Ephemeral Fame?

It is not what you think, drat it. It's not effing sour grapes. I'm not dissing fame because I have no way of getting even a modicum of it in any manner whatsoever and, so, want to say that it's useless to get it.

I was just thinking about the way this fame game seems to progress. I mean, first the chap who gets fame - be it in politics, cricket, the movies or whatever - can do no wrong. I mean, he could get called a saint or even God and everyone practically sings bhajans set to his name.

Then, slowly, they start finding that he has feet of clay. This stage normally occurs around the time when he ceases to either be successful or relevant. At this time, people start off saying, "Ah! Fine that he did all these things. But he also did this. Do we give him a free pass on all his negativity merely because..." Note that his achievements/sacrifices/whatever have already converted to a 'merely' thing...something so insignificant that it can be brushed aside without much notice.

The chap can count himself lucky if he stays put at this stage. The unlucky guys move along further. When that happens, all that remains of the chap is the negatives. The positives are mere accidental occurrences, the negatives are all that define his character. So, a Sunil Gavaskar will only be remembered for his 36 n.o in a 60 over ODI AND for walking off with his team when he was given out in Australia. All the rest of his batting is something even a schoolboy could do OR was useless because it was all in selfish pursuit of personal goals. And so on. 

Once you reach this stage you can have peace of mind. There is no recovering from here, your journey will only be downwards from then on, so there is no uncertainty to stress you out. From here on, the negatives in your character will keep getting magnified till one day you could find the saint being characterized as a Hitler and nod your head in approval.

Makes you wonder whether this fame game is worth all the effort. I mean, if you are obscure nobody is certainly going to praise you but nobody is likely to revile you either. Seems a far better way to live, no?

But then, it all depends. 'Praise me or blame me, just don't ignore me' is probably the way most of us feel. To be praised or to be blamed is to be acknowledged. To be ignored, though...

Unless you can live the way the Gita asks you to live...by seeking not the fruits of your labor. But then, THAT's only good for memes. Who can really live like that?

So, yeah, if you seek fame or have fame thrust upon you, resign yourself to the fact that first they'll make an idol of you; then strive to find your feet of clay; and then concentrate on the clay to the exclusion of everything else!

Recency bias

There is this strange thing about who people choose to call the G.O.A.T (Greatest Of All Times, in case you are still under the rock from where I just recently crawled out). It always happens to be someone who is currently alive and performing at the top of his ability. It's like, somehow, we are lucky to be alive at the exact time when the G.O.A.Ts in all spheres have graced our planet with their presence. It's such a pity that our forefathers did not produce any G.O.A.T in ANY sphere and, what's worse, our children will also not produce any G.O.A.T in ANY sphere since our own lot are not only the 'greatEST' but also the greatest of ALL times!

Or, perhaps, there have been greats, even greatests, in all times. Perhaps, Viv Richards, Gary Sobers and Don Bradman would also qualify as greats and Virat Kohli, Babar Azam, Steve Smith et al may only be AS great as these chaps and not the GREATEST. What gives credence to this bizarre idea that ANYONE from the past can be as good as Virat (OR Babar OR Steve OR...) is this strange thing in logic called 'Recency Bias'.

Apparently, human beings are wired to consider what happened recently as more important, better, whatever as compared to what happened earlier. OR, like our movie villains, especially those who play politicians, often say...'Public Memory is short'. Which is why you tend to value today's performers as far better than anyone from yesteryears. AND, yes, an accusation of corruption today will send voters rushing back to favor the people accused of genocide yesterday. THAT is recency bias in logic AND politicians, especially, thrive on it because ANY crime, as long as it does not result in a punishment long enough to disqualify them, will be forgotten or condoned pretty damn quick.

Which is also the reason why old fogies like me hardly find conversational traction except among other old fogies. I mean, you could have saved a townful of people in the eighties from a pandemic but all that talking about it will get you is a huge yawn and a 'there he goes again'. Meanwhile, the chap who created an APP to buy chips faster yesterday can talk of it practically incessantly...till, of course, the next sensation knocks it off the pedestal. Recency bias at work...and you thought logic wasn't of any relevance to your life.

Now that you know it, do not pass off this "What have you done for me lately?" attitude of your colleagues or family or friends as mere selfishness and lack of gratitude. It's recency bias at work!

Superlative?

I had always assumed that 'better' was better than 'good' and 'best' was the best of them all. Stands to reason, does it not? I mean, what is being merely 'good' as compared to being the 'best'? (I have said that before? So? What I am about to say is different from what I said before, so there!) After all, positive has just escaped being negative whereas comparative has beaten others at the game. As for superlative...it has beaten everyone, hasn't it?

Or has it? The way things go for me, nothing ever works the way it is supposed to.

There was this time, for example, when my Maths teacher at school was doing that dreaded thing - handing out test results. She called out my name and said those sweet words..."This is your best performance in my tests till date, Suresh". I practically strutted to her and...found that I had still fallen short of the pass percentage by a couple of marks thus discovering that your best can still not be good enough.

Or that other time in the 100m race when I was better by a whisker than this other guy...but the two of us trailed the field by about 50m. Or the time when a classmate was the best athlete from our class but did not qualify for the school team.

All this 'better' and 'best' business is about who or what you are being compared to, it would seem. I mean, yeah, a snail can be the best 'runner' among all snails but it is unlikely that it will compare favourably with a cheetah comes to running speed. You can be the most knowledgeable person on astronomy in your IT firm canteen but would you be good enough for ISRO to consider you a potential astrophysicist? And so it goes...(You will see I am careful not to mention politics or sociology where EVERYONE considers himself not just good but far better than any of the political/social commentators they see on TV)

It would seem that 'good' is not so bad after all. In fact, it could well be better than 'better' and 'best'. So...

Be positive! The comparative and superlative will take care of themselves.

Tempering temper

When it comes to anger, almost everyone who dispenses advice seems to be against it. I mean, yeah, some are quite fine with it, provided you do not act on it in haste - the 'Vengeance is a dish best served cold' gang. There is the other extreme - the 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' types, who would have you understand the person you are angry with rather than think up ways to do him in. Very few are happy with the idea of blowing your top and continuing to do the Vesuvius act in the vicinity of the man who set off your wrath. Most are against the very idea of your wrath being set off at all, no matter the provocation.

Sellidatthu kaappaan sinam kaappaan; allidatthu kaakkil en kaavaakkaal en - Thirukkural

He, who restrains his anger where he has power to hurt, has restraint; where he has no power, what does it matter whether or not he reins in his temper? - Loose Translation

Assuming that one does see a controlled temper as a desirable thing, it makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, like, if my subordinate pisses me off and I let loose at him, he has no choice but to take it, right? (Unless, he is in the unionised cadre, where I need to be wary of the Union ripping a hole in me where already have one and do not need a spare. OR, of course, if he is a key and irreplaceable element of MY performance). So, if I refuse to get angry and I am all sweetness and light with him, I CAN put in for a halo. If, on the other hand, I boast that I got angry with my boss and manfully restrained my temper, are you likely to circulate an appeal to sanctify me?

Though Tiru is being rather dismissive of the after-effects of NOT showing restraint where I do not have power. I mean, yeah, if I get angry with Xi Jinping and let loose in the canteen with my friends, it is no skin off either my nose or Xi's and the net result would be the same as if I had NOT let loose. THAT way, yes, it matters little what I choose to do.

BUT...and THAT is the BUT which bothers me...if it is my boss I am angry with and I scream at him, I'm afraid it is not the same as if I had NOT screamed at him. Unless he is totally hearing impaired AND not reading my face. So what does Tiru mean when he says that it is all the same?

Tiru seems to be taking the point of view that your control over your anger there only shows that you are being pragmatic; not that you have improved your character to the point where you have started to get rid of your inclination to getting angry. Therefore, it is no different from having showed your anger as far as any change in your character goes. And THAT tells you that Tiru sees anger as, in and of itself, a sin which you need to avoid.

It is the problem with all philosophers, really. They tend to get so concerned with what your actions and behaviour are doing to your CHARACTER that they totally ignore what it can do to your physical well-being.

Therefore, do NOT assume that screaming at your boss OR the traffic cop or whoever will lead to the same consequences as NOT screaming. There is no point in blaming Tiru while clutching that pink slip or traffic ticket or whatever. Tiru will only tell you to avoid getting angry with him as well!

Deliberate, then decide

This beast called management, and all its associated importance, may well have been defined as such, segregated as a separate field of study and taught in the recent past but the dratted thing has probably been around since the time primitive man hunted mammoths. I mean, like, it is unlikely that a group of men just went about doing their own thing and just happened to kill a mammoth. There must have been some element of coordination of efforts to get it done without the lot of them getting stomped into mush.

What was that? That, post-facto, the distribution of the meat also needed management? Ha, yes, that's the pith of the matter, isn't it? And, no doubt, those who arrogated to themselves the right to distribute the meat ended up with most of it as payment for their valuable services, naturally. Which is why most of management education is geared to get people into that end of the job. Almost all management is about getting other people to do the job while you 'coordinate', no?

Where was I? Ah, yeah, I was talking about how, possibly, management always existed. It is the codification of its principles that can be considered 'modern'. Though Tiru would have something to say about it, unless you count him as modern in comparison with the Cro-Magnon man.

Therindha Inatthodu therndenni cheyvaarkku arumporul yaathondrum il - Thirukkural

There is nothing impossible to he who discusses the project with chosen cognoscenti, then thinks for himself and thereafter acts - Loose Translation

At one level, this Kural may read as though Tiru is talking of discussing only with trusted friends. considering that he is talking of how kings should operate (because in his times CEOs were not yet invented), that is as good as saying talk to you sycophants and you will succeed at everything! Which, to be sure, can well be true since you will only HEAR that you have succeeded from your sycophants, no matter what was happening in reality. But Tiru is not given to idiocy like that.

So, when he talks of 'therindha inatthodu' it can mean both 'those YOU know' AND 'those who KNOW'. Pithy man that he is, he probably means both - that they should be both those who are knowledgeable AND those whom you know and trust.

AND, despite all those discussions, he expects you, end of the day, to think about it yourself and take your own call. Unless YOU take ownership of the decision, you will not proceed with confidence AND persistence. The moment you have others to blame for failure, your push to succeed is that much weaker.

In modern terms, Tiru is asking you to brainstorm with knowledgeable and trusted friends; THEN think, decide and take ownership of your decision. IF you do that, there is nothing impossible for you to achieve.

Now THAT does not mean you cannot ever fail. Only that failure is NOT inevitable no matter what you set as your goals.