I grew up watching cricket and obsessing about it, as most young boys did then (and most probably do even now.) As much as I liked the artistry of the top-order batsmen, especially Vishvanath, and the spin bowlers, my first hero was Abid Ali.
Yes, Abid Ali.
I was perhaps not even into a double-digit age when I decided I liked Abid Ali the most. Here was a player who could bowl pretty decently, bat pretty decently, and field excellently. He could do it all. And, from the radio commentaries and newspaper reports (no TV then!) I understood that he did all these without any flair.
Ali was an "all-rounder," as such players are referred to in cricket. After him, there were a couple more like Ghavri and Madanlal, but it was not the same. Not even Ravi Shastri.
And then the "all-rounder" world simply became fantastic, and was way more than I could have imagined, thanks to Kapil Dev and Ian Botham. These two took the idea of an all rounder to an entirely new level. And, they seemed to approach every opportunity with the same level of intensity and excitement, without ever feeling jaded.
I left India just about when these two had passed their peaks, and soon I was following college football and baseball.
In college ball too, it was the "all-rounder" players that I liked. I was a grad student at USC when Rodney Peete was the Trojan QB. Peete could pass and also run--a contrast to Troy Aikman across town at UCLA, who was a much better QB but not a runner. While they were both excellent baseball players too, only Peete continued playing college baseball.
However, most all rounders don't achieve "stardom," so to say because it is a very, very rare few who can perform exceptionally at more than one. It was Aikman who went on to win the Super Bowls. Rare is a Botham or a Dev. Abid Ali is probably a forgotten name among most casual Indian cricket fans, who will certainly remember Bedi and Pataudi, and even Venkataraghavan.
I wonder how my life would have been if I had been a fan not of all-rounders but of super-specialists instead.
Academe--even at regional teaching universities like mine--encourages specialists and not generalists. People whose focus is to know a lot about one or two small things, and not the other way around. "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing".
But, if I were a specialist, then my life would have been about some strange variation of dukrijnkarane! Odds are that I wouldn't have been exploring and understanding life by blogging, writing op-eds, cooking, traveling, ... my, it would have been a horribly boring life.
Thank heavens I chose Abid Ali as my favorite!
Since 2001 ........... Remade in June 2008 ........... Latest version since January 2022
Showing posts with label Berlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Berlin. Show all posts
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Philosophical hassles with income inequality. Can Rawls or Bain help you out?
Before graduate school, I found it extremely easy to figure out answers to pressing public policy issues. Graduate school messed me up--it was challenging to sort out the competing interpretations on any given issue. It was like I ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and I was, therefore, condemned to a life of constant weighing of the multiple narratives.
In one of the courses, two readings were paired together--an essay by John Rawls (one of the earlier essays prior to the publication of his magnum opus) and Robert Nozick's counterargument. Years of doing math and science hadn't prepared me for this. Math and science seemed way easier compared to figuring out my own public policy prescriptions post-Rawls and post-Nozick. And then there was another essay--by Isiah Berlin on thinking about liberty in two ways.
Over the years, I have found that the ideas from these three, more than anything else, complicate my personal take on any of the pressing public policy issues of the day.
Income inequality is one of the most contemporary urgent issues. In the old days, before wandering around in graduate school, I would have flatly stated that income inequality is awful. Now, I have to wear Rawls' "veil of ignorance" and think about Berlin's "postive and negative freedom" while dealing with Nozick's libertarianism. The result: nothing is ever easy anymore. Nor am I stupid enough to echo the words and sentiments of a former president who proudly claimed that he did not do nuance!
Even while sorting these out through those philosophical filters, there is Warren Buffett with his "ovarian lottery," which is what Michael Lewis also seems to point out:
In one of the courses, two readings were paired together--an essay by John Rawls (one of the earlier essays prior to the publication of his magnum opus) and Robert Nozick's counterargument. Years of doing math and science hadn't prepared me for this. Math and science seemed way easier compared to figuring out my own public policy prescriptions post-Rawls and post-Nozick. And then there was another essay--by Isiah Berlin on thinking about liberty in two ways.
Over the years, I have found that the ideas from these three, more than anything else, complicate my personal take on any of the pressing public policy issues of the day.
Income inequality is one of the most contemporary urgent issues. In the old days, before wandering around in graduate school, I would have flatly stated that income inequality is awful. Now, I have to wear Rawls' "veil of ignorance" and think about Berlin's "postive and negative freedom" while dealing with Nozick's libertarianism. The result: nothing is ever easy anymore. Nor am I stupid enough to echo the words and sentiments of a former president who proudly claimed that he did not do nuance!
Even while sorting these out through those philosophical filters, there is Warren Buffett with his "ovarian lottery," which is what Michael Lewis also seems to point out:
Don't be deceived by life's outcomes. Life's outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that you have had success, you have also had luck. And with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky.Keep all those in mind as you watch Jon Stewart talk with Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital before he retired when he was about fifty years old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
