And an idle question after reading this,
"Woods's appeal was based, ultimately, not on his physical abilities but on his mental toughness, his extraordinary capacity for focus and discipline... In other words, Woods has been presented as the embodiment of bourgeois virtues: dedication, hard work, single-mindedness. Indeed, when, in 2008, Woods won the U.S. Open while essentially playing on one leg, the Times' David Brooks devoted a column to his extraordinary ability to block out distraction and focus on the matter at hand, dubbing him 'the exemplar of mental discipline' for our time. For millions of people--many of them, to be sure, affluent middle-aged white guys--Woods embodied an approach not just to golf but to life."-
What about Sachin Tendulkar?
If you are outraged at my question, then I suppose I can come back at you, saying you are suffering from something called fundamental attribution error (FAE).
That is what this article at The Frontal Cortex, where I found all this, says.
Do you think it is true we do this?:-
"Simply put, the FAE occurs when people overestimate the importance of supposedly 'fundamental' personality traits and underestimate the importance of variables like context."
For, do you think all our idols are infallible, and are without any of the weakness of the sort that bugged Tiger? Or, just any other flaw- not the minor kind, but really major.
We idolise those who capture our imagination. For example, Kapil in my case. I always expected him to be infallible. But when match fixing episode broke out and his name was bandied around, it hurt my feelings. Then I was reading an article by Sandipan Deb in Outlook. In short, he was saying even if Kapil fixed matches, he still is Kapil for him as there numerous matches that he performed and won it for India, especially the 175 and the world cup. It made me accept that Kapil could have done something wrong but still he is my idol for what he did on the field for more than 75% of his playing time.
ReplyDeleteEnd of the day an Idol could be as good or bad as any other human being. He may strong in one area that makes you like him and he may be weak in another area that may not affect you personally.
Yes, right, we tend to idolise.
ReplyDeleteBut the more basic question is that the blog says there are no significantly fundamental character values as such apart from the context in which they are seen to operate.
In the blog you will find this example:
"The same thing happens when you meet someone in a bar and assume they are always talkative and outgoing. What you've failed to consider is the four beers and two shots that preceded your conversation. The drunk extrovert might be shy in a different and more sober situation."
Someone who is honest in his home need not necessarily be honest in his office. Or, someone efficient and organised at his work need not be so in his private life and so on...
I would have liked Sachin even if he had some of Tiger's side-dish habits. He has excelled in classical cricket while only a handful of others have tried that-often unsuccessfully.
ReplyDelete"The same thing happens when you meet someone in a bar and assume they are always talkative and outgoing. What you've failed to consider is the four beers and two shots that preceded your conversation. The drunk extrovert might be shy in a different and more sober situation."
This is a common occurrence. Judge at first sight to save your self the 'effort' again. This is why organisations don't live up to their full potential. This causes mental breakdown in people.
But not everyone can take it that way. A sense of betrayal is the more common reaction, I think.
ReplyDelete