Difficulty of being neutral

Recently, during one of my Facebook discussions, one of my Facebook friends expressed concern about the problem of finding neutral voices in India. His question was pertinent and I am sure many people have the same question, how neutral are the voices who are popular on social media, in the print media, or who can shape or influence public opinions. The answer is not so easy. It's hard to be neutral or impartial. We all would love to be perceived as neutrals or impartial people. However, it's not easy to be neutral about our views. We all have some explicit or implicit biases and they shape our opinions. At the same time, we can be conscious of those biases, and recognize them while expressing our opinions or accepting them if someone points them out to us. Knowing about our own bias definitely helps us to be neutral or impartial. Actually, neutrality and impartiality are not the same, there is a subtle difference between them, but that difference does not matter for our discussion here.

Neutrality has to do more with the consistency of our reactions than their intensity or frequency. It does not mean that one reacts to each and every incident, as it's practically impossible in today's age and time. It also does not mean one reacts with equal intensity every time because our emotions vary from time to time depending on so many reasons, and many times it's not intentional. Neutrality means there is consistency in our reactions. It means we do not base our reaction based on who did it but based on what happened. If we condemn mob lynching in one incident and implicitly justify it in another it's not consistent, it's not a neutral reaction. People can choose to remain silent for a variety of reasons Sometimes they might feel that their voice is not needed as there are already enough people who are raising the same issue. Sometimes they think that they have nothing additional to add than what is already said. Sometimes they think that their voice won't be counted. Sometimes they feel that there is no use in speaking based on their past experience. Sometimes they are scared, frustrated, or depressed. Sometimes they are busy with other things or just forget to register their opinion. Just because most of us have social media accounts does not mean we need to speak and express ourselves on each and every issue. We can pick and choose when we want to speak, but the important question is, are we consistent whenever we speak? This is easy to verify, just check the history of that person. Do they speak only on certain issues? If they speak are they consistent about their stance? Do they justify something for some incidents and then criticize the same thing for another incident?

As I said, it's not easy to be neutral, especially if you identify yourself to be a supporter of any particular political party or ideology. If you are not neutral, just don't pretend to be one, as I said it's easy to figure it out, we have our footprints all over the internet. Being biased is common, but being neutral is not, however, pretending to be neutral is also very common. Decide what you want to be, after all, the choice is entirely yours.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.

How to deal with hateful comments on social media?

Some people must have personally experienced or witnessed some of my recent blunt comments on social media, either on Facebook or WhatsApp. I am very blunt to call on people who express implicit hatred towards a particular religion, especially Islam. I do not have many Muslim friends in my friend list and whoever is there does not post any communal posts, at least I never saw anything implicitly or explicitly hateful posts directed towards Hinduism or any other religion from them. If I see anything from their side I will be equally confrontational and blunt towards them as well, there is no doubt about that. But I see many such posts targetting Muslims in general from some of my Hindu friends, this is also a statistical phenomenon, many of these posts are factually wrong and are specially designed to target Indian Muslims. 

Posting comments or posts targeting any particular religion is not new on social media. This has been going on since social media-originated. However, the frequency and vitriol of this post have definitely increased in recent years. I do not normally react to such posts. But if they become regular in WhatsApp groups where I belong or I see such comments on my own posts from my Facebook friends, sometimes, it's hard to ignore. I directly confront such commentators and ask them to explain their comments. If they can't provide any logical explanation, I ask them openly if they hate that religion or have some bias against people following that religion, and can they explain it to me. I would definitely appreciate their honesty in accepting that they dislike some religions rather than posting implicitly hateful comments targeting people of a particular religion relentlessly. It's very simple, if you dislike something, have the guts to say it openly.  Many of these people show symptoms of xenophobia. Many become very defensive and try to explain that they don't hate or dislike any religion, however, they fail to provide any justification for their hateful comments. I ask very simple questions. Why do their posts consistently target only one religion for things that are common in most religions including their own? Why do they justify or defend when it is pointed out that people from their own religion are engaged in the same acts? Why do they target people of that religion rather than those practices or rituals? Many such people become mute when even one of these questions is posed. Some resort to personal attacks and try to call me names by using whatever superlative terms they can. I have unfollowed many such people if their behavior doesn't change and they keep on spreading communal hatred on my Facebook wall, I don't miss their posts as I don't need a daily dose of communal venom. They are still free to comment, but I don't see their posts on my wall, and I am very blunt in replying to biased comments as I know from where they are coming.

The feeling of communal hatred is so deep-rooted. For example, when I pointed out to one person that "all" his posts targeting Indian Muslims were factually incorrect. He didn't feel bad for posting lies, rather, he asked me why such posts are there only about a particular religion on social media. I was amazed by his ignorance. Actually, such posts are available about every religion on the internet, and people get regular feeds about the posts in which they are interested. There are silos on social media where people constantly share and consume content only related to topics of their likening. This is a disturbing trend, but it's growing day by day and it seems there is very little one can do to stop this. I know that my attitude may not be able to curb any such type of behavior in general, but it has definitely reduced such content significantly on my Facebook wall and in WhatsApp groups, people are more cautious when posting such things as they know that they will be exposed. People know that there is at least one person who might challenge or confront them. This is not a solution, but I don't see any other way as I have tried discussing with these people a lot and I have realized that it's not my job or even in my capacity to change their mind. There is a cost associated with this, some people are bound to get hurt and feel bad, and this is unavoidable. If I can reduce their opportunities to spread such hatred then I think I have done my bit to curb this nonsense. 

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.

The lockdown strategy is an inefficient and expensive way to fight against COVID-19

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has set a worldwide panic. Almost every government, whether national, state, or local is implementing some version of a lockdown strategy where people are either ordered or advised to stay indoors until further notice. This has resulted in the closure of public transport in some countries (like India), closure of non-essential businesses (almost in every country), loss of jobs, loss of public wealth (stock market, depreciation of assets due to recession in economy), and widespread uncertainty as there is no definite timeline about how long this may continue. One of the main arguments to justify this lockdown strategy is that this is the ONLY effective way to avoid or minimize public transmission of this extremely virulent pathogen which has the capacity to infect a large number of people if protocols of social distancing are not followed. No doubt, this is a very compelling and persuasive argument on its face. But the problem is, it is devoid of any credible evidence and without any cost-benefit analysis. Before people jump their guns for me mentioning "cost-benefit" analysis, I am not talking about determining the cost of human life and evaluating it against economic benefit or loss, I am talking about the analysis between various alternatives to this strategy, let's be clear about this.

It is not a secret that 100% compliance with any rule or policy is impossible. No matter how good implementation is there is bound to be a violation. Also, locking down the entire country is practically an impossible task. The most important factor that does not seem to be taken into consideration in this equation is that COVID-19 seems to be more dangerous for a particular age group and people with certain condition conditions. Numbers are displayed like reporting scores of an NBA, NFL, or cricket match without providing any further details about what these numbers really signify. Are these infections among high-risk people? What is the percentage of people from high-risk groups among reported deaths? What's the recovery rate among high-risk and low-risk people? These are only some of the questions that could be easily answered due to our increased speed and capacity to collect and process the data. All the efforts should have been directed towards protecting high-risk groups. Identify them, isolate them, and provide them with all essentials so that they don't have to mix with other low-risk populations without following strict social distancing protocols. It's easier to manage and control the behavior of a small group of people than putting an entire country in lockdown and expecting that everyone will obey it. Actually, the lockdown is an extremely inefficient, wasteful, resource-intensive, and expensive way of achieving the same goal, that is, to protect the high-risk people from infection of this virus. Only and only if this infection was extremely dangerous for everyone irrespective of their age or medical history the lockdown strategy in the way it is currently implemented would have made sense.

I wonder why these questions are not being asked in decision-making meetings? Why people are not proposing a more targeted approach than a one-size-fits-all approach? Why people are not able to see the self-inflicted damage on the economy and personal lives of the poor and marginalized? Why the number of infected people is important? What's the problem even if 90% of the country is infected if the death rate is within acceptable limits comparable to other similar infections? Imagine a scenario where 90% of a country is infected but only 0.1% of them are from the high-risk group. Is this better or worse than a complete lockdown where only 10% population is infected, but 10% of them are from the high-risk group? Why these models are not proposed or debated? Another thing to keep in mind is that any of these predictions based on modeling can be completely wrong. I worked in the area of structure-based drug design long enough to know that many times models fail to predict outcomes of complex problems. They are helpful, but they don't provide definitive answers and this should be a factor when considering predictions from any model.

As far as the lawmakers, national leaders, and other decision-makers are concerned, it is a win-win situation for all of them. If things get worse, more people die, they will claim, imagine the devastation without these precautionary measures. If things get better, and fewer people die, they will claim that this was the result of their aggressive measures. They win praise no matter what happens. Also, in hindsight, anything can be justified or criticized, this is called hindsight bias. The actual test is are these leaders willing to take steps that justify the cost they are inflicting on society or going to play safe and do what everyone is doing without analyzing if that's the best solution for their country or not? The answer is for everyone to see. 

This crisis will also pass for sure. I hope some of the questions which I posed above will be asked and we will be better equipped to deal with such pandemics in the future. I hope that worldwide panic will not be touted as a universal solution when we face another world crisis. I also wish to thank all who are at the forefront of fighting this war and are working tirelessly to deal with this situation.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.