by B.J. on 7/03/2003 06:27:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

Comments: Post a Comment

Who would you rather be ? Michael Jordan or James A. Naismith ?

I pick Naismith because since I want to be a hubristic, capitalist bastard, I want to be in the general history books, rather than just the NBA basketball history books. Naismith's accomplishment as an innovator is lasting in the general context.

Would you rather create and invent one thing or be the best at one thing ?

In the bigger picture, towards the advancement of society, it's about either being the best in your field of study or creating something new. To be the best, you first have to be an expert. Expertise, in my humble opinion, is a practical-to-society thing that requires that you to know the standards of your specific field, set through people from different areas and eras.

The standards of a field of knowledge set don't reflect on how those regional biases of the people from different areas and eras came to a conclusion and gave credence to a standard. Without these regional biases we don't get the whole story. For example, cars are used everywhere and they operate on an internal combustion chamber using up oil. But then, there are differences in cars engineered in Germany as to those in Japan, and consumers, my friends like to highlight how Japanese cars are all quality and all that other crap. The point is we are not understanding exactly why Japanese cars are all quality; we are not understanding the processes of process-driven things such as science. But fuck, I want to understand that shit. And you should too because it is more useful than some frat party where 700 sorority girls get fucked by 10,000 Abercrombie frat boys.

What people become "experts" in are very specific and therefore, limited. The rules and standards of what people know also evolve with the times, which shrinks the value of 'expertise'. For example, no one cares about the bubonic plague, but apparently, it's making some kind of a comeback. The experts could not prevent that shit from re-occuring even though it is treatable, and from 1000 - 3000 people still get it annually. Innovators, such as Louis Pasteur, notorious for experimentation and linkage, bumped into the cures. Innovators of ideas, technologies, whatever. Experts are there to fill in space, job openings.

So the choice should obviously and overwhelmingly be Naismith, innovator and creator.

I bring this question of being an 'expert' or 'innovator' because experts are exactly what Asians are becoming. It seems like we're settling for middle-classiness. For example, Indians from the Harvard, MIT-like IIT university are merely becoming top entrepreneurs and not helping mother ole India erect itself from the ashes. These IIT people have so much power, but they use it for themselves and don't want to create anything new. I understand that institutions and groups of people in general are the discovery-makers nowadays, but it still feels like they're training just to get jobs because we're still in a mode of survival. And that's a killer to explorative, adventurous traits.

In social groups, I see people wanting to be the best, rather than some kind of innovator. From far away, it's the NBA players who are filthy rich but do jack shit for the community. In my own circles, many a time I see people get caught up in wanting to be Michael Jordan (Hane ! But she's not who I'm thinking about when I make these descriptions). Most of these types I've encountered thru the Filipino family party system, in my humble opinion, are likely to brag to their friends in a condescending way about what school their kid goes to in comparison to some other kid. And it's done in such a subtle way that it doesn't visibly upset anyone, but enough to get under the skin of the competitive. That competitiveness is what has lead to some distance and strain in some of my family's relationships. People don't try to be above competition and focus on other things. It leads to cheating and other tactics that lead to nothing. This kind of be-a-Michael Jordan-mindset is likely to accomplish jack squat towards any advancement in society.

I'm not saying that innovators have all the answers; they're just more likely to bump across something that improves society. I'm also not saying that people should just forget about becoming experts, just that people shouldn't stop at that. In fact, to be an innovator, people do have to get acclimated with some of the standards and then pick a bone to explore. It's just about thinking within yourself and exploring all your instincts and linking it up with other ideas. There's nothing to fear with being adventurous. Peach baskets here we come !

Labels:

 



Home Page