Some Validation of the Aforesaid Illustrations

The array of personalities highlighted thus far is, in fact substantial biographical evidence to demonstrate how, irrespective of their vocations, perceptiveness worked for stalwarts and which is why they did become stalwarts, whom history is proud to recount. However, this evidence is more like a ballad leading us to a belief rather than a structured correlation of facts which could usher in a conclusion. No work would be complete without an empirical study to indicate the correlation. Therefore this compilation would have been left unconvincing if one had opted out of an attempt to substantiate the postulates with contemporary data and their analyses.

An attempt to address a heterogeneous audience was a priority. The heterogeneity was spread amongst different vocations, age groups, nationalities and cultures, covering South Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the United States. Onehundred participants were shortlisted based on these factors of heterogeneity and the trends were observed. Here’s the simplistic questionnaire that was used—a set of 10 close ended questions.

The intention of keeping the number of questions to only 10 was to go with the expectation that time was the biggest scarcity in all professions irrespective of culture or location. Secondly, people were averse to answering too many questions, even if they were closed ended, unless someone was habitually keen to answer inventory based probes. Also the small number of closed ended questions were discreetly picked and worded so that correlations could be deduced easily without having to connect too many of them to construct the chain leading to the findings. Each question has been explained with its objective and the answers depicted graphically in order to elucidate the causative analysis. The deductions drawn so far in this work in the form of statement of historical facts and description of personalities are well validated through this research. Every question and its replies have only reiterated them.

The first question: Can you see what’s happening behind you, when surrounded by known people?

The explanation: Here the respondent has to understand the context in which the question has been asked. “See” does not literally convey that the respondent is physically able to see with the use of his/her eyes. But instead, it is to query, if one is able to visualize the broad sequence of events or conversation taking place, when one is not around amongst people who are well acquainted with the respondent.

The answers: Four options were provided and the replies have been tabulated as follows.

Answers	Percentage
Yes, very clearly	19.59
No, not at all	13.4
To some extent	65.98
Others	1.03

The graphical representation of the responses:

This is a direct question to ascertain perceptiveness going by the definition enumerated in the earlier part of the book, (titled as Introduction). Based on one’s observations of a person’s behavioral responses to situations and behavior one has to use his/her alertness to comprehend the pattern. Once that is done one begins to have premonitions in the direction that would coincide with facts. Every person would possess this attribute but the variation would be that of the degree of accuracy. Two factors contribute to accuracy—correctness of observations and the intensity of alertness.

Amongst our respondents there were 13.4 percent, who honestly admitted that they were not able to “see” and another 1.03 percent who avoided answering directly or chose to reply in a vague manner for they did not have a positive answer or possibly didn’t perceive the question and its context. It does not mean that they (13.4 percent plus 1.03 percent) were not keen observers or they weren’t alert enough. It only meant that both their social awareness and alertness didn’t work for them simultaneously. Since we are looking at a continuum, those stating that they could “see” to some extent only were subjected to distractions while making sequential observations, dissuading the consistency needed. Let us concede that inconsistency in alertness brings about inconsistency in observations and therefore adds to the inaccuracies in registering them in the repositories of our memories. A large majority that is, 65.98 percent fell in this category. Not that the entire 19.59 percent were to be accepted as those who could comprehend well, but it is such percentages are always small and the fact regarding their “sensibilities” are corroborated through other questions here. The term “social awareness,” has been used throughout this book, liberally. It refers to “the presence of signals that are aroused from the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste or hearing and that may relate to human personalities, to situations or even to inanimate or animate objects (experienced)” part of the definition. Daniel Goleman the founding thinker on Emotional Intelligence describes social awareness as the tool that shows how people handle relationships through awareness of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns. Matthew Lieberman the neuro-social scientist from University of California refers to it as the “the mind wandering circuitry that directs us to think about other people’s minds—their thoughts, feelings, and goals” in his book Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect.⁵

The Second Question: Do you overhear others’ conversations and pretend not to?

The explanation: Constrained by ethical norms we attempt to rein in our senses and desist from overhearing anyone else’s conversation. Human beings as we are, however, we do overhear. It is another thing that such communication just pours into our ears and we do not register the words. Or our mind unconsciously chooses some words (more or less) to register, while in some instances every word registers even if there is no deliberate move to do so and there are other instances when you make those deliberate attempts, dropping the ethics aside. Therefore the instinct varies from not registering to embedding every word or at least the logical construct derived from such words. The hypothesis is that the more perceptive you are the greater would be your inventory enabled to record and remember.

The answers: Again four options were provided and the replies have been tabulated as follows.

Answers	Percentage
Yes, mostly	19.19
Yes sometimes, if I am doing something, where a lot of concentration is not needed	59.6
No, never	18.18
Others	3.03

The graphical representation of the responses:

The respondents who have stated “no, never” are either scared of exposing themselves to a highly ethical society or the ethics prohibiting someone to overhear are very deeply ingrained (18.18 percent). Those responding with variable responses in the “others” category, have not led to any logical conclusions (3.03 percent). Hence shall be clubbed with the earlier “negative” responses. A bulk of the responses (59.6 percent) has said “sometimes.” Honest answers with the fear of losing control over their objective of what they were trying to achieve. Attention has got divided, which is only natural, while pursuing a task. Only a few said that they mostly overheard such conversations (19.19 percent).

Once I was training a bunch of executives in an open house program on “listening skills”…I dubbed a beautiful poem on the subject of listening with a background of Gaur Saarang, an Indian Raga [literally…a melody…or one of the melodic modes used in traditional…Indian classical music] by the famous Pt. Bhimsen Joshi and asked the participants to read the poem well. After the display of the lines of the poem, done slower than acceptable norms, participants had to confess as to what they were doing, whether listening to the music or reading. Some said they were doing both. Probed further on the content of the poem or about the music, this lot failed to respond satisfactorily. There was another group which said that the music came in their way of concentrating on the lines and compelled them to take more time than usual to comprehend the lines. However, they made their answers explicable, with a greater zest than what had been observed in the last group. Then there was this another group which confessed that the music was too mesmerizing and they caved in to that and eventually gave up on comprehending the poem, without the fear of being held accountable for not doing the task assigned on time. This was the bolder lot who were able to express that they were not prepared to sacrifice experiencing the sense of hearing (listening), for they were confident that given a little more time the poem lines would be well understood through already mastered skills of reading and cognition, if the music was muted.

The responses to the previous question have been on similar lines. While it is vital to do a task with full application of one’s mind, senses such as seeing, hearing, smelling and touching are ever alert and are wandering as Liebermann the social neuroscientist states. More than 2,500 years ago Buddha was teaching people about the human mind with a different purpose, so that they might understand themselves better and discover that there was a way out of suffering. Buddha too described the human mind as drunken monkeys, jumping around, screeching, chattering and carrying on endlessly. We all have monkey minds, Buddha said, with dozens of monkeys all clamoring for attention, in response to stimuli—external and internal. Reading and writing on the other hand emerge as an outcome of skills. However rapt an attention one may possess to express the skills, it does not overrule the senses. This is what determines the degree of perceptiveness even if it is at the cost of efficiency to perform the task assigned, definitely not at the cost of productivity though. Another dimension which we may not ignore is that even among the senses, the use of sight and touch is a voluntary activity while hearing and smelling are not and continue to be involuntary, unless you walk out of the environment. Therefore it is not a matter of choice whether you want to hear or smell. They reach you even if you do not want to receive the signals. Therefore it is only the mind that filters and decides what to store and what to scrap.

One’s alertness to communication, situations and the contexts is one essential contributory factor in one’s perceptiveness. The other is of course the recognizing them and storing them for a recall whenever needed. Wherever the accountability factor is mightier than one’s receptivity to surroundings, perceptiveness takes a dip. This fact would be discussed at greater length, when correlations are examined.

The Third Question: When you are preoccupied, how frequently do you sense that there are things happening around you?

The explanation: Principally this is a basic question which ought to have been asked in the beginning, but has been strategically placed as the third question in the sequence, so that the responses are easier to validate. Do you not find it similar to the First Question? If you can actually sense occurrences of routine nature without making an extra effort your alertness is undoubtedly sharp. Alertness is indisputably one of the contributory factors toward effective perceptiveness but such alertness all by itself is incapable of enhancing the latter. It inevitably needs to be complemented with a high nous of “social awareness,” defined earlier.

The answers: The four options and their responses have been tabulated as follows.

Answers	Percentage
Always	23.23
Sometimes	64.65
Never	9.09
Others	3.03

The graphical representation of the responses:

23.23 percent have boldly stated that they always do. This only means that they were more alert than the rest. It does not let us conclude that this was a measure of perceptiveness. However, this attribute is invariably an essential component of perceptiveness, and is complemented by social awareness as already stated in the explanation. 64.65 percent state that they sometimes do, which meant that their alertness to such things happening was wavering and which is quite natural. 9.09 percent have refused to recognize noticing such things happen and 3.03 percent have left us with unconcerned answers. I remember the story that our Chemistry teacher in IX standard had told us. “In a classroom a teacher was talking about the role of a catalyst to the students, when in order to check back he asked a student if the latter could repeat what the former had explained. The student replied, “Sir, the lizard on the wall has gone into the hole next to the skylight!” Are you fellows listening? Do you see how attentive this student was?” Now, let us see the relevance of the story. The student talking about the lizard was oblivious to what was happening in the classroom because his interest lay in the wall lizard making its moves, rather than the story about the catalyst. His alertness to what was happening around him was absolutely focused on the lizard and he did not know about anything else occurring. The 9.09 percent are like this student absolutely focused on to their preoccupation. 64.65 percent are of the kind who perhaps were also watching the lizard but whose attention kept oscillating between “the role of the catalyst” and the movement of the lizard, only sometimes, depending on their interest levels. Guessing it right perhaps the percentage of those watching the lizard would be much less, as the lizard was noiseless. We have seen that we succumb to involuntary senses more than the voluntary ones and also the interest levels perhaps were diminished…“Catalyst” was new. They had all seen wall lizards before! Therefore what you wish to see, touch, hear and smell depends on your interest level in the subject too. Involuntary senses receive the signals you are not interested in, but do not register or even get to reject them! What this goes to determine, is illustrated in the following equation.

Alertness ∞ Interest

Now this ferries us into asking ourselves the next query as to, how does one build on quicker social awareness if focus comes in one’s way, when social awareness is the other key to perceptiveness. If alertness is so dependent on interest, one would be confined within limitations to record data pertaining to one’s interest only. (Does that mean that a perceptive person has multifarious interests? We shall come back to this soon, as at this stage it is more significant to document the findings of the research conducted with our sample audience.)

Our next question (the fourth question) is intertwined with the question asked here (the third question) and goes to verify one’s ability to at least make an effort to address the issues small or big highlighted through the alertness displayed.

The Fourth Question: When you sense things are happening around you, do you respond to all?

The explanation: Let us understand that the response to things around you would be elicited, only if you sense them. But sometimes you sense them and yet do not respond. Is it a choice that you exercise? And going a step further is it a choice based on your interest level or is it a social compulsion? If we assume for a while that it is the latter, it is certain that you are doing so because you value the relationship/s … you are a people’s person … you are curious about the person or the situation/s in which the people were. Is that curiosity for your own understanding and comprehension for a recall later or is it for an immediate proactive response? In both cases your presence is noticed especially when you are amongst known people. If it is the former it could be just for quenching your thirst for figuring out what is what and record the experience for your own understanding.

The answers: Again four options were provided and their responses have been tabulated as follows.

Answers	Percentage
Yes, I try to manage all	18
Yes, only to unusual ones	68
Do not pay heed to them at all	12
Others	2

The graphical representation of the responses:

When 18 percent say that they try to manage all, they are surely expressing so with a certain confidence. Most of us are conscious that one of the vital sources of confidence is awareness—of how to manage. This means not only do these respondents know what was happening but also as to why it was happening, what would resolve the issue if it was a problem and what would help escalating it if it was a proactive contribution. This leads to the finding that such persons are socially aware of the intricacies of behavioral responses and what directions were to be provided. The only limitation to such persons is time and that is why the use of the word, “try.” A large majority would be drawn to unusual happenings as they are riddled off the cuff and receive a jerk in their accepted process of thinking as to what would follow what. Here the approach normally would be to attend to the happenings when one is off what, one is involved in. The social awareness does prevail in them but not to that extent as in the case of those who were more confident. That is why that extra focused time is needed to comprehend, or in other words create that social awareness, when not involved in anything else. The unusual happenings catch their alertness just as a spelling mistake in a sentence would, or a discordant note in a piece of melody would or an obnoxious smell in a clean environment would or the touch of a hot metal would. Therefore the alertness also remains subdued unless something unusual happens. In the case of others this alertness is constrained because of their being overpowered by the needed focus, for which perhaps extra efforts were required.

The allusion to the great Mahabharata, where Dronacharya the Guru is full of appreciation on receiving a response from Arjuna saying, “I see nothing but the eye of the bird” will definitely not be worth it, in today’s context. Such illustrations may be worthwhile only when concentration is explained, but surely not when perceptiveness is. The alertness to wider range of activities and situations is the call of the day. And the knowhow of how to control them would be derived from the practiced skill of wider social awareness. A very aptly put thought by the famous French novelist, Marcel Proust, “The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.”

The Fifth Question: Do you think you can discern between unusual happenings from usual ones, when you are preoccupied?

The explanation: This is actually in continuation to the commentaries made in the answers to the previous question, rather a step beyond. The question is about focus or concentration. Are you Arjuna of the Mahabharata times or Arjuna required to be in the millennial generation, when the flow of information is incessant and that too from a variety of sources? Will you be focused on your immediate goal and let other information go by? Such information may not come to you again or it may, when you have already learnt it through someone else who has a “one-up” on you and you discover that it might have been vital in this competitive and innovative race for mere survival, let alone you proving to be outstanding. Can you afford not to discriminate between the unusual from the usual or do you need to go beyond, to comprehend the routine or usual as well, and comprehend the finer discernments? It may seem contradictory to what we have been indoctrinated with since childhood. Focus, concentration, no-distraction were beautiful words with the Arjuna’s role model as an ideal. Not that they cease to be! But the concentration or focus now stands challenged with the much needed information or data that has a continuous inflow. Your focus is needed at multiple places. Are we not living in the era of multitasking and preparing to equip ourselves accordingly? There has been a paradigm shift. The question has been asked to find out if one is able to identify the basics or one is adept in going beyond the fundamentals.

The answers: The respondents are again of four categories—A. Those confident B. Those who are on the brink and need that extra effort C. The traditional “Arjunas” and D. Do not fathom the seriousness of the question.

Answers	Percentage
Yes of course	18
Make an effort to put all my senses into action	68
Can comprehend only when I am off what I was doing	12
Others	2

The graphical representation of the responses:

Of the surveyed respondents, those who felt that it was no uphill task at all to distinguish between the extraordinary from the ordinary, while being preoccupied with something else, were just about 18 percent. “Yes, of course” indicates the confidence and also gets to reveal the respondent’s mindset to be in the frame, “What’s the big deal? I thought you wanted me to find out something more!” These are the millennial Arjunas, who could sense things happening around them whether there was a striking note in the midst of the routine or not. We have had such millennial Arjunas from time immemorial and in this book we have cited exemplary sagas about personalities who are ensconced with this attribute that is so relevant in the 21^st century. Sixty eight percent were found having to make that little extra effort to capture the awareness needed to comprehend the sequence of events and their causes. In this lot, would it not be safe to conclude that (1) they were the majority [the survey shows so], (2) they could sense things only with that extra effort, which did not come to them naturally and that (3) they were not oblivious (social awareness was awakened) but needed a push? They need to gear up, while 12 percent are the traditional Arjunas. These are the people who have to change their understanding. Their perspective of focus and concentration are outdated in the contemporary world. They have to work on the mindset change. The others that is, 2 percent are clueless about what they need to do.

The normal probability theory would apply to the process of distinguishing the unusual from the usual. In general, probability is a measure of the likelihood of some outcome. We use it not to describe what will happen in one particular event, but rather, what the long-term proportion that outcome will occur.

Let us recall Shahaji’s numerous battles mentioned in “The Parley.” He was conversant (socially aware) with how the Mughal and the Nizam armies would respond, especially when his own army was phenomenally outnumbered. He was also conversant with the terrain, the topography, the geography, the season in the year and the dynamics of a river dam. The solution therefore was not far away particularly when the ways of guerrilla warfare was also something he was accustomed to. Let us see the emphasis that he built on his thinking in numerous directions with the grasp of knowledge and awareness on a variety of subjects. The unusual that prompted him to think differently was the well equipped humungous numbers available to the foe. As a valiant soldier, he could have well fought the battle till total destruction, as many Rajput kings of this country had done. But approaching more recent times, as a strategist and as a leader his approach was different. He noticed the unusual very fast only to respond quickly from his inventory of awareness and devastated the enemy. His focus was tracking over different things simultaneously—from the camping site of the gigantic size of the opponent, to the river in full flow to the loosening of the civil work in the dam to the terrain of the land. The most spectacular aspect was that these were made to happen in quick succession or almost simultaneously—which was possible because of this tracking of a few multiple things, he was confidently aware of—in a spontaneous response. It can be argued that such strategies in warfare have been cited in the epics as well, such as that of the Trojan Horse in the Iliad or the Chakravyuh in the MahaIndiaa. But let us not overlook the fact that we were made to believe in reference to those stories from the epics. All those strategies were carried out with ample planning and time at one’s disposal. Shahaji had to execute his strategy overnight before day break. It was only and only achievable because of the alertness (tracking ability) and social/general awareness that he possessed about the stretch and the region. He was a millennial Arjuna living in the medieval period!

The Sixth Question: What adds to your immediate understanding of a situation/person?

The explanation: Most of us judge people while interacting with them, unless it is a one-time query that you are making or replying to a passerby who is asking for directions to a place. Even in that short while we start asking ourselves as to why that question was asked, or what could be the reason for that person looking for that place, and so on. It is man’s fundamental nature to be judgmental, whether rational or biased or illogically guided by one’s fancies. This is the reason as to why we query ourselves to find an answer which could eventually lead us to the judgment. Let us examine what are usually the guidelines for a person to conclude on a perception/judgment/understanding. Alfred Otara from the Kigali Institute of Education, Rwanda spells them out in his article, “Perception: A Guide for Managers and Leaders” published in Vol. 2, No. 3; September 2011 of the Journal of Management and Strategy by Sciedu Press. They have been simplified as Habit, Motivation, Learning, Specialization and Social Background. How many times do we mistake a heavy vehicle passing by our house for an earthquake? Those who live in earthquake prone belts are often left bewildered, when they in due course find that it was only a heavy eight wheeler trailer making its way. This perception has arisen because of habit. If you are busy writing a project report in your study, when someone is watching a cricket match on the television in the living room and you hear the spectators raising a humdrum, what is your understanding? A four, a six or someone clean bowled, that is if you are interested in cricket. If you are not then it is cacophony. This is a simple illustration of interest and motivation leading to a perception. The demonetization drive of the Indian nation categorically highlighted the distinction between the learned and the not so learned. Here the learning refers to the ability to use Internet banking and move toward a cashless economy or the inability to do so for whatever reason. Those unable, find the whole movement as something that has jeopardized their only means of transacting. This is a characteristic example of how a perception could come to stay if one has not enough learning, about what one has to do. A death in the family will have the neighborhood policeman make enquiries if there was anything unusual. Your lawyer friend would query you if all papers regarding inheritance were in order. Then there is the recluse who would philosophize the situation and talk about the good and the bad “karma.” If you have a physician in the family and was not present when the person died, he would probably probe into medical reasons of the death and give you bits on what could have been done as an alternative. This is how specializations influence perceptions. I have had relatives visiting me from my village on occasions of an initiation ceremony or a wedding or even a death for that matter. They are awestruck when we consciously overrule certain rituals, which we felt were irrelevant in urban globalised living. Perhaps we are in for a criticism back in our village. Well that is not where we were socialized and therefore it did not matter to us if they had strong objections because of their social background.

Perceptions guide every interaction. Therefore your understanding, however rational you may try to be, stands influenced by your perceptions. You could only minimize such influence but not eliminate them. Among the factors that Otara has mentioned, learning plays a very significant role in minimizing the influence of your perception-constructs built as a result of other reasons listed by him. The more (facts) you know about a situation or a person, easier it becomes for your understanding irrespective of whether you are present or not.

Answers	Percentage
Experience of similar situations or persons with whom you have interacted	22
I make a fresh start of activating all my senses assuming that every person and every situation is different	22
I make a fresh start of activating all my senses assuming that every person and every situation is different, but also recall my experience to validate my understanding	53
Other	3

The answers: Let us classify the respondents in four categories again—A. Those overtly confident about relying on what and how they need to assess. B. Those that are not confident about relying on their past experience and wish to make a fresh assessment C. Those who wish to add value to their experiential data and wish to be qualitatively more accurate with their assessments and D. Those, who do not comprehend, the direction in which, the question is trying to probe.

(A) is a group of 22 percent persons who fundamentally do not question their experience. Why they seemingly appear to be overconfident is perhaps, because, they are largely overlooking the fact that with the passage of time, when there is a likelihood of contextual change, the responses also are likely to be different in more than one way. (B) This is a group that does not wish to rely on earlier experience and wish to make observations afresh to make its assessments, even though those in that group might have had similar experiences. Perhaps they do not trust their data recall. They too are 22 percent of the sample surveyed. (C) Those in this group (53 percent) are “aware” that their assessments based on their experiences, no doubt would be an active and valid input but such inputs need to be validated further as contexts keep changing much faster today than it ever did before. They are conscious of the quality of the assessment to be made, while maintaining the contemporariness of the situation or the person. Analyzing the responses in (D) would not bear any fruit (only 3 percent) in the midst of our background of discussions here. The most rational response is from (C). Let us understand this with an illustration cited earlier.

Martin Wickramasinghe, the historian, social anthropologist and writer from Sri Lanka, whose biography has been discussed in brief, in our earlier pages, stands out to exemplify what is being stated here. Wickramasinghe started his journalistic career in “Dinamina” in 1916 and after having spent five years in the organization was elevated to the editorial staff in 1921, when he also got married. He left the organization to join “Lakmina” in 1927. This meant that he had good 11 years of rich experience in “Dinamina,” enough to create influential perceptions about people and subjects that the paper covered. But we notice that when he returned to the paper five years later as the editor of this Sinhala national daily, he had a different perspective. A fairly large chunk of time had lapsed, since he had last worked there. Times had changed and the context had changed.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the great teacher and philosopher had summarized it all when he frequently quoted Confucius (as already cited in the chapter denoting perceptiveness of teachers), “He who by re-animating the Old can gain knowledge of the New is fit to be a teacher.” He had certainly said so in reference to the teaching profession, where the characteristic of understanding plays an extremely vital role. In contemporary language, let us put it this way. Visit your repository of knowledge to understand and comprehend a situation or a person but do not withhold yourself to acquire the new, to validate your data.

Cecil B. DeMille not only while making The 10 Commandments, visited and revisited issues and approaches with a different perspective every time, but also as must have been noticed his tendencies of upgrading his perception with changing times has been astounding. At the cost of repeating, the following statement has been reproduced about him. “The arrival of the “talkies” did not deter the resolve that Cecil had. His resilience assisted him to transition his approach. He even devised a microphone boom, a soundproof camera blimp [housing] and also popularized the camera crane.”

The Seventh Question: Do you make serious efforts to find out how your behavior has been viewed by the person with whom you have been interacting?

The explanation: Even a toddler looks for acknowledgement of behavior… a nod, a smile, a hug, a frown or a glaring eye! His behavior is thereafter reinforced accordingly. Every communication would be incomplete if a feedback is not received. The good old theories in communication have been publicizing since time immemorial, about feedback. But it is interesting to see that it is not whole heartedly practiced even then. The westerners generally are a little more conscious about a candid response than their Asian counterparts. The response need not be a feedback with clarity though. Providing a feedback with clarity is a skill only a few possess. Usually those who are espousing or awaiting a feedback, are responsibly expected to comprehend the response on their own, through their perceptions of anything that prevails between body language and total silence (a conventional means of response in eastern and southern Asia that could be again interpreted in a variety of ways—anything from joy to acceptance to fury), past validated interpretations, the contextual facts or further tactful probes. They are aware that the feedback on its own was a farfetched expectation and therefore the idea of this effort. Incidentally, a feedback is a must, whether a deliberate one, which could be voluntary from the respondent’s perspective, or an espoused one (involuntary). An espoused feedback would be when the respondent has been able to communicate as an outcome of all the efforts made by the one who is trying to comprehend the response. There are situations or responses where all is left to the one who is trying to understand. Kazi Nazrul Islam, the famous writer had to infer that he was being let down on his promises by his friend A.K. Fazlul Huq when he was working for the paper Daily Nabajug without getting to be told about it, as mentioned in the earlier pages. The reason that a feedback is essential is that comprehension and understanding by the one who has to receive the feedback eventually has to emerge out of the state of “ignorance.” In order to stay informed about all that is happening around him, it is a necessity. The urge for understanding therefore has to be intense irrespective of whether the respondent is responding or not. In many cases, situations or events occur where perhaps the expectation to receive any kind of response stands at nil. It is common to see people not replying to your calls, mails or messages. Despite that, the knowledge seeker has to go on.

Answers	Percentage
Yes I do always	36
Yes, only sometimes when I am unsure of the responses	47
Never, I feel it is invading into someone’s privacy	15
Other	2

Answers: We find from the survey carried out that 36 percent wish to ensure a feedback, in whatever form or manner they would get. 47 percent would like to rely on their previous experiences for a surmise of the situation and perhaps would refrain from probing for fresher evidence, unless compelled to, only if the findings were not corroborating with earlier ones. 15 percent would not really bother and would like to remain where they were. Two percent of the population suggested actions which were not relevant in the context being discussed. Let me quote my experience of teaching some post graduate management students. My discovery was that there were five different categories which I had unmindfully constructed. (1) Those from affluent families but were doing the course for a pastime—would eventually finish the course and go back to their family businesses with a stamp of a post graduate management certification. (2) Those from affluent families but were doing the course with a serious intention of applying their learning into their family businesses. (3) Those from not so affluent families and were doing the course with the hope of acquiring a respectable job immediately after the course, but were in a quandary with regard to the opportunities they needed to explore. (4) Those again from not so affluent families and were doing the course with the hope of acquiring a respectable job immediately after the course, but were conversant with the ways of the world and knew what exactly they had to do and then (5) those who had no clue about why they were into a management course—probably the only guideline they had was that this course would fetch them a high priced job. For me teaching was always an interactive process. The process had many advantages but what would be worthwhile mentioning here would be to have a response that brought clarity to my “satisfaction” of having been able to convey. My quest was for making that student understand, who was the poorest in comprehending. The biggest disadvantage was that of the “smarter” students having to bear with my process. But I used to get away, by instilling in them the confidence that these were lessons in patience for their future leadership roles. The gigantic task was to elicit responses to my utterances from categories (1) and (5), in particular. Having been able to do so, there were many conversions into taking interest in the subjects that I taught. The point I wish to make is that educing more information about the communication style and empathizing with the psychosocial status of each of them, acted as a big tool in the formation of the right perceptions. Over a period of time I graduated to a perceptive state when I could mark the attendance in the class, without calling out their names or even looking at them. I could raise my level of perceptiveness by refreshing my repository of perceptions.

The Eighth Question: Do you carefully observe how a person takes what you tell him/her, and then accordingly communicate?

The explanation: In fact this question is an extension of the seventh question, but garbed to espouse a validated response, which is evident in the answers. The question is trying to probe the ways and means adopted in eliciting a response. Are you hammering your standard method of extracting information whether the respondent has been able to respond in the way you expected or otherwise? Remember how Akira Kurosawa was unpopular in eliciting a positive response from the Japanese audience in his initial fling with cinema, which was under plenty of American or western influence? His style did not work. Eventually he picked on a unique style, which was a blend of the traditional Japanese theatre of “noh” and “kabuki” and his “western” techniques and shot to become a rage. He had to become popular at home first before launching himself as an international film maker and for that he had to have the right perceptions that worked. His perceptiveness had worked. His wait for the audience response had worked.

The Jio launch in India had to pervade the operational orbit of other well established telecom operators. The edge, that Jio was planned to have, was an exclusive 4G service. Older phones that only supported 3G, was not meant to work. Also it was not supposed to work on feature phones. You needed 4G connectivity. To make calls, Jio was supposed to rely on VoLTE network. This was something new in India. This meant that calls are made using data connection. While it was no problem for Jio to Jio calls. But for the Jio to GSM calls, one had to install an app called Jio Join because the calls would use interconnecting infrastructure that the usual telecom operators used. Even then there was a chance that calls would fail. Reliance CMD Mukesh Ambani himself confessed that in a tried out one week, 5 crore Jio calls failed. Although, he also said in the same breath that existing telecom operators were not doing their bit to make the service good for consumers. Why then was this calculated risk taken? The strategy used was a tactical deliberation to watch out for the response of the prospective customers, (a) posing a serious competition to the existing operators in terms of (i) creating a phenomenally large consumer base and (ii) bringing in a technology that the other operators were hesitant to and (b) foreseeing the future means of operations in consumer telecommunications. Imagine the effort made to probe for a response that would enhance the perception of the organization behind Jio and eventually its perceptiveness. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited has taken the telecom industry by storm and is awaiting the response from its subscribers and other respondents to calculate its next stroke.

Answers: Only 19.59 percent assertively say that they always waited for the audience response. In other words they were more calculative in placing their next stroke than the others. The next lot

Answers	Percentage
Yes, very clearly	19.59
No, not at all	13.4
To some extent	65.98
Others	1.03

appears to be more reactive or perhaps less calculative (13.4 percent). Their next stroke would mean that either they would not react or perhaps would tend to respond immediately, based on their past experience. The 65.98 percent is the vast majority that would either await the response or may even respond immediately depending on the situation or the person. That is, in some cases one would feel not so confident about the response and would like to wait and check, whilst in some others, one felt convinced, that their interpretation of the responses based on their earlier experiences would be by and large correct. It was only 1.03 percent respondents whose answers were irrelevant. Yes, come to think of it, most of us fall in the third category, where we do not wish to check for fresh substantiation and do not wait to watch with patience the forthcoming responses. I knew one Shankar, who was into a catering business and was earning good sums of money during the “marriage seasons” by serving choicest delicacies at dinner and tea parties during those days. Marriages and weddings in India are ceremoniously embedded with lavish dinners or tea parties. Again most of the marriages take place during certain times of the year amongst the majority. Shankar had been planning to visit his aged mother living all by herself in a remote village far away. Once he chose to give fulfillment to his long standing desire during the “off season” in the Indian month of Pausa (January), during which month, the majority tends to avoid fixing dates for weddings. He booked his railway tickets at least a month or so in advance. A friend of his called him in the third week of December only to tell him that there was a wealthy Christian family who was organizing their daughter’s wedding in January at Jaipur. They were essentially hunting for Shankar knowing his reputation about the quality of food that he served. They were looking at a three to four day event that included sagai (engagement), mehndi (adorning the henna motifs), vivah (the wedding) and the reception from the groom’s family and Shankar was to organize food for guests numbering 50 to three hundred on each occasion. They were keen to have only one caterer for all the four days. It was no doubt a phenomenal business opportunity for Shankar. His taking up the offer meant proliferating growth for his business, as this family was one that was counted amongst the “connected” people. Also the prospective customers not only were paying a better price than Shankar usually fetched but also were paying for travel and stay of his catering team as well. Secondly the “word of mouth” is what builds a brand for this kind of business. Shankar’s trip to his village had to be postponed indefinitely and he could make a quick round only six months later. Looking at this instance we find that Shankar was relying on his past experience of a lean period in January and had not refreshed his data bank of market information on opportunities…his friends and contacts and as to what kind of opportunities they could provide. His idea of responses had become outdated, which is why his plan for a vacation went awry.

The Ninth Question: Do you tend to categorize people and situations in terms of your previous assessments of similar nature and frame them thus?

The explanation: Again, this is an extension of, or carrying forward the probe with regard to the previous two questions. But this is also a clue to finding out as to how biases get generated. No doubt such a situation would occur when you have stretched your categories too far without updating your information bank. It would not be out of place to see a continuum with two extremes.

In other words, two kinds of extreme circumstances are seen. [X] is a circumstance where the observer has been seriously pursuing to update his knowledge about a person or a situation, either out of direct interest or compulsive curiosity. And therefore is able to correctly perceive consequences, even without having to probe much. The observer is called perceptive. [Y] is a condition, which arises out of your understanding of a person or a situation without updating your knowledge of the facts about them or because of relying on out dated information. Such an observer would be termed as dogmatic, biased or prejudiced.

Without further building on this correlation and leaving it aside for more elaborate discussions elsewhere and another time, let us go on to discussing the point that needs to be highlighted. That is the structuring of categories or types in our minds and what play into building them. We have already seen in the First Question the following, “Based on one’s observations of a person’s behavioral responses to situations and behavior one has to use his/her alertness to comprehend the pattern.” In this portion let us dwell on the variables that determine the comprehension. There are two parts to this. One part is entirely dependent on the facts observed. The behavior observed and encoded as a response to the causes recorded. The other part is the interpretation of the behavioral response in the context, giving rise to an understanding, which in turn depends on the psycho-social perspective of the observer, and how well that has been validated. The geographical location, the culture of the hinterland, the right understanding of the colloquial usage and the “neutrality or happiness—count” of the observer are the most prominent variables. This perspective is extremely significant for the correctness of the understanding. The absence or aberration of any of variables or their comprehension can jeopardize the accuracy of the conception of the category or type in which one would frame the subject—whether an individual or a situation. (Or push you toward a prejudiced understanding!)

Answers	Percentage
Yes mostly, unless I find something remarkably different	37
Sometimes, when I begin to find identical attributes	54
Never	12
Others	0

Answers: There were respondents amongst the audience surveyed, who confessed that they do not check back unless something different apparently shows up. Thirty-seven percent of the population surveyed communicated thus, vouching for not realizing the need to check up on the behavioral updates, regularly. An update becomes necessary, when one is startled to see an astonishingly different response or responses. Deveshwar had been employed with a small company for more than seven years. He and his employer Naresh shared a very cordial relationship. Naresh knew every time as to what Deveshwar aspired for and how he needed a support from the company in terms of financial assistance. Naresh also knew Deveshwar’s inherent interests in technology. He relished every work that was technical in nature. Naresh was planning to allot him a technical role in his new project which was on the anvil. In the meanwhile, Deveshwar had also picked up some basic skills in accountancy. While Naresh knew that he was involved in book writing he had not checked of late, if he found that work interesting and was assuming that he found it boring, which he did, when he was initially allocated that work. Therefore, Deveshwar’s refusal to move out for the new role, when the launch of the new project matured, came to him as a shock. 54 percent respondents confirmed that categorizing persons or situations was a normal trend and that they did so, when they found repeated consistency in behavioral responses. Satyajit Ray had in the assessment of his own self made different moves in life, just as Martin Wickramasinghe did, but distinctly his passion in making films stood out even for others to see. He had no doubt inherited the family skills in printing and later in writing followed by calligraphy and design. His skills in writing brought him closer to films when he started pursuing writing scripts for films. The fire in him for making films was kindled by his senior colleague D. K. Gupta with his suggestion to make the film “Pather Panchali” and his becoming aware of film-making with amateur artists after having watched the film, “Bicycle Thieves” in London. This illustrates the fact that he was categorized into a film-maker and every step or action that he took (the behavioral responses that he displayed) brought him closer to being bracketed as one. Wickramasinghe on the other hand came closer to his becoming a legendary historian in the region. In both the illustrations one would discover different behavioral responses but each one was pushing the belief to coming one step closer to the core area of excellence. There was a consistency in the moves and thus the categorization that emerged. There was a group of 12 percent of the respondents who confessed that they never derived any category and every time made a fresh assessment of the person or the situation. This has to be taken with a pinch of salt because it has been experienced that observers do judge a person or a situation and one would find it difficult to create an impression about or judging what one is observing without letting earlier impressions and thoughts influencing your present. It is possible that they might not have formally categorized or typed or given it a name, but previous images do linger. Having to believe what these respondents have stated we can only comment that either they have been able to work on themselves commendably to be able to start on a white sheet or are not clear or have not analyzed their approach well.

The Tenth Question: Which of the following personality attributes describes you best?

The explanation: This question was asked only to ensure if there was a correlation between perceptiveness and the character types—Analytical, Expressive, Empathic and Driver. These character types are not a depiction of such characters prevailing in exclusivity in a person. All these characters are prevalent in every human being. It is only that one character dominates the others. The domination of one character is observed in most situations and accordingly an individual is grouped. Usually the dominant character is backed up by another. Therefore an individual is usually guided by two main forms of character—the dominant character/style and the back-up character/style. The correlation between perceptiveness and any of the four styles is as difficult to establish as it is to confirm that in a particular situation an individual response would be predominantly governed by one character. In the effort to exemplify the expression of perceptiveness through writers, teachers and those who aspired to be an auteur, the challenge has been to highlight all factual happenings and identify those that exhibited their perceptiveness, as we have learnt to recognize it. Let us examine in detail the attributes of each of these characters/styles (thanks to persuasive.net).

Analytical

What should catch our attention is the reliance on data?

Driver

Expressive

Amiable

I have intentionally not sought a correlation with the MBTI types because the understanding is that a perceptive person could be extrovert or an introvert. Likewise he could be intuitive, or sensing, or thinking or feeling. In other words, the cognitive elements would always work at their best and it is not significant therefore, to identify which (combination) type is more perceptive.

An inventory based Psychometric test that determines your “dominant” style and your “back-up” style of functioning, in terms of the previous classification.

My Style

Consider each of the following questions separately and circle the one letter (a, b, c, or d) that corresponds to the description which fits your most. If you have trouble in selecting any one answer, select the one, which responds at work that would be the most natural or likely option for you to take.

My Styles—Scoring Form

1 a. Driver b. Amiable c. Analytical d. Expressive	7 a. Analytical b. Driver c. Expressive d. Amiable	13 a. Analytical b. Expressive c. Driver d. Amiable
2 a. Analytical b. Driver c. Amiable d. Expressive	8 a. Expressive b. Analytical c. Amiable d. Driver	14 a. Analytical b. Expressive c. Amiable d. Driver
3 a. Amiable b. Expressive c. Analytical d. Driver	9 a. Amiable b. Analytical c. Driver d. Expressive	15 a. Expressive b. Amiable c. Analytical d. Driver
4 a. Expressive b. Amiable c. Analytical d. Driver	10 a. Driver b. Amiable c. Expressive d. Analytical	16 a. Analytical b. Driver c. Amiable d. Expressive
5 a. Driver b. Expressive c. Amiable d. Analytical	11 a. Amiable b. Driver c. Expressive d. Analytical	17 a. Driver b. Amiable c. Analytical d. Expressive
6 a. Amiable b. Analytical c. Expressive d. Driver	12 a. Analytical b. Amiable c. Driver d. Expressive	18 a. Amiable b. Analytical c. Driver d. Expressive

Count the number of “analyticals,” “amiables,” “drivers,” and “expressives.” Whatever is the highest score is your dominant style and your second highest score is your backup style.

Here are some of the typical attributes of workplace behavior that each style would go to show. (What is seen as follows is researched work that is available and is not a fresh conclusion.)

Mode of behavior	Analytical	Driver	Amiable	Expressive
On the telephone	Fairly short. Gives you all the details	Short. Tells purpose and hangs up	Medium length. Shares everything with you and want you to do the same	Lengthy. Can and will talk about anything and everything
Expects	To give facts and make sure they are true	To give results. Use caution and let him/her be in charge	To be her/his friend and handle her/his problems	To let her/him feel accepted. A part of the problem solving process
Thinks in	Present	Here and now	Past	Future
Ask how are they	Think, based on their own analysis	React to main point	Feel you are tracking with them	Feel about the concept
Backup your decision with	Evidence	Options	Assurances	Incentives
At their best	Deliberate Prudent Objective Rational	Assertive Objective Confident Competitive	Spontaneous Persuasive Empathetic Loyal	Original Imaginative Creative Idealistic
At their worst	Talkative Rigid Indecisive Over cautious	Arrogant Domineering Untrusting Self-Involvement	Impulsive Manipulative Subjective Sentimental	Unrealistic Impractical Out of touch Devious

The test and the inferences have been provided here to communicate an understanding and also the feel as to what each character would actually display.

The responses to the survey stand out as follows:

Answer	Percentage
Analytical	48
Expressive	40
Empathic (Amiable)	36
Driver	13

The Answers: The correlation between the character types and perceptiveness has been observed and summarized on the basis of trends in social behavior. Recently a group of 3,425 students studying in the fifth to the ninth standards in Munich, Germany were surveyed. https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/sfri-msh121312.php Dr. Kou Murayama, postdoctoral researcher of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles (who was then at the University of Munich) led the study. Dr. Murayama’s research draws on broad psychological theories regarding motivation and cognition from the neural level to the social level. Specific topics of interest include motivation and memory, motivation and metacognition, the nature and consequence of competition, the nature of intrinsic motivation/curiosity. The study that is being referred to here, infers greater success in life of students, who were found good in their mathematical abilities. If we scrutinize what these abilities more closely we would find much more. Most researchers agree that memory, language, attention, temporal-sequential ordering, higher-order cognition, and spatial ordering are among the neuro-developmental functions that play a role when children think with numbers. These components become part of an ongoing process in which children constantly integrate new concepts and procedural skills as they solve more advanced math problems. This competence draws on more than just the ability to calculate answers efficiently. It also encompasses problem solving, communicating about mathematical concepts, reasoning and establishing proof, and representing information in different forms. Making connections among these skills and concepts both in mathematics and in other subjects is something students are more frequently asked to do, both in the classroom setting, and later in the workplace. Research has established that a variety of general cognitive skills are necessary for mathematical success, such as working memory, inhibitory control and shifting skills (Cragg and Gilmore 2014). More recently it has been suggested that logical reasoning skills are an important aspect of good mathematical reasoning abilities. Analytical ability is fundamentally utilized to solve problems and that is exactly what we do in mathematics—solve problems. Problems outside mathematics need to be understood in the context of the process that has led to the problem. The analyst breaks down the process and identifies the facts that have built the process leading to the problem. In mathematics we examine the figures in the problem and the connectivity between them, in terms of addition, subtraction, multiplication or division that determine the process in leading to the problem. This goes to show the parity between the two. The next question that we need to ask ourselves is whether our analytical ability is a tool that enhances our perceptiveness. If we pore over our understanding of perceptiveness once again, it would reveal the following steps in cultivating the attribute.

Let us examine one by one. What characteristic of ours would prompt us to remain alert? Health experts have so far been able to identify only factors that energize or dampen one’s alertness but not been able to explain what generates it. Therefore alertness is as fundamental an attribute that a living being possesses given the use of senses. I have been able to spot a few “additives” and “sedatives,” which are self explanatory.

These implements, as can be observed, only work as catalysts and can be monitored to address the first step observed in crafting and instilling perceptiveness, but nothing beyond.

An analytical person has the element: (a) Needs facts, numbers, and details. (b) Will seek out more information. These features are imminent when one wants to know or keen to learn and therefore constitute the essentials of the second step.

Similarly the need to observe facts is essential in order to understand them. The old habit of taking down notes on what you have observed or in today’s times the habit of taking pictures. What are we trying to do? Keep record of what we have observed, while minimizing the chance of letting facts slip out from memory and creating a reference point. Being observant means watching people, situations, and events, then thinking critically about what you see. Manish Chopra, a principal with McKinsey & Company states that Vipassana, an ancient form of meditation having its roots in the subcontinent, he felt, has augmented his ability to observe. I personally think any form of meditation raises one’s concentration and focus levels. Thorin Klosowski, a blogger at “Lifehacker” writes that it was impossible to observe everything and therefore you have to train your mind as to what your priorities were and further train to observe what you wish to. It is imperative therefore while agreeing with both of them that in order to be a great observer, one needs to have variant exposure, which is significantly as important as exercising—both physical and metaphysical. Robin Sharma the famous coach and trainer also emphasizes the need for exercising in discovering one’s personal potential. The connection between observation and the personality types as seen earlier, is more of a simple deduction, than anything else; they were the areas of interest that subscribe enormously to what one observes. Areas of interest may vary considerably with the personality type. But it goes without elaborating further that the analytical ability is a must. If one looks at the fourth, the fifth and the sixth steps (probing to grasp the invisible facts—comprehending the facts in the appropriate contextual perspective—arriving at an understanding/comprehension) they are all actions generated by the analytical ability in a person—whether one is predominantly expressive, or amiable or even a driver, the analytical element is a must for a majority of the measures needed to be perceptive.

I wonder if you noticed that unbiased (open), sharp (accurate and validated) and profound (in-depth) perception skills are the window to perceptiveness.

⁵ Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect by Matthew D. Lieberman published by Oxford University Press.