Tuesday, January 24, 2012

71. Are you serious?

It is no secret that women of all hue love to hear 'I Love You'. But try saying it to a stranger on the street and you would know how 'serious' it could turn out to be! That you were 'serious' in saying so holds little relevance, it is considered non-serious by the 'serious' recipient. And, imagine the plight of the guy who would have rehearsed for days to be 'serious' but instead ended-up being taken 'seriously'! Don't get me wrong but I love to narrate awesome but less researched things in our lives and being 'serious' is one among them.

Are you serious about climate change? Are you serious about inflation? Are you serious about your job? What if someone were to respond: 'I'm seriously non-serious about all these and much more'. Will the heavens fall apart? Seriousness has been elusive in every age, and every age has its particular perception to being 'serious'. Our growing culture of surging silliness demands 'seriousness', that can be explored from the height of intellectual endeavor to the depths of political frivolity because being `non-serious' reflects facetious.

Curiously, however, only 'serious' persons are interested in frivolity. And, being frivolous may not necessarily mean that one is not being 'serious'. While 'seriousness' helps you hide the truth, frivolity helps one get away with truth. During one such self-introduction process in a meeting the honest disposition by a participant that he's a 'burglar' was taken lightly. Many had humorously questioned his seriousness: are you serious?

Monday, January 2, 2012

70. Embarrassing statistics

Like met predictions, cricket predictions too go haywire. When cricket pundits predict century for a star player, quite often the entire team is sent packing to the pavilion within the first hundred. From analyzing moisture content in the pitch to assessing the impact of tailwind speed and from measuring the length of grass stubs on the batting arena to predicting which face of the coin will spin up, expert commentators (who are often retired cricketers) leave little to chance in foretelling the outcome of the match, if not the series.

As the expert commentator starts showering heaps of praise on a square cut, the next ball lets the empire finger point upwards. A century of such embarrassing moments could be counted in the course of a test match series. Since each expert encounters such failed predictions, getting away from any unpleasant conversation suits them. The statisticians too play to the gallery, rarely harping on 'failed predictions' by expert commentators and 'embarrassing statistics' of star players.

For the sake of fans and viewers who often feel let down by such over-hype, the selection process should be re-invented to count 'embarrassing moments' while selecting the team. How often has the batsman helped his team lose; how many times the batsman failed to reach double-figure; how often has the bowler been clobbered and how many catches have been missed by each of the players should feature in the selection criteria. It is time we stop counting 50's, 100's and 5-wicket hauls and focus on 'embarrassing statistics' instead. Television and radio channels can take a cue, let the expert commentators be shown the door for accumulating 'failed predictions'!