Though new in the field of psychology, Emotional Intelligence is a topic two decades too late to write about. It was major discussion in the mid-nineties. Today, this article is an attempt to improve our understanding of the subject.
Let us understand the prevailing concepts around emotion and intelligence before we join these two words – emotional intelligence
Emotion simply means strong feeling. Etymology describes its origin to - Greek word amyno (push away), Lithunian mauti (push on), Sanskrit kama-muta (move by love), Latin movere (move), Vulgar Latin exmovere (move by love), Old French esmovoir (to excite), French emotion (emotion). The year 1579 AD saw a first recorded definition of emotion – a physical, moving, stirring, agitation.
Without the ‘word’ definition the essence of the meaning was notably captured by Aristotle (342-322 BC), when he wrote about human ethics and mentioned anger[1].
There are different interpretations of emotions – are evolutionary adaptations[2], subjective feelings that dictates moods, a response to stimuli, increased heartbeat and perspiration[3], largely unconscious machinery, pleasant or unpleasant state organized by limb systems[4], physiological arousal and cognitive interpretation[5] etc. Psychologist Robert Plutchik (1928-2006) comprehensively classifies emotions in eight categories – anger, fear, sadness, joy, disgust, curiosity/ interest, surprise, acceptance – each emotion relating to a behavior with survival value. Scientists have found similar physiological movements and responses present in the microscopic organisms too.
Intelligence means thinking, reasoning, acquiring and applying knowledge. Etymology suggests its Latin origin from two words inter (inter) and legere (to choose). Intelligence is used as an umbrella term. Many researchers, prominent in field of psychology, learning, and mathematics and engineering have offered innumerable definitions of intelligence.
But the most influential approach in understanding intelligence is based on psychometric testing – Intelligent Quotient (IQ). But as IQ were organized to predict (mainly) educational achievement, that had its limitations. This studies lead to development of multiple alternative theories – multiple intelligence[6], triarchic intelligence[7], social intelligence[8], emotional intelligence[9] etc.
Darwin’s early work in 1900 drew importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation. The term emotional intelligence appeared in writings as early as 1966[10]. First use of its work is found in a 1985 doctoral thesis – A study of emotions: Developing emotional intelligence[11]. It was after the publication of the best-seller book by Daniel Goleman Emotional Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ that the concept became widely popularized.
Emotional Intelligence describes an ability, capacity or skill to perceive, assess and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of groups. It includes four types of abilities:
Perceive emotions
Using emotions
Understanding emotions
Managing emotions
The most current measure used by Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on series of emotional based problem solving items. The models around emotional intelligence outline four main constructs:
Self-awareness
Self-management
Social awareness
Relationship management
There is also a wide criticism of EI – because there is no unifying definition, and scholars challenge the basic assumption of considering emotions as a type of intelligence. Apart from EI providing academic and research interest still the field is not that developed and is perceived as a theory rather than providing predictive value for anything substantive. The uses of EI in market research and consumer surveys also have not shown successful results to adopt the method or model on a commercial scale. The general notion is that people proposing EI normally abuse or misuse it to further their interests.
Keeping this basic framework in mind, let us try dissecting the concept.
Humans have defined the words emotional and intelligence.
We have to use the word emotion which in itself is a combination of many different factors. For sake of simplicity to understand – let us consider emotions defined in two main kinds of factors[12] – one that are core emotions, coming out naturally as a form of organism’s survival mechanism; whereas the other one is – learned emotions, coming out through what a person learns from the surrounding environment, society and culture s/he is born within.
Intelligence in today’s world is more of academic achievement of a person – mathematics, chemistry, physics, statistics etc. The other school of thought rejects the above definition and says that intelligence of a person is measured by how happy a person can be. Some factors of those have given rise to the subject of emotional intelligence, where other factors apart from IQ are used to measure intelligence.
I think humans have derived a term emotion without fully understanding the roots of it and still searching the meanings of its roots. The first part of the definition of an ability, capacity or skill to perceive ones emotions seems to be quite okay. Where the things start becoming muddier is when one starts using the mind to assess and manage emotions. The question is - can we manage it?
The first simplistic part of the emotion is – the natural form - why should we try to manage a natural form of reaction like that? As all human interventions, by trying to assess and manage the natural process of reactions – we humans would create more mess around the world than solve it – as is the case is with each and every human intervention that has come from intelligence.
The second simplistic part of emotion is – the learned form – which can be, to a very little extend, understood because it is what each and every one of us are taught from the day we are born. We react in a certain way because of our surrounding, upbringing, culture, society and environment. So why focus on the person to manage the emotions and not on the society. And is it feasible to work on assessing a person and asking the person to manage something s/he has learned from society – ingrained as part of the genes structure?
So both ways the exercise of looking into emotional intelligence seems futile only because of the mysteries surrounding the sources of emotions.
Yes, like many well funded research scientists of developed countries, who have enough time and money on hand to lubricate their ideal juices of intellect and keep on coming out with newer concepts like this every other month. They market themselves and their intellectual concepts well and like many western international best-seller books – there are people to eagerly interested in them also.
So sadly the conclusion is that this paper is mostly aligning itself with the group that does not believe in the practicality of the emotional intelligence concept.
(Total words – 1087)
[1] “Anyone can be angry, that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way – this is not easy” – Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
[2] Charles Darwin
[3] William James’s somatic theory
[4] Neurobiological theories
[5] Cognitive theories
[6] Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple intelligence
[7] Robert Stenberg proposes three fundamental aspects – analytic, creative and practical.
[8] E.L.Thorndike (1920) – Columbia University
[9] Daniel Goleman and several other researchers claim it to be as important as other forms of intelligence
[10] Leuner
[11] Wayne Panye
[12] There might be many more factors that builds up what we call emotions
Click Here to Read More..
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Sustainability - Matching Aptitude with the pace of Science and Technology
Within the framework of modern thoughts, the concept of sustainability is quite recent. Introduced around mid twentieth century[1]; emerging out of the fashionable environmental cause that “hippies” took up from the fall-out of laws addressing industrial pollution. Even without the ‘word’ sustainable used by major world rural population, they practiced a living in the most ‘so called’ sustainable way. That sustainable life style still prevails in many parts of the world that is not yet touched by the industrialization wave. It encompassed individual, family and community lifestyles to maintain a natural balance with their immediate surrounding.
As many worldly concepts, the sustainability experts are looking at sustainability from a directorial perspective, that is top down – meaning they start at the top by institutionalizing policies, laws, treaties, agreements, charters etc. – and hope that people will follow that – if not, they would be punished. This way of handling worldly matters sounds dictatorial but is common.
For the developed world the sustainable way of life can never happen out of individual freedom and choices, it has to be forced on people through state and power. Quoting from an expert, sustainability means – a system where the capacity to continue on through time is maintained without depleting the energy or material it needs to go into that system. Here it seems that the expert is quoting a rural sustainable lifestyle, but emphasizing its use on ‘how to be sustainable’ in the developed industrialized world. In developed world the need is not to build people’s capacity – but remove already over-built capacity that is making this world un-sustainable.
For developed and rich community, sustainability would and should mean – a system where the people are incapacitated to continue on through time to use excessive energy and / or materials.
Foremost, the intellectual experts induce the causes of un-sustainability to population growth that use (and according to them deplete) limited world resources. The solution they provide is - reduce population growth. The fact of the matter is that it is not the population (in general) but the exploitative rich economies that are to blame for depleting worldly resources – not only from their own hinterlands, but from far off regions, through their misuse of economic arm twisting power and carrot and stick approach.
Secondly, environmental scientist blame the use of technology that produces various forms of energy escalating global warming as a cause leading to un-sustainability. Similar to population, here the scapegoat are fuels – mainly fossil, bio and / or nuclear. Projected alternatives are solar, hydro and wind power, because they are non-pollutants to the environment - far better solutions than the one implying reducing population growth.
But these solutions too have major downsize, especially in technology, build-up costs, social cost-benefit analysis, implementation, and maintenance to name a few.
Third, recycling is another solution most experts propose. It is something most world rural communities have done through centuries, so it is not something new one needs to tell the whole world – but probably the rich world. The modernization of past century – industrialization, urbanization and commercialization have made last three - four generations for modern society ignorant of the basics of good natural being and living. Especially with the existing consumption levels, recycling though good looks cosmetic and laughable.
The following map shows the world energy production and consumption rates:
Source: http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/energy_popups.php?p=prodcon
With the pressures of globalization to increase economic wealth - it does not require any qualified scientist to tell us that in coming decades, people’s needs are not going to decrease but will increase and so will their increase use of energy i.e. rate of consumption would ever increase the rate of production for each country.
With the current energy consumption rate, all these (hydro, solar and wind) energy producing solutions look unsustainable to plan and implement in the context of the mad-pace of consumeristic marathon of world today. This is a similar fate like ever growing road traffic suffocating widened road capacity.
The real cause of un-sustainability can be understood well by per-capita consumption index. The map below shows evidence:
Source: http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=percap
The euphemism of ‘development’ causes un-sustainability. Until and unless – human won’t start consuming according to their basic needs, looking outside for solutions would complexify problems many folds, instead of solving them.
Another solution advocated is - Followed by a few US cities embarking on building sustainable cities[2], UN proposes a ‘Sustainable City Program’[3] marked by sustainable city student competition. Common sense tells us, only a rich - economy and organisation like US and UN respectively - have the luxury, wealth, time and flexibility for such ludicrous proposals, especially with the fact we know that more than fifty per cent of the world population is suffering from hunger – food and water. Regrettably, the process of urbanization is itself a massive energy depleting unsustainable life-style approach, in its per capita use of energy and demands on consuming economy that leaches on (exploiting) world-wide natural resources.
Rather than pumping more money into cities to make them sustainable, the same money could be used for giving better quality of life to people in poor areas. The real challenge should be to make living in cities an unsustainable option and move towards a more balanced economic life style.
When we are talking of cities, let us briefly dwell upon other discussion urban planners engage in. Not to deny the aspects of cleanliness – but many urban planners confuse – dirty cities as unsustainable way of living, and put resources to make cities clean and market them as sustainable solutions. Conceptually, they have got it all jumbled up and wrong. Undeniably cleanliness plays a part in maintaining the eco-system’s appropriate balance, and one should keep the cities clean. It can be defined as Cleaner solutions and not sustainable solutions.
Many experts also believe on such a negative attitude of even imagining – self sustaining modern societies is not going to be possible. Here lies world’s failure in their intellectual pessimism of not even trying to look into putting an effort to change things in a positive direction.
Look at the map below:
Source: http://pthbb.org/natural/footprint/
Here ‘red’ shows bigger footprint, for a region - which is not a good sign and ‘green’ shows smaller footprints – which is good. Not to confuse that the ‘red’ colored regions exploit the ‘green’ regions to fulfill their consumption patterns. The assumption used is that consumption has direct co-relation with ecological footprints.
The map shows the enormity of problem we are facing. In near future, the things are not going to be better. The red will become darker and green will become pink, and pink will become red. Time has come to squeeze the regional footprints. Balanced and need based use of resources – is the solution.
Let the pace of science and technology advancements match human’s psychological aptitude to comprehend the best use of modernism to suit ecology and not that of personal greed.
(Total Words: 1160)
[1] OECD created convention signed in Paris 14/12/1960 designed policies where sustainable was mentioned for the first time internationally by an recognized organisation
[2] San Francisco - http://www.sustainable-city.org/welcome/index.htm
[3] http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=467&id=3055
[i] Raj Doctor is an architect, urban and regional planner and MBA and currently lives in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The views presented here are of the author and do not represent the organisation or culture he works with or comes from. The maps and references are taken from the internet, solely to better understand the concepts of sustainability (and not for any commercial benefit or purposes). Sources and reference quoted therewith.
Click Here to Read More..
As many worldly concepts, the sustainability experts are looking at sustainability from a directorial perspective, that is top down – meaning they start at the top by institutionalizing policies, laws, treaties, agreements, charters etc. – and hope that people will follow that – if not, they would be punished. This way of handling worldly matters sounds dictatorial but is common.
For the developed world the sustainable way of life can never happen out of individual freedom and choices, it has to be forced on people through state and power. Quoting from an expert, sustainability means – a system where the capacity to continue on through time is maintained without depleting the energy or material it needs to go into that system. Here it seems that the expert is quoting a rural sustainable lifestyle, but emphasizing its use on ‘how to be sustainable’ in the developed industrialized world. In developed world the need is not to build people’s capacity – but remove already over-built capacity that is making this world un-sustainable.
For developed and rich community, sustainability would and should mean – a system where the people are incapacitated to continue on through time to use excessive energy and / or materials.
Foremost, the intellectual experts induce the causes of un-sustainability to population growth that use (and according to them deplete) limited world resources. The solution they provide is - reduce population growth. The fact of the matter is that it is not the population (in general) but the exploitative rich economies that are to blame for depleting worldly resources – not only from their own hinterlands, but from far off regions, through their misuse of economic arm twisting power and carrot and stick approach.
Secondly, environmental scientist blame the use of technology that produces various forms of energy escalating global warming as a cause leading to un-sustainability. Similar to population, here the scapegoat are fuels – mainly fossil, bio and / or nuclear. Projected alternatives are solar, hydro and wind power, because they are non-pollutants to the environment - far better solutions than the one implying reducing population growth.
But these solutions too have major downsize, especially in technology, build-up costs, social cost-benefit analysis, implementation, and maintenance to name a few.
Third, recycling is another solution most experts propose. It is something most world rural communities have done through centuries, so it is not something new one needs to tell the whole world – but probably the rich world. The modernization of past century – industrialization, urbanization and commercialization have made last three - four generations for modern society ignorant of the basics of good natural being and living. Especially with the existing consumption levels, recycling though good looks cosmetic and laughable.
The following map shows the world energy production and consumption rates:
Source: http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/energy_popups.php?p=prodcon
With the pressures of globalization to increase economic wealth - it does not require any qualified scientist to tell us that in coming decades, people’s needs are not going to decrease but will increase and so will their increase use of energy i.e. rate of consumption would ever increase the rate of production for each country.
With the current energy consumption rate, all these (hydro, solar and wind) energy producing solutions look unsustainable to plan and implement in the context of the mad-pace of consumeristic marathon of world today. This is a similar fate like ever growing road traffic suffocating widened road capacity.
The real cause of un-sustainability can be understood well by per-capita consumption index. The map below shows evidence:
Source: http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=percap
The euphemism of ‘development’ causes un-sustainability. Until and unless – human won’t start consuming according to their basic needs, looking outside for solutions would complexify problems many folds, instead of solving them.
Another solution advocated is - Followed by a few US cities embarking on building sustainable cities[2], UN proposes a ‘Sustainable City Program’[3] marked by sustainable city student competition. Common sense tells us, only a rich - economy and organisation like US and UN respectively - have the luxury, wealth, time and flexibility for such ludicrous proposals, especially with the fact we know that more than fifty per cent of the world population is suffering from hunger – food and water. Regrettably, the process of urbanization is itself a massive energy depleting unsustainable life-style approach, in its per capita use of energy and demands on consuming economy that leaches on (exploiting) world-wide natural resources.
Rather than pumping more money into cities to make them sustainable, the same money could be used for giving better quality of life to people in poor areas. The real challenge should be to make living in cities an unsustainable option and move towards a more balanced economic life style.
When we are talking of cities, let us briefly dwell upon other discussion urban planners engage in. Not to deny the aspects of cleanliness – but many urban planners confuse – dirty cities as unsustainable way of living, and put resources to make cities clean and market them as sustainable solutions. Conceptually, they have got it all jumbled up and wrong. Undeniably cleanliness plays a part in maintaining the eco-system’s appropriate balance, and one should keep the cities clean. It can be defined as Cleaner solutions and not sustainable solutions.
Many experts also believe on such a negative attitude of even imagining – self sustaining modern societies is not going to be possible. Here lies world’s failure in their intellectual pessimism of not even trying to look into putting an effort to change things in a positive direction.
Look at the map below:
Source: http://pthbb.org/natural/footprint/
Here ‘red’ shows bigger footprint, for a region - which is not a good sign and ‘green’ shows smaller footprints – which is good. Not to confuse that the ‘red’ colored regions exploit the ‘green’ regions to fulfill their consumption patterns. The assumption used is that consumption has direct co-relation with ecological footprints.
The map shows the enormity of problem we are facing. In near future, the things are not going to be better. The red will become darker and green will become pink, and pink will become red. Time has come to squeeze the regional footprints. Balanced and need based use of resources – is the solution.
Let the pace of science and technology advancements match human’s psychological aptitude to comprehend the best use of modernism to suit ecology and not that of personal greed.
(Total Words: 1160)
[1] OECD created convention signed in Paris 14/12/1960 designed policies where sustainable was mentioned for the first time internationally by an recognized organisation
[2] San Francisco - http://www.sustainable-city.org/welcome/index.htm
[3] http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=467&id=3055
[i] Raj Doctor is an architect, urban and regional planner and MBA and currently lives in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The views presented here are of the author and do not represent the organisation or culture he works with or comes from. The maps and references are taken from the internet, solely to better understand the concepts of sustainability (and not for any commercial benefit or purposes). Sources and reference quoted therewith.
Click Here to Read More..
Monday, May 12, 2008
Review of "Good to Great" by Jim Collins
I have not lived Jim’s life, so very difficult for me to be in his shoes to know what drove him to his point in life to derive such strong convictions about his work. With that humble sympathies towards Jim, I write this critic.
A film critic friend selected 100 grosser top Hollywood movies and after studying them for 10 years with the help of the most high-tech movie analytical software, interviewing directors, producers and key crew members of films, and comparing them with 100 biggest flops; he came with a book - a 100% guarantee formula for “10 keys on how to make a Hollywood Blockbuster”. If you think that someone can make a Hollywood blockbuster following the 10 keys, then this book is surely for you to read. If not, than you may like to read this review.
Even though this book was published in October 2001, seven years back, with more than two million copies sold worldwide, and very highly recommended by most business and management pundits – I had never heard about this book until, one day my boss walks by our team in the office, with the book in his hand and gave rave reviews of how wonderful piece of work this is. We as a team, heard him and may be, had forgotten about it after a few days. After a week our boss in the middle of a group meeting, puts his bag up on the table and pulls out copies of this book to gift each member of the team. A very warm and loving gesture from our boss touched me deeply. I took the opportunity to bring back the book the next day to request his personal hand written compliments for me on its first page. He wrote – “With Warm Regards eagerness to share thoughts…” and that was inspired me to write the review of this book.
Good to Great – by Jim Collins.
I Google[1] - Jim Collins and Good to Great - in Google Book Search, and there are 10 listed book reviews, all positive except one by Rob May[2]. There is also a basic web site of the author James Collins[3], and there is an interview on YouTube of Jim Collins by Charlie Rose[4] - impressive to hear him talk, present his book and management concepts. I found him articulate, smart and one who can give a salesperson run for its money. The best collection of reviews[5] of this book is available at Amazon.com[6].
James C. Collins is an American, majored in mathematical sciences and MBA from Stanford. He had a rocky career – he did not fit anywhere – a very short stint at McKingsey and HP, managing his wife’s triathlon career, and a software company on managing health and fitness, says it all. His entrepreneur skills may not have hooked him an upward career but it landed him teaching Entrepreneurship at Stanford. He could not stand the political atmosphere at Stanford and founded a management laboratory in Colorado, USA.
Jim Collins likes to call himself as a student and a teacher of enduring great companies, but to outside world he is more regarded as a management consultant and a writer. He is an avid rock climber[7] and with his friend and mentor Stanford University Professor Jerry Porras had written his first book as co-author ‘Built to Last’. It was the joint publication that really grounded Jim on comforting territory that lead to his ‘curiosity’ potent to explore this question – “Good to Great – Why some companies make a leap…and other don’t”[8].
The book has taken 5-7 years to research. Jim hired a team of researchers[9] to look at 1435 American Fortune 500 companies’ data from 1965 till 1995, and after four levels of sifting, cut the list to 11 companies who have consistently shown high stock returns and compared them with direct comparable companies and unsustainable companies. The team interviewed 86 executives from these 11 companies and deduced seven principles of “Good to Great” companies:
1. Level 5 leadership: Leaders with personal humility and professional will
2. First who, then what: Hire the right people and remove weak people
3. Confront the brutal facts: Face most difficult facts and situations upfront
4. Hedgehog concept: Be best at what you are best at – core competence
5. A culture of discipline: Build culture of discipline through commitment & freedom
6. Technology accelerator: Use only those technologies that fit the company’s concept
7. The Fly Wheel and Doom Loop: No revolutionary steps, just small consistent effort
The book has nine chapters, one epilogue[10], eight appendices[11] and notes for each chapter.
Now my take on it:
While staring at the red book cover, the first thing that came to my mind was – who will pick up this book to read? Will those be the ones who think they are ‘Good’ but has the potential of being ‘Great’? Or those who think there is some wonder steps in the book like “5-6-7... Steps to happiness, success, riches…!” Surely, with the current title I would not have even stopped for a millisecond to fix my glance on the shelves of the book shop display.
But the title seems to be apt for urbanized, mostly metropolitan and educated human generation – who has this immense urge to hook on to some current fad, a quick-fix solution to be something else – the easy way – especially the Americans and those around the globe following American culture. I do not know why? May be some Americans can throw some more light on this psychological phobia? Every other year we see an emergence of such writings.
Anyone who knows a little bit about research will tell you that the research that is talked about and presented (every given opportunity) by Jim as a scientific methodology is not a systematic research or a scientific methodology by any standards. Outlining research steps during / after research is like I saying that select as many non-fiction books published in US since 1995 with red cover, now remove books that are published before year 2000 AD, remove books that are sold less than two million, remove books that are not categorized as number one best-sellers and you will be left with one book on hand, i.e. Good to Great. Is this scientific? Surely not, but illusionary! Like a magician Jim persistently and tediously showcases the science behind his work just to elude readers in a make believe scenario that is not real.
It is important for readers to know that research done by Jim and principles derived by Jim are two separate sets, which Jim is trying hard to sell as a methodology of deductive one. One key example in palmistry is palm lines and future life predictions - are they related or independent sets? In India, every nook and corner you will find a palmist like Jim, who will proclaim to have studied 10,000 palms to support his claims on your successful future life predictions.
Six simple observations:
First, Jim does not have any hypothesis to test, second, nor does he establish any co-relation on the principle and the findings. Third, surprisingly Jim does not even present all the findings, and fourth, seems to be selective in choosing and presenting findings that show negation of some pre-conceived thoughts of his and his team. Fifth, most of his principles are presented as substantiating his claim emerging out of an enlightening discussion, talk (walk) or reading or single sentence that Jim found interesting. (Same things palmist do of quoting names of people who match palm lines and life fate) Sixth, if you read the principles – did not you know them earlier? Jim does not say anything new, but presents old wine in new bottle of jargons colored with his understanding of scientific research haze.
These six key observations will surely make any person with little common-sense, suspicious. It made me. My assumption is that there are more than 90 per cent of Jim principles generated from his mind and not as deduction from these studies. Like an American talkative salesperson Jim uses this research as larger than life portray, than what it actually is. Surely he is a good at it.
The book is filled his principles whose wording imbibe paradox, irony, extreme, contradictory, contrary, shocking, surprising, unbelievable etc. and Jim does not care to explain any of them. Every concept of Jim is not even half cooked. Jim also keeps on harping one word again and again, that leaders should have understanding, or develop understanding – and that is such a loose guidance. Anything that does not work, could be blamed on “may be you did not have proper understanding” and the reader of the book would struggle to get the understanding from the book which is elusive in the first place.
Honestly, it was really (extremely) difficult for me read this book, because (with full sympathy to Jim’s efforts) it was full of non-sense. Many a times while reading it, I felt repulsive, contemptible and worthless spending my time on it. I feel sad for this world and people who are praising such books. Most of them are or would be leaders. Mostly, wrong/ weak person would read this book, and all wrong / weak persons (who should be removed from the company bus) would not realize that they are the wrong person on the bus. They would read this book and try to remove everyone else except themselves – as Jim Collins says - a paradox and irony!
I strongly think that Jim has spend more time to bring credibility to his thoughts via this research rather than allowing the research to deduce the principles. How hard Jim tries, but he would never know the real secrets behind successful companies (unsuccessful himself in running small businesses). Jim Collins may write another 5 to 10 books in his life-time, but I strongly believe that one day Jim will get it in the end because right now he does not have required conceptual clarity, scientific rigor or humility to understand and respect life’s complexities. He covers that by not being transparent and apt in his professional work and that is why he becomes clumsy in flowering jargons around and in thin air. There lies his failure. I hope he has some deeper sense to understand this.
In this world, till there are people who can not resist indulging in enthusiasm of running after fads and picking books like “5 days to become a millionaire”, “4 things to do to find true love and happiness” and “How to become leaders” etc.; such books will sell like hot cake in today’s confused times, and people like Jim may feel intelligent, sober and merrier with fame and gain.
Last point - I find every other line in the book pretentious. If I really sit to write line by line, concept by concept critic – it may result in a similar 300 page book. I do not want to spend more time on “Good to Great”, not worth it!!
Just for sake of information: 8 out of 11 companies of Good to Great are on a decline or have gone busted during this first decade of 21st century.
[1] Fearing dilution and potential loss of trademark, Google has attempted to discourage use of the word as a verb and In October 25, 2006, Google sent a plea to the public requesting that "you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services.
[2] http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/
[3] http://www.jimcollins.com/
[4] http://youtube.com/watch?v=3bR2Jlgg71Q
[5] Amazon website has 665 reviews of this book, from which 67% of those reviewers rate the book with 5 stars and just 3.7% rate this book with 1 star.
[6] http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-Others/dp/0066620996/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209459946&sr=1-1
[7] Jim Collins ran a rock climbing school to support himself after graduating
[8] In 2005, Jim Collins also published a monograph ‘Good to Great and the Social Sector’ with less intensive research and without much commercial success
[9] Young researchers without experience and the team also kept on changing
[10] Epilogue consists of 17 frequently asked questions (FAQ)
[11] The appendices 3, 4, 6, and 7 are missing (looks intentionally deleted) from the final publication of the book. So four appendix 1, 2, 5, and 8 consists of eight sub-appendices.
Click Here to Read More..
A film critic friend selected 100 grosser top Hollywood movies and after studying them for 10 years with the help of the most high-tech movie analytical software, interviewing directors, producers and key crew members of films, and comparing them with 100 biggest flops; he came with a book - a 100% guarantee formula for “10 keys on how to make a Hollywood Blockbuster”. If you think that someone can make a Hollywood blockbuster following the 10 keys, then this book is surely for you to read. If not, than you may like to read this review.
Even though this book was published in October 2001, seven years back, with more than two million copies sold worldwide, and very highly recommended by most business and management pundits – I had never heard about this book until, one day my boss walks by our team in the office, with the book in his hand and gave rave reviews of how wonderful piece of work this is. We as a team, heard him and may be, had forgotten about it after a few days. After a week our boss in the middle of a group meeting, puts his bag up on the table and pulls out copies of this book to gift each member of the team. A very warm and loving gesture from our boss touched me deeply. I took the opportunity to bring back the book the next day to request his personal hand written compliments for me on its first page. He wrote – “With Warm Regards eagerness to share thoughts…” and that was inspired me to write the review of this book.
Good to Great – by Jim Collins.
I Google[1] - Jim Collins and Good to Great - in Google Book Search, and there are 10 listed book reviews, all positive except one by Rob May[2]. There is also a basic web site of the author James Collins[3], and there is an interview on YouTube of Jim Collins by Charlie Rose[4] - impressive to hear him talk, present his book and management concepts. I found him articulate, smart and one who can give a salesperson run for its money. The best collection of reviews[5] of this book is available at Amazon.com[6].
James C. Collins is an American, majored in mathematical sciences and MBA from Stanford. He had a rocky career – he did not fit anywhere – a very short stint at McKingsey and HP, managing his wife’s triathlon career, and a software company on managing health and fitness, says it all. His entrepreneur skills may not have hooked him an upward career but it landed him teaching Entrepreneurship at Stanford. He could not stand the political atmosphere at Stanford and founded a management laboratory in Colorado, USA.
Jim Collins likes to call himself as a student and a teacher of enduring great companies, but to outside world he is more regarded as a management consultant and a writer. He is an avid rock climber[7] and with his friend and mentor Stanford University Professor Jerry Porras had written his first book as co-author ‘Built to Last’. It was the joint publication that really grounded Jim on comforting territory that lead to his ‘curiosity’ potent to explore this question – “Good to Great – Why some companies make a leap…and other don’t”[8].
The book has taken 5-7 years to research. Jim hired a team of researchers[9] to look at 1435 American Fortune 500 companies’ data from 1965 till 1995, and after four levels of sifting, cut the list to 11 companies who have consistently shown high stock returns and compared them with direct comparable companies and unsustainable companies. The team interviewed 86 executives from these 11 companies and deduced seven principles of “Good to Great” companies:
1. Level 5 leadership: Leaders with personal humility and professional will
2. First who, then what: Hire the right people and remove weak people
3. Confront the brutal facts: Face most difficult facts and situations upfront
4. Hedgehog concept: Be best at what you are best at – core competence
5. A culture of discipline: Build culture of discipline through commitment & freedom
6. Technology accelerator: Use only those technologies that fit the company’s concept
7. The Fly Wheel and Doom Loop: No revolutionary steps, just small consistent effort
The book has nine chapters, one epilogue[10], eight appendices[11] and notes for each chapter.
Now my take on it:
While staring at the red book cover, the first thing that came to my mind was – who will pick up this book to read? Will those be the ones who think they are ‘Good’ but has the potential of being ‘Great’? Or those who think there is some wonder steps in the book like “5-6-7... Steps to happiness, success, riches…!” Surely, with the current title I would not have even stopped for a millisecond to fix my glance on the shelves of the book shop display.
But the title seems to be apt for urbanized, mostly metropolitan and educated human generation – who has this immense urge to hook on to some current fad, a quick-fix solution to be something else – the easy way – especially the Americans and those around the globe following American culture. I do not know why? May be some Americans can throw some more light on this psychological phobia? Every other year we see an emergence of such writings.
Anyone who knows a little bit about research will tell you that the research that is talked about and presented (every given opportunity) by Jim as a scientific methodology is not a systematic research or a scientific methodology by any standards. Outlining research steps during / after research is like I saying that select as many non-fiction books published in US since 1995 with red cover, now remove books that are published before year 2000 AD, remove books that are sold less than two million, remove books that are not categorized as number one best-sellers and you will be left with one book on hand, i.e. Good to Great. Is this scientific? Surely not, but illusionary! Like a magician Jim persistently and tediously showcases the science behind his work just to elude readers in a make believe scenario that is not real.
It is important for readers to know that research done by Jim and principles derived by Jim are two separate sets, which Jim is trying hard to sell as a methodology of deductive one. One key example in palmistry is palm lines and future life predictions - are they related or independent sets? In India, every nook and corner you will find a palmist like Jim, who will proclaim to have studied 10,000 palms to support his claims on your successful future life predictions.
Six simple observations:
First, Jim does not have any hypothesis to test, second, nor does he establish any co-relation on the principle and the findings. Third, surprisingly Jim does not even present all the findings, and fourth, seems to be selective in choosing and presenting findings that show negation of some pre-conceived thoughts of his and his team. Fifth, most of his principles are presented as substantiating his claim emerging out of an enlightening discussion, talk (walk) or reading or single sentence that Jim found interesting. (Same things palmist do of quoting names of people who match palm lines and life fate) Sixth, if you read the principles – did not you know them earlier? Jim does not say anything new, but presents old wine in new bottle of jargons colored with his understanding of scientific research haze.
These six key observations will surely make any person with little common-sense, suspicious. It made me. My assumption is that there are more than 90 per cent of Jim principles generated from his mind and not as deduction from these studies. Like an American talkative salesperson Jim uses this research as larger than life portray, than what it actually is. Surely he is a good at it.
The book is filled his principles whose wording imbibe paradox, irony, extreme, contradictory, contrary, shocking, surprising, unbelievable etc. and Jim does not care to explain any of them. Every concept of Jim is not even half cooked. Jim also keeps on harping one word again and again, that leaders should have understanding, or develop understanding – and that is such a loose guidance. Anything that does not work, could be blamed on “may be you did not have proper understanding” and the reader of the book would struggle to get the understanding from the book which is elusive in the first place.
Honestly, it was really (extremely) difficult for me read this book, because (with full sympathy to Jim’s efforts) it was full of non-sense. Many a times while reading it, I felt repulsive, contemptible and worthless spending my time on it. I feel sad for this world and people who are praising such books. Most of them are or would be leaders. Mostly, wrong/ weak person would read this book, and all wrong / weak persons (who should be removed from the company bus) would not realize that they are the wrong person on the bus. They would read this book and try to remove everyone else except themselves – as Jim Collins says - a paradox and irony!
I strongly think that Jim has spend more time to bring credibility to his thoughts via this research rather than allowing the research to deduce the principles. How hard Jim tries, but he would never know the real secrets behind successful companies (unsuccessful himself in running small businesses). Jim Collins may write another 5 to 10 books in his life-time, but I strongly believe that one day Jim will get it in the end because right now he does not have required conceptual clarity, scientific rigor or humility to understand and respect life’s complexities. He covers that by not being transparent and apt in his professional work and that is why he becomes clumsy in flowering jargons around and in thin air. There lies his failure. I hope he has some deeper sense to understand this.
In this world, till there are people who can not resist indulging in enthusiasm of running after fads and picking books like “5 days to become a millionaire”, “4 things to do to find true love and happiness” and “How to become leaders” etc.; such books will sell like hot cake in today’s confused times, and people like Jim may feel intelligent, sober and merrier with fame and gain.
Last point - I find every other line in the book pretentious. If I really sit to write line by line, concept by concept critic – it may result in a similar 300 page book. I do not want to spend more time on “Good to Great”, not worth it!!
Just for sake of information: 8 out of 11 companies of Good to Great are on a decline or have gone busted during this first decade of 21st century.
[1] Fearing dilution and potential loss of trademark, Google has attempted to discourage use of the word as a verb and In October 25, 2006, Google sent a plea to the public requesting that "you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services.
[2] http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/
[3] http://www.jimcollins.com/
[4] http://youtube.com/watch?v=3bR2Jlgg71Q
[5] Amazon website has 665 reviews of this book, from which 67% of those reviewers rate the book with 5 stars and just 3.7% rate this book with 1 star.
[6] http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-Others/dp/0066620996/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209459946&sr=1-1
[7] Jim Collins ran a rock climbing school to support himself after graduating
[8] In 2005, Jim Collins also published a monograph ‘Good to Great and the Social Sector’ with less intensive research and without much commercial success
[9] Young researchers without experience and the team also kept on changing
[10] Epilogue consists of 17 frequently asked questions (FAQ)
[11] The appendices 3, 4, 6, and 7 are missing (looks intentionally deleted) from the final publication of the book. So four appendix 1, 2, 5, and 8 consists of eight sub-appendices.
Click Here to Read More..
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Religion, Today's Terrorism and Tomorrow's Leaders
Now a days, it is so hard to read and understand certain things. With the global events unfolding and the way they do – people belonging to some region, caste, community or religion start feeling - somewhat targeted, self-decimating; critical, submissive, violent, so on and so forth.
Different emotions surface in people’s minds - depending on the type of upbringing, contact, circles, education and opportunity within which this people get to express their views. This makes things so complex for the truth to come out.
Let us take the recent case of terrorism, Islam and Muslims in the context of early 21st century.
It is like an eternal truth with which certain religious and political commentators proclaim: “We Muslims are as responsible as Islam’s enemies…”
Now study this statement in context of the beliefs the person who says this carries. First, s/he strongly thinks and believes that – they are Muslims. The subtle truth is just taken for granted – that we are humans first before we are Muslims. If we are humans and we trace logic on the previous statement, it might read: “We humans are as responsible as Islam’s enemies….”
But that statement does not make much sense, because if all of us are human – and considered human – who will remain to identify oneself with Islam? For identifying with Islam one has to give oneself another identity over and above human. So if the new identity is called Muslim – then only the statement would make sense. Without giving oneself an identity of Muslim, there won’t be any existence of something called Islam.
Why and how humans have got entangled and puzzled into this religious game? From progression of Jewish religion to Christianity and to Islam; the steps were taken to complicate the matters more rather than solve. Each so called progressive step in religious growth, was something that is defined as EVOLVED and improved. That is why Islam is called the most contemporary and progressive religion with high significance in today’s world.
There could be two possibilities:
First, how nice it would be if all Jews were converted to Christianity and all Christians would have converted to Islam. There won’t be any residue to fight over. But we all know that it did not happen that way. There are residue (those who did not like the new faith) of Jews did not become Christian and there were Christians who did not become Muslims.
Second, the people were and are not smart enough to understand that what they call EVOLUTION of religious thought is nothing but a short-sightedness of creating complexities rather than simplification. Just for a second assume that people had that fore-sight and humanness to stop and say – let us go back one step and remove the very first complexity. Then they would have evolved as a better human race without differentiating among themselves.
But we all know that did not happen. The short-sightedness of human mind did not stop with Jews, Christians or Muslims. Within Muslims too, they divided Sunni and Shia. Now these two segments fight.
Similar is the case with Christianity too – the protestant and Catholics fight. In Hindus – the acceptance of many gods and goddesses is tolerated – but the caste wars takes place.
Every generation have their defined terrorist – Nelson Mandela was a terrorist under Margaret Thacher’s Britain; Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh were also terrorist – with decades bygone – they are all considered great personalities and leaders who fought oppressive regimes and whose life are role modeled by younger generations.
With such ease we define terrorist today. Who knows with 2-3 decades gone, won’t they be called great leaders fighting oppressive regimes?
An innocent civilian house bombarded in a remote village by Northern, Western and UN Peace troops has potential of giving birth to the most deadly suicide bombers the world could see. These suicide bombers are fighting a moral, religious and ethical battle against oppressive regimes.
Most terrorist do fight moral battle for holding their nations, religious, family and self dignity. Most terrorist are persuaded through pamphlets and lectures to choose their path of becoming a terrorist. The western propaganda and media may project terrorist with more zeal and passion as mis-guided people; but I have not seen a single western media channel out and out presenting what oppression terrorist are fighting. May be western and northern media does not have that much interest and aptitude to understand the core issues – because they are so blinded by them being part of the oppressive group. One which they themselves are not aware of!
Will any common civilian American or British or European agree that they are integral part and parcel of an oppressive and exploitative system? Never, because they won’t be able to understand this view point!
Sadly, if the oppression is done through backing of international and national legal laws – it would always be justified. The environmental and resource exploitation resulting in national poverty that has happened since last couple of centuries by greedy people who dominate regions and races has leaded this world to give birth to what is call terrorists.
So I do not think that any community or region or religion should feel self-deprecating or belittling themselves about standing up to fight terrorist within their country or their religion. Instead one needs to stand up and understand the broader issue encompassing the problems of the world that lead to terrorism.
It is convenient for short-sighted visionaries to label people fighting oppression as terrorist, but it takes a whole decade, generation or a century to realize that those terrorist were actual leaders for the new world.
Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bhagat Singh, Michael Collins and many others were called terrorists.
If history is written by humanistic and environmental perspectives – any terrorist would emerge as a leader in history books!
Click Here to Read More..
Different emotions surface in people’s minds - depending on the type of upbringing, contact, circles, education and opportunity within which this people get to express their views. This makes things so complex for the truth to come out.
Let us take the recent case of terrorism, Islam and Muslims in the context of early 21st century.
It is like an eternal truth with which certain religious and political commentators proclaim: “We Muslims are as responsible as Islam’s enemies…”
Now study this statement in context of the beliefs the person who says this carries. First, s/he strongly thinks and believes that – they are Muslims. The subtle truth is just taken for granted – that we are humans first before we are Muslims. If we are humans and we trace logic on the previous statement, it might read: “We humans are as responsible as Islam’s enemies….”
But that statement does not make much sense, because if all of us are human – and considered human – who will remain to identify oneself with Islam? For identifying with Islam one has to give oneself another identity over and above human. So if the new identity is called Muslim – then only the statement would make sense. Without giving oneself an identity of Muslim, there won’t be any existence of something called Islam.
Why and how humans have got entangled and puzzled into this religious game? From progression of Jewish religion to Christianity and to Islam; the steps were taken to complicate the matters more rather than solve. Each so called progressive step in religious growth, was something that is defined as EVOLVED and improved. That is why Islam is called the most contemporary and progressive religion with high significance in today’s world.
There could be two possibilities:
First, how nice it would be if all Jews were converted to Christianity and all Christians would have converted to Islam. There won’t be any residue to fight over. But we all know that it did not happen that way. There are residue (those who did not like the new faith) of Jews did not become Christian and there were Christians who did not become Muslims.
Second, the people were and are not smart enough to understand that what they call EVOLUTION of religious thought is nothing but a short-sightedness of creating complexities rather than simplification. Just for a second assume that people had that fore-sight and humanness to stop and say – let us go back one step and remove the very first complexity. Then they would have evolved as a better human race without differentiating among themselves.
But we all know that did not happen. The short-sightedness of human mind did not stop with Jews, Christians or Muslims. Within Muslims too, they divided Sunni and Shia. Now these two segments fight.
Similar is the case with Christianity too – the protestant and Catholics fight. In Hindus – the acceptance of many gods and goddesses is tolerated – but the caste wars takes place.
Every generation have their defined terrorist – Nelson Mandela was a terrorist under Margaret Thacher’s Britain; Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh were also terrorist – with decades bygone – they are all considered great personalities and leaders who fought oppressive regimes and whose life are role modeled by younger generations.
With such ease we define terrorist today. Who knows with 2-3 decades gone, won’t they be called great leaders fighting oppressive regimes?
An innocent civilian house bombarded in a remote village by Northern, Western and UN Peace troops has potential of giving birth to the most deadly suicide bombers the world could see. These suicide bombers are fighting a moral, religious and ethical battle against oppressive regimes.
Most terrorist do fight moral battle for holding their nations, religious, family and self dignity. Most terrorist are persuaded through pamphlets and lectures to choose their path of becoming a terrorist. The western propaganda and media may project terrorist with more zeal and passion as mis-guided people; but I have not seen a single western media channel out and out presenting what oppression terrorist are fighting. May be western and northern media does not have that much interest and aptitude to understand the core issues – because they are so blinded by them being part of the oppressive group. One which they themselves are not aware of!
Will any common civilian American or British or European agree that they are integral part and parcel of an oppressive and exploitative system? Never, because they won’t be able to understand this view point!
Sadly, if the oppression is done through backing of international and national legal laws – it would always be justified. The environmental and resource exploitation resulting in national poverty that has happened since last couple of centuries by greedy people who dominate regions and races has leaded this world to give birth to what is call terrorists.
So I do not think that any community or region or religion should feel self-deprecating or belittling themselves about standing up to fight terrorist within their country or their religion. Instead one needs to stand up and understand the broader issue encompassing the problems of the world that lead to terrorism.
It is convenient for short-sighted visionaries to label people fighting oppression as terrorist, but it takes a whole decade, generation or a century to realize that those terrorist were actual leaders for the new world.
Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bhagat Singh, Michael Collins and many others were called terrorists.
If history is written by humanistic and environmental perspectives – any terrorist would emerge as a leader in history books!
Click Here to Read More..
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Multi-national, Capitalism and Corporate Social Responsibility
It is automatically assumed when the word "multi-national" is heard - that it refers to Companies operating in many nations. But the term "multi-national" could have wider applications! But for this article we would assume and restrict ourselves to "multi-national companies".
The whole advent of humankind's evolution is based on valuing everything in money terms. It is strange and shrewd that the one who first put forward a significant value (like a piece of paper used and valued as money) different from the actual value of a thing (a piece of paper valued as a piece of paper). This was the first step a capitalist made of cheating someone. It is a well accepted fact from thousands of years now. I think questioning the capitalist motives at this stage is useless. The whole world HAS accepted Capitalist way of life, except a few eastern sages who voluntarily lead a life of spirituality without pursuing the capitalist dream.
I consider the word “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) very similar to a euphemism people use just because it is right to be seen that way. It is very right to be showing “care and love” for poor people; similar for multinationals it is very right to be having a CSR programme running in their organisation.
Some companies really believe and think they are into CSR and really want to help the communities and the world. That could be true to a certain extend, that before the company was not doing anything, and now they are doing something at least. Something is better than nothing!
Many people may not agree with me but the capitalist motive in itself is exploitation of the nature, world, and every resource available. There is no way one can make, earn and save money without being capitalist. For being capitalist one has to pretend and convince everyone about giving a value to things that are different from what the actual value of things.
Due to short-sightedness of one or two generations, people may think of living and doing a good life or deed; but in actuality any survival on the inappropriate valuation of things is significant to cheating and exploitative. I know people do not feel or think that way.
As the use of spoken words and actions around - love, care, compassion, humbleness etc. are used to as a PR tool for projecting good human beings; surely CSR is used similarly by multinational companies as PR tools to project them being good companies.
Click Here to Read More..
The whole advent of humankind's evolution is based on valuing everything in money terms. It is strange and shrewd that the one who first put forward a significant value (like a piece of paper used and valued as money) different from the actual value of a thing (a piece of paper valued as a piece of paper). This was the first step a capitalist made of cheating someone. It is a well accepted fact from thousands of years now. I think questioning the capitalist motives at this stage is useless. The whole world HAS accepted Capitalist way of life, except a few eastern sages who voluntarily lead a life of spirituality without pursuing the capitalist dream.
I consider the word “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) very similar to a euphemism people use just because it is right to be seen that way. It is very right to be showing “care and love” for poor people; similar for multinationals it is very right to be having a CSR programme running in their organisation.
Some companies really believe and think they are into CSR and really want to help the communities and the world. That could be true to a certain extend, that before the company was not doing anything, and now they are doing something at least. Something is better than nothing!
Many people may not agree with me but the capitalist motive in itself is exploitation of the nature, world, and every resource available. There is no way one can make, earn and save money without being capitalist. For being capitalist one has to pretend and convince everyone about giving a value to things that are different from what the actual value of things.
Due to short-sightedness of one or two generations, people may think of living and doing a good life or deed; but in actuality any survival on the inappropriate valuation of things is significant to cheating and exploitative. I know people do not feel or think that way.
As the use of spoken words and actions around - love, care, compassion, humbleness etc. are used to as a PR tool for projecting good human beings; surely CSR is used similarly by multinational companies as PR tools to project them being good companies.
Click Here to Read More..
Friday, August 24, 2007
Definitions, Jargons and so called Expertise...!
I do not think I belong to any ideology.
Because I think, identifying with anything identifiable “whatever” restricts the enormousness of our being. So when I read the so called intelligent people taking definitions like Left and communist, capitalist and imperialism, for granted – and try to discuss things around them with total belief and conviction - that they know the answers of all; it makes me smile and laugh at the stupidity of their ignorance.
Words -spoken or written - can bring forward that conviction and influence people. People with little orientation and training to question everything, can take things for granted and be taken for a ride by the so called intellectuals - be them spiritual gurus, political experts, or management leaders or today’s media editors.
Recently I have been following the debate around India-US Nuclear Deal, and how everyone – especially the media are jumping to show their sides. Any new topic in front of the commercial frenzy media is like a “bone for a dog” – food for fodder. We can see the excitement among the editors, when they meet to discuss or write their articles on such issues. And they all look like 14 year old boys or girls who have been to a party and are excited to first time see the opposite sexes. That is the energy they give out. I think they are programmed to behave that way or they learn those tips of their media (flesh) trade. Among them there are those so called wise men – who keep a serious face, as if they know all the answers and speak with such moron subnormal intelligence – that they start irritating your nerves.
But sadly, such is the influence of today’s competitive media! And everyone working in it and / or listening to it – is an inescapable victim.
If you know how to speak and how to write – you can utter any drivel – and you will look convincing to others.
While debating, people forget the meaning of words and juggle around with use of vocabulary and jargons (gobbledygook was the new word I read somewhere!) just to show off their new learning!!! People add contexts to the debate that have never been slightly close to the actual issue.
Everyone in this world knows that the only purpose that drives the NEW world of today is MONEY….! So anything that is even slightly hinting to stop that dream of riding the horse of wealth is seen with utter dislike and looked down upon.
How can one kick one’s own belly? Especially when one gets salary, food, living from money and wealth – so anyone speaking a bit against pursue of becoming rich – is seen as an enemy to human kind.
This people try to present logic of using Pro-American, anti-American Marxists, Communist, Capitalist, Imperialist, Stalinist, Socialist phrases in the minds of people who read or listen to them – just to prove a point that – LET ME and EVERYONE ELSE run behind money.
Their views are so short-sighted (just restricted to theirs and their off-spring’s generations).
They live in the culture of I-ME-MYSELF!
What is wrong in that? They ask! My rights!!!! Uff…what to say to those fellows? Who breathe half an ounce of air and spill out tones of CO2 footprints as side-effect of their luxurious living!
Blindly gaping at intellectual garbage is a past time for today’s commercialized world – and as per the American dream, one gets paid millions for pretending and projecting a behavior of yourself – which you are not! And most of them who fit this role are normally not aware of their pretensions and tortured programming that has made them pursue this road. They rationalize it by “It was my right to choose…”
Sometimes, we see the media persons when broad-casting these stories– depending upon their economic, political pressures and interest – shy away from taking sides and restrict themselves with presenting with all dutiful holiness both the sides of the coin.
But when water starts running behind their interests – they jump in the bandwagon of searching and inventing all words and phrases of euphemism bashing of what they dislike.
At times when one hears and reads such discussions – and those – I do not understand or know they are Left or Right (but amazingly they seem to understand and know it!) – Who vehemently speak out; simply look like as if they come from a Devilish land from the Hell of greed, selfishness and army of dominating race.
When will we see a world where things are seen in plain simple terms rather than it being those who are converting them into pre-judged notional definition and newly invented jargons, that tend to justify everything that is not for human or nature?
What the world one has come to live in?
Click Here to Read More..
Because I think, identifying with anything identifiable “whatever” restricts the enormousness of our being. So when I read the so called intelligent people taking definitions like Left and communist, capitalist and imperialism, for granted – and try to discuss things around them with total belief and conviction - that they know the answers of all; it makes me smile and laugh at the stupidity of their ignorance.
Words -spoken or written - can bring forward that conviction and influence people. People with little orientation and training to question everything, can take things for granted and be taken for a ride by the so called intellectuals - be them spiritual gurus, political experts, or management leaders or today’s media editors.
Recently I have been following the debate around India-US Nuclear Deal, and how everyone – especially the media are jumping to show their sides. Any new topic in front of the commercial frenzy media is like a “bone for a dog” – food for fodder. We can see the excitement among the editors, when they meet to discuss or write their articles on such issues. And they all look like 14 year old boys or girls who have been to a party and are excited to first time see the opposite sexes. That is the energy they give out. I think they are programmed to behave that way or they learn those tips of their media (flesh) trade. Among them there are those so called wise men – who keep a serious face, as if they know all the answers and speak with such moron subnormal intelligence – that they start irritating your nerves.
But sadly, such is the influence of today’s competitive media! And everyone working in it and / or listening to it – is an inescapable victim.
If you know how to speak and how to write – you can utter any drivel – and you will look convincing to others.
While debating, people forget the meaning of words and juggle around with use of vocabulary and jargons (gobbledygook was the new word I read somewhere!) just to show off their new learning!!! People add contexts to the debate that have never been slightly close to the actual issue.
Everyone in this world knows that the only purpose that drives the NEW world of today is MONEY….! So anything that is even slightly hinting to stop that dream of riding the horse of wealth is seen with utter dislike and looked down upon.
How can one kick one’s own belly? Especially when one gets salary, food, living from money and wealth – so anyone speaking a bit against pursue of becoming rich – is seen as an enemy to human kind.
This people try to present logic of using Pro-American, anti-American Marxists, Communist, Capitalist, Imperialist, Stalinist, Socialist phrases in the minds of people who read or listen to them – just to prove a point that – LET ME and EVERYONE ELSE run behind money.
Their views are so short-sighted (just restricted to theirs and their off-spring’s generations).
They live in the culture of I-ME-MYSELF!
What is wrong in that? They ask! My rights!!!! Uff…what to say to those fellows? Who breathe half an ounce of air and spill out tones of CO2 footprints as side-effect of their luxurious living!
Blindly gaping at intellectual garbage is a past time for today’s commercialized world – and as per the American dream, one gets paid millions for pretending and projecting a behavior of yourself – which you are not! And most of them who fit this role are normally not aware of their pretensions and tortured programming that has made them pursue this road. They rationalize it by “It was my right to choose…”
Sometimes, we see the media persons when broad-casting these stories– depending upon their economic, political pressures and interest – shy away from taking sides and restrict themselves with presenting with all dutiful holiness both the sides of the coin.
But when water starts running behind their interests – they jump in the bandwagon of searching and inventing all words and phrases of euphemism bashing of what they dislike.
At times when one hears and reads such discussions – and those – I do not understand or know they are Left or Right (but amazingly they seem to understand and know it!) – Who vehemently speak out; simply look like as if they come from a Devilish land from the Hell of greed, selfishness and army of dominating race.
When will we see a world where things are seen in plain simple terms rather than it being those who are converting them into pre-judged notional definition and newly invented jargons, that tend to justify everything that is not for human or nature?
What the world one has come to live in?
Click Here to Read More..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
