Tomichan Matheikal's blog

Essay The earlier system of education focused on academic excellence and competition.  The results in written assessments determined the future of the students.  One obtained the career of his choice depending on the scores obtained in various exams.  The system engendered a lot of frustration among many students whose career aspirations were snuffed out by the rat race.  Quite many lives ended even before they began.  Suicides were not uncommon even in institutions of higher learning.  Educators and other guardians of the society were alarmed.  They came to the conclusion that a change in the system was called for. Coupled with the gloom of frustration and suicides was the awareness that arose in psychology that IQ (intelligence quotient) was not necessarily the measure of a person’s intelligence.  Psychologists as well as educationists came up with theories that pushed abstract intelligence out of the limelight.  Robert Sternberg (1949- )posited the triarchic theory of

One of the phone calls that greeted me this New Year’s Day drove me to some serious contemplation.  The friend quoted the example of Galileo who retracted his scientific theory before the religious Inquisitors and later explained his action: “Science doesn’t need martyrs.” My meditation led me to the notion of freedom provided by the 17 th century philosopher, Spinoza.  He argued that we were not totally free.  We are controlled by certain inescapable laws of nature as well as our genetic makeup.  Evil is also an essential part of nature.  “The evil which ensues from evil deeds is not therefore less to be feared because it comes of necessity;” said Spinoza, “whether our actions are free or not, our motives still are hope and fear.” Hope for a better future; fear about the present situation.  The martyr is not afraid for himself; his fear is about the future of the society.  Martyrdom need not be a virtue. To be really great is not to be placed above humanity, ruling

The origin of the art of flattery goes back to time immemorial.  Kings used to keep flatterers in their courts and reward them with treasures for their efforts to make the kings appear greater than they were.  It seems that kings generally suffered from acute inferiority complex which had to be cured with flattery in addition to accoutrements like shiny robes and golden crown. It’s not only kings of the bygone days that craved for flattery, their later counterparts also seem to lap it up earnestly.  Most people in power seem to love flatterers.  Is it because the desire for power and  inferiority complex are two sides of the same coin?  Whatever that be, it seems that the ability to flatter those in power is a valuable life skill.  The benefits one can derive using this art skilfully may not be insignificant at all.  In fact, it is much more useful than intelligence or what is generally known as IQ. Robert Sternberg, psychologist, defined practical intelligence as a

Isaac Asimov was a celebrated science fiction writer.   His IQ was 160, according to a test whose average score is 100.   Once a mechanic demonstrated to Asimov how a dumb person would ask for nails from a hardware shop.   Then the mechanic asked Asimov to demonstrate how a blind person would ask for a pair of scissors.   Asimov made the gestures of cutting with a pair of scissors.   The mechanic laughed and said, “The blind man would ask for it; who told you he’s dumb?”   [Courtesy: B S Warrier’s note in today’s Malayala Manorama ] It seems that the mechanic went on to tell Asimov that he was sure that the latter would fail in this test.   “Why?” asked Asimov surprised.   “You are too learned,” said the mechanic, “so you aren’t likely to be smart .” The trouble with the learned people is that their knowledge tends to act like the horse’s blinkers: they tend to think in a particular pattern.   The parable above may not be the best example for that.   This parable shows how our