I think quite a bit, I speak quite a lot and I do write once in a while. But then I do recognize that all of this is influenced by people and ideologies. There is a clutter of too many isms around me. The Greeks, the Indians and Philosophers all over spent an entire lifetime digging fundamental questions just so that they could let the next generation have the fruit of a long journey. I stand as a proud descendent of this rich intellectual heritage. But is my thinking original or am I influenced by isms? The leftists call me a capitalist, the rightists call me a socialist, the religious ones call me a Marxist. the atheists find new labels for every argument- for I have no loyalties. But then, is my thinking original? Well, even my title isn't original, I hope G.H.Hardy won't sue me for that!
Amidst this confusion of economic ideologies, I realize we human beings have come so far! We have eliminated so many diseases, increased the average life expectancy and the standard of living has been improving. So much more could have been achieved, so much more is to be achieved and I'm sure the activists haven't lost faith in the Darwinian forces already. Socialistic thought helps me in ensuring that everybody acquires the threshold capability to achieve something meaningful while the capitalistic paradigm helps me in understanding productivity better. I have had nasty debates with Marxists about how Capitalism evolved new business practices, which most of them are not even aware of. Generally, a Marxist labels every landlord as a thief and my grandfather was a landlord who commanded about 100 farmers and yet I'm a Marxist and yet I speak out against Marxism!
There is a very interesting conundrum I have been grappling with, over the last few weeks. As a teacher I always believed in the Darwinian forces.I hated Jishnu Krishnamurthy Philosophy for the manner in which the so called Alternative Schools implement it, though I love the thoughts and have even greater respect for the man! But then, once I got into even more serious teaching I have had some startling obvservations. Over the last years, I worked with handpicked students who'd compete to get an opportunity to express themselves at the Sciensation platform and yes it was all about "survival of the fittest". But then there is an important rider accompanying Darwin's theory- a specie can survive only if it can adapt to the conditions around it. We come up with post hoc explanations with eulogies of the species which made it, but what about those who didn't? So in my class of 40 students, is it okay if 15 students don't make it?
Let us look at academic performance function (however it is measured)- would you want to optimize the cummulative value of the function or would you want to maximize the score of each and every participant? Does the class stop if a student doesn't understand? Sure, you have personalized learning, but then you have peer discussions which is precisely the reason why we all gather at a place to study. So do the peer discussions stop if a student doesn't understand? If it does, will it affect the learning opportunities of the other students? If you suggest that students should be grouped as per their potential, are we inventing another caste system? Is it possible that the student who didn't follow would bring in fresh perspectives and has stumbled across conceptual hurdles which were just ignored by the rest of the class? This is the probably the Socialism vs Capitalism debate expressed in a different context.
I have been looking to get the best of perspectives out of school students through competitions. I think the phrase sport/game might suit better and this probably comes in due to my Mathematics/Game Theory background. However, I met one Ms Gurveen Kaur, an old lady who has dedicated an entire lifetime for the cause of education. Whenever, I stumble across road blocks, I only think of her and ask myself- would I want to end up like her someday, as someone who has created a huge impact amongst few people and helped in making the "invisible and slow" Darwinian force work? She kept questioning my premise that Games bring the best out of people. But then don't games also make you change your inherent behavior? Doesn't incentive corrupt the natural decision making process?
But then is learning a natural process or do we train the brain? Wait, is the nature vs nurture debate coming up now? Too many threads to be resolved, but then there is one fundamental question here- what is the carrot for all the participants to engage in a Dialogue? Is it just learning? Can a social incentive bring the best out of them? Can some other incentive emerge so that you don't have to use competition as a tool? I have lived the last six years of my entrepreneurial career on this weapon called competition and Ms Gurveen has lived the last six decades fighting against cut throat competition. This is a dilemma which I'd probably understand better as I keep continuing my experiments with competitions and interestingly my next competition is about "Experiments with Truth" on Oct 2nd.
Amidst this confusion of economic ideologies, I realize we human beings have come so far! We have eliminated so many diseases, increased the average life expectancy and the standard of living has been improving. So much more could have been achieved, so much more is to be achieved and I'm sure the activists haven't lost faith in the Darwinian forces already. Socialistic thought helps me in ensuring that everybody acquires the threshold capability to achieve something meaningful while the capitalistic paradigm helps me in understanding productivity better. I have had nasty debates with Marxists about how Capitalism evolved new business practices, which most of them are not even aware of. Generally, a Marxist labels every landlord as a thief and my grandfather was a landlord who commanded about 100 farmers and yet I'm a Marxist and yet I speak out against Marxism!
There is a very interesting conundrum I have been grappling with, over the last few weeks. As a teacher I always believed in the Darwinian forces.I hated Jishnu Krishnamurthy Philosophy for the manner in which the so called Alternative Schools implement it, though I love the thoughts and have even greater respect for the man! But then, once I got into even more serious teaching I have had some startling obvservations. Over the last years, I worked with handpicked students who'd compete to get an opportunity to express themselves at the Sciensation platform and yes it was all about "survival of the fittest". But then there is an important rider accompanying Darwin's theory- a specie can survive only if it can adapt to the conditions around it. We come up with post hoc explanations with eulogies of the species which made it, but what about those who didn't? So in my class of 40 students, is it okay if 15 students don't make it?
Let us look at academic performance function (however it is measured)- would you want to optimize the cummulative value of the function or would you want to maximize the score of each and every participant? Does the class stop if a student doesn't understand? Sure, you have personalized learning, but then you have peer discussions which is precisely the reason why we all gather at a place to study. So do the peer discussions stop if a student doesn't understand? If it does, will it affect the learning opportunities of the other students? If you suggest that students should be grouped as per their potential, are we inventing another caste system? Is it possible that the student who didn't follow would bring in fresh perspectives and has stumbled across conceptual hurdles which were just ignored by the rest of the class? This is the probably the Socialism vs Capitalism debate expressed in a different context.
I have been looking to get the best of perspectives out of school students through competitions. I think the phrase sport/game might suit better and this probably comes in due to my Mathematics/Game Theory background. However, I met one Ms Gurveen Kaur, an old lady who has dedicated an entire lifetime for the cause of education. Whenever, I stumble across road blocks, I only think of her and ask myself- would I want to end up like her someday, as someone who has created a huge impact amongst few people and helped in making the "invisible and slow" Darwinian force work? She kept questioning my premise that Games bring the best out of people. But then don't games also make you change your inherent behavior? Doesn't incentive corrupt the natural decision making process?
But then is learning a natural process or do we train the brain? Wait, is the nature vs nurture debate coming up now? Too many threads to be resolved, but then there is one fundamental question here- what is the carrot for all the participants to engage in a Dialogue? Is it just learning? Can a social incentive bring the best out of them? Can some other incentive emerge so that you don't have to use competition as a tool? I have lived the last six years of my entrepreneurial career on this weapon called competition and Ms Gurveen has lived the last six decades fighting against cut throat competition. This is a dilemma which I'd probably understand better as I keep continuing my experiments with competitions and interestingly my next competition is about "Experiments with Truth" on Oct 2nd.
As far as original thinking is concerned, all we know of are either naturofacts or artefacts- we've built our knowledge basis other's thoughts or by observing nature. But wait, this isn't original thinking right, I'm just quoting Michael Shermer here! Let me sound a little more eloquent by quoting Steve Jobs- "Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That's because they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize new things."
So please do accept my apology for all the isms which influence my thinking and thank you for listening in to various thoughts and questions which strike me.
