Thanks to one of my fellow rationales for discussing this observation with me, which I have only tried to substantiate in this post.
It indeed is a very good observation that many of the 'geniuses' are in fact asymmetric. Asymmetric as in, either they aren't the best at their 'social etiquette', or the best of the home-makers!
But, does that mean they are unworthy of their ingenuity?
What most of us, who want to be the "Jack of all, Master of none" accomplish in the end is tagging ourselves onto the humongous and over-crowded cloud of mediocrity.
In order to focus and excel in all domains, the resources allocated to us when we are the conscious part of the Universe are in deficit. As a result, we can channelize our efforts to few domains, and can succeed in fewer.
So, becoming the "Master of all" isn't feasible, in reality.
When such is the case, geniuses from any field have tried to make a trade off between their work and social/personal lives. The likes of Newton, Tolstoy, Marx, Shakespeare, Einstein, Feynman and many other minds who have put us at awe with their groundbreaking work have had 'problems' in their social or personal lives, gauging them with the rest of the mediocrity. Criticism and attacks on these minds for not being upto the society's mark in their etiquette has testimonials throughout the course of civilisation, which is absurd.
Recently, Julian Assange the founder and Chief Editor of WikiLeaks, a genius and maverick of sorts, has had to face a lot of mud-slinging. This coming from, as expected, the rest of the mediocrity.
My point has always been, why bother about the individual's personal/social life unless it affects you directly! Whether he/she likes cats or not, if they wear the same shirt for more than a day, or if they keep changing their girl friends?
It should be of no concern for, the work from them is what influences us. Unless they try to influence their supposed wierdness onto us, we should be least bothered, or distracted about their lives.
In the case of WikiLeaks, this has been an extensive smear campaign against Julian Assange , who has been the Spokesperson and the front-end to the entire movement of WikiLekas. By distracting the audience from the essentials, the media certainly has done its job of trying to reduce the credibility of WikiLeaks amongst the gullibles, of course. But, where has all the grey matter of people vanished? Most people actually seem to be concerned more about Assange's wierd hairdo than the ideals he has brought to life with his work.
Asymmetric nature of minds at work should be recognised as a necessity for them to concentrate their efforts on the work they do, rather than expecting them to be the clichéd, stereotype social animals.
It indeed is a very good observation that many of the 'geniuses' are in fact asymmetric. Asymmetric as in, either they aren't the best at their 'social etiquette', or the best of the home-makers!
But, does that mean they are unworthy of their ingenuity?
What most of us, who want to be the "Jack of all, Master of none" accomplish in the end is tagging ourselves onto the humongous and over-crowded cloud of mediocrity.
In order to focus and excel in all domains, the resources allocated to us when we are the conscious part of the Universe are in deficit. As a result, we can channelize our efforts to few domains, and can succeed in fewer.
So, becoming the "Master of all" isn't feasible, in reality.
When such is the case, geniuses from any field have tried to make a trade off between their work and social/personal lives. The likes of Newton, Tolstoy, Marx, Shakespeare, Einstein, Feynman and many other minds who have put us at awe with their groundbreaking work have had 'problems' in their social or personal lives, gauging them with the rest of the mediocrity. Criticism and attacks on these minds for not being upto the society's mark in their etiquette has testimonials throughout the course of civilisation, which is absurd.
Weird, really?? |
My point has always been, why bother about the individual's personal/social life unless it affects you directly! Whether he/she likes cats or not, if they wear the same shirt for more than a day, or if they keep changing their girl friends?
It should be of no concern for, the work from them is what influences us. Unless they try to influence their supposed wierdness onto us, we should be least bothered, or distracted about their lives.
In the case of WikiLeaks, this has been an extensive smear campaign against Julian Assange , who has been the Spokesperson and the front-end to the entire movement of WikiLekas. By distracting the audience from the essentials, the media certainly has done its job of trying to reduce the credibility of WikiLeaks amongst the gullibles, of course. But, where has all the grey matter of people vanished? Most people actually seem to be concerned more about Assange's wierd hairdo than the ideals he has brought to life with his work.
Asymmetric nature of minds at work should be recognised as a necessity for them to concentrate their efforts on the work they do, rather than expecting them to be the clichéd, stereotype social animals.
Hi Raghavendra S, Nice blog! How to add the Glitter Effect Mouse Pointer to your Blog
ReplyDeleteMost of us believe it is our birthright to have an opinion about anything/anyone. To give vent towards our own frustration, when we see someone unique(or as we wanted to be) , we take comfort in branding them as "different" by picking on their weak areas. We also seek solace when people around us agree. And the blindfolding process continues...
ReplyDelete