Friday, October 12, 2007

justified

As a follow-up to my post on faith and irrationality - are religious movements justified in their faith ideals as long as they help th needy ? More particularly given that many of us often don't care or have little time to worry about any one else's problems except our own.

instruments of guilt

A few things that trouble me in today's world:
  1. Do we need fear of god to help the needy?
  2. Do we need to look upto personality cults to understand who we are - this includes Christianity and all other sects and religions which gain their ideals from one person's revelation.
  3. Do we have to feel guilt that we have something that others don't? And if so, should the be the reason to give.
  4. Haven't great philanthropists been world's major capitalists?
  5. Are people who are involved in religious groups - satya sai baba's movement, amma's movement, SRi's movement - irrational and guilty of their blind faith to an idea or belief?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Dr. Hambrick on New York Times

Not many times do you see one of your teacher’s research being discussed in an outlet like New York Times.  I had taken a course on Corporate Strategy offered by Dr. Hambrick when I was in the PhD program at Penn State.  He has written some of the seminal papers on top management teams and their effects on corporate performance. 

aggressiveness and discipline

There has been an ongoing argument in Indian cricket as to how a resurgent Indian team is being aggressive (in antics) and unnerving the mighty Australians.  Some wise men have already pointed out that it should be aggressiveness in the game not on field antics.  The message I guess never got to the team so far, but now I am sure that given the 9 wicket loss, the Indian team and overzealous jingoist fans will at last realize the truth.  Australians do not win matches by throwing arrogant glances at bowlers alone; they also combine those arrogant glances with a nonchalant toying of the bowling attack, literally decimating the morale of bowlers with their superb strokeplay.  Indians, on the other hand seem to revel in their ability to take off shirts and merely throw glances, but not solid balls at the Australian batsmen.  Gilchrist is successful not because he is arrogant but because he is talented and arrogance is just correlated with his talent.  To the statistically challenged Indian cricket team and of course its advisors – the concept of causality is obviously out of reach.  To them the logic is that Australians are successful, they are also arrogant, so arrogance leads to success.  Well, as I always maintained the Indian team never had any priors on it – in terms of the fans’ expectations of how they would perform.  I have revise the view and also add that not only do they not have priors on them they also do not have any rational way of making decisions.

 

If the team first develops a little discipline and realizes that success comes not just by talent, but also through perseverance and not letting Coke and Pepsi dollars get into their heads.

 

This is a plea from a past cricket fan!