There has been a flurry of talent hunt programs on television these days. "Saregama" and "Indian Idol" etc. are very popular. These shows judge the participants based on the voting by the public. Though democratic, I am not sure this is the right way to judge talent.
It appears people vote based on locality of contestant rather than the person's talent. I have been a culprit of this myself. But, I donot see this as something wrong. I voted for candidate from AndhraPradesh irrespective of his talent. I am not qualified enough to rate the skills of the top-tier contestants. So, the nearest criteria for differentiating is his locality.
The organizers need to understand this and bring in the talent factor into consideration while filtering out the contestants. I like the program "Nach Baliye" in this regard. A qualified judge's rating is also taken into account while filtering the contestants.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
My Intelligence Quotient
I gave the Classic IQ test at Tickle and my IQ score turns out to be 131. An excerpt from the results:
Congratulations, Rajasekhar!
Your IQ score is 131Your Intellectual Type is Precision Processor. This means you're exceptionally good at discovering quick solutions to problems, especially ones that involve math or logic. You're also resourceful and able to think on your feet. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results
Right vs Wrong
Consider this scenario:
Suresh walks into a super-market to purchase some things. He stands in the queue for billing/payment. The cashier incharge of the queue is clumsy and takes a long time to serve each customer. Further to accentuate the irritation, he starts serving customers out of the line. This pushes Suresh across the limit and he shouts at the cashier. The guy aplogizes, but continues to be very slow with his work. Finally, it is the turn of Suresh. In hurry to finish fast, the cashier only bills for certain items which Suresh purchased. Suresh realizes this, but doesn't ask the cashier to bill for the missed items. He cooly walks out of the shop paying only half the money of what he purchased.
Now, was Suresh right or wrong in deciding not to correct the cashier? Clearly, the cashier was not upto his job and he was wrong at serving customers who weren't in the queue. Will Suresh's decision be a good payback for his mistake?
Suresh walks into a super-market to purchase some things. He stands in the queue for billing/payment. The cashier incharge of the queue is clumsy and takes a long time to serve each customer. Further to accentuate the irritation, he starts serving customers out of the line. This pushes Suresh across the limit and he shouts at the cashier. The guy aplogizes, but continues to be very slow with his work. Finally, it is the turn of Suresh. In hurry to finish fast, the cashier only bills for certain items which Suresh purchased. Suresh realizes this, but doesn't ask the cashier to bill for the missed items. He cooly walks out of the shop paying only half the money of what he purchased.
Now, was Suresh right or wrong in deciding not to correct the cashier? Clearly, the cashier was not upto his job and he was wrong at serving customers who weren't in the queue. Will Suresh's decision be a good payback for his mistake?
Monday, January 09, 2006
Books and your personality
I had an interesting discussion with my colleagues during lunch today. I am not sure if I can call it a discussion. It was more like my colleagues schemed against me and it was me Vs them. The debate was around the learning from a book, and how it improves one as a person. I was against this idea and everyone else were for it.
I donot think there is much to learn from a book. It is purely an entertainment channel, and a matter of your habit. It is like having fishing as a habit. You donot improve as a person just because you fish when you have some free time. Before I proceed, let me make it clear that the discussion was about fictitious novels. I completely agree that one learns a lot from technical books. These books make you knowledgeable, improve your confidence and help in progessing in your career. One might also learn from self-help books and management books, although I never read them and have no taste for them.
So, what am I supposed to learn from these novels and how I will become a better person by reading them. I cannot comprehend this. My colleagues insist that I might face similar situations as mentioned in the book, and then I might react in ways mentioned there. This seems silly to me. The decision taken by a character in book is a figment of author's imagination. It is what the author would have done in that situation. Why should that be the correct decision? Why should I do what the author has suggested? I donot understand any of their arguments.
The discussion ended with them making a decision that I have agreed to their views (Don't know how). I asked a couple of them to give an example of the learning they had from a fiction. They did not manage to come up with an answer. I think that explains who had the right view in the discussion.
I donot think there is much to learn from a book. It is purely an entertainment channel, and a matter of your habit. It is like having fishing as a habit. You donot improve as a person just because you fish when you have some free time. Before I proceed, let me make it clear that the discussion was about fictitious novels. I completely agree that one learns a lot from technical books. These books make you knowledgeable, improve your confidence and help in progessing in your career. One might also learn from self-help books and management books, although I never read them and have no taste for them.
So, what am I supposed to learn from these novels and how I will become a better person by reading them. I cannot comprehend this. My colleagues insist that I might face similar situations as mentioned in the book, and then I might react in ways mentioned there. This seems silly to me. The decision taken by a character in book is a figment of author's imagination. It is what the author would have done in that situation. Why should that be the correct decision? Why should I do what the author has suggested? I donot understand any of their arguments.
The discussion ended with them making a decision that I have agreed to their views (Don't know how). I asked a couple of them to give an example of the learning they had from a fiction. They did not manage to come up with an answer. I think that explains who had the right view in the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)