Education is not the amount of information that is put into your brain and runs riot there, undigested, all your life. We must have life-building, man-making, character-making assimilation of ideas… If education were identical with information, the libraries are the sages in the world, and encyclopedias are the rishis. Getting by heart the thoughts of others in a foreign language and stuffing your brain with them and taking some University degree, you consider yourself educated. Is this education? What is the goal of your education? Open your eyes and see what a piteous cry for food is rising in the land of Bharata, proverbial for its food. Will your education fulfil this want?
We want that education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded and by which one can stand on one’s own feet. What we need to study, independent of foreign control, are different branches of knowledge that is our own, and with it the English language and Western science; we need technical education and all else that will develop industries so that men, instead of seeking for service, may earn enough to provide for themselves and save against a rainy day. The end of all education, all training, should be man-making. The end and aim of all training are to make the man grow. The training by which the current expression of will is brought under control and becomes fruitful is called education. What our country now wants are muscles of iron and nerves of steel, gigantic wills, which nothing can resist, which can penetrate the mysteries and secrets of the universe and will accomplish their purpose in any fashion, even if it meant going down to the bottom of the ocean, meeting death face to face.
There is only one method of attaining knowledge. It is by concentration. The very essence of education is concentration of mind. From the lowest to the highest man, all have to use the same method to attain knowledge. The chemist who works in the laboratory concentrates on elements to analyze them. Knowledge is acquired by concentration.
A few years ago I was on my boat with one of my employees, a great guy named Keenon; I was supposed to be giving him pep talk and performance review. “When l think of what we do, I describe it as uncovering the riptide”, I said. “Uncovering the riptide,” Keenon said. “Yes, the idea is that we – you and I and everyone here – have the skills to identify the psychological forces that are pulling us away from shore and use them to get somewhere more productive.” “Somewhere more productive,” Keenon said. “Exactly,” I said. “To a place where we can…” We had talked for about forty-five minutes when my son Brandon, who runs operations for the Black Swan Group,broke out laughing.
“I can’t take it anymore! Don’t you see ? Really, Dad, don’t you see ?” I blinked. Did I see what? asked him. “All Keenon is doing is mirroring you. And he’s been doing it for almost an hour.” “Oh,” I said, my face going red as Keenon began to laugh. He was totally right. Keenon had been playing with me the entire time, using the psychological tool that works most effectively with assertive guys like me: the mirror. Your personal negotiation style – and that of your counterpart – is formed through childhood, schooling, family, culture and a million other factors; by recognizing it you can identify your negotiating strengths and weaknesses (and those of your counterpart) and adjust your mind-set and strategies accordingly. Negotiation style is a crucial variable in bargaining. If you don’t know what instinct will tell you or the other side to do in various circumstances, you’ll have massive trouble gaming out effective strategies and tactics. You and your counterpart have habits of mind and behaviour, and once you identify them you can leverage them in a strategic manner. Just like Keenon did.
There’s an entire library unto itself of research into the archetypes and behavioral profiles of all the possible people you’re bound to meet at the negotiating table.It’s flat-out overwhelming, so much so that it loses its utility. Over the last few years, in an effort primarily led by my son Brandon, we’ve consolidated and simplified all that research, cross-referencing it with our experiences in the field and the case studies of our business school students, and found that people fall into three broad categories. Some people are Accommodators; others-like me-are basically Assertive; and the rest are data-loving Analysts.
After a journalist and feminist activist had successfully petitioned to have a renowned female literary figure appear on new banknotes using the internet, Twitter trolls inundated her with threats of rape and violence. It took another petition and a media storm to overcome the inertia that seems to exist when social networks and the police are asked to deal with online abuse. When a female member of Parliament stepped in to support the feminist campaigner, the Twitter trolls began to target her too. And in the latest twist, several female journalists were sent bomb threats. So who are the trolls sending these messages? And what motivates them to behave like this?
The Gyges effect—the way that the internet can encourage a disinhibition people simply would not experience face-to-face—is only part of the explanation. Linked to that is the way the internet allows us to shut down our sense of empathy. In a nutshell, we are sending words through a screen, and seeing words come back. No tone of voice, facial expressions, or body language. This makes it easy not only to pretend there isn’t a real, emotional, possibly fragile human being at the other end, but also to play down any emotional reaction that they convey back as an exaggeration or a lie.
One motive for trolling, and perhaps one we’re all most familiar with, seems to be simple boredom—too much free time after school, at work, or between jobs. These are the individuals who are trolling to kill a few hours, entertain themselves, and even impress others of a similar mindset. Groups of trolls coalesce on bulletin-board sites where they post links to targets that might prove “fun”, and compete with each other to see who can be the funniest, cleverest, or most extreme. Interestingly, those same sites also tend to be the powerhouses that generate internet “memes”—popular concepts that spread beyond the internet to become part of our offline culture.
A second motive appears to be a need for attention, a craving that will accept any kind of attention, however positive or negative, as long as that person is at the centre of it. Such individuals may not just post offensive messages, but also annoyingly implausible stories, grand claims, and obvious lies.
A third motive seems to involve a sense of disenfranchisement. In a climate where even graduates with good degrees are struggling to find jobs, and house prices make getting on the property ladder an impossible dream for many, it’s little surprise that a section of the population may consider themselves short-changed. It would take a strong character not to feel a sense of injustice at the fact that, a generation earlier, their exact counterparts were walking into secure, lifelong employment and able to buy nice homes.
Democracy, often hailed as the most equitable form of governance, is a system where power ultimately rests in the hands of the people. The word itself derives from the Greek words ‘demos’ meaning ‘people’ and ‘kratos’ meaning ‘power’ or ‘rule’. Democracy aims to provide equal political participation and protect the individual freedoms of all citizens. However, while the ideal of democracy is simple, its practice is frequently complex and fraught with challenges. At its core, democracy functions on the principle of majority rule, yet it simultaneously guarantees the protection of minority rights.
This balance ensures that while the majority has the power to make decisions through voting, the fundamental rights of minorities are not trampled upon. Such a system requires consistent vigilance and respect for the rule of law. Without these, democracies can devolve into majoritarian tyranny or authoritarianism. The practice of democracy is not merely limited to voting in elections. It encompasses freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, free press, and protection of individual rights. These elements together create a political environment where citizens can express dissent, hold leaders accountable, and participate actively in decision-making. When any one component is weakened, the democratic process becomes vulnerable. In recent times, democracies worldwide have grappled with new challenges. The rise of misinformation and ‘fake news’ has eroded public trust in institutions and polarized societies. Social media platforms, meant to facilitate communication, have sometimes amplified divisive narratives and falsehoods. This has resulted in voter manipulation and a growing skepticism towards democratic processes. Literacy in media and critical thinking is increasingly vital to safeguard democracy from such threats.
Economic inequality poses another significant challenge. While democracies promise equal rights politically, vast disparities in wealth and opportunity undermine this ideal. Economic power often translates into political influence, skewing representation and policy-making. This phenomenon raises questions about whether true democracy is achievable without addressing socioeconomic inequalities.
Furthermore, the involvement of citizens is crucial. Democracy thrives when people are informed, engaged, and willing to participate beyond just casting votes. Civic education and awareness campaigns play an essential role in nurturing responsible citizenship. Apathetic or disengaged electorates weaken the democratic fabric, opening avenues for corruption and authoritarian tendencies. In conclusion, democracy is a dynamic and evolving system that requires constant effort to sustain. It is a system built on ideals of equality, freedom, and justice but challenged by human complexities and contemporary issues. The survival of democracy depends on the collective responsibility of governments and citizens to protect its pillars and ensure inclusive, fair governance.
Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evidence, and of evidence relayed through the flawed perceptual, retentive, and narrative abilities of witnesses, a jury is forced to draw inferences in its attempt to ascertain the truth. By applying the same cognitive tools they have developed and used over a lifetime, jurors engage in the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding. In certain decision-making contexts that are relevant to the trial of lawsuits, however, these normally reliable cognitive tools may cause jurors to commit inferential errors that distort rather than reveal the truth.
Although juries can make a variety of inferential errors, most of these mistakes in judgment involve the drawing of an unwarranted conclusion from the evidence, that is, in reality, it does not prove. For example, evidence that the defendant in a criminal prosecution has a prior conviction may encourage jurors to presume the defendant’s guilt, because of their preconception that a person previously convicted of a crime must be inclined toward repeated criminal behavior. That commonly held belief is at least a partial distortion of reality; not all former convicts engage in repeated criminal behavior. Also, a jury may give more probative weight than objective analysis would allow to vivid photographic evidence depicting a shooting victim’s wounds, or may underestimate the weight of defense testimony that is not delivered in a sufficiently forceful or persuasive manner. Finally, complex or voluminous evidence might be so confusing to a jury that its members would draw totally unwarranted conclusions or even ignore the evidence entirely.
Recent empirical research in cognitive psychology suggests that people tend to commit inferential errors like these under certain predictable circumstances. By examining the available information, the situation, and the type of decision being made, cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or a group is likely to make. These patterns of human decision-making may provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of the jury’s inferential processes in certain situations.
The fact that juries can commit inferential errors that jeopardize the accuracy of the fact-finding process is not unknown to the courts. In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimize jury inferential error through explanation and clarification. Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.
