Jack of All or King of One ?
I was pondering over how our lives have become mono-dimensional; we specialize in a particular skill and try to churn/perfect it during the course of life. We are in such a stage of evolution that we need a specialist for everything, in due course, we could also have a expert who teaches Samba dance to South Indians with a BharathaNatyam fusion for a drama which unfolds in the midnight of a atypical summer season which has had heavy showers.
In the view of evolutionary biologists, all that sits, walks, talks and shouts on this earth now, evolved from unicellular organisms and gradually mutated to be what we are now. It is not just the organisms, it is with the organs as well, it is the same gene morphing as different cells and it activates itself to form a nose and inhibits itself from becoming a hand. If that is how nature conducts itself, no wonder in spite of being similar humans, we specialize in skills and create a "niche" for ourselves.
Some thousand years back, the way of living was very different, even as we leaped out of nomadic life, man was kind of versatile, he was kinda jack of all, he would do most of the activities which would be part of his life style, right from growing and rearing what he wanted to eat, building an home for himself and guarding it.
He was kind of self sustained to meet his needs. It was only with the advent of specialization and the thought to explore beyond the basic needs that things became complex, the barter system had to be instituted to exchange goods or services. It lead to another problem, what one produced was needed by somebody but the counterparty cannot give what this person needed. This was the most complex problems of all, it led to the most dangerous invention man has ever invented "Money", it solved the problem, and people could avail goods/services irrespective of the counterparty.
Over diversification in fact produce inferior results, it is precisely the reason why we don't produce great films compared to Hollywood. An Indian film is always produced with the motive of mass entertainment, it has to necessarily have five songs, four scenes with social perspective (including fights), three comedy scenes, two romantic scenes and one goodie goodie climax. Most important of all, the entire screenplay, dialogue and direction would be mostly done by a single person. The hero is supposed to possess every dimension, he needs to be exemplary in dancing, kissing, fizzing, sentimentizing and what not, how on earth can somebody be adept in enacting all this, which is why we produce very average films.
This attitude gives a great understanding of the Indian psyche, If films can be dubbed as the satisfaction of the mind's fantasy, then we are trying to heal our egos by accepting a fantasy that somebody can be so versatile and this is accepted by the society as a whole, it even means that the society as a whole is deprived of a life which they want to pursue.
In the world of investing, a prudent investor with an average risk aversion would have his portfolio diversified into various stocks. It would be ideally distributed among growth stocks which have a large upside potential, market stocks which move with the market and defensive stocks which are quite muted when the market falls. Essentially we are trying to mitigate the risk associated with the return in our portfolio. Over diversification is discouraged as it only adds to the cost of monitoring many stocks with very marginal reduction in risk.
The general sense is that Indian investors are risk averse, given an option; they would ideally put their money into a stable asset rather than a risky asset with higher upside potential. I know people in India who would take an assured sum life insurance for 10 lacs and pay a premium of around 50,000 per year just because bcos there is a stigma around "sum assured".Infact they can take a term insurance for Rs 10 Lacs (where you get no money if are alive after the end of the term) for a premium of about Rs 2,500/- per year and invest Rs 47,500 every year (Rs50,000 - Rs2500) at comparable deposit rates of 8.0% and happily get 20 Lacs at the end of 20 years whereas we would get Rs 10 Lacs in the former plan.Infact they would fund LIC for their channel inefficiency rather than securing their family.
If that is the case why is the society creating stereotypes in life styles? have we miserably failed in a creating balanced individuals or muti-chrome society?. Infact, Indians are the most risky investors in life as such!
Nature has evolved in a consistent logical way over the past 4.5 billion years, only fitter genes have survived in a certain environment irrespective of their specializations. Organisms which over specialized themselves to the existing conditions could not make it over to the next era as they had little ability to adapt to transient or abrupt changes.
It is natural to be singular as one starts, unchallenged singularity creates its own barriers, it is necessary to be divergent when it comes to building competencies whereas over diversification is futility
Jack of all and King of one can make one complete and content ?
In the view of evolutionary biologists, all that sits, walks, talks and shouts on this earth now, evolved from unicellular organisms and gradually mutated to be what we are now. It is not just the organisms, it is with the organs as well, it is the same gene morphing as different cells and it activates itself to form a nose and inhibits itself from becoming a hand. If that is how nature conducts itself, no wonder in spite of being similar humans, we specialize in skills and create a "niche" for ourselves.
Some thousand years back, the way of living was very different, even as we leaped out of nomadic life, man was kind of versatile, he was kinda jack of all, he would do most of the activities which would be part of his life style, right from growing and rearing what he wanted to eat, building an home for himself and guarding it.
He was kind of self sustained to meet his needs. It was only with the advent of specialization and the thought to explore beyond the basic needs that things became complex, the barter system had to be instituted to exchange goods or services. It lead to another problem, what one produced was needed by somebody but the counterparty cannot give what this person needed. This was the most complex problems of all, it led to the most dangerous invention man has ever invented "Money", it solved the problem, and people could avail goods/services irrespective of the counterparty.
Over diversification in fact produce inferior results, it is precisely the reason why we don't produce great films compared to Hollywood. An Indian film is always produced with the motive of mass entertainment, it has to necessarily have five songs, four scenes with social perspective (including fights), three comedy scenes, two romantic scenes and one goodie goodie climax. Most important of all, the entire screenplay, dialogue and direction would be mostly done by a single person. The hero is supposed to possess every dimension, he needs to be exemplary in dancing, kissing, fizzing, sentimentizing and what not, how on earth can somebody be adept in enacting all this, which is why we produce very average films.
This attitude gives a great understanding of the Indian psyche, If films can be dubbed as the satisfaction of the mind's fantasy, then we are trying to heal our egos by accepting a fantasy that somebody can be so versatile and this is accepted by the society as a whole, it even means that the society as a whole is deprived of a life which they want to pursue.
In the world of investing, a prudent investor with an average risk aversion would have his portfolio diversified into various stocks. It would be ideally distributed among growth stocks which have a large upside potential, market stocks which move with the market and defensive stocks which are quite muted when the market falls. Essentially we are trying to mitigate the risk associated with the return in our portfolio. Over diversification is discouraged as it only adds to the cost of monitoring many stocks with very marginal reduction in risk.
The general sense is that Indian investors are risk averse, given an option; they would ideally put their money into a stable asset rather than a risky asset with higher upside potential. I know people in India who would take an assured sum life insurance for 10 lacs and pay a premium of around 50,000 per year just because bcos there is a stigma around "sum assured".Infact they can take a term insurance for Rs 10 Lacs (where you get no money if are alive after the end of the term) for a premium of about Rs 2,500/- per year and invest Rs 47,500 every year (Rs50,000 - Rs2500) at comparable deposit rates of 8.0% and happily get 20 Lacs at the end of 20 years whereas we would get Rs 10 Lacs in the former plan.Infact they would fund LIC for their channel inefficiency rather than securing their family.
If that is the case why is the society creating stereotypes in life styles? have we miserably failed in a creating balanced individuals or muti-chrome society?. Infact, Indians are the most risky investors in life as such!
Nature has evolved in a consistent logical way over the past 4.5 billion years, only fitter genes have survived in a certain environment irrespective of their specializations. Organisms which over specialized themselves to the existing conditions could not make it over to the next era as they had little ability to adapt to transient or abrupt changes.
It is natural to be singular as one starts, unchallenged singularity creates its own barriers, it is necessary to be divergent when it comes to building competencies whereas over diversification is futility
Jack of all and King of one can make one complete and content ?
Labels: Metaphysics
| Permalink | 
