Commentophobia!!!

Did you read it right?? Does it mean "fear of comments"?? Yes, that title do mean 'fear of comments on blog'.  That term 'commentophobia' has been coined by me (as far as I know :);  not that it seems innovative or sounds awesome, but still...). In my first post, I asked people to share their views through comments.

Response to the first two comments: Thanks to both ugri and ankit. Then provided an explanation for a point put up by Ankit regarding my post.

I was really encouraged when I got the first 2 comments (let it be from 2 of my best friends). The 3rd comment quadrupled my enthusiasm (I can really receive 3 comments within 2 hours of my post!!!), with another really nice and appreciating comment.

However, with each of the comments that followed I got a bit restless. Each comment that followed objected to a certain viewpoint held by me, put up in the post. Initially, it was one-on-one (war between the comments and replies had begun), then it shifted to two-on-one (obviously, i am the one and not one of the two). Both of them objected to the same point, and became more and more specific each time; both supporting each other and validating each others' points. I felt the fear of accepting the defeat in my first post itself, of giving up my viewpoint (how can one win when the people writing comments are going deeper than the author himself). But, then I held myself, 'thought' sincerely, not giving up to my 'heart's weakness'; I pinged Ankit, who was one of those who had troubled me with the comments, and the following battle ensued, where I overcame my fear. Have a look at the "War of Words", with my expert comments in between:

Note: Comments have been written in quotes

"The fear"

prateek: arey tu apne comment ka kuch reply soch yaar baap re...itna to

depth mein main khud nahi gaya

Sent at 10:34 PM on Friday

"Soon, I had come up with a reply, and was going to post when I thought (out of my fear) that it would be better to have Ankit's reaction informally before seeing it formally in form of comments: here is my reply to the chat, asking for his response"

prateek: I may not have interpreted "rationalisng creatures" in the correct sense.

But the point remains the same, i.e., when did the human kind evolve, or make progress - when they were 'rational' or were 'rationalising'??

If I am correct, rationalising would mean that men/women would have performed an instinctive action (a result of feelings and emotions). When we say that men have not been exactly rational, but tried to be rational; it strengthens the basis of my viewpoint. Man seeks a logical reason behind any achievement, any development, any discovery. Then why not be rational, although it may be tough. As I say,"Be what you would like to be and not impersonate what you would like to be (i.e. a rational being)."

ankit.ashok: people are uncomfortable with instinct, they seek to rationalise and that too most actions are not rational - the whole economy and especially marketing depend on the non-rationality of the customers

tu ye comment likh de..fir main apna likh dunga

Sent at 11:02 PM on Friday

"Did you notice the time gap, I thought of a reply "soon" i.e. "11:02 PM"!!! Now, I am almost hysterical"

prateek:

tune wo comment likh diya to to meri watt lag jayegi...koi defence hi nahi kar paoonga...kya boloonga uske liye main?? hudd hai!! par wahi to ideal case mein to rational hona chahiye na

tu keh raha hai market depends on rationality of customers but in a perfect competition which is ideal, customers are also assumed to be rational

ankit.ashok: irrationality of customers is how it works thats the flaw in economics as it is now

"Finally, overcame my fear and a 'sensible' discussion follows"

prateek: nd every1 wld like not to deviate frm ideality

ankit.ashok: and time and again it has led to recessions they would like to think that they dont deviate from rationality

prateek: rationality has led to recessions??

"Next Post Topic: Rationality leading to Recessions!!!"

ankit.ashok: like, agar mughe koi pooche ki tughe short skirts pasand hai ya intelligence, main ob intell boloonga.. par i want short skirts

ankit.ashok: the assumption that customers will be rational when they are not

prateek: ya thy r not, but thy shld be na thts the whole point fir kya!!!

ankit.ashok: y should they be?

prateek: bec thts wht is ideal and to judge a rational person's behaviour is much easier

ankit.ashok: just becoz that person found it too difficult to under human behavior without the assumption, y should the world change? arey thats the mistake of the guy who is modelling it

prateek: arey hudd hai, dekh tujhe agar short skirts chahiye to tu woh bol, assuming that u wld like intelligence is irrational

ankit.ashok: geniuses are supposed to model the real world correctly - not the real world to follow whatever the geniuses dreamt of

prateek: or u sayin tht u wld like intelligence bec it's expected frm u, is totally irrational...a nd this expectation comes bec before this ppl like u wld hv said 'intelligence' irrationally

ankit.ashok: would u believe, I am chatting to u more than I am to the girl?

prateek: hehe

"A good example on the way...read the following"

thts an instinct...bec u r njoyin tlkin abt this now...howevr if u use ur mind, u may chat or talk with me later, but u wont to tht girl so u shld chat with tht girl instead of me...nd i shld mug, but i m not... thts all instinct

ankit.ashok: again, humans are good at rationalising : they look at their responce to a problem and say - ok this is what I should have done - so when they have ample amt of time and nothing to lose, they follow whatever i think they SHOULD do, not what they WOULD do

prateek: its only whn we need to justify our mistakes tht we rationalise  or whn we dont hv any basis for our actions nd we want to justify it to ourselves, tht we rationalise if we want to justify tht to ourselves and can thnk of a rationale later, why not before taking actions its not a question of what humans are, but what humans shld be?? mind or heart??

ankit.ashok: again, what determines what humans should be? only your model na? a model can never dictate

prateek: forget abt the model, see wht man does whn he rationalises... he wants some proof or justification for wht he did...a person will be satisfied nd wont search for rationale if he wld hv already taken tht path... already done tht... so for satisfying himself, he shld do tht... say, wht happens if he is unable to rationalise??

ankit.ashok: no, he will still look for reason  becoz humans seek acceptance abe tere se baad mein baat karta hoon

prateek: arey ab jab tune soch samjhke kuch kiya hai thn it wont matter hehe... mind at work

"And there ends the discussion, when a girl interrupted him on GTalk, anyways this is long enough...Hope you all liked it...if not then wait for the next post after end-sems, this was just a series of comments and responses, which I thought would not classify as comments but as a post."

Now, I would really wish people to comment on any of my posts. It's nice to have different viewpoints, sometimes you do feel that you are wrong (not in my case).