The September 23rd International Edition of New York Times had two very beautiful stories. I caught up with them on my flight to Hong Kong.
The first story I want to mention here is that of Facebook. The article is aptly titled, ‘Facebook’s Frankenstein moment’. The article has some very interesting and profound sentences that should make us think of its relevance for human lives too.
The journalist writes:
If I were a Facebook executive, I might feel a Frankensteinian sense of unease these days. The company has been hit with a series of scandals that have bruised its image, enraged its critics and opened up the possibility that in its quest for global dominance, Facebook may have created something it can’t fully control.
But the troubles do make it clear that Facebook was simply not built to handle problems of this magnitude. It’s a technology company, not an intelligence agency or an international diplomatic corps. Its engineers are in the business of building apps and selling advertising, not determining what constitutes hate speech in Myanmar. And with two billion users, including 1.3 billion who use it every day, moving ever greater amounts of their social and political activity onto Facebook, it’s possible that the company is simply too big to understand all of the harmful ways people might use its products.
The last one:
When Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook in his Harvard dorm room in 2004, nobody could have imagined its becoming a censorship tool for repressive regimes, an arbiter of global speech standards or a vehicle for foreign propagandists.
These three excerpts made me think. Multiple thoughts came to my head. There are lessons in this for corporate mission and goals; for humans.
Is growth the ‘be all and end all’ for corporations? Are we in control of what we do? When we begin to do something, do we even know in what directions it would grow and how big? Do we control the process all the way through? Do we realise that? Do we even know that we don’t drive the process but the process has a mind and life of its own? In fact, it is the real intelligence and we are the artificial one! Do we grasp the play of the law of unintended consequences in life and in business?
Only if we do, we can put our hand up and say STOP and not pursue growth for its own sake. When we conscioiusly question the ‘growth’ choices (becoming big or rich or both), we will even think of why we pursue those goals – megalomania or delusions of grandeur?
Plainly put, is it ego that drives and not any other so-called rational imperative? Per se, nothing wrong with ego having a role. It always does. But, recognising that will evaluate the trade-offs and the costs better and pursue corporate goals (or, personal goals) with a sense of awarenesss.
Every time we are offered choices to grow big and fast, the alternatives are ‘grow big but at a measured pace’ and ‘stability over growth’. How do we evaluate the choices? That would make a big difference. Going back to our origins, our goals at inception would help steer us better and keep us grounded even as we fancy taking flight to higher altitudes. Again, applies as much to businesses as it does to individuals and institutions.
And, to politicians! As they become bigger and bigger players, they move furhter and further from their core values and principles. IF they look into the mirror one day, they will not recognise the face they see. How much has it been transformed and HOW and WHY?
Staying close to one’s knitting and to one’s initial goals, staying small, compact and manageable vs. growing big, these are as much philosophical decisions as they are business decisions. When we choose the latter – growing big – we do have to recognise the possibility that we won’t be in the driver’s seat.
Letting the process drive us and growing big consciously are actually two different choices. The articles give us the opportunity to think about how many of us are victims or prisoners of the former? The second one is about freedom. Are we free?
[Of course, at a macro level or economic plane, there is a problem with this philosophy. A country of India’s size needs scale. Also, conversely, while the desire and passion to grow big brings with it, its own share of problems, issues and loss of control, the motivation to stay small should also be subjected to rigorous questioning? – laziness (sloth) or lack of confidence.]
But, in the American context and in the light of what Facebook has wrought to itself, to people’s lives (most users are on big ego trips on their Facebook page unmindful of their own privacy and security), the above questions and issues are more relevant than the parenthetical sentiment.
The story of the Michelin *** Chef putting his hand up and say STOP was a beautiful contrast to the Facebook story. He is a spiritual chef.
Mark Zuckerberg – and all of us – must have a conversation with Sébastian Bras. He is only 45 years old (google search). He wants Michelin to take his three stars away. Pointedly, he said this:
I want to be liberated from the pressure.
That is it. We have found our spiritual wisdom. That one sentence can unlock many things, many of our minds including that of Zuckerberg.
‘Liberation’ is a heavily loaded spiritual term. We are all held in bondage by our desires, by our goals and by social conventions, pressures and because ‘this is how and this is what everyone does’. Liberation is about letting go. He is ready to do that, at least in this aspect. If ‘letting go’ is not spiritual, what else is?
He said he wanted to give a new meaning to his life. Bingo!
Towards the end of the article, there are quite a few profound truths, uttered by chefs. There is something very beautiful about hearing these words from chefs because food is the biggest craving for many of us. It is a very big bondage. Here, chefs are teaching us about ‘letting go’. There is a beautiful irony in it.
In 2005, Alain Senderens, a founder of the nouvelle cuisine movement, decided to close Lucas Carton, his Art Nouveau restaurant on the Place de la Madeleine in Paris and abandon his three stars. He said he was fed up with the agony of perfection and wanted to do “beautiful cuisine without all the tra-la-la and chichi, and put the money into what’s on the plate.”
Fed up with the ‘agony of perfection’ – think about it. It is not an invitation for sloppiness. Indeed, the paradox is that he would most likely make food that delight scores of customers with this mindset.
Or, sample this:
Earlier this year, René Redzepi, 39, the chef and a co-owner of Noma in Denmark, a leading light of the New Nordic movement, said he was closing his two-starred restaurant and moving it to another neighborhood in Copenhagen, forsaking his hard-earned stars. He said in an interview that it was “necessary to break down a castle in order to build a new one.”
Of course, in my book, the gold goes to Sébastian Bras:
Mr. Bras, for his part, said his decision to shun the would-be supreme court of global cuisine had been motivated by a search for serenity. He noted that while the pressure to retain three stars could be an engine for creativity, it could also prove debilitating.
“Food should be about love — not about competition,” he said. “All I want is to welcome people to my restaurant during the day, or during the night under a sky filled with stars.”
All emphasis mine.
Sébastian Bras is not just a chef. He is a Guru.
[Postscript: A friend, on reading the post promptly, pointed out that the use of the word, ‘process’ can be confusing. A process-driven path to growth (or any other business or personal goals) may actually be considered the right way to go about it rather than the one that is ego-driven or driven by convention, social pressures or peer group pressure, etc. I have used the word, ‘process’, to denote these latter, unthinking and unconscious approaches]
The story of former Google Engineer James Damore is dominating airwaves. He was fired for writing a memo that pointed to basic gender differences as one of the explanations for why there were so few women in software. It is not just about the firing of a single employee. It is about Google. Over time, being fired from his job might turn out to be a blessing in disguise for James Damore.
I had gone through his memo. You can find it here. I found it reasonably worded and argued. I listened to the 50-minute conversation of Prof. Jordan Peterson with James Damore. Professor Peterson at the University of Toronto cited many references that supported the points that Damore had made in his memo.
David Brooks in NYT wrote a good piece as to why Sunder Pichai should resign.
James Damore wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal as to why he was fired. It is interesting that he appeared to sympathise with Google management by blaming the ‘mob’ for ‘tying’ the hands of the management:
Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
Professor Jonathan Haidt and Sean Stevens have a comprehensive post at the Heterodox academy with a list of citations and research findings that both support and refute the points that Damore had made in his memo:
If you wanted to jump straight to their conclusion, here it is:
In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect. Population differences in interest may be part of the explanation for why there are fewer women in the applicant pool, but the women who choose to enter the pool are just as capable as the larger number of men in the pool. This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and discouragement exist and contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed in future generations.
If our three conclusions are correct then Damore was drawing attention to empirical findings that seem to have been previously unknown or ignored at Google, and which might be helpful to the company as it tries to improve its diversity policies and outcomes. What should Google’s response to the memo have been? We’ll address that in a followup post next week. [Link – all emphasis mine]
Based on her personal experience, Megan McArdle agrees with James Damore.
In short, Google had an opportunity to set an example for what it means to be truly liberal. It blew it. Perhaps, Sunder Pichai’s education, background and experience did not prepare him for facing a situation like the one he faced with James Damore’s memo. It needed a non-Engineering approach. Perhaps, a woman would have handled it better? But then, Google’s diversity officer Danielle Brown did not offer any nuanced reaction. It was a mere prelude to the firing of James Damore.
There is very little to choose between the openly intolerant and not-so-openly intolerant. In fact, the former can be handled mostly through the law-and-order apparatus and framework but the latter is insidious and, hence, probably more dangerous.
This is a full version of the symptoms originally put forward by Owen and Davidson*. Some symptoms could be associated with other conditions such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
So the stipulation is that “in making the diagnosis of Hubris Syndrome, three or more of the defining symptoms should be present, at least one of which should be among the five components identified as unique.”
- A propensity to see the world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory
- A predisposition to take actions which seem likely to cast the individual in a good light – taken in part in order to enhance their image
- A disproportionate concern with image and presentation
- A messianic way of talking and a tendency to exaltation in speech and manner
- An identification with the nation or organization – to the extent that they regard the outlook and interests of the two as identical (unique factor)
- A tendency to speak of themselves in the third person or use the royal ‘we’ (unique)Excessive confidence in the individual’s own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others
- Exaggerated selfbelief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve
- A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the real court to which they answer is much greater: history or god
- An unshakable belief that in that court they will be vindicated (unique)
- Loss of contact with reality; often associated with progressive isolation
- Restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness (unique)
- A tendency to allow their ‘broad vision’, especially their conviction about the moral rectitude of a proposed course of action, to obviate the need to consider other aspects of it, such as its practicality, cost and the possibility of unwanted outcomes (unique)
- Incompetence in carrying out a policy, where things go wrong precisely because too much self-confidence has led the leader not to worry about the nuts and bolts of a policy. [Link]
* ‘Hubris Syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? A study of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers over the last 100 years’, David Owen and Jonathan Davidson, Brain 2009: 132; 13961406 (article available on this website)
… While capitalism at last stands electorally victorious and philosophically without serious rival, its performance has become manifestly unsatisfactory. Its core credential of steadily rising general living standards has been badly tarnished: a majority now expect their children’s lives to be worse than their own. It is time for “The Future of Capitalism”. Unfortunately, nobody has yet successfully written that book. In its absence, I will try to weave something from the strands of recent contributions to the field.
Whatever emerges will not be a new ideology. If Levinson is not enough to convince you, try Jonathan Tepperman’s The Fix. His title refers not to our current mess, but to ten case studies of how some political leaders really have transformed situations for the better. Tepperman searches for the formula by which these people have remedied serious problems. The cases are valuable in their own right: many leaders could learn from how Lee Kwan Yew drove out corruption in Singapore, how Pierre Trudeau defused Québécois separatism, and how Paul Kagame rebuilt cultural identities in Rwanda. But for present purposes it is Tepperman’s conclusion that is valuable: eschew ideology; focus on pragmatic solutions to core problems, adjust as you go, but be as tough as is necessary. A viable future for capitalism will cut across the ideological baggage of the twentieth century: forget Left versus Right, set aside the familiar pious moralizing and start from the problems. As Tepperman argues, the leaders who stuck rigorously to this approach initially faced intense criticism. Pragmatism is guaranteed to offend the ideologues of every persuasion and they are the people who dominate the media. [Link]
Did Paul Collier forget Nelson Mandela?
Among the global leaders of today, who comes close to this pragmatic centre?
Such plainspeaking within the inner circle is needed. I hope it exists but I doubt it. Not in India and not in many, many countries in the world. But, why single out political leaders? It has been singularly missing among so-called intellectuals. Otherwise, Brexit and Trump election victory would have been anticipated. So, in that sense, it is not just PM Modi who might be living in a cocoon of his own but scores of others too.
But, that is neither here nor there. This blog has been very happily exposing the hollowness and inconsistencies of the so-called intellectuals globally and will continue to do so.
Therefore, ‘what about?’ry is part of the argument in a duel/debate. But, it cannot be used as an argument to exclude reflection of the arguments being made. If so, it is the loss to the object of criticism and, in this case, a loss to the country too.
What are Sudeep’s exaggerations?
(1) The rupee is in a tailspin. – that is not true. Almost all currencies in the world are depreciating against the U.S. dollar.
(2) The “pain” of the currency swap that Modi and his cohorts speak of is expected to contract the economy this year. – I think he got the Ambit Capital forecast mixed up. They expected a Y/Y contraction in one particular quarter, I think. Not GDP contraction in 2016-17 or in 2017-18.
(3) The agreement with Switzerland to share information about Indian holdings in Swiss banks will come into effect in 2018, with information for the previous year, enough time to move money. – well, that is not the government’s fault. They should be complimented for closing the loop or hole on that one.
(4) including that of the first NDA government that ended its term with ignominy in 2004. – I am not sure it ended the term in ignominy, unless he means the election results themselves. But, their economic governance in the last two and half years of their term (1999-2004) was quite impressive.
Perhaps, in the final analysis, Sudeep’s article struck a chord with me because the underlying purpose of my co-authored work with Gulzar Natarajan, ‘Can India grow?’ was that a merciless diagnosis of all the wrongs and all that do not work is an indispensable foundation for eradicating them and improving on them, respectively.
About nine days ago, journalist-friend TCA Srinivasa Raghavan had shared an English translation of an article that he had written for Hindi Quint. It was a mid-term appraisal of Modi, the PM and Modi, the policymaker. He had given good marks on the former and not-so-high marks on the latter. He had written that ‘his economic policies had been socialist in their orientation’.
He is right. The NDA government’s first three budgets did not set the Yamuna, Ganges and Cauvery on fire with their imagination and bold strokes.
Even the black money demonetisation is clearly a policy in that light. The aspirational aspects of freeing up the individuals from financial repression, from other clutches of the State have not yet been given the prominence or importance as they should have been, along with the ‘cleaning of the Augean stables’. The latter is foundational and a bedrock, I admit. But, in economic policies, one has to build the foundation and the superstructure simultaneously. In construction, one has to wait. Here, it does not have to be.
I suspect that they may have something to do with the advisors who has his ears. I will shy away from using Western constructs to describe them as conservatives or liberals or Left or Right. I will simply call them status-quo ists with strong moral absolutes. Some of their economic policy proposals may appear progressive politically but they are typically distributionist policies administered by the heavy hand of the State. There is nothing in them that unleashes the productive and creative energies of the people.
Again, coming back to our report, ‘Can India grow?’, Gulzar and I had spent a bit of time and effort on writing about the leadership qualities that India needs at this stage. We have cited three or four ‘Thirukkural’s. Those ‘Kural’s stress the need for leaders to have fearless, unbiased advisors who would talk the truth to the leaders. At the minimum, the leader has to consult more widely. For now, I am not sure that it is happening in India. Will be glad if I am wrong.
Perhaps, the coming budget will prove us wrong. Hope sustains us in everything.
A penultimate point: it is one thing to dismiss habitual and pathological critics. There are many. Some of them, unfortunately, are losing their personal credibility because they have mixed up issues, exaggerated negatives, pretended that no positives exist, etc. That raises legitimate doubts about their personal agenda, even if there was none. So, their criticism is afflicted by joint hypothesis problems.
A final point: I would submit that this critique be taken away for a year-end reading, resulting in some good resolutions for the New Year!
Funny that a Hong Kong columnist should wish that Hong Kong leadership emulated Indian leadership. Hong Kong’s handling of corruption in the 1970s with high profile arrests and prosecution paved the way for the city-State to become ‘clean’ in the 20th century. India is yet to emulate that. Even the black money drive falls short of that.
When I saw the story that Ms. Merkel would seek a fourth term as German Chancellor my mind went back to a comment that Professor-Philosopher John Gray made about her in a brilliant article after the Brexit vote:
A country whose pre-eminent leader condones the prosecution of a comedian accused of insulting a foreign head of state – as Angela Merkel did earlier this year – cannot be relied on to protect freedom of expression.
It appears that she is so out of touch with the reality in Germany that she thinks she can win. This letter in FT poses the right question about her seeking a fourth term.
This is what Wolfgang Streeck, political economist and Leftist wrote about her decision to let refugees in:
Once again, a decision ‘that will change our country’, as Merkel herself put it, was made without regard for democratic process or, for that matter, constitutional formalities. When Merkel declared the German borders open, there had been no cabinet decision to this effect and no official statement in the Bundestag. Since the opposition didn’t ask, as Merkel knew they wouldn’t, nobody knows to this day what sort of order, legal or not, by whom and when, was given to the police. The Interior Ministry is still refusing requests from leading figures (including the former president of the constitutional court, who was preparing a legal opinion on the matter for the Bavarian government) for access to the ministerial decree that should have been issued to the border authorities. [Link]
Incidentally and interestingly, Wolfgang Streeck wrote this as part of his review of a book by Martin Sandbu (of FT) on Europe. See below as to why I am tickled by this.
She is the icon of the Liberals. So much for liberalism – one of the biggest frauds on earth. It is the same as perfect competition in economics. It exists in textbooks. There is no capitalism without competition, as a friend said – capitalism means free entry and exit and no barriers/resistance to both. What we have today is a parody of capitalism. That is how it has become progressively (pun intended) in the last thirty plus years. Similarly, what we have today is a parody of liberalism. There are no liberals though many proudly call themselves such. To understand what I mean here, read Michael Skapinker’s article today on why (so-called) moral companies do immoral things.
For some genuine liberal stuff, watch this six-minute rant by Jonathan Pie. I stumbled upon it when I checked out the Twitter handle of Jonathan Haidt. Read Mark Lilla’s ‘End of Identity Liberalism’ and read Jonathan Haidt and Ravi Iyer’s joint piece in Wall Street Journal on Nov. 10 as to transcend tribal politics (or,instincts?). I am almost done reading Jonathan Haidt’s ‘The Righteous mind’ (recommended by Nitin Pai of Takshashila Institution).
When I read Mark Lilla write the following:
The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry white male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.
I was reminded of the horrible piece that Martin Sandbu wrote soon after the elections were over, expressing a similar sentiment identified and highlighted above. I had blogged on it here. You can find his piece here.
Although not general, Frank Bruni has a specific message for Democrats which goes along similar lines as the earlier links.
Given how FT has covered Merkel’s announcement, it is very unlikely that FT gets it at all or ever will.