 I am going in the reverse order, Pratik Garg, oh you are not Pratik Garg, what is your name? Did you make a presentation last time? Good, then you come. So hello friends, so today I am going to talk about trust, maybe every day you in your life you meet some stranger. So it depends on that how you believe that it is a trustworthy person or not. So the TED talk I presented or I written that TED talk, she was aimed on describing that what is the scenario in the society upon this trustness. She says that this media is highly responsible for this belief that many persons are likely to see that today's scenario, there are 2% one is Kejriwal and one is Modi. So there are many persons or sometimes you will be feeling that Modi is right or sometimes you will feel that Kejriwal is right or sometimes again you will feel that no no no Kejriwal is doing something wrong and Modi is right. So what this exactly is, what we get from the media that is only we are processing and on that basis only we are believing on someone, we do not know what exactly is there. There may be many things that is hidden behind this whatever we are seeing is there may be some raw facts which is hidden from us. Like the secret video leaked about the Kejriwal that he said that this particular part of this video must be highlighted so that we can get more votes. Or this thing may be going on everywhere, every politician is doing some same thing. So she is saying that media is highly dominating factor in the trustness that you are following. She says that the professions which were trustworthy before 20 years like teacher. Teacher is a teaching is a profession or teacher is a person who is more trustable before 20 years is also today introduced in today's scenario also is a more trustable person. But leader or politician they were not trusted 20 years before and not even today. So my point is that fine she is saying approximately right only but I think that when we come to trust our brain is enough trained in maybe we all are above 25 plus. So our brain is enough trained to get some signals or some processing so that you can just by looking at someone or just by talking 15 minute or 10 minute or 15 minute you can come to a conclusion that should we believe on this person or not. So this is fine. Thank you. Hello. Good morning. The talk I am going to present is what Facebook and Google is hiding from us. Actually Mark Zuckerberg said that the squirrel which is lying in your neighborhood is of your more interest than the people dying in Africa. Why he said this because because someone asked him about the new speed. So what is the importance of new speed on that on that he told this. So what the what the presenter is saying that today's world is very much customized like like if we go to the Google then if we go to the Google if two person searches the same search result then they will get the different results because the Google is customizing the results. It is manipulating the results on the basis of users location what the browser user is what the browser user is using what the system he is using. So on this basis the Google is filtering the results. So the presenter said this is what the problem is because the Google is showing what we Google is showing what we want to see not what we need to see. So basically over the 20 years before there was no internet after the internet the world world become the world become open source. But now we have developed some algorithms which are doing some filtration. So because of this filtration because of this filtration we are not deciding what we get what we get when we search it or what we get when we see anything on the internet. So the presenter is having problem on this. So basically my opinion on this talk is the presenter is right because Google and Yahoo like say Facebook they are modifying the search results because for their profits because of their because for their profit. So thank you. Actually there should be there should be balance what because Google should give us option that these are the search results and these are the search results according to your search and these are search results we are suggesting that. So there should be a balance. What presenter is saying that Google uses approximately 15 signals before giving a search like where what is our location what is your browser which system is using so that is not acceptable. But the presenter asked two of his friends to search the same query on the Google and they got two different results. That should be kept with the user only. These signals are to be interpreted as what I want to see or these signals should be interpreted as what I need to see. More important question Can I ever specify what I need to see? If I knew exactly what I needed to see I would probably need not have this search. So any answer? He is now expanding to horizon the question. The size of the database that Google handles is enormous. And the fact of I think that it is never ever be able to go through each and every answer that is searched in this. I have few contact I mean scenario where Google doesn't have information like I have a type that I can show you. Ok. We are somehow. Yeah. Actually this is a very typical word we I was discussing with one of my friends and what we can say let me give you one single example. I am the most I like money ok. But generally whenever I like some politicians most of the time I will go to read about it. And I will read about some other politicians especially open about those people when there is some big news. Ok. This is the reality. Now when some of my friends from ISEC were pointed out about the RTI APB which is in the specific program that they speak about the saint of mafia. Then I read about that. And that time I come to know that this is a very close to my native place and it was 7 years ago but still I will not allow that. Ok. So what I did is I tried to go to old politicians I mean K. D. V. Rauh, including Rauh that is every politician on the Twitter on the Facebook and after that it is giving me reason to go to every politician of the way and prove everything. So if we plan accordingly then I think we can sort out this problem. So we get one more input into the very big thing. By the way it's a very interesting thought. I don't know how many of you have analysed yourself in terms of thinking that you do about the issue at different points in life. It is not like you have fixed thoughts in life. Every human thinking process is affected by a variety of things including our mood, the situation at hand, our background, our liking, our disliking and our eastern liking and eastern dislike it may change. The fact is that our thoughts change. But the basic point still is not answered. Who decides what I need to know? If the example of this happens to you, so the students always want to have a lease waiver. If each and every scientist waiver there is this waiver and it is appropriate for you. You should learn this much to handle things in the future. But students always want to have a lease waiver and it means not have to pay. So who decides what I need to know? May I complete? Yes. Krishna may I complete? Yes. So the question was between wanting me. In a class each and every knows what the student wants. What the student needs and the student wants is always a minimum. They try to minimize the things. And in the case of other things also. For example, really especially, for example, news. They are what the majority of news channels present today. And for all of the time, most of the time they show the rubbish things. There is a class that will be to act as and there is some N-1 water happens. And there is some anti-sensitivity. And just for 5 to 10 seconds they will send it back to 2 hours. So they, we have people who wants to want that because of reality. And they are getting. And what the, what actually people need is they should be given information of what the, which is of national issues. What politicians actually doing what? But they show what they show to someone has said some rubbish statements. And what are the rubbish statements? What comments are there? So that people want. And what we need is what the politicians are, leaders are actually doing to respect to whom they should vote. So one observation that he made is that media generally emphasizes negative. Something wrong somewhere. So he used a very appropriate word here. Something which triggers curiosity and anxiety in the minds of leaders. That is what says the article. Whereas what he says is that people should give information. After writing that even negative happening, a piece of information. It is just that this piece of information you put together and present. And then create an intuition as if the majority of happenings are like this. That's the point in the article. He also mentioned that in a class, teachers know what the students need. Let's examine this to some degree. When we're growing up, we generally depend intuitively on our parents and others believe that they know what is good for us. Or at least that is what they tell us. That we know what is good for you. In India unfortunately, this situation prolongs. In the western world, people start taking decisions independently much earlier. I remember, for example, when my mother told me, if I do still, cannot take the right decisions. I have to point out that my dear mother, I am 60 years old now. Or 80 years old. But the right of life to mother's won't ever change the opinion that their children cannot think straight. That's all. The point is that can I appropriate my responsibility of deciding what is good for me at least at some stage in life will be off? Or should I depend upon always some external agency? Whether it's a teacher because whether it's parents or whether it's somebody else to decide what is right for me. The independent of who gives me whether who gives us or who gives me right or wrong is a different issue. Basic issue is who should decide. My own feeling is that each one of us must decide what is right for us. The problem is we are tempted to spend time on things which are not necessarily right for us. Many times we realize that spending time on things is not really right for us. The purpose of external agency whether it is parents, speakers or friends or seniors is to sort of hear us around the park. Saying, I believe you are not doing this right. Please try to understand. That's probably the best thing that external agencies could do. That the end of the day as a human being I don't care at all. Coming back to the search, how do we deal with the information explosion is a problem for me. It did not exist 100 years ago. It did not exist 40 years ago. It did not exist before the advent of the information explosion that has happened today. It did not exist. People demanded on published material or printed material. Great potential to mention rules and rules. Whatever was printed and available is what was available. And that is why the print media and in terms of the tax of happiness and the books and tellers where the sort of essence of truth has come into that. We have changed all of that. In the way, how do you take a thought on what is right or in fact what is completely wrong? When you get one lakh answers to any question and when you know you will not go beyond the first page of the agency. So, let me answer this question. I'll get book a little. Book a search, a house search, whatever search that you do. You would have done thousands of searches by now. What percentage of time you have gone beyond the first page of the search engine? What percentage of time you have gone beyond the first page of the search engine? One to two percent. So, generally everybody seems to agree. On various locations you go beyond the first page. What it means is that Google or Yahoo or a search engine is deciding for you both what you want and what to do. You get the implication. Now, this itself is an important lesson in effective communication. So, when you want to emphasize certain points to your friends or in your communications team in research, communication or whatever, you state that prominently at the beginning. That is what you write on. Even in the internet. Take newspapers. There are the pieces of you which we read in details. But we do need all headlines. We scan all headlines. You take, let us say they are approximately 15 to 60 headlines in your state. How many of those 60 headlines we actually read through the retail news? Again a very small percentage. Now, the interesting point to be which particular headlines you decide to read in details. That is your decision. And there have been very interesting observations on this. But sadly it so happens that negative happenings are reading great details. In every newspaper or newspaper, media or even television channel, there are positive happenings reported. The mind is not attracted to it. So, how many of you who TV watch Animal World for example or the History Channel. We don't. So, whether the media is creating some kind of machine or mind, I do not know. But just this fact that at the end of the day, you and I have to individually decide what is good for you. That is what I mean. And what I want to say. I think both these things have to be taken back. Sorry about taking your time. But the previous thing may talk because a whole lot of ideas have to be discussed in the queue. The moral of the story is do go beyond the first page of any survey. And we do read a few more news items in details rather than just keep it over the end. That is useful in life, that's all. So, neither what I want nor what I need. But I am suggesting that going through larger pieces of information may be more useful. But we are going to decide both what I want and what I need there. Jyoti Shankar. Of experience versus memory. The TED talk was presented by Daniel Kahneman. What basically is happiness. So, the speaker, he presented two notions of happiness. The one notion was the experiencing self and one notion was the remembering self. So, actually what he presented was the experiencing self, it deals with the experiences. What a person went through his or her life. And the remembering self, it deals with the memories. So, he specified that both are very different aspects of happiness. The experiencing self, it deals with the experiences that a person, he experiences in his or her life. And the remembering self, it deals with the memories. He gave a lot of examples illustrating his talk. One example was, he just went through a study for two patients. And he told that the notion of happiness, it got reflected by how the experiences end. And he also told that the experiencing self and the remembering self, they differ from each other by handling of time. And he concluded his talk by saying that it is a very big, the horizon is very big of these two aspects. And he told that both of these aspects are very different. And he tried to give this idea that happiness, it just cannot be the notion of the happiness. It just cannot be illustrated by asking a person how he grates his or her life. I mean, if he said that, if he say like, he rate his life 8 out of 10, it doesn't mean he is actually happy. It is his experiencing self that according to which he is saying that he is happy. But what the speaker tried to say that the notion of happiness is very different. I mean, both the two notions, the remembering self and the experiencing self, both are two different aspects. Can you figure out what is happiness? Sir, he... No, not him. I'm satisfied with my life. Very simplistic but very effective image. How happy and how satisfied I am in my life. And in your opinion therefore, does nothing to do with that is your experience or memory or it has to be both. Sir, it has to be both. Both of them comprises how I feel and how I am satisfied. Okay, so let me ask this question generally. How do you feel thought explicitly about analyzing the term happiness in the meaning of it? Each one of us feels happy, feels unhappy, a different life in life. But have you ever analyzed the notion of happiness? Or the root cause of happiness or unhappiness? Anybody? Sir, according to me actually happiness is not some product of what exactly happened with you throughout your life. Happiness is the spurts of events that occur. It's just the events that occur just before that makes you happy, makes you unhappy. That's what defines happiness or unhappiness. Now we cannot put happiness as the term as the person is always happy or the person is happy because the environment around him is right. A person is happy only for a particular moment of time. There might be some moments in time when you are happy that is all happiness is. Now you cannot say that happiness stays with the person or has been touched. Unhappiness is a part of the life. Sir, he has given us an important attention. At what time is he equal to zero in the world? Who is equal to infinity when we die? For us that's the word for it. So what he is suggesting is there will be a reason. So let us say I will put happiness in there. And I would like to add something more to what he is saying. He is suggesting that there are moments in our life when we are happy, there are moments when we are unhappy. Are there any moments when we are neither? So do you believe that there exists a state which is neither happy state nor unhappiness state? What do you call that state? Sleepy car. Psychologists say that the human mind is at the happiest level when the human body is sleeping. Because there is no disturbance. Have you heard the word Sita Prangay? There is a Hindi verb. That's a very difficult state to achieve. I would say that most of the time we are either happy or unhappy, but we are different beings. So I would like to mention that it is not like happy, unhappy, unhappy. It's not like that. So happy to this extent, happy to this extent. Unhappiness is also happiness at the zeroes. And extreme happiness is when I get as birds. But each and every human mind is sort of float over these things. This is what liking, this is what we are. What should be objective in life in terms of happiness? We are all optimizers. Like what is the objective of which spring corresponds? The fundamental objective. Secondly, the objective also means that we learn something. So similarly, the fundamental objective of human life appears to be to be at the highest level happiness always. Now if that is the objective, how do we achieve it in our different ways? In our own ways. One possibility of looking at it is we tend to avoid doing things which we believe might bring unhappiness. We tend to spend time in doing things which we believe will bring us happiness. Is that what that here correct statement? He does. Maximizing happiness in my own opinion is an individual phenomenon. My own conviction is that the day I let my happiness be decided, by anything outside me, I will do. Happiness in my opinion is a state of mind. And if I don't control my state of mind, then I am saturated with all these things. My life is not under my control. So I would submit that one should try to feel happy in each and every situation. You know, going for climbing and you fall down and you are like bread. You should still be able to walk and you are like, yes I can do this. Not easy thing. Not easy. These are personal opinions. But I am happy that people are looking at different take talks in different ways and at least contemplate. From the communication point of view, I would like to mention that these primitive talks that I have just seen this summer, and the last time I went to the videotape. I hope that you have researched, you have not researched, but you have practiced sufficiently to give these primitive talks. Have you practiced sufficiently at home to give these primitive talks? So how many of you did two or more iterations of speaking with a watch, primitive? Two or more times. Once many people were trying. That's all. Nobody has attempted to do this twice or more. Practicing speaking for three minutes. Okay, forget two or more times. How many of you have tried it with one sentence? Not even once. That is not the way for effective communication. Let me assure you that. We all give practice. And it is the practice, preferably with someone else in attendance. Because as you know, when we are speaking, it is less likely that we will notice over errors. Somebody else is more likely to notice over errors and point out. So such things should always be done in pairs or in larger. That is the reason why these videos according to my situation that you come here and speak for three minutes is merely to give always a chance to look back at ourselves. What did we do? What did we speak? When we are speaking, we believe that we are speaking coherently. Only later when we look at the video recording, we notice the arc and mistakes in English that we make and so on. And that should tell us that we have not sufficiently practiced. Practice is absolutely essential. I will tell you what I did when I became a teacher here. I actually purchased a tape recorder and practiced for speaking for one hour giving lectures after preparing for that lecture. Recorded it and then heard that lecture here. And then heard was full of mistakes which I did not realize by speaking. So I re-recorded it and re-heard it again. This is the Godavari you have to do to be able to communicate properly and correctly. That is because this three-minute thing by the way is telling you something. Three minutes is not an arbitrary number. It is not long enough so that you can flow in your thoughts and somehow can prove properly. Three minutes is not very short. Then it becomes only an impressive communication. Three minutes is a substantial time. But to use those three minutes is not easy. I think did I mention it? Plus Prakash said you mentioned last time that I wanted to write a short later. But I did not have time so I wrote a long one. So that is the meaning of this three minutes. I would strongly suggest that you should prepare yourself for these three minutes. I wanted to conclude this. But I would like to suggest that those of you who have not yet been randomly shortlisted to speak here will get one more opportunity next time. But I would not like anybody to come here and speak for three minutes without any preparation. Imagine that those secrets are the most valuable three minutes of your life where some hundred minus subsidies, at least 70 people have no choice but to listen to those three minutes. Can I get the most out of those three minutes? Can I exactly tell everyone the gist of what I have understood from that test of? In exactly three minutes. I will submit that if I were you, I would practice speaking it four point times. I will actually write down the reading. It is not by heart. It is not by heart but it is definitely prepared in time. You know the best speakers that you listen to and their talks appear to be natural talks, free-flowing talks. It appears as if they have not prepared at all. Those are the most well prepared. Those are the talks behind which a huge lot of effort should come and that is important. If you cannot speak well for three minutes, then you will not be able to speak well for 15 minutes making a presentation on your research report or on your other life. What is the most dangerous thing to happen would happen. Namely, you will end up reading your slides. Or you will end up only stating facts that you have found out in your research. Not stating the conclusions with the right advisor. Not being able to dissect the basic idea behind whatever you have written. You only are taking facts. That is not what you want. You want to get across, capture the mind of the listeners. And that requires efforts. So may I request those? Why are those, although everybody actually? I mean those who have been randomly selected and are very given their freedom to talk they should not open their head. That is not fair because the idea in each one of us through this course gets a chance to become better coming. So this is my request. It will not take you long. But it will take about two hours. It will not take less than two hours. So prepare for a three minute talk. Two hours is the reasonable time that you spend. If you are looking for a 15 minute talk, you will not require any time to talk. You will require only three hours. But preparing for a three minute talk will take you long. You will have notice, although the speaker would not have notice but you would have noticed that there were errors in playing English, French, etc. I still appreciate the time that you came and spoke. And most of the people who spoke, they speak for three minutes. So that extent they had a sense of time. It is very good. It is good news. Given an opportunity to talk for three minutes, I would not talk for twenty minutes. And I am still able to conclude, generally, what I want. That is good point. But it needs to be suffered, really. It needs to be perfect. And the perfection will only come when I practice again. You have a mirror in your room. You stand in front of the mirror. You do not require a tablecloth. I had a tough time. My salary was three hundred and fifty rupees. The tablecloth cost seven hundred and fifty rupees. And it was a heavy investment for me as a young teacher. But today you have your mobile phones and laptops and whatever. You can handle it all. But please do that. The next time, a few more suffers that you would have. Thank you so much. You might have heard old Hindi songs, which are still popular. The length of the song used to be exactly three minutes ten seconds. Because that was the number of gurus which would permit. And one Bishmilla Khan, who also you must have heard, was he mentioned, the three-hour-maker face, that girl, I do not know how to say, was created in three minutes. It does not mean that three hours is not useful. Because you want to enjoy this kind of life. You have to spend three hours. But anyway, it just tells us that communications requirements come in various forms. What we are trying to do with this mechanism is to understand how to present something in a short time. We will also have a career to understand how to present it in normal time. Everybody working on that research survey work that I have mentioned, they all started working on it. All of them have gone through Sannabhuti lectures. No. The links have been put up. Oh my God, this is very serious. Now I understand why a teacher in a classroom is required. That's the only time when you are forced to listen to editors. At home, when you are not home, you won't listen to them. That's not right. By the way, the objective of those two lectures is actually to help you do something better. It's not for the sake of the course of the day. You know that there are no ways in this course. It's a past fail course. You also know that I have not failed somebody unless there is a very compelling reason for failing them. Like if a friend did not complete the course. You will have to fail the course. And the fact of life is that those two lectures are two of the best lectures given in the East Coast. How to go about a certain method. Can I expect that at least in this weekend also you will go through those lectures? I mean, certainly you will have to print out the papers so that you have the printed papers near you when you listen to them. I believe it is very important for you. So, this is not what you want to do in the area. But this is what you need to do that much. And if passing or failing the course is the only reason why you are doing things, so be it. So, I will standard the quiz in the next class. Fail on those two lectures. And the quiz results by and by will decide whether people will pass this course or not. Is there a failure of compression? No. There are only two choices. Either you do something on your own or you do something because it will all over again. And women generally don't make both choices. I give you both choices. And then you do it on your own or going because it will all over again. But to listen to those two lectures. That should help you actually in writing your own literature Surveying a better pencil in marketing. Thank you.