• A great relationship is based on two main principles. First, appreciate your similarities and second, respect your differences. ‪@ K Khajuria
• People who don't take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year. People who do take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year.@ k khajuria

रोजमर्रा की 8 आदतों से सुधारें अपना घर :
१) ::
अगर आपको कहीं पर भी थूकने की आदत है तो यह निश्चित है
कि आपको यश, सम्मान अगर मुश्किल से मिल भी जाता है
तो कभी टिकेगा ही नहीं .
wash basin में ही यह काम कर आया करें !
२) ::
जिन लोगों को अपनी जूठी थाली या बर्तन वहीं उसी जगह पर
छोड़ने की आदत होती है उनको सफलता कभी भी स्थायी रूप से
नहीं मिलती ! बहुत मेहनत करनी पड़ती है और ऐसे लोग अच्छा नाम नहीं कमा पाते !
अगर आप अपने जूठे बर्तनों को उठाकर उनकी सही जगह पर रख आते हैं तो चन्द्रमा और शनि का आप
सम्मान करते हैं !
३) ::
जब भी हमारे घर पर कोई भी बाहर से आये, चाहे मेहमान
हो या कोई काम करने वाला, उसे स्वच्छ पानी जरुर पिलाएं !
ऐसा करने से हम राहू का सम्मान करते हैं ! जो लोग बाहर से
आने वाले लोगों को स्वच्छ पानी हमेशा पिलाते हैं उनके घर में
कभी भी राहू का दुष्प्रभाव नहीं पड़ता !
४) ::
घर के पौधे आपके अपने परिवार के सदस्यों जैसे ही होते हैं, उन्हें
भी प्यार और थोड़ी देखभाल की जरुरत होती है ! जिस घर में
सुबह-शाम पौधों को पानी दिया जाता है तो हम बुध, सूर्य और
चन्द्रमा का सम्मान करते हुए परेशानियों से डटकर लड़ पाते हैं ! जो लोग नियमित रूप से पौधों को पानी देते हैं, उन लोगों को depression, anxiety जैसी परेशानियाँ जल्दी से नहीं
पकड़ पातीं
५) ::
जो लोग बाहर से आकर अपने चप्पल, जूते, मोज़े इधर-उधर
फैंक देते हैं, उन्हें उनके शत्रु बड़ा परेशान करते हैं ! इससे बचने
के लिए अपने चप्पल-जूते करीने से लगाकर रखें, आपकी प्रतिष्ठा बनी रहेगी
६) ::
उन लोगों का राहू और शनि खराब होगा, जो लोग जब भी
अपना बिस्तर छोड़ेंगे तो उनका बिस्तर हमेशा फैला हुआ होगा, सिलवटें ज्यादा होंगी, चादर कहीं, तकिया कहीं, कम्बल कहीं ?
उसपर ऐसे लोग अपने पुराने पहने हुए कपडे तक फैला कर
रखते हैं ! ऐसे लोगों की पूरी दिनचर्या कभी भी व्यवस्थित
नहीं रहती, जिसकी वजह से वे खुद भी परेशान रहते हैं और दूसरों को भी परेशान करते हैं ! इससे बचने के लिए उठते ही स्वयं अपना बिस्तर समेट दें !
७)::
पैरों की सफाई पर हम लोगों को हर वक्त ख़ास ध्यान देना चाहिए, जो कि हम में से बहुत सारे लोग भूल जाते हैं ! नहाते समय
अपने पैरों को अच्छी तरह से धोयें, कभी भी बाहर से आयें तो पांच मिनट रुक कर मुँह और पैर धोयें ! आप खुद यह पाएंगे कि आपका चिड़चिड़ापन कम होगा, दिमाग की शक्ति बढेगी और क्रोध
धीरे-धीरे कम होने लगेगा ।
८) ::
रोज़ खाली हाथ घर लौटने पर धीरे-धीरे
उस घर से लक्ष्मी चली जाती है और उस घर के सदस्यों में नकारात्मक या निराशा के भाव आने लगते हैं ! इसके विपरित घर लौटते समय कुछ न कुछ वस्तु लेकर आएं तो उससे घर में बरकत बनी रहती है ! उस घर में लक्ष्मी का वास होता जाता है ! हर रोज घर में कुछ न कुछ लेकर आना वृद्धि का सूचक माना गया है !
ऐसे घर में सुख, समृद्धि और धन हमेशा बढ़ता जाता है और घर
में रहने वाले सदस्यों की भी तरक्की होती ,K Khajuria

• As you climb the ladder of success, check occasionally to make sure it is leaning against the right wall.-K Khajuria
• A most important key to successful leadership is your ability to direct and challenge the very best that is in those whom you lead.-K Khajuria

Lets together Clean India

We need to be matured enough to understand that government cannot be blamed for environment cleanliness. There are public toilets in every bus terminus, how many use it. There are many garbage cans placed in every street, how many of us put small things as chocolate wrappers in it. We urinate wherever we wish, we throw garbage wherever we wish and blame the government for it. Its not going to help. Change should be brought within. Government can fine people for smoking in public but its up to people to follow rules. Yes all the governments looted us but that is no way related to environment cleanliness. We can change ourselves to create a good environment. We can be more responsible. That's the only solution, lets come forward to some strong decision about cleanness .

Your Values

Coins are always makes sound,but the currancy notes are always selient,when your values increase keep urself calm and selient.kevin

Nature of Intelligence

By Kevin Khajuria

How do we view intelligence?

Both laymen and experts use widely varying definitions of intelligence. Try and ask your friends and colleagues what they think intelligence is. You will probably get references to solving problems, being able to adapt, quick thinking, quick learning, being creative, being smart, reasoning logically, being sensible, analytic qualities, and so on. Interestingly, although the variation in answers is great, most layman and experts seem to agree on certain aspects of intelligence.

Most people implicitly or explicitly assume that intelligence has the following three characteristics:

1. Intrapersonal: intelligence is a characteristic of individuals. In other words: it is intrapersonal. It is inside you and is indissoluble from you as an individual. Personnel selection psychologists often base their advices to a large degree on individual measurements of intelligence. Laymen too view intelligence mainly as something that is inside the person.

2. One-dimensional: both laymen and experts acknowledge that different dimensions or aspects of intelligence can be distinguished but both groups treat intelligence mainly as if it were a one-dimensional concept. Selection psychologists speak of the so-called G-factor, the general intelligence factor and summarize the findings of intelligence measurements into a single (IQ-)score, while laymen too implicitly talk about intelligence as if it were one thing (“She has a high intelligence.”)

3. Unchangeable: intelligence is a characteristic that is mostly unchangeable from the age of about 17. The assumed unchangeability, or stability, of intelligence implies that people keep the same intelligence level both across different situations and at different ages.
   In short: it is inside you, it is one thing and it is largely unchangeable.

Intelligence can be seen as interpersonal, one-dimensional and unchangeable but also as:

1. Interpersonal:

intelligence does not need to be seen only as something that is inside the head of the individual but can also be seen as something that emerges between people when they co-operate. This view makes opens the possibility that intelligence also happens between people. Every time when two people deliver intellectual performances that they could not have accomplished on their own, we see an example of the interpersonal aspect of intelligence. Hard to imagine? Think about this. The human brain is a network of approximately 100 billion brain cells (neurons) of different kinds that each are connected to very many other neurons. It all adds up to an estimated total of 100 trillion connections. Although the brain is capable of impressive intellectual feats, the neurons of which it is built are not very intelligent. The intelligence of people is not in the neurons but in the connections between the neurons, so between the neurons, or in the network. The comparison between the brain and co-operating people should not be taken too far, if it were only because brains are unimaginably more complex that even the most complex organization. But the analogy does make it easier for us to imagine organizations as networks of interconnected people in which the value and intelligence of the organization is not solely in the people but also between the people. It makes it easier to think in terms of a collective intelligence.

2. Multidimensional:

Intelligence does not have to be viewed only as something that is general and one-dimensional but can also be seen as a complex of a set of dimensions (see Sternberg, 1985). I am not pleading for a rather great stretching of the intelligence concept (like Gardner, 1991 does) by also labeling phenomena as athletic ability as a kind of intelligence. Instead, I would propose to reserve the word intelligence to the cognitive domain. But also within this domain there are different relevant dimensions to be distinguished. One of the most convincing models I find to be the one by David Perkins (1995) who distinguishes as important dimensions: 1) Neural intelligence. This intelligence reflects the general information processing capacity of the person, an aspect of intelligence that may touch on the G-factor, 2) Experiential intelligence. Intelligence that is based on experiences and that are manifested both explicitly and implicitly. You could call this a domain-specific or situational intelligence, 3) Reflective intelligence. This refers to tactics and techniques that you can apply to make use of your neural and experiential intelligence as effectively and efficiently as possible. You might call this meta-intelligence or strategic intelligence.

3. Developable:

viewing intelligence as a multidimensional phenomenon opens the possibility to see it as developable. While the G-factor indeed seems to be fixed or hardly developable, the other important dimensions do seem to be developable. Experiential intelligence can be very well be developed (although this process goes very slowly). Reflective intelligence can even be developed quite quickly (Perkins, 1995).

Practical implications

Although both laymen and experts (sometimes) acknowledge that intelligence is to a certain degree interpersonal, multidimensional and developable, they don’t seem to use these views in practice a lot. If it is true that intelligence is also interpersonal, multidimensional and developable than there are important practical implications. Below are two examples.

Personnel selection:

The selection psychologist would not only be interested in measuring and reporting ‘the’ intelligence of the applicant but also in the following aspects. How well does this applicant complement the collective intelligence of the team? In order to be able to say something about this an individual measurement would not be sufficient. There will have to be some kind of interaction between applicant and organization to assess the ‘chemistry’. Beside a measurement of general intellectual abilities an assessment would be made of other aspects of intelligence like relevant domain-specific experiential intelligence and meta-aspects like problem-solving strategies, thinking models, tactics, and so forth. If these views would be taken into account a selection process would be devised more interactively, more dynamically and more situationallly.

Intelligence as a developable potential 

For laymen too, it is important how they view and treat intelligence. Research by Carol Dweck (2002) has demonstrated that what people think about their own intelligence has far-reaching consequences. Dweck shows that people who see intelligence as unchangeable develop a tendency to focus on proving that they have that characteristic instead of focusing on the process of learning. This disregard of the learning process hinders them in the development of their learning and in their performance. This means that the wrong convictions about intelligence can make smart people dumb! But there is hope: when people view intelligence as a potential that can be developed this leads to the tendency to put effort into learning and performing and into developing strategies that enhance learning and long term accomplishments. An implication is that it pays off to help children and students invest in a view of intelligence as something that can be developed.

That the way we look upon phenomena can have drastic consequences has been known for a long time. It has now been demonstrated that the same goes for intelligence. A too restrictive definition of intelligence leads to practical limitations and problems. A realistic view on intelligence makes it possible to get rid of at least some of these restrictions and problems.

Literature

1. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In: Sternberg (2002). Why Smart People can be so stupid. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
2. Gardner, H. (1991). Multiple intelligences. New York: Free Press.
3. Perkins, D.N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free Press.
4. Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Corruption In India: A Billion Dollar Industry

It is a no brainer that Corruption In India is at its rampant best.There is not one section of the society that is spared from it.Corruption in the form of bribery takes the cake and given that it begins at the grass root level makes it even more difficult to monitor and control.The  Corruption and Bribery Report published at trak.in earlier , gives a detailed breakdown of the scale of the bribes and the reasons why bribes are given.

The striking though well known findings of the report points out that close to half the bribes are requested by the Government Officials both at the state and national level.The same government personnel who are entrusted with the development of the nation are filling their own pockets.No wonder then the nation’s politicians are the most corrupt lot.

However, it it was only for the petty money minded officials filling their own pockets, the cost of corruption to the country might as well exceed Rs. 250,000 crores.

The total spending for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections is pegged at a whopping Rs. 10,000 crore.The breakup of this spending throws up some interesting insights too.

• Rs 1,300 crore (Rs 13 billion) by the Election Commission
• Rs 700 crore (Rs 7 billion) by the Centre and state governments
• Rs 8,000 crore (Rs 80 billion) were spent by political parties and individual candidates

8000 crore spent by political parties and individual candidates ? Where do they get hold of this kind of money to spend. Again, it comes as a no brainer that it is hugely attributed to the Private Funding that political parties attract from big pocket industrialists.The reasons why private spending of this scale happens again is rather simple Favourtism.It is a well known fact that government support is crucial for industries small and large.One favourable swing in a huge tender or a favourable policy, and all the benefits can be reaped.

C.K.Prahalad fitting compares politicians with Venture Capitalists :-)

Given the risky nature of the investments in elections, politicians as venture capitalists, we can assume, will not settle for less than a 10-fold return.

More than spending by individuals and political parties, what i fail to understand is , Why is a 10,000 crore rupee spend needed for carrying out Elections.There can be infrastructure and operational costs, but they can never amount to such alarming numbers.

Now, when the government is well aware of crores of amount spent on election campaigns and product like advertisements with politicians selling themselves door to door, why cant regulations be implemented to stop all this waste of money.Why cant the regulatory bodies impose a maximum cap on the amount spent on election campaigns failing which the political party is banned to contest.However, accountability is something that leaves a lot for asking and barring which none of the measures to put a stop to corruption can reap rewards.

It is embarrassing that billions of dollars are being spent on electing leaders who do nothing more than succumbing to taking bribes after getting elected.

The gory facts are for everyone to see but then a solution as usual is not in sight. Can you think of a possible solution to this massive problem? Do share your thoughts.