Observations on the way Intellectuals debate.

The extremities in thoughts,  ideologies, inclinations are an inescapable reality. The more people have tried running away from it, the more they have found themselves in nasty confrontations with the same. The only thriving ideologies that seem to have (if only meagerly) survived the test of time, are the ideologies that are inherently most accommodating.

Take for example the concept of Democracy. Though extremely flawed and inefficient, the reason for it to enjoy Universal appeal is because it provides an Universal feeling of appreciation for the people, irrespective of their identity traits, factors and attributes. The merit and the quantifiable and tangible advantages of Democracy is a topic of an altogether different debate.

But then, one thing I have come to notice about the most beneficial and humanitarian valued based ideas is that they generally don't sell.

I have come to understand that the reason for the same is that they are over loaded with facts.

Nothing good comes easy, true. Often it takes scholars, philosophers, philanthropists and alike, years to actually  study, analyse, experiment and experience before they can conclude upon certain enriching concepts - like tangible and practical way of realising near-perfect freedom.

The reason why such ideas or theories do not manifest on a larger scale is, I have come to understand, because they take time. They are not easily digestible. Much like the bitter pills for better health.

Then again these good natured, educated men fall out of favour with the very public they try to help, because they are found to be intimidating.

My good sirs, you and your lofty diction may not earn you the fandom that you imagine you can. Rather, I have come to perceive that the more base, and street-savvy social person, which a moderate level of intelligence, yet great tact wins the audiences and the polls much better than any scholar on any given topic, if given a chance to prepare and present oneself.

Sadly the people with abilities to help humanity in unique ways, lack tact, and people with tact more often than not are not equipped with such abilities/knowledge.

Most outstanding example can be that of Austrian Economics, propagated by stalwarts like Mises, Hayek, Friedman, so on... Though an Utopian concept of economics, which has the promise and the ability to devolve all economic woes on the Global economic system, has got only a few takers.

The reason for this is best explained by an example :

When pitted in an argument or a debate, more than one Austrian economics supporter I personally know (many a times) either acts condescending, or aloof, or heavy and extremely boring, drilling people with facts and hypotheses, and obscenely long speeches; or they choose to remain cryptic.

On the other hand, a regular Socialist economics supporter is extremely colourful, though completely empty of facts supporting his argument. A socialist economist drives his argument from an ideological perspective, filled with slogans, limited number of words which emotionally directly connect with the judge, the jury and the audience of such debates. He makes a moving case out of nothing, and he attacks a factually dominating adversary, only because he knows his adversary lacks the ability to win over the crowd.

Sure the former are extremely sarcastic, but dear sirs, your jokes are understood by a limited people, and even when public gets entertained, noone buys an argument which doesn't give them a 'feel good' factor EVER in a debate.

It is simply put this way - when asked an answer, it would always help if you said two or three sentence long answers with a little bit of emotion, rather than a long essay of facts. People do not have the time for that.

Bernard Shaw once said, 'though my adversary was much more experienced and intimidating, I ripped him apart because I was the veteran of the stage' (not verbatim, but you get the point), citing his famous debate with H.G.Wells.

Similar is the case with most beneficial aspects of alternative scientific theories, economic models, philosophical and political ideas. People with ability, please do take help! Get a soft skills trainer, attend a few Socializing workshops, understand larger public psyche! Try to Make your ideas attractive, make them simplified, so that a common man with a limited intellect or a limited amount of attention span can not just register your idea, but also remember it, be captivated by its beauty, marvel at its benign abilities.

Package your ideas, don't make enemies at the very outset, accommodate your audience not alienate them, bend down to the common levels of comprehension, teach people in a way they will like to listen and understand.

And please, for the last time, humanize and get rid of the essays and the aura when you are talking to a common individual who doesn't work in R&D with you!

A Great Flaw. - Analysing Differences Resultant in Post-Structural Allowances.

An existentialist argues that the picture of merriment always talks about the myopic beholder. The romanticist on the other side struggles to drill relaxation into an ever somber realist. And then there are the Hail Marys of philosophy who sing in unison the beauty of God, and yet provide a long list of heretics on the foot-note.

There seem those organized on the values of humanizing society, decadent with rhetoric, decaying with their systems, and then those excessively objectified looking at even a little humanizing thought as a sign of weakness, successful but unhappy in their own style.

The discrepancies are too huge to catalog, and the more attempts we make at definitions and/or criticisms, the more grander (and hollow) the schemes look.

All but lay waste to one single bracket of thought - presumptuous men, egotistical thoughts.

On Lions and Tigers...

Mankind has a lot to learn from nature... Today I am going to focus upon upon two of the nature's most fearsome mammals existing - the lion and the tiger...

I perceive, humans are essentially of two psychological set-ups, individualism and collectivism, and these two types can be roughly understood if one studies the behaviour of the lions and the tigers...

Lion has been the symbol of majesty, pride and strength across all civilizations over the history of mankind. They, to me represent the collectivists. By collectivists, I mean human beings of the psychological thought which necessitates co-dependence. This group of people believe that there is strength in organising oneself, or a community into a systematic group for its concerted goals, aims and achievements, and like lions they "hunt" together, and share the exploits too...

The group of lions being called "pride" is no mere coincidence either. Lions are social animals, and their social behaviour along with their majestic look and strength has often been appreciated as a symbol from nature to be inspired from... In human collectivists, I believe the notion of uniting under a banner represents a lion's mane... A symbol binding all collectivist human beings together, and also a symbol which brings fear, and/or reverence to the members of the group, as well as in the rivals...

Generally, unlike in lions and tigers where both are vulnerable on an equal scale, amongst human beings, it is noticed that collectivists tend to be greater in number... All the behaviour of collectivists except one can be understood by studying the lions. We will get to the one anomaly later...

Now there is the tiger... The biggest and strongest of the cats, often depicted with fear and certain suspicion in most of the folk myths... Tiger, unlike lion, is a solitary but social animal... This implies that they don't generally socialise but only accept company while sleeping, only at times, and mating. No more.

Tigers, according to me, represent a much smaller yet equally significant group, which is the individualists. Now individualism is seldom appreciated for what it is, and portrayed as selfish or anti-social behaviour, but it essentially is a natural way of behaving for certain set of human beings. It is not that harm is intended upon other human beings, but they just want to be left alone and not forced into anything that they do not choose by themselves. They are highly self-motivated and do not feel the necessity to seek companionship and comradery in any of their endeavours, and prefer to do it alone. This behaviour is just like the tigers, who prefer to hunt alone. But though they hunt alone, tigers are characterised by their ability to share with other related and unrelated tigers, as well as sometimes with other animals like jackals. They don't mind, as long as they are not interrupted and their space not intruded without their permission or acceptance. Unlike lions who generally squabble over the propriety of the prey even amongst themselves.
However, it doesn't mean that they do not seek company, they do. But their definition of company only restricts to few chosen tasks. They believe they can handle the rest of their aspirations all by themselves, and almost always they succeed, if allowed to do so without interruptions or intrusions.

Team-work and such sorts is greatly appreciated in the world today, but this set is only made up for individuated tasks, and they fail miserably in tasks of inter-dependence, just like collectivists generally fail in tasks of independence.

Now coming to one major point of deviation between humans and the big cats - affectation.

While lions and tigers have been the predators in different places of earth respecting each others' territory and not trespassing, we humans almost always have to deal with individualists and collectivists in a common environment. There is also this innate tendency of lions amongst our ranks to force tigers to behave like lions...

It is true that the way of lions is admirable and one to learn from, but the age-old proverb "united we stand, divided we fall" is greatly unjust to the few endangered tigers in our society. Tigers can be of great benefit to humanity if left to hunt alone, rather than in a pride of lions.

We try to force out a collectivist out of individualists. This can simply not happen, as some of us are just not cut out for that.

So, in the end, I would just say, lions to grasslands and tigers to jungles, where they rightly belong.

No TRESPASSING and No COERCION please.