Effort - Suresh Dinakaran's Blog

How about a New School Of Taught?

The education industrial complex pays little or no heed to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence. The theory claims that human beings have different ways in which they process data, each being independent. Gardner’s theory argues that students will be better served by a broader vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies, exercises and activities to reach all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence.

Because humans excel in different areas, Gardner’s multiple intelligences’ theory can provide students with a better understanding of how they learn. When students are able to identify which type of multiple intelligence they use to learn material, they can adapt the information to their learning (Bilash, 2009).

“What makes a child gifted and talented may not always be good grades in school, but a different way of looking at the world and learning.” —Chuck Grassley.

10 is the new 20; 20 is the new 40. Age is an obsolete default.

The predominant rote method of learning | teaching is actually a signal that you could do just enough work to persuade an overwhelmed teacher that you were compliant.

The opportunity going forward remains the same: Bringing insight and guts to interesting problems.

There is a high possibility that you get ahead in life for years and years because you got dealt good cards. But, very soon you realise that in the real world, attitude and effort, taking initiative and responsibility, showing up and shipping out consistently are what lands you a senior VP role, or a Broadway part or a Nobel Prize. Because these are the people who have put in the hard yards, showed up, understood, cared, and remained open to new experiences.

We live in a culture, unfortunately, that is highly biased towards connections and charisma.

What if we wear a different hat? Start celebrating the students who work the hardest, help others the most, lead by example, explore possibilities? Sending out clear signals to those on the sidelines that if you are willing to do all of that, you will be celebrated as well. Grades, marks, shiny trophies can wait!

If education is life itself, then we be better prepared. Or, we prepare better!

As I conclude I lead you to an article from BrandKnew on This high school that is designed for the jobs of the future.

ENDS

A ROM COM Called ” Meritocracy “

Merit might seem like a ROM COM, but there is merit in talking about it I guess.

Meritocracy is our social ideal, particularly among good liberals. Equality of opportunity, but not of outcome.

To this day, the origin of the term meritocracy is widely attributed to the British sociologist Michael Young, who used it pejoratively in his book “The Rise of the Meritocracy “. For Young, merit is defined as intelligence plus effort.

The triumph of meritocracy as a social ideal was a turning point in human history. Before the Enlightenment, most societies were elaborately stratified- be it England‘s hierarchy of king, duke, earl, viscount, and baron, or China‘s imperial order of Emperor, heshuo qinwang, duoluo junwang, duoluo beile, and gushan beizi. In these regimes, the vast majority of people- peasants, servants, slaves – had little hope of bettering their station.

Many philosophers like John Locke, Charles Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau in fact questioned the idea of an unelected elite. On the eve of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine boldly proclaimed that ” of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived“. In Paine’s view, power was the gift of the people rather than the divine right of the monarch.

Meritocracy raises the returns on talent by ensuring that individuals are free to contribute and succeed, whatever their social rank or personal connections. That said, its troubling that bureaucracy – the world’s most ubiquitous social structure– systematically undermines the cause of meritocracy. A recent survey in the Harvard Business Review had 76% of big company respondents saying that political behaviors highly influence who gets ahead in the organisation. Though in theory bureaucracy is a ranking of merit where those with exceptional abilities get promoted over those are less accomplished. But, in practice, organisations rarely come even remotely close to achieving this idea.

It is said that it is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other.

“That is the great danger of meritocracy: the people who reach the top of the system are precisely the people who have most completely identified with the system and its demands, creating a vicious circle preventing any actual change. It is no accident that conservatives tend to employ the rhetoric of social mobility so readily, as social climbers generally do not ask questions about the ladder.”

— Adam Kotsko

As I conclude, may I direct you to read this article in BrandKnew where Bridgewater Investments Founder Ray Dalio talks about Investing in Idea Meritocracy

ENDS

Why 5% > 95% ?

No. The arithmetic may not look right. Contrarian and defies established norm. Yes.

But, dare I say, this is the new math.

A lot of our attention and effort is spent and invested in trying to onboard the laggards and the lurkers.

And it done by dumbing down. Offering more incentive. Creating urgency. Re-posting. Hustling to see if they would take some action.

Certainly not worth it. And very frustrating for anyone who leads.

Progress operates on a different GPS. It has a different route to take.

..then huge things would begin to happen.

The 95% who lurk and remain non-committal will almost always lurk. Thats okay.

The energy and the emotional labour has to go into the 5%. The place to focus on.

Because when their persistent, consistent and generous action begins to add up, change happens. And that may bring the lurkers along. And who knows, even activate them. They will catch up when they need to.

The chasm will get bridged at its own pace. And that’s perfectly fine.

There’s nothing wrong with the laggards and the lurkers. Remember, they are potential action-takers.

But for now, our focus, action, respect and gratitude is for all those people who are already showing up. And shipping out. Which is the 5%!

So, let’s stop falling over ourselves to dumb down. Average it out. Trying to appeal and please everyone and anyone.

When you seek to engage with everyone, you rarely delight anyone. And if you’re not the irreplaceable, essential, one-of-a-kind change maker, you never get a chance to engage with the market.

So, seek your MVA(minimum Viable Audience). This would be counter to what are taught (or expected to learn) in the ‘ School of Capitalism ‘ , but this is the simplest way to do the work that matters, impacts, changes and leaves an inspiring legacy.

Now you know- Why 5% > 95% ?

ENDS