Originally posted by: chatbuster
should we take it then that majority of people are wrong and just the few are right? is there some special skill we possess which makes us think we are better than the rest in picking out "real" talent?
sorry MPL-ji for the blunt questions (its how i've seen professors in elite b-schools get down when questioning in the pit). but consider this:
we had a voting system. someone won. well, in my opinion, at least according to that system, he was "best".
we had a system earlier with Pt. Jasraj and others as judge. Same conclusion. same person won. so, according to that system also, same person was "best".
i agree both systems might be flawed and not really designed to produce the "real" "best", as in some universal eternal truth. but who are we to know for sure?
and following is not necessarily applicable to you or anyone else in particular, but still something i felt is still worth pointing out:
if we qualify our statements with "in my opinion", it will not come across as belittling others with different opinions. If we remove that qualifier, then everything is fair game.
for instance, someone says "Hema is the best". maybe i am crazy. but i do not think so, so what do u expect me to do? just say that "someoneElse is the best" or more expressively that "someoneElse rox"?
is that the kind of conversation we want?
we find in statistics that we can often interpret even "facts" both ways. life is not just simple problems like 2+2 where we all know the answers. it is subjective. if i tell you that IBM came out with 30% increase in earnings. that's an absolute fact. but is that good or bad? that subjectivity means there will be differences. for me to universally declare that "someone is best" is actually arrogance or "ahankar". when driven from ignorance, that "ahankar" can be destructive.
😊
comment:
p_commentcount