Attempts to simplify things that are beyond simplification -1

Acceptance is one of the things we strive for the most probably.

One reason why we(a few of us atleast) are averse to changing the way we are is we want people to like us for what we are rather than what we can be.
Deep inside we (a few of us atleast) accept that they are not perfect, they know that they are far from it. But instead of changing they fight it using above mentioned excuses.

Now, along comes someone who accepts you the way you are. That's a great feeling - I am sure we (a few of us atleast) have felt it at some point of time or the other.
The acceptor gives us the space where we are who we are - we are exposed. And the acceptor is cool with it.
I guess the acceptor is cognizant of the fact that we are all humans afterall. They know that humans are never white or black always grey.

< I would give you examples from sacred scriptures or lives of the greatest among our species to prove my point. But my point would probably made much stronger if I allowed you to think of one person that is an exception to above - one person in the entire history of our race that was white or black in the entirety. Can’t think of one, right? Let me know if you do >

What we keep inside we can hide.
The previous sentence is what most of us(including me) believe to be true. But its probably the biggest lie of all times.
What makes you, makes you. And if someone interacts with you, they interact with you - inside & outside.
Most of would also believe the above sentence to be clearly false sub-consciously, i guess. < Here on all the of sentences end with 'I guess' >
Continuing on the same lines of thought, we would internally acknowledge the greyness and would want to try and make ourselves whiter.
Two problems:
• We dont want to on account of insecurity caused by in-acceptance
• Too difficult and risky. Black and white are mixed to form the grey. Cant just drag one out leaving behind the other. Plus, this is risky. Altering with the stuff that makes you - you is definitely dangerous. We do not know anything about the reaction - might not work, might not lead to desired result, might lead to a third and even worse form. The reaction is possibly irreversible and can potentially cause self-explosion.

The acceptor can help with both. Our definition of acceptor says that as soon as there is an acceptor problem 1 is solved. Problem 2 is a little complex; saying that the acceptor can see through you clearly, untie the black and whites and flush out what can be flushed out is just plain silly. The person who feels this way probably refuses to acknowledge that their acceptor is a human as well – and like all of the rest the acceptor is just as good at it.
But then, there are two people at it now - with two different points of views and both understanding the problem equally well (In case we don’t see the problem, the acceptor can help us out with that.). Talking to oneself and trying to disentangle oneself may not work as well as talking to someone who ones you and then the two of them work at it. The second person has the advantage of both your perspective and theirs, and very often also of your respect. Point being I think this can work.
And if you have seen this work, maybe you can try it out too.
The first step, of acknowledging that everyone is just a mere human, as the cliché would tell us is probably the most difficult.


<
As a side-note I would like to add that almost everyone thinks that there troubles are the greatest and that they are beings that no one would understand and their issues are such that no one can appreciate them. I am sorry to say this, but that’s bull-crap! Unfortunately we are not that cool. We are just as sad as the next fellow and just as simple and just as much lame.
>

Pass the blue pill please

some people will have you believe that to appreciate the light, happiness or everything positive basically u must experience the dark, sadness or negativity.

Fucking optimists, they piss me off. Just things are going well they ll scoff at you for being depressed. They ll keep coming up with even stupider logic to make u feel "better"

To the same shitty funda i'd ask you to picture this :
We all live in some semi-dark or semi-lit areas, until we see some flashes of bright light we never know how dark our surroundings really are. And these bright flashes as the name goes are only flashes, zip here and zap gone. Now that there is no blinding light your previously semi lit area appears much much darker. Someplace where you could survive looks inhabitable now. All you can do is sit down and moan.

So my question is - should you rather not stay away from any possible contacts with these flashes? Don't you wish u had never seen the stream, knowing that it ll just be a dry strip once monsoon passes away.

IIMs suck

Yes they do and far more than u'd think being the premiere institute for management and whatnot

Here goes:

They have one entire year to come up with the CAT paper. 75 questions these days.

And they cannot get it right!

These guys are about to coach the smartest brains in the country and they cannot set a paper that does not have mistakes.

For two years in a row the paper had right-in-front-of-your-eyes errors that can easily be pointed out in two minutes. But a normal guy holds the IIMs in very high esteem. He doesn't expect the IIMs to make mistakes. He thinks its probably a calculation mistake on his own part and might can end up loosing very precious minutes. In a test where timing is everything - spittable.

And look at what they are dishing out in the Verbals section.

The examinee has too to deal with questions that do not have right and wrong answers but most appropriate answers or closest answers.

Two of the top coaching institutes couldn't come to a consensus on the answers, out of the 25 questions 7 questions had different answers last year and 4 this year.

The best teachers at these institutes had all the time and help they needed.

A typical examinee(i mean a smart guy who has might actually have chances of clearing this) spends approximately 40-45 minutes on the verbals section.

Each question has a scoring of +4/-1 for correct and wrong answers. So difference between getting a question right and getting it right is 5 points(marks, whatever).

So a difference of 7 questions makes a difference of 35 points.

The sectional cutoff for the verbal paper was around 21 last year and is predicted to around the same mark this year as well.

In an MCQ one expects to see right and wrong answers; and not right, less right and more right answers. An MCQ is supposed to be based on clear logic and without ambiguity.

The skill to make the kind of differentiation that IIMs are looking for is best seen in a subjective paper. Here, what they end up having is a case where the examinee gets to the two best answers and guesses!!! In the most important exam of his life where 2-3 points means hundreds of ranks he guesses.

A right answer and he is in, a wrong and he is out.... and he is reduced to guessing.

When the competition is so high; when small differences can lead to such a big difference in a persons' life I would like to think that the people who can ensure a fair chance to all would do so.