Avoid the unknown?

The general trend in advice is that it tends to be conservative. As, indeed, it ought to be especially when it is general advice meant for public consumption, like in a book, where there could be a wide variety of recipients. I mean, like, you are going to play it very safe if you do not know whether the guy who is reading your advice is the sort who has no clue about the existence of common-sense. Even if you do not live in litigious times, it's not something you'd feel comfortable about doing.

Theliviladhanaith thodangaar ilivennum edhappaadu anjubavar - Tirukkural

They who fear for their reputation do not embark on a course of action with uncertain outcomes - Loose Translation

Tiru isn't merely making a passing comment about people who fear reproach. He's actually saying that you ought not to do things with uncertain outcomes lest you end up losing your reputation.

Which will quite jibe with people who live off their reputations, you know. I mean if you are a professional, someone considered an expert in an area like a lawyer or an investment advisor or such, you'd be better off not entering into actions with uncertain outcomes. For THAT could lead to you losing your reputation and, thus, your livelihood.

The problem is when you try to apply it to innovation and technology. I mean, really, do the possible outcomes of this mad rush to AI seem predictable? Or even necessarily all good? And, yet, people in that field...their reputations get MADE on pursuing a course of action with uncertain outcomes.

To be sure, you could also end up getting a reputation of a Frankenstein for having created a monster. But THAT is a risk humanity has always run when it pursued knowledge. For, knowledge IS the apple in the Garden of Eden which Adam ate and it has always been a double-edged sword.

But, yes, there is validity in the conservative point of view which adjures you from a rash pursuit of unknown outcomes. It's fine that you rush into fires recklessly as long as you DO know that fire can burn you and that it IS fire you are rushing into with such haste.

And, so, Tiru has his cautionary word to say about the vice of rushing pell-mell into unknown territory. Not that it has ever helped keep the brakes on humanity!

Useless effort?

There is this thing which has always struck me as quaint. I have heard it quite often, especially when it comes to movies that failed. People who are involved in the movie industry tend to say, "You don't know how much effort goes into it. You cannot be so dismissive about it."

I mean, come on, do you really think that no effort went into making that horrid food in that restaurant? Or that pathetic excuse for a mobile...did that thing just pop out of thin air for that brand to sell? In every area of human endeavor, there is effort, some successful, some not. The fact that effort went into something cannot automatically inoculate it from criticism.

Aaatrin varundhaa varuttham palar nindru potrinum potthuppadum  - Tirukkural.

If work be not done the proper way it'll fail no matter how many people help in the process - Loose Translation

You do not build a proper house by heaping bricks higgledy-piggledy. No matter how hard you worked at it and how many people helped you to do it. It takes proper planning, and it takes proper process to do a successful job of building a house...or any other piece of work for that matter.

The intent to work and the dedication to do so may be laudable in a person. But for the end result to be worthy of appreciation, it is never enough to merely work hard. And Tiru knew it.

So, Tiru, in his times, knew the difference between merely working hard and working smart. THAT's why the man remains relevant even unto this day.

Risky Investment?

One of the most popular things you can do on social media or, indeed, media of any kind is to offer investment advice. Though, to be sure, it is more the kind of advice that says 'Buy this to double your money in days' sort of advice that really attracts eyeballs and not the parental sort of thing about how to be careful while investing.

But, then, Tiru lived in times when being parental was the in-thing. And, so...

Aakkam karudhi mudhal izhakkum seyvinai ookkaar arivudaiyaar - Tirukkural

The wise do not encourage risking your entire principal in the hope of high returns - Loose Translation.

You see, Tiru was a with-it sort, who had advice to offer on all facets of life and not merely about what people call spirituality. One does not suppose that there were stock-markets in his time, so he is probably talking of investments as in real on-the-ground investments like shops, trade goods, land etc.

The thing, though, is that it appears that, even in his times, there have been people offering stupendous returns and decamping with your money. So, here he goes warning you against Ponski schemes, telling you to avoid risking all your principal because someone is holding out a carrot of huge returns.

Actually, come to think of it, it need not necessarily be a fraudulent offer. There can be legit high risk high return schemes - like, say, participating in shipping goods to another country in his times with the attendant risk of losing the entire ship to a storm. So, what Tiru has to say is that even if you risk a bit of your funds for high returns you should not get so carried away that you risk your entire principal on it.

Who'd have thought that this antediluvian chap could give you sane advice on managing risk in your portfolio of investments? But, then, that's Tiru for you!

Everybody knows?

I made the mistake of saying "One of my friends..." in a conversation and the group 'Grammar Nazi' (G.N. for short) was all over me about how the right usage was 'One of my friend...' I mean, yeah, I know that this is how it is being used these days, but the proper usage of yore was the way I used it. I should have just let it go but was fool enough to argue. You know how that would have gone...the G.N. gave me the horse's laugh and said, "Everybody knows that the right usage is..." to a chorus of assents. Some gave me sympathetic looks pitying me for my ignorance; others sneered at me in contempt. And THAT was that.

You know how irritating it is to be the brunt of a G.N assault even when you are wrong. To not only be assaulted by a G.N but to be pitied by the junta when you are actually in the right...but THAT is the power of 'Everybody knows'. When everybody 'knows' a certain 'fact' then anything that contradicts it HAS to be wrong. Galileo (remember him?) was blinded for his folly of opposing what everybody knows. THAT is the power of the logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum' - the argument that what is popularly known is right.

Now, you see, Galileo was not talking of which politician was the better ruler or some such item of opinion which you could easily have a strong conviction against because you do not like the way he wears his moustache or some such important reason. Nope, our man was talking about the sun and earth and moon and about what went around what...and he backed it with observations. What, you see, we call science and what we assume is not subject to opinions. (An idea that scientists would scoff at...at ANY point in time scientists HAVE held opinions, it is just laymen who think there are no opinions in science. Einstein famously said, "God does not play dice" when faced with quantum physics or, more specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Today there are multiple opinions about the nature of the universe - string theories, membrane theories, multiverse theories, what have you. Yet, people think of Science as absolute. The Truth MAY be absolute but what we KNOW as Science...THAT is different.)

So, if Galileo can be blinded for proclaiming a scientific discovery which the populace did not agree with, what's the point of fighting the populace on issues related to man-made things - like linguistics, governance, social norms etc? Yeah, yeah, I hear you, you say that Galileo was blinded by the Church and are off on your rant against religion. But, pray tell me, IF the populace had not believed that the Church IS right always and HAS the authority to act as it did, could the same thing have happened? No.

The ONLY thing which can fight argumentum ad populum is another logical fallacy - Authority bias. IF someone in authority opposed the popular opinion, the populace can be swayed. But, remember, authority itself HAS to be granted BY the populace. As in, the true authority on Science, of the two, was Galileo and not the Church. But the populace granted authority to the Church to decide on matters of science as well. Ergo... (WHY do I call Authority Bias a fallacy even when it supports the right thing? Because, the people who ACCEPT the ruling think it is right ONLY because an Authority has said so and not on any other rational basis.)

Now, the populace makes itself heard very loudly indeed thanks to social media. One only hopes that, where it is wrong, an acceptable authority stands in opposition to correct the error.

Otherwise, one fine day, we may find ourselves expecting to float in the air because the populace has repealed the law of gravitation!