Genius?

So, there is this game 'Wordle' which has become a rage on Social media. I suppose you know how it goes but, just in case you time-traveled from the medieval ages, you are supposed to find out a 5 letter word in six guesses. When you type in your first guess, you'll get to know which of the letters in that word are also there in the word you are supposed to guess; and the letters which are also in the same POSITION will be specifically indicated in green. So, you keep typing further words till you hit on the right word. IF you can do it within 6 guesses.

Now, on one occasion, I type in my first guess, that IS the right word and I am hailed a 'Genius' by the app. Genius? I just started out on a happy dance and faltered after a couple of steps. No, not just because I dance like a hippo with two...err...four left feet, true though that is. It is just that an awkward thought crossed my mind.

Exactly what was the nature of my genius? I mean, really, had I used some extraordinary analytical skills or some creative out-of-the-box thinking to get an unknown 5-letter word right with my very first guess? In which case, could I do it over and over again? Seemed to me that my genius was about the same as the genius of the guy who won a lottery the first time he bought a ticket...unless the App thought I had a genius for mind-reading.

But, then, when you judge by results alone, caring two hoots for the process...Well, you know that every winner won exclusively because of his ability and effort; and every loser lost only because of bad luck. About the first thing to eliminate in your lexicon, once you are a winner, is the word 'luck'. And, perhaps, substitute it with 'genius' as the App did for me.

But, then, assuming genius based on results is not the only thing in which we misjudge. Take that hoary old joke.

"He became a millionaire in two years."

"How did he manage that?"

"Two years back he inherited a billion when his father died."

It takes a rare kind of...err...genius to consider it an achievement on the part of the person to reduce a billion to a million in two years. But what we readily understand about money we cannot as easily understand about abilities. (Which is probably why we find it so easy to assess success only based on wealth but that is a topic for another day.)

I mean, take a person with natural talent or ability, genius if you will, for something. If he does something that most people cannot do but, for him, it comes naturally. You hail him for his achievement. In the context of society as a whole, it IS, perhaps. But is it a personal achievement? Or is it like being a millionaire when you started out with a billion, just because YOU yourself cannot think of becoming a millionaire?

A personal achievement is something that you DO with your talent - by honing it, applying it and stretching its uses beyond what you originally thought you could do with it. If, say, you started out being able to run a 100m race in, say, 9.5 seconds, doing just that is not a personal achievement. Paring that time down...THAT is!

Do achievements automatically make your character great? Perhaps...but more often than not, not! Character lies in how you handle your achievements and the results thereof. How grounded you remain, how determined in the face of obstacles and the ups and downs of life, how empathetic. It is easier to keep honing your talent when you continue to succeed; to keep doing that when failure dogs you...THAT is tough! For THAT is when the word 'luck' enters your lexicon and you start feeling that there is no point persisting because 'luck is against you'.

I will take that 'genius' from that App, though. I mean, like most of us who neither have that 1% inspiration nor are willing to shed that 99% perspiration, this is about the ONLY way I'm going to get called a genius.

Monkey Memes

I don't know where I came across this meme because it would probably stretch out even a supercomputer to keep track of the origins of all the memes that an ordinary person comes across in a few hours on social media. The meme said, "You cannot get a monkey to give up the banana in its paws by promising limitless bananas in the after-life" or something similar attributed to Yuval Noah Harari. Comments ranging from 'Profound' to 'Even animals are wiser' to 'Yuval Noah Harari' surrounded by love and fire emojis deluged that post.

Now, it is quite possible that the chap said it...or not. Quite possible that it made sense in the context in which he said it. So, I do not intend ANY comments on this Yuval chap or about what he said. But, for the life of me, I cannot see that this meme, BY ITSELF, proves the profound wisdom of monkeys over humans. Which may not even BE the message that the author intended but seems to have been the message that people took away from it.

Ever tried telling a monkey to eat bitter-gourd instead of bananas because it was heading towards a diabetic future, otherwise? Or to limit its eating to lesser bananas than it has at hand, for fear of obesity and its related health issues? If you did, what lessons did the profound wisdom of the monkeys hold for humanity? (Ah! Well! It does not work very well with humans either, not till you actually HAVE diabetes or high BP or whatever but THAT is because, in that, we have imbibed the profound wisdom of the monkeys!)

You see, the issue in all this is the same. Monkey do not believe in 'postponement of gratification' for a future good. It is just that, and NOT any rational lack of belief in the after-life, which makes them eat the banana at hand rather than hope for a la-la land of infinite bananas after death.

Have you ever tried to teach a monkey to be compassionate to a weaker monkey? Tried to teach them that 'Might is NOT right' and convinced them on the virtues of democracy? Or to not bully and drive out, if not kill, any monkey with different features and color than that of its tribe? Or did the profoundly wise monkeys already have all those attributes? No?

The hatred of what is different IS one of the instincts that carries forth from the basic animal nature of human beings. We have only ADDED elements of difference, beyond just the apparent physical differences, but the basic instinct is something we share with...err...the monkeys! The whole moral progression of humanity - almost all of what we call HUMANE characteristics - is a bid to rise above those instincts, not revert back to them.

Fight for change where change is needed, by all means. But do not invite the wisdom of the animals to bolster your point. As it is, humanity seems to be reverting back to basic animal instincts all too fast even without being egged on to do so by these monkey memes!

Useless learning?

 Pagaiyakatthup pedikai olvaal avaiyagatthu anjumavan katra nool - Thirukkural

The wisdom of he who fears his audience is as useful as the shining sword in the hands of a coward in battle - Loose translation

Tiru makes me happy about my ignorance. I mean, first you need to learn, understand and be able to speak the proper words; then you also need to have the courage to face an audience and speak without stuttering and fearing ridicule. Yuck! Far easier to be ignorant! Being learned is a perilous exercise if you have to adhere to all the dos and donts prescribed by our Tiru.

I mean, assume that you are sitting in one of those meetings that executives feel important about. You know, the 'I am in an important meeting' sort of ones which make everyone around you feel that your company would go down in rack and ruin if you do not contribute your pearls of wisdom right then and there. The reality is that you are there to take notes for your boss who is too busy sniping at his competitors to do it for himself. What do you do there if you know that there is something wrong in the proposal?

It's all too easy for Tiru to say that, now that you have the shining sword in your hand and you are in the battlefield, you should fearlessly sally forth and annihilate the enemy. Or, in more mundane terms, what is the use of your knowledge of what is wrong in the proposal if you will not say it in the meeting because you fear the consequences of rubbing powerful people wrong? (Looks, though, like this idea of using blood-and-thunder military metaphors for dusty paperwork is not merely a recent fetish by management gurus. Even Tiru does that...YAY! We had THIS from way back in history!)

What is wrong? EVERYTHING! Firstly, do you guys realize that ANY proposal is invariably someone's brainchild and that person is probably more protective of it than a mother with her child? Also, YOU are there, like little children of yore, to be seen and to hear but not be heard, and for YOU to oppose the proposal is like the water-jug pouring...errr...water over the proposal. In other words, if proposals are opposed, they need to be opposed by someone superior to the proposer or else the consequences for the one who opposes are unlikely to be enjoyable. And, lastly, what if YOU are wrong? It is far easier to allow the proposal to go through, let it go smash, and THEN say, "I knew this would happen back then but no-one would listen!" (No-one listened because you never spoke, yes, but who can prove it?)

Or, take a situation where something is happening in Society which you know is terrible. Tiru would want you to sally forth telling the world the truth. Regardless of consequences! Choosing the words that make your message palatable, yes, but there are some truths where no amount of sugarcoating can conceal the bitterness. Come now, what use is it to me to do that?

Even in Social media. I mean, you may have a different opinion from even those who are staunch believers in freedom of expression; those with whom you agreed on most things but not on this. Tiru would want you to express chapter and verse of your opposition. What does he expect? That, being supporters of FoE and all, they would laud my courage or listen to my points? Nonsense! Overnight, I'd be 'Canceled', labeled the worst names they can think of, and treated as an outcast. Far safer to remain silent in such a case than to wave my shining sword in defiance on that battlefield.

But, then, I suppose the problem is not with Tiru, it is with the times he lived in. More to the point, it is the strange meaning that they seem to have attributed to that word 'useful' in his times.

When THEY said 'useful', they seem to assume that 'useful' only means 'useful to society'. Things have progressed a long way since then.

NOW, we know that 'useful' only means 'What is in it for me"!

Silence not always golden?

Vagai arindhu vallavai vaaisoraar sollin thogaiyarindha thooimaiyavar - Thirukkural

He who knows his words and subject should not let fear muzzle him in front of the powerful - Loose Translation

You know the problem with Tiru? He writes what seems like haiku but the blessed man does not allow you any leeway to conveniently interpret his words. I mean, like, if you had 'The bird soars high in the sky;  petals floating unseen' or some such cryptic haiku, you could suit yourself in assuming the meaning. You could say, "Ah! The chap says you should rise high to be noticed; going with the current is futile" if you are the sort who is always rushing about changing the world. You could say, "The chap is saying that each one must be true to his nature, soar high or float with the current." OR you could claim, "What a wise man! He is saying that the world gets taken in by flamboyance and does not appreciate the serene." THAT sort of flexibility our Tiru does not permit.

Now, see this one. If you know your words and your subject, Tiru does not allow you to remain silent because you are afraid of the consequences of voicing them in the presence of a powerful and hostile audience. (Why am I adding in 'hostile' there? Really? Ever heard of anyone being afraid of preaching to the choir?) True, he has earlier said that you should choose your words to suit your audience but that is only related to the way you DRESS up the truth; it does not allow you to morph or hide the truth.

The blessed chap does not allow you to even remain silent, for God's sake! No, you HAVE to voice the truth or, possibly, be taken for someone who does NOT know his words and subject. By his standards, to get to be known as a wise man is a very arduous and hazardous undertaking.

You can sort of see his point, though. I mean, like, if Galileo had kept to himself his idea that the entire Universe did not actually revolve around the Earth, would he be known as a scientist? If Einstein had hugged to himself the thought that only he knew relativity, for fear of opposition by the scientific community of his day, wouldn't he be absolutely obscure?

The chap who waits till all opposition has melted away before speaking of his ideas is more likely to be a figure of fun. I mean, come on, do you really say, "Wow!" and look admiringly at a man who says, "I discovered the theory of relativity two years before Einstein"? Or do you tell him, "And it was you who banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, I'm sure"?

The fact of the matter is that, these days, it is the man who says it first who is credited with the wisdom. Even if the other guy discovered it first. There is some story about the credit for Calculus to that effect.

When it comes to knowing things, but not actually being the inventor or discoverer of the knowledge, things may get murkier about opening your mouth on it...but that is for later.

So, yeah, when it comes to new discoveries and inventions, it is more important to talk about it, to spread the information of your having done it far and wide, than to actually discover or invent it.

He who talks is considered more wise than he who actually does it, after all!