word that would pronounce 't' any different (e.g. tank, took, take, toon, taunt, eat, mental, cut, put, but, teach, torture). They all use a sound closer to ट when pronouncing these words. Which means if you wrote all these words in Devanagari script you'd be using ट to represent 't'. So why would I pronounce 't' as त ? So what do Hindhi people do when they want to write ट in Roman script? To my horror, I found out that these Hindi people used 't' to represent 'ट' as well (for e.g. when they wrote 'tamatar' we should know to pronounce this as टमाटर and not तमातर).  

Damn it!. 

So these people use the roman letter 't' to arbitrarily represent 'ट' or 'त'.  And they expected every one who does not know Hindhi to know about this.

My annoyance was not with the fact that they had a quirk of their own. Every language does. My annoyance was with their assumption that every Indian should 'just know'  this quirk. And the constant 'why you tamilians are writing like this'. It was their quirk. How did it suddenly become my problem? My annoyance reduced a little bit when I found out about San Jose or Jungfraujoch. In these words the 'J' is not pronounced as the regular phonetic affricate /dʒ/. But more like a 'H' sound in the former and a 'Y' sound in the latter. This is not immediately obvious to someone who sees the combination of these letters written for the first time in Roman script. And my very own local parties the damn thamizh folks used 'zha' to represent the retroflex approximant 'ழ'. 

This is so not obvious to non-thamizhs and non-malayalis. The good thing is thamizhs, mallus, spanish people don't look at non-speakers of that language and go "hey you are writing wrong man. we are always writing correctly". We know its our quirk. For example I met a guy whose name was spelt 'Jorge'. The way he wanted others to pronounce his name was 'hore-hay'. He was like the bizzaro world equivalent of Hindhi people using 't' to represent two sounds - in the same name he used 'j' and 'g' to mean the same sound 'ha'. At least he was humble about the quirkiness of his spelling.

To understand this better -  Hindhi inherited Sanskrit's language system where some consonants can be combined with a 'ha' sound to create a whole new set of consonants.. 

For example if Hindhi people wanted to represent sounds क, ब, ज in roman scripts they'd use  ka, ba, ja. 

But Hindhi people have a parallel set of words ख (क + ह) , भ (ब + ह), झ (ज + ह) which other languages don't have so when they want to represent them in Roman script they add the 'ha' sound to roman script that represents the root letter - such as Kha (K + ha), Bha (B + ha), Jha (j + ha). 

This is fine and dandy. There are no native Roman script sounds 'kha' 'bha' 'jha' that conflict so we get it. We don't care. But we get it. The point where I really get confused when roman script has a well defined frequently used sound that these hindhi people hijack for their own purpose. 

They not only do that but also have poor self-awareness to know that its their own quirk. Take for example the sound 'th'. This is used very frequently in English.  The words that use 'th' are for e.g. 'this', 'that', 'then', 'thy', 'them', 'thus', 'therefore,' 'third', 'the', and 'those'. All regular english words use 'th' to sound something like 'त'.

But Hindhi people have ignored this logic. And to show remarkable haste to add the 'ha' sound to every consonant that can walk the Hindhi people do something as crazy as the following. Here is some simple Hindhi sound arithmetic ट + ह = ठ. So these people try to replicate the same arithmetic in roman script as well. So they do 't' + 'h' = 'th'. So now 'th' represents a sound called ठ that no non-hindhi speaker uses or knows about or more importantly cares about. It is roughly pronounced 'tah' in roman script. And so when they write their words in roman script a non-hindhi speaker is supposed to 'just get it' that it represents ठ. 

So when i see the word 'this' should I pronounce it 'tahis' ? No? Why not?  'Meetha' is pronounced 'meetah'. Its seems arbitrary and everyone is just supposed to get this. The craziness doesn't just end there. They have another arithmetic: त + ह = थ. Remember they use 't' to represent त. So they do 't' + 'h' = 'th'.  So now 'th' also refers to this new sound थ.  Now if a hindhi guy uses 'th' he could either be referring to थ or ठ. Go figure!

Now we haven't even begun on the word 'd'. This roman script is used in English words such as donkey, dick, dam, damn, dirty, douchebag etc. In all English usage of this word it resembles the sound ड. But a hindhi reader is already getting ready to type a comment "hey! its Hindi and not Hindhi". 

Oh yeah? So now you are using 'd' to represent the sound 'द'. So what do Hindhi people do when they want to to write the sound ड in Roman script? Well - they use the alphabet 'd'. So 'd' can mean both ड and 'द'. 

So what do they really mean when they use 'dh'. Because in regular english words the 'dh' softener is used to refer to a sound close to 'द'. But when Hindhi people write 'dh' they actually mean the sound ध. You already know why because of the arithmetic 'द' + ह = ध. But then one is wordering about the other arithmetic ड + ह = ढ. How does a Hindhi person write 'ढ' in roman script. Wait for it. Wait for it. they use 'dh'. 

You gotta be kidding me!

So to sum up in a table. This is how one should translate when a roman script is used by actual English words Versus what these Hindhi people mean.

Roman Script	Sound that script indicates in actual English words	Weird possible sounds that Hindhi people can mean when they use script
T	ट (tank, take)	त, ट
Th	त (this, that)	थ, ठ
D	ड (Do, donkey)	ड,  द
dh	ढ (sometimes द)	ढ, ध

What really gets my goat is the way hindhi people differentiate between the अ and the आ sound. Do you know how they differentiate? That's the trick. They don't. बलं is 'bal'. बालं is written as 'bal' as well. I met a person who had this surname 'Bhagwat'. I pronounced that as भगवट. Because I wanted to pronounce it the way it was actually written. But the person corrected me and said "but its भागवत". 

So the अ in in the second syllable 'वत' (which is theoretically व+अ+तं) gets one 'a' in the roman script spelling. But the  'आ' in the first syllable 'भा' (theoretically भ + आ ) doesn't get two 'a's. It gets one 'a' as well. So a unsuspecting non hindhi person must somehow magically find out that the 'a' in the first syllable corresponds to  'आ' and the 'a' in the second syllable corresponds to अ . 

You are deemed horrible if you didn't.

Every language has its quirks. Especially so when it is transliterated to roman script. One would assume a certain amount of humility in the speakers of the language to know that it is their own unique quirk and not act all "this is the correct way" when non-native speakers of the language don't get these quirks. 

Somehow hindhi people have gotten into their head that Thamizhs are the only people who feel the urge to write 'Seetha' and 'geetha'. *Most* non-hindhi people who are familiar with the roman script will logically write it that way. When Canadians, Australians, Brits, Americans and Kiwis  see the word 'Sita' they will probably pronounce it as सीटा. Thats what the 't sound means.

Two years ago, I cried a little when I landed in திருநேல்வெலி and saw the name spelt in the railway platform as 'Tirunelveli'. They're spreading their stupid. 

Damn you!. Damn you!.

Notion of Equality

I am increasingly amazed when young kids totally filled with idealistic notions come and tell you that s/he believes in "equality". I am not even sure if they mean this exclusively in a social context. 

I think they mean it everywhere. I find this kind of "flat earth and the sun goes around it"  brainwash fascinating. I wish I was in a position of power to poison the minds of younglings with arbitrary notions such as the one on 'equality' so that I can push my own agenda. 

Life as a Zero Sum Game Vs Life as an Ever Expanding Pie: 

There are some who believe that the world is a zero sum game. One person's growth means that someone else has lost. On the other hand, some think the universe is an ever expanding pie and everyone can grow with no cost to other individuals. 

Strangely 'equality' is a concept that belongs to the former philosophy. If you bring everything in this world to fit within a LHS = RHS construct then the world becomes a zero sum game. So if you belong to the LHS and if you have to gain anything you will have to deprive someone in RHS of that thing in equal proportions. On the contrary, if you believe things are by default unequal and work on an assumption that LHS != RHS (note: "!=" means "not equal to") then you can add or subtract anything from any side and the world is an ever expanding pie. 

From my observations, a person with scientific mind and liberal thought believes in equality but also believes that the universe is an ever expanding pie. As they say - medula oblangata is boggled.

Interpreting equality literally: 

Let me start by playing dumb and take the phrase "everything and everyone are equal" in the literal/absolute/non-metaphoric sense. I will pretend that I am an alien visiting this earth and I have heard a human being say "X = Y for all values of X and Y". This is patently wrong. People espousing equality don't really mean it that literally. 

But is important play this extreme interpretation to drive home the point that there are inequalities in the world that a person assumes, agrees to and accepts/endorses as 'natural' but conveniently forgets it when using 'equality' as an argument.

That things are fundamentally created unequal is the most obvious reality of nature: 

In my eyes one of the most easily discernible things from nature is that nearly all things are unequal. Living things are not only created unequal but constantly strive to be unequal all the time (think 'evolution'). This includes the fact that some living things are human beings, some are animals,  birds etc etc.  

Some people are born healthy, some have retardation of growth, some cant hear or speak, some can run very fast at the age of 7, then there are 9 year old drug addicts, people who fail 2nd standard, rich people, poor people, atheists, liberals, conservatives, birds that can fly, animals that cannot, trees that bear fruit, mammals, eggs, reptiles, calm people, angry people, short people, fat people, tall people, people with vision problems, diabetics, ophans. If there is one thing we can be sure about. It is the fact that there is a inherent and natural inequality that exists and that we all accept as nature. 

Try telling a person who touts their belief in equality that all human beings are created with equal 'intelligence' or equal 'intellectual horsepower' and they will make a u-turn like you have never believed. If you really want to anger them tell them everyone is equally 'lucky'.

Interpreting Equality As a Metaphor: 

Now, people may actually 'say' something but 'mean' something totally different. So if you pull yourself out of the 'literal' interpretation mode and understand that people can be 'metaphoric' when they use the term 'equality' we find that people intuitively mean something more subtle. So at the core of it people may subconsciously accept that X and Y are fundamentally unequal  but nevertheless require X & Y to be *treated* equally. Here is where I think there is a fundamental disconnect between what people *mean* and what people *do*. 

These people want everyone to be treated equally but they themselves don't treat any two people equally. For example - a woman who majorly clamors for equality may meet 1000 men in her life who want to marry her but she will choose only one. In effect she treats 999 people unequally when compared to the 1 she chooses to marry. 

If you think this is an 'out there' anecdote and isn't empirically true, think again. When 2,00,000 people apply for IIT-JEE exams, the board actively discriminates among them and only selects 2500. In that 2500 every single person is treated unequally in terms of preference for groups. Extend this to interviews. In any single interview the job of the interviewer is to introduce an inequality between applicants to select a few and deny the others. 

The categories where people display their competence by introducing inequality is almost universal and omnipresent. Academics, research, sports, medicine, army, housing, jobs, government tenders, electricity, and basic comforts depend on establishing inequality. Either the individual actively works towards establishing and increasing his inequality with his peers or the judges/governance rewards individuals with high level of inequality compared to their peers. 

In fact it is hard to come up with examples where 2 things are assigned exactly equal results.

No one treats anyone equally: 

In a social context a mother or father treats other children as unequal to their own children. A court of law establishes inequality between defense and prosecution. A wife treats her husband differently from other men. 

You treat your social circle different from an urchin on the slum. For example your friends are people who are in the same financial or educational class as you are. You don't have friends who are construction workers. You actively discriminate and create inequality in choosing your friends circle by consciously eliminating beggars, slum urchins, prison inmates, and construction workers. You may eliminate them indirectly by never even giving them a chance or never meeting them but that in itself is a result of inequality in social status that you endorse and accept. 

There is a recursive inequality even within existing methods of establishing inequality. Selecting a person as spouse over another one because of a professional, physical or financial inequality is accepted by the certain people but the very same people detest rejecting marriage proposals based on caste inequality.

The Philosophy of equality: 

What this all boils down to is an lack of understanding of what we really mean by 'equality'. And what forms of equality pass philosophical muster and what don't. There are situations in which equality is the correct approach and there are situations in which inequality is the correct approach. I have almost come to believe that those who make arguments based on an assumption of equality as an axiom do not understand the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. 100 men may have an equal opportunity to go ask a girl for her hand in marriage. But there will be no equality in outcome. 

A group or category of people can have an equal opportunity to appeal to the court of law demanding a set of benefits comparable or equal to another set of people. The other set of people can go to court opposing this request. But the outcome may not be equal to both parties. 

The court - through very fair logic - may decide that one group will not be given an equal set of benefits when compared to another set of people. This does not mean people are bigots or there is unfairness in the system. Inequality in outcomes as a result of a peer validation process is how this world works. 

You can't expect god to come down and do an interview for you or be the judge in your court case - for you to consider it as a fair process. A peer human being with his biases and capabilities will conduct the decision making process.

Equality of Outcome is Nonsense: 

This is almost common sense. However, for many many issues people feel a sense of fairness only when there is equality of outcome. People don't realize equality or *feel* the presence of equality when there is only equality in opportunity. A slightly facetious example would be the'spiritual but not religious' nut jobs who claim puke-worthy things that 'all gods are equal' or 'all forms of prayer or equal'. They will not *feel* the presence of equality if I selected only 1 form of prayer/god and followed just that. They would think I am a fundamentalist. 

And they wouldn't change their opinion unless they see 'equality in outcome'. I am virulently against 'equality of outcome'. Primarily because I am not a communist. I don't want all the 5 runners in a 100m race to win Gold or all applicants to a job interview be given job offers. That doesn't make me a bigot or a biased person. I am a bigot if I move the "starting point" in below diagram (Image Credit: wikipedia.org) leftwards. People should have an opportunity to take a 'shot' at the outcome they so desire. But I strongly disagree with the people who move the "ending point" leftwards and align it with "starting point" (Example: It is one of the flaws of caste based reservation systems in India - which involves a variant of this approach). Sounds like common sense but pretty much every second or third argument that uses 'equality' does this.

Circular Logic and Consequent Annoying High Moral Ground: 

Knowing where equality applies and where it doesn't reduces fallacious arguments where people present circular logic. These people say that 'Category X must be treated equal because... they are equal". Well if they are already equal then this request must be totally pointless. Its like saying "you should marry her because she is already married to you" or "You must kill him because he is already dead". An argument that some group of people should be given an equal outcome when compared to another group of people cannot depend on an assumption that the former group is *already* equal. Equality is a conclusion you are trying to establish. You can't use it as a premise. The fact that you can classify the two groups as distinct assumes that there  is a fundamental inequality that exists between them. So an appeal for equal outcome should involve a merit that is something other than 'equality'. 

Knowing this avoids the unnecessarily high moral ground that people derive by asking a fellow human being to offer equal *outcomes* for all religions (apparently they say the "same" truth in "different" ways), different gods/approaches within same religion, all genders, all races, and all sexual orientation etc. It maybe true that at the end of the argument they merit equal outcomes in a practical world.  But just don't start the argument with an axiom that they are 'equal'.

Stop Complaining. Start Realizing .

Perhaps the most important step in quitting the habit of complaining is to disconnect the undesirable behavior from your identity.  A common mistake chronic complainers make is to self-identify with the negative thoughts running through their minds.  Such a person might admit, “I know I’m responsible for my thoughts, but I don’t know how to stop myself from thinking negatively so often.”  That seems like a step in the right direction, and to a certain degree it is, but it’s also a trap.  It’s good to take responsibility for your thoughts, but you don’t want to identify with those thoughts to the point you end up blaming yourself and feeling even worse.

A better statement might be, “I recognize these negative thoughts going through my mind.  But those thoughts are not me.  As I raise my awareness, I can replace those thoughts with positive alternatives.”  You have the power to recondition your thoughts, but the trick is to keep your consciousness out of the quagmire of blame.  Realize that while these thoughts are flowing through your mind, they are not you.  You are the conscious conduit through which they flow.

Mental conditioning

Although your thoughts are not you, if you repeat the same thoughts over and over again, they will condition your mind to a large extent.  It’s almost accurate to say that we become our dominant thoughts, but I think that’s taking it a bit too far.

Consider how the foods you eat condition your body.  You aren't really going to become the next meal you eat, but that meal is going to influence your physiology, and if you keep eating the same meals over and over, they’ll have a major impact on your body over time.  Your body will crave and expect those same foods.  

However, your body remains separate and distinct from the foods you eat, and you’re still free to change what you eat, which will gradually recondition your physiology in accordance with the new inputs.

This is why negative thinking is so addictive.  If you keep holding negative thoughts, you condition your mind to expect and even crave those continued inputs.  Your neurons will even learn to predict the re occurrence of negative stimuli.  You’ll practically become a negativity magnet.

The trap of negative thinking

This is a tough situation to escape because it’s self-perpetuating, as anyone stuck in negative thinking knows all too well.  Your negative experiences feed your negative expectations, which then attract new negative experiences.

In truth most people who enter this pattern never escape it in their entire lives.  It’s just that difficult to escape.  Even as they rail against their own negativity, they unknowingly perpetuate it by continuing to identify with it.  If you beat yourself up for being too negative, you’re simply reinforcing the pattern, not breaking out of it.

I think most people who are stuck in this trap will remain stuck until they experience an elevation in their consciousness.  They have to recognize that they’re trapped and that continuing to fight their own negativity while still identifying with it is a battle that can never be won.  Think about it.  If beating yourself up for being too whiny was going to work, wouldn't it have worked a long time ago?  Are you any closer to a solution for all the effort you've invested in this plan of attack?

Consequently, the solution I like best is to stop fighting and surrender.  Instead of resisting the negativity head-on, acknowledge and accept its presence.  This will actually have the effect of raising your consciousness.

Overcoming negativity

You can actually learn to embrace the negative thoughts running through your head and thereby transcend them.  Allow them to be, but don’t identify with them because those thoughts are not you.  Begin to interact with them like an observer.

It’s been said that the mind is like a hyperactive monkey.  The more you fight with the monkey, the more hyper it becomes.  So instead just relax and observe the monkey until it wears itself out.

Recognize also that this is the very reason you’re here, living out your current life as a human being.  Your reason for being here is to develop your consciousness.  If you’re mired in negativity, your job is to develop your consciousness to the point where you can learn to stay focused on what you want, to create positively instead of destructively.  It may take you more than a lifetime to accomplish that, and that’s OK.  Your life is always reflecting back to you the contents of your consciousness.  If you don’t like what you’re experiencing, that’s because your skill at conscious creation remains underdeveloped.  That’s not a problem though because you’re here to develop it.  You’re experiencing exactly what you’re supposed to be experiencing so you can learn.

Conscious creation

If you need a few more lifetimes to work through your negativity, you’re free to take your time.  Conscious creation is a big responsibility, and maybe you don’t feel ready for it yet.  So until then you’re going to perpetuate the pattern of negative thinking to keep yourself away from that realization.  You must admit that the idea of being the primary creator of everything in your current reality is a bit daunting.  What are you going to make of your life?  What if you screw up?  What if you make a big mess of everything?  What if you try your best and fail?  Those self-doubts will keep you in a pattern of negativity as a way of avoiding that responsibility.

Unfortunately, this escapism has consequences.  The only way true creators can deny responsibility for their creations is to buy into the illusion that they aren't really creating any of it.  This means you have to turn your own creative energy against yourself.  You’re like a god using his powers to become powerless.  You use your strength to make yourself weak.

The reason you may be stuck in a negative thought pattern right now is that at some point, you chose it.  You figured the alternative of accepting full responsibility for everything in your reality would be worse.  It’s too much to handle.  So you turned your own thoughts against yourself to avoid that awesome responsibility.  And you’ll continue to remain in a negative manifestation pattern until you’re ready to start accepting some of that responsibility back onto your plate.

Negativity needn't be a permanent condition.  You still have the freedom to choose otherwise.  In practice this realization normally happens in layers of unfolding awareness.  You begin to accept and embrace more and more responsibility for your life.

Assuming total responsibility

You see… the real solution to complaining is responsibility.  You must say to the universe (and mean it), “I want to accept more responsibility for everything in my experience.”

Here are some examples of what I mean by accepting responsibility:

• If I’m unhappy, it’s because I’m creating it.
• If there’s a problem in the world that bothers me, I’m responsible for fixing it.
• If someone is in need, I’m responsible for helping them.
• If I want something, it’s up to me to achieve it.
• If I want certain people in my life, I must attract and invite them to be with me.
• If I don’t like my present circumstances, I must end them.

On the flip side, it may also help to take responsibility for all the good in your life.  The good stuff didn't just happen to you.  You created it.  Well done.

Pat yourself on the back for what you like, but don’t feel you must pretend to enjoy what you clearly don’t like.  But do accept responsibility for all of it… to the extent you’re ready to do so.

Complaining is the denial of responsibility.  And blame is just another way of excusing yourself from being responsible.  But this denial still wields its own creative power.

Conscious creation is indeed an awesome responsibility.  But in my opinion it’s the best part of being human.  There’s just no substitute for creating a life of joy, even if it requires taking responsibility for all the unwanted junk you've manifested up to this point.

When you catch yourself complaining, stop and ask yourself if you want to continue to deny responsibility for your reality or to allow a bit more responsibility back onto your plate.  Maybe you’re ready to assume more responsibility, and maybe you aren't, but do your best to make that decision consciously.  Do you want sympathy for creating what you don’t want, or do you want congratulations for creating what you do want?