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!
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!
just loved it. Felt like reading some oxford returned scholar talking about philosophy. Amazing stuff from a graduate... high level talk man... keep it up...All the best...:)
ReplyDeletethe last two ideas seem to be self- directive eh? :P but brilliant piece! i was wondering why im turning into angry young man (woman technically) and lo! answers :)
ReplyDelete