Blank Person Profile: Fill & Download for Free

So you want to know which fictional characters portray psychopaths most accurately. Movies are used to teach about psychopathy but perhaps more importantly affect the public perception of the personality.Fortunately for you and me, researchers Leistedt and Linkowski watched over 400 movies (1915–2010),several times each, looking for realistic portrayals of psychopaths using diagnostic criteria from based on classifications outlined by forensic psychologist Hugues Hervé and by psychiatrist Benjamin Karpman.Prior to the early 2000s “Hollywood psychopaths,”were likely to exhibit some characteristic traits, making them “ideal villains/superhuman”:(i) high intelligence and a preference for intellectual stimulation (e.g., music, fine art);(ii) a somewhat vain, stylish, almost “cat-like” demeanor;(iii) prestige or a successful career or position;(iv) a calm, calculating and always-in-control attitude; and(v) unrealistic, exceptional skill at killing people, especially with blades or household objects (sometimes overpowering multiple assailants with superior armament). [1][1][1][1]These traits, especially in combination, are generally not present in real psychopaths. I suspect this idealization is what causes a significant number of youth (seen quite a lot on Quora) want to be a psychopath.The research paper is called: Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?Movies are a good way to understand public perception of psychopathy.Early movies depicted psychopaths as sexually depraved, homicidal, and violent. In addition the DSM did not drop homosexuality as a disorder until 1973 and thus it was common for homosexuals to be depicted as psychopaths.Examples of caricatured psychopaths of this type are Tommy Udo in Kiss of Death, Cody Jarrett in White Heat, and Antonio “Tony” Camonte in the 1932 version of Scarface.In 1957 Ed Gein was arrested and movies took a sudden turn to Gein like traits with psychopaths being depicted as grave robbing, cannibalistic. Gein was actually most likely psychotic.Searching Gein’s house, authorities found:Whole human bones and fragments[29]Wastebasket made of human skin[30]Human skin covering several chair seats[31]Skulls on his bedposts[32]Female skulls, some with the tops sawn off[33][31][30]Bowls made from human skulls[30]A corset made from a female torso skinned from shoulders to waist[31]Leggings made from human leg skin[30]Masks made from the skin of female heads[33][31][32]Mary Hogan's face mask in a paper bag[32]Mary Hogan's skull in a box[34]Bernice Worden's entire head in a burlap sack[35]Bernice Worden's heart "in a plastic bag in front of Gein's potbellied stove"[36]Nine vulvae in a shoe box[37]A young girl's dress and "the vulvas of two females judged to have been about fifteen years old"[38]A belt made from female human nipples[39]Four noses[28]A pair of lips on a window shade drawstring[28]A lampshade made from the skin of a human face[28]Fingernails from female fingers[2]Later prosthetics for movies became better and slasher movies became popular. Prosthetics had advanced allowing for greater sensationalism of psychopaths. The Halloween, Friday the 13th and I Know What you did Last Summer series are a few examples of the genre.“Uncle Frank” in Hellraiser (1987)Image source: Complex | Making Culture PopFollowing this the arrest of the notorious serial killers John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Ted Bundy led to the elite psychopath (intelligent, cunning, extremely polite). In addition, movies about profiling became popular and psychopaths became something some people wanted to be. Doctor Hannibal Lecter is one of the best examples of this type of unrealistic but sensational characters.Since the early 2000s psychopaths are portrayed more accurately, showing their human weaknesses.So what did their research find?In first place: Anton Chigurh, played in “No Country for Old Men” by Javier Bardem, as one of the most realistic psychopaths on film.Anton Chigurh is a well-designed prototypical idiopathic/primary psychopath. There are sufficient arguments and detailed information about his behavior in the film to obtain a diagnosis of active, primary, idiopathic psychopathy, incapacity for love, absence of shame or remorse, lack of psychological insight, inability to learn from past experience, cold-blooded attitude, ruthlessness, total determination, and lack of empathy. He seems to be affectively invulnerable and resistant to any form of emotion or humanity.Image source: Paramount Vantage – MiramaxSo here are the top 3:Realistic:1. Anton Chigurh, No Country for Old Men (2007)This contract killer hauls around a bolt pistol attached to tank of compressed air, a handy tool both for shooting out door locks and for shooting people in the head. Leistedt says Chigurh is his favorite portrayal of a psychopath. “He does his job and he can sleep without any problems. In my practice I have met a few people like this,” he says. In particular, Chigurh reminds him of two real-life professional hit men who he interviewed. “They were like this: cold, smart, no guilt, no anxiety, no depression.”Diagnosis*: Primary, classic/idiopathic psychopath2. Hans Beckert, M (1931)This child-murdering character broke with most portrayals of psychopaths at the time, depicting an outwardly normal man with a compulsion to kill. This is “a substantially more realistic depiction of what would eventually be known today as a sexually violent predator most likely suffering from psychosis,” Leistedt and Linkowski write.Diagnosis: Secondary, pseudopsychopath, additional diagnosis of psychosis3. Henry, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1991)In this film about guy who likes to find new ways to kill people, the researchers write, “the main, interesting theme is the chaos and instability in the life of the psychopath, Henry’s lack of insight, a powerful lack of empathy, emotional poverty, and a well-illustrated failure to plan ahead.”Diagnosis: Primary, classic/idiopathic psychopath[3][3][3][3]Not realistic:1. Tommy Udo, Kiss of Death (1947)A great example of an early portrayal of a “madman” as psychopath. The Udo character was famous for his creepy chuckle, and legend has it that actor Richard Widmark was later asked repeatedly to record the laugh on blank record albums.2. Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)After the 1957 arrest of real-life serial killer Ed Gein, a case involving cannibalism, necrophilia and a troubled relationship with his mother, horror films about serial murder took off. Norman Bates was inspired in part by Gein, launching a genre showing misfits with usually sexual motivations to kill. This kind of behavior became closely linked to psychopathy, but Gein was more likely psychotic, meaning out of touch with reality. Psychosis, which is a completely different diagnosis from psychopathy, often involves delusions and hallucinations.3. Hannibal Lecter, Silence of the Lambs (1991)Yes, he scares the bejesus out of me, too. But Lecter’s almost superhuman intelligence and cunning are just not typical among, well, anyone, let alone psychopaths. Lecter is a perfect example of the “elite psychopath” that became popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This calm, in-control character type has sophisticated tastes and manners (think Chianti and jazz),exceptional skill in killing and a vain and “almost catlike demeanor,” the researchers write, adding, “These traits, especially in combination, are generally not present in real psychopaths.”[4][4][4][4]The diagnoses of characters in Leistedt and Linkowski’s study are based on classifications outlined by forensic psychologist Hugues Hervé and by psychiatrist Benjamin Karpman. Definitions vary, and the descriptions below are general guidelines.Primary versus secondary psychopathy: Primary psychopaths are deficient in affect, or emotion, from birth, suggesting a genetic basis. They are often described as more aggressive and impulsive. Secondary psychopaths have been shaped by their environment, may have had an abusive childhood, and are often described as having more fear and anxiety than primary psychopaths. ‘’Subtypes:Classic/idiopathic Score the highest on all sections of the widely used Hare Psychopathy Checklist, or PCL-R, showing low fear, lack of inhibition and lack of empathy.Manipulative Tend to be good “talkers” and associated with crimes involving fraud.Macho Lack the glibness and charm of the above groups but manipulate through force and intimidation.Pseudopsychopaths Also called sociopaths; show antisocial behavior but score lowest among these groups on the PCL-R.[5]You can click on this link to see the table below enlarged: Choose Viewhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e3aa/ce47030d04bcf9a4576cebc705001bb90700.pdf?_ga=2.75472658.1894628728.1522623346-1317132914.1522623346Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?Samuel J. Leistedt M.D., Ph.D.Paul Linkowski M.D., Ph.D.First published: 13 December 2013https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12359For more research based answers on psychopathy:Psychopathy: Evidence-based research series — by Natalie Engelbrecht & Martin SilvertantFootnotes[1] Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?[1] Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?[1] Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?[1] Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?[2] Ed Gein - Wikipedia[3] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[3] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[3] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[3] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[4] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[4] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[4] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[4] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever[5] The most (and least) realistic movie psychopaths ever

Forer effectThe Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.Psychologist Bertram R. Forer (1914-2000) found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate.In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign. The Forer effect seems to explain, in part at least, why so many people think that pseudosciences "work". Astrology, astrotherapy, biorhythms, cartomancy, chiromancy, the enneagram, fortune telling, graphology, rumpology, etc., seem to work because they seem to provide accurate personality analyses. Scientific studies of these pseudosciences demonstrate that they are not valid personality assessment tools, yet each has many satisfied customers who are convinced they are accurate.The most common explanations given to account for the Forer effect are in terms of hope, wishful thinking, vanity and the tendency to try to make sense out of experience, though Forer's own explanation was in terms of human gullibility. People tend to accept claims about themselves in proportion to their desire that the claims be true rather than in proportion to the empirical accuracy of the claims as measured by some non-subjective standard. We tend to accept questionable, even false statements about ourselves, if we deem them positive or flattering enough. We will often give very liberal interpretations to vague or inconsistent claims about ourselves in order to make sense out of the claims. Subjects who seek counseling from psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, mind readers, graphologists, etc., will often ignore false or questionable claims and, in many cases, by their own words or actions, will provide most of the information they erroneously attribute to a pseudoscientific counselor. Many such subjects often feel their counselors have provided them with profound and personal information. Such subjective validation, however, is of little scientific value.Psychologist Barry Beyerstein believes that "hope and uncertainty evoke powerful psychological processes that keep all occult and pseudoscientific character readers in business." We are constantly trying "to make sense out of the barrage of disconnected information we face daily" and "we become so good at filling in to make a reasonable scenario out of disjointed input that we sometimes make sense out of nonsense." We will often fill in the blanks and provide a coherent picture of what we hear and see, even though a careful examination of the evidence would reveal that the data is vague, confusing, obscure, inconsistent and even unintelligible. Psychic mediums, for example, will often ask so many disconnected and ambiguous questions in rapid succession that they give the impression of having access to personal knowledge about their subjects. In fact, the psychic need not have any insights into the subject's personal life; for, the subject will willingly and unknowingly provide all the associations and validations needed. Psychics are aided in this process by using cold reading techniques.David Marks and Richard Kamman argue thatonce a belief or expectation is found, especially one that resolves uncomfortable uncertainty, it biases the observer to notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary. This self-perpetuating mechanism consolidates the original error and builds up an overconfidence in which the arguments of opponents are seen as too fragmentary to undo the adopted belief.Having a pseudoscientific counselor go over a character assessment with a client is wrought with snares that can easily lead the most well intentioned of persons into error and delusion.Barry Beyerstein suggests the following test to determine whether the apparent validity of the pseudosciences mentioned above might not be due to the Forer effect, confirmation bias, or other psychological factors. (Note: the proposed test also uses subjective or personal validation and is not intended to test the accuracy of any personality assessment tool, but rather is intended to counteract the tendency to self-deception about such matters.)…a proper test would first have readings done for a large number of clients and then remove the names from the profiles (coding them so they could later be matched to their rightful owners). After all clients had read all of the anonymous personality sketches, each would be asked to pick the one that described him or her best. If the reader has actually included enough uniquely pertinent material, members of the group, on average, should be able to exceed chance in choosing their own from the pile.Beyerstein notes that "no occult or pseudoscientific character reading method…has successfully passed such a test."The Forer effect, however, only partially explains why so many people accept as accurate occult and pseudoscientific character assessment procedures. Cold reading, communal reinforcement, and selective thinking also underlie these delusions. Also, it should be admitted that while many of the assessment claims in a pseudoscientific reading are vague and general, some are specific. Some of those that are specific actually apply to large numbers of people and some, by chance, will be accurate descriptions of a select few. A certain number of specific assessment claims should be expected by chance.There have been numerous studies done on the Forer effect. Dickson and Kelly have examined many of these studies and concluded that overall there is significant support for the general claim that Forer profiles are generally perceived to be accurate by subjects in the studies. Furthermore, there is an increased acceptance of the profile if it is labeled "for you". Favorable assessments are "more readily accepted as accurate descriptions of subjects' personalities than unfavorable" ones. But unfavorable claims are "more readily accepted when delivered by people with high perceived status than low perceived status." It has also been found that subjects can generally distinguish between statements that are accurate (but would be so for large numbers of people) and those that are unique (accurate for them but not applicable to most people). There is also some evidence that personality variables such as neuroticism, need for approval, and authoritarianism are positively related to belief in Forer-like profiles. Unfortunately, most Forer studies have been done only on college students.See also Barnum effect, cold reading, confirmation bias, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, and wishful thinking.further readingbooks and articlesDickson, D. H. and I. W. Kelly. "The 'Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature," Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, 367-382.Forer, B. R.. (1949) "The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A classroom Demonstration of Gullibility," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 44, 118-121.Hyman, Ray. "'Cold Reading': How to Convince Strangers That You Know All About Them," The Skeptical Inquirer Spring/Summer 1977.Randi, James. Flim-Flam! (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,1982).Randi, James. Video. NOVA. "Secrets of the Psychics."Rowland, Ian. The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, 3rd. ed (2000).Steiner, Robert A. Don't Get Taken! - Bunco and Bunkum Exposed - How to Protect Yourself (Wide-Awake Books 1989).Thiriart, P. (1991). "Acceptance of personality test results," Skeptical Inquirer,Source:Forer effect - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comCopied from the above site.I have also read it in Thinking Fast and Slow-Daniel Kahneman.

Profile:Class X - 10.0Class XII - 91.8%Btech, Electronics and Electrical, IIT Guwahati, CGPA 9.11CAT 2016: 99.61%Just to mention before going further that my personal opinions/ thoughts (at the time) will be in italics and enclosed within round brackets throughout this answer.IIM AHMEDABAD PGP 2017–19 EXPERIENCE (DELHI, 24TH FEB)AWT Experience:Time: 20 min (5 to think, 15 to write)Case study on self driving cars. The writer recommended that the existing self driving technology is the best available technology and it should be adopted as soon as possible as there are no other feasible alternatives to it.Basic Math Test:Time: 10 min (3 questions)Q1: A limit question (extremely basic)Q2: Inversion of 2x2 matrixQ3: Definite integration questionNote: This math test does not contribute in any way to the final selection.Interview Experience:Time: around 35 min2 panelists (P1 and P2). P1 has masters in IT and P2 has four degrees in the field of statistics. Both are IIMA profs. Both look around 40 years of age at the time. (Extremely welcoming and making all the candidates as comfortable as possible.)Confidence level: 9.9 | Preparation level: 9Entered/greeted/satP1: So Neil, where are you from?Me: I am from Jaipur sir.P1: Must be far from here. Did you come today itself?Me: ToldP1: Where are you staying?Me: Stayed at Oyo roomsP2: Tell me something about Oyo, its business model and what sets it apart?Me: ToldP2: Who’s the CEO of Oyo?Me: He’s a young guy from Orissa. Can’t remember his full name. Some Mr. Agarwal I guess. (His first name slipped my mind.)P1: Anyways, have you followed some news lately?Me: yes sir - can talk about brexit, trump, up elections (all the cliche topics)P1: C’mon! You are from science background. Tell me something latest in this field.Me: Does Space interest you sir? (Way too formal, I know!)P1: Go ahead.Me: Talked about the recent discovery of the Trappist-1 which is 39.5 ly from the Sun in the constellation Aquarius.P1: Is it feasible to look for a settlement there as of now?Me: Underlined the importance of the ‘39.5 ly’ distance in relation to the existing space technology.(P1 seemed impressed. P2 was simply staring at me real hard.)P1: I see you are an IP/ML guy (must have judged from the projects that I had mentioned in the form), design an algorithm to detect any particular object in this room.(There were n number of plastic water bottles on the table.)Me: Can I select these (pointing at them) for detection?P1: Go ahead.Me: (Wanted to ask about the nature of the input - an image or a video but I figured they wanted me to go with my assumptions) Designed as required. (I guess he was impressed with the instant application of two well known algos)P1: Tell me about your final year project.Me: Told.P1: What are the drawbacks of SVM (Support Vector Machine)?Me: Told(I guess P1 was really impressed with me by now. And I was feeling as if I had already made it. Was really difficult to remain calm.)(Here comes P2 with his bag of questions)P2: You are an electrical guy. What are your favorite subjects?(P1 interrupts)P1 (to P2 looking at me): He is an algo guy. What does he know of it! (Looking at me)Do you?Me: (Trying to not let them show my excitement as I was confident of the three main subjects in this domain.) I guess sir, machines would do.P2: (delighted) Can you draw the schematic diagram of a simple transformer with all the relevant equations and its phasor diagram? (I guess he didn’t expect me to explain it fully but I was well prepared.)(He passed on a sheet of A4 white paper and pointed towards the pen. I got way excited as soon as he completed his question. And because of that my left hand (a lefty!) was shaking a little as I began to draw the diagram)P2: Why is your hand shaking? Are you nervous?Me: Absolutely not sir.P2: Any inherent problem? (Looks concerned)Me: (Lol no!) No sir! (Couldn’t make out any reason at the moment. Proceeded with the equations)P2: Ok, so what is leakage inductance? Can you draw it in the same diagram?(Drew)P2: Fine. What is an Auto-transformer? equations?(Did. I think P2 was satisfied by now.)P1: Do you know about the middle east crisis?Me: (Had read about it extensively) Told. (Major mistake happened! Swapped name of Syria with Iran! Rightly pointed by P2. A sheepish grin followed! Accepted immediately)P1: Anything about Israel-Palestine relations with India?Me: Told confidently.P1: Ok, one last thing. A standard question. Why should we take you?Me: (Well prepared with this) Told referring to my academic background.P1 (to P2): Anything else you want to ask him?P2: No. I am good.P1: Neil, would you like to have a toffee?Me: sure sirP2: Have this cookie too. It’s amazing!Me: (Still don’t know what I was thinking) I prefer to have only toffee sir as I feel I am getting fatter day by day :P (pointing at my tummy)(Both laughed)P2: All the best for your future Neil!Me: Thank you sir!VERDICT: CONVERTED!EDIT 1:IIM BANGALORE PGP 2017–19 EXPERIENCE (DELHI, 10TH MAR)WAT Experience:Time: 30 min (10 to think, 20 to write)Something about GoI mission of 2022 on vocational training. (didn’t know about it) But the actual topic asked for suggestions on how to improve the quality of vocational training that is imparted within this program and the programs conducted before.Extrassss:Noticed almost all the candidates from commerce background having their interviews of about 30 to 40 min each. Mine was way shorter.IIMB asks for a SOP and also three recommendations from professors/ supervisors beforehand. So, they already know some significant incidents/ experiences of yours.Interview Experience:Time: around 15 min3 panelists. P1 to the left, P2 in center. P1 and P3 are IIMB profs while P2 is a 2004 IIMB alumnus. (P2 was extremely welcoming but again, the other two weren’t hostile either.)Confidence level: 9.9 | Preparation level: 6P2: Must have been a long wait for you. (I was second last in the morning slot.) What have you been doing since your WAT? Did you inquire anyone about what was being asked?Me: Yes it was indeed a long wait. But in the meantime, I was interacting with other candidates. (Blurted out some names) In fact, one guy from IITR was extremely nervous. I was helping him keep his cool and head straight.(Some expected questions followed)P2: Ok Neil, what’s your main strength?Me: (Had a nicely framed answer) ToldP2: weakness?Me: ToldP3: What do you do in spare time?Me: Watching cricket, playing T.T. and keyboard. Not much of a cricket player. (That is a lie! Every Indian including me thinks he/she’s good at it! :P)P3: What’s your take on Kohli’s aggressive attitude? Is it good for the team? (Was referring to one particular incident in 2nd test between Ind vs Aus 2017 Border-Gavaskar Trophy)Me: Gave my opinion with extensive stats to support it. Also mentioned previous other ugly encounters like the infamous Monkeygate incident in the sydney test in 2008 and how these could have been prevented with little effort.(As if suddenly switching gears, P1 pops in with the trendy GST bill. P3 was not comfortable with it. I guess he wanted to hear more about it from me.)P1: So Mr. Neil, do you think that state autonomy is in danger because of apparent shift in the power to the central government due to GST?Me: (Had read an opinion in ‘Hindu’ just 2 days before) Started explaining. (Was interrupted by P2)P2: What is the full form of GST, Neil?(In a moment which seemed longer than it might have been, I went blank. Here I was, explaining the implications of the GST bill on state revenue and on the other side, I forgot the full form!)(After 5 long seconds, I answered correctly :P)(P1 asked me to continue from where I left)P1: How many GST meetings have taken place till date?Me: (With full enthu) Sir 10!P1: Are you sure?Me: Absolutely!(Turns out, one more meeting took place 5 days before. Why wasn’t I invited Mr. Jaitley? -_-)P2: Do you want to ask anything from us?Me: Nothing in my mind right now sir.P2: Wish you all the best!Me: Thank youVERDICT: CONVERTED!EDIT 2:IIM LUCKNOW PGP 2017–19 EXPERIENCE (IIM-L Noida campus, 1st April)WAT Experience:Time: 15 min (up to 300 words)Topic: Is social inclusion necessary for economic inclusion?(Many wrote about reservation and caste inclusion. Didn’t strike me! I went completely tangential to what many wrote but what I felt was relevant to the given topic. Touched on the international relations of India with US, Israel and China and how intermingling of Indian community with the natives helped cross inconspicuous economic bridges. Referring to my WAT during PI, I was told that I brought a fresh perspective to it :) )Extrassss:Almost all the candidates before me had interviews of about 15 min-20 min only.Interview Experience:Time: around 15 min2 panelists. P1 to the left. (He’s busy eating peanuts throughout my WAT and PI. P2 was really interested in having a casual conversation. Extremely humble, I would say.)Confidence level: 10 | Preparation level: 2 (- for my dainty hair)P2: Tell me more about you (Had already gone through the fairly detailed IIML form, I suppose)Me: Talked about my college projects, BTP and my pastime activities.(Stopped me on Ed Sheeran. I guess P2 was a fan too!)P2: Name of his latest album?Me: (You are in my territory now!) Talked about ‘Divide’.(Meanwhile, P1 holding my form up, showing it to P2. I guess he’s pointing to my semester wise breakup of CGPA)P2: You have been fairly consistent throughout your graduation. Well done!Me: (Realized immediately that they both didn’t notice my drop in 4th semester, elated!) Thank you sir!P2: With all the fuss about negligible resistive loss in AC transmission, what are the advantages of transmitting DC power over AC?Me: Talked about capacitive losses that become quite significant for underwater transmission (for long transmission), skin effect and about HVDC.P2: Okay Neil, we’ll (that meant P2 only, P1 was completely lost in the world of peanuts) ask you only two questions now. Consider your interview done by then. First, what are the five major breakthroughs in the world of electronics/ electrical?Me: (what struck me at the time) Talked about the emergence of AC transmission system (had read about it in detail) and of microprocessors in the 70s, specifically about intel 4004 (stopped me there, I guess he was satisfied by then).P2: Which newspaper do you read?Me: (honestly, didn’t know what to say because I didn’t read any at the time. Just followed on net) Sir, the Economic Times. Mainly, because of prep for this interview.P2: Honest enough! 5 recent stories you followed?Me: Talked about GST (life saver!), SC’s order on the sale of BS-3 vehicles, Vodafone-Idea merger. (Stopped me there)P2: That will be enough. (Towards P1, in gestures, as if to ask if he’s through too with the questioning. P1 simply nodded) I think we are done with the interview. Thank you Neil. Nice talking to you.VERDICT: Converted!MORE EXTRASSS:Realized the importance of graduation marks in all my interviews. If you are still in a position to affect yours, please do! (on the right side of the scale, of course!)If you don’t know anything about a topic/subject, just accept it then and there.EDIT: Made it to the final list of IIM C too! I’ll add its interview experience soon.