When it comes to philanthropic endeavors, why Haiti?

The conditions in Haiti are terrible. Death toll estimates range between 50,000 and 200,000, and as many as 3 million Haitians—a third of the population—are said to have been affected. Buildings and entire complexes have been reduced to rubble, and there are powerful images of the devastated Presidential Palace at Port-au-Prince in shambles.

You probably already knew all this, if not more. And you probably know millions upon millions of dollars in aid have been pouring into the relief fund for this terrible disaster. Half of my Facebook friends have Haiti-dedicated profile pictures, and there seems to be a new event regarding the earthquake almost daily. And it’s not just here at Northwestern, because the worldwide response has been incredible.

I hope I’ve established my sympathy to Haitians and the current cause, because it is very sincere. That said, I don’t want to sound like an insensitive ignorant idiot when I bring up the point of this post: Why Haiti? Why has Haiti become the poster child for the hundreds of legitimate causes in desperate need of funding?

Why are so many people picking up their phones and texting “Haiti” to 90999, but no one seems to be giving a cent toward the terrible situation in Darfur? Genocide and violence have displaced 2.7 million people within the country who need protection, according to the Save Darfur Coalition.

Or what about the millions who live in slums in India? “Slumdog Millionaire” might have been a moving film, but the horrors it depicts aren’t fiction. Two million children die each year in the impoverished enclaves of this country with a poverty rate of 38 percent—nearly triple our own rate here in the U.S.

Or even in our own towns: the homeless and hungry who don’t know if they’ll have enough to survive next week?

It’s almost as if giving money to Haiti is the sexy thing to do. It’s the latest fad. Like Livestrong bracelets in the past, it’s become almost a society-wide push now. Maybe it’s the celebrity patronage, maybe it’s the outrageous comments made by Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. The Haiti text messaging drive was making $200,000 an hour after it was released, announced the mGive Foundation, a co-sponsor of the initiative—that kind of generosity doesn’t happen every day. This is all great for Haiti, and the poor nation is truly in need. But the way this disaster has emerged to the forefront of worldwide attention makes it seem like the earthquake in Haiti is the only thing wrong in this world.

Sincere philanthropy should be a constant occurrence, not just the consequence of a mob-like mentality. Support Haiti, but don’t do it because it’s “in” and trendy. And more than that, don’t fall under the delusion that Haitians are the only ones experiencing hardships in this world. After the Haiti disaster is under control, my biggest fear is this sudden emergence of generosity will once again disappear into the shadows.

The heartwarming generosity brings with it a somber reminder. The media and public perception usually picks the winners and losers when it comes to worthwhile causes, but the world’s problems don’t begin or end with Haiti—and our philanthropic endeavors shouldn’t either.

We need more people like Steve Jobs

In roughly one week, Apple Inc. will unveil a new product at their company event. Invites that have been going out recently carry the teaser “Come see our latest creation.” Of course, if you’ve been following the tech world recently, you probably know that this latest creation will be Apple’s first tablet computer. Termed the “iSlate” by followers, this device promises to be truly revolutionary. The device will boast a 10” OLED touch screen display (approximately) that will function as a full service computer with revolutionary gesture sensing touch technology.[1] It’s also rumored to cost upwards of $600 dollars, potentially even $1000. So are you going to buy it? Probably not, right? But that’s also what people said about the iPhone, and the iPhone is now the most popular phone in America[2]. I remember when I first saw the iPhone. I had heard about it, and had wanted one, but didn’t seriously think I would buy one for the price of $600. But then I went to the Apple store, and it was unlike anything I had ever seen before. 20 minutes later, I was walking out with a small Apple bag. When you think about it, Apple has been doing this for years. Companies like Microsoft and Google are very capable companies, but neither match Apple’s leadership in the consumer electronics sector. And that’s because of one man: Steve Jobs.

Job’s leadership is notorious in Silicon Valley. He’s a brilliant guy, but he’s described as one of the hardest bosses around. Known for firing people if they bring anything less than the best, Job’s desire for perfection is well documented. If you disagree with him, you might get fired. If he’s having a bad day and you piss him off, you might even get fired for that. Despite all that, I think he’s one of the best CEOs in the world, and that we need more people like him. Innovation doesn’t come from lax mediocrity. Weak, lenient personalities aren’t going to bring groundbreaking products. Things like the iPhone aren’t created by workers seeking a ho-hum, eyebrow raising product. The jaw dropping, speechless reactions the iPhone gathered came because a strong-willed CEO was willing to settle for something average. There was nothing like the iPhone when it came out, most of the world was still on the RAZR. Do you see RAZRs anymore?

I really don’t think I’m going to buy the iSlate. A net book is far cheaper and probably closer to what I’m looking for. But because of Steve Jobs, I haven’t bought that net book yet. I don’t know how good his “latest creation” is going to be, but I know enough about Steve Jobs to wait.

When he was trying to get PepsiCo’s John Sculley to join Apple, Jobs said, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?”[3] That’s what Steve Jobs does. He might be nearly impossible to work for, and he might be one of the craziest CEO’s out there. But he creates things the whole world wants, and we need more people like that.

Why I’m Undecided

I’m writing blog posts for the DailyNorthwestern weekly now, so I’m just going to cross post those on here too. At least this way there will be more regular content!

—

Declaring your major seems like the kind of thing you would decide for yourself, but as an undeclared major leaning toward economics, I’ve found it’s a choice that was made for me. It was easy in high school when I wasn’t alone in being undecided. And I always went with the assumption that it would just all click for me in college. Somehow, after taking a class at Northwestern and meeting new people, I thought I would have a much better idea of what I want to do. But it didn’t quite work out the way. There was no freshman Fall Quarter epiphany. Instead, a year later, I’m muddling my way through courses as though I’m an econ major.

In my first year, by choosing not to take certain classes, the pruning began. I wasn’t taking a science class—there goes the pre-med route. No art history or philosophy—so those options slowing started dying too. And I didn’t take any McCormick classes, so there goes engineering. I’m not trying to sound like some pocket protector-wearing, calculator-carrying academic enthusiast who wants to exhaust NU’s entire course catalog—I don’t. And yeah, I know if I really wanted to I could start taking Engineering Analysis or organic chemistry and go down a different track, but I don’t want to be an undergrad until I’m 30 either.

Honestly, I don’t think I want to go into any of the fields I mentioned above, nothing against those paths. The problem is, I didn’t actively make that choice. I never said, “I don’t want to be a mechanical engineer,” or, “I don’t want to be a doctor.” By taking the courses I did, the decision was passively made for me.

The econ courses I have taken, ironically, taught me the options I’m forgoing make up the opportunity cost. And that’s the hardest thing for me: coming to terms with that opportunity cost. College is an incredible place, and the opportunity is unbelievable. But as soon as we step onto campus, that opportunity starts diminishing. Not because it stops existing, but because one person cannot possibly take advantage of all of it—or even a significant portion.

In the end, I’m sure I’ll declare an econ major, I’ll work through those classes and maybe I’ll even pick up another minor along the way. But when I declare my major, in some sense it will mark me as officially accepting that opportunity cost. It’ll mark my acceptance that there are some options I’m closing off for good. I’m not ready for those constraints yet, even if the process has been tacitly ongoing for months.

I applaud those who know what they want to do and where they want to go, but I really sympathize with students who aren’t quite ready to make that limiting declaration. It’s really difficult to commit to a major that you aren’t even certain about. It’s an important decision and not one that should be made halfheartedly. But today, one-third of the way through my collegiate career, I still haven’t had that epiphany—that moment when I’m perfectly certain about what I want to do. Hopefully I won’t have to wait as long as the Cubs, but I’m going to stay undecided until I have that moment… at least until some deadline makes that decision for me.

“The one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail”

Yeah I just quoted the Green Goblin. I’m not writing about Spiderman of course, and with how much exposure the story is getting, it’s probably obvious that I’m going to write about Tiger Woods. When I first heard this quote at the movie theatre, it struck me as brilliantly insightful and fitting for the movie - but I sincerely hoped that it was fitting only for the movie.

But of course it applies to the real world, one would be naive to think it doesn’t. Think about Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, Rob Blagojevic, Elliot Spitzer, Kobe, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Vick - I could go on and it’s sad that I could. But whatever the frequency of fallibility in high profile figures says about their character is minuscule compared to what the reaction of the public says about the state of society.

When I first read Tiger’s most recent statement earlier today, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that one of the people I highly admire might have fell from his pedestal, and I questioned how much the character of high profile figures can really be trusted. But what really disappointed me is the whole process, the whole media circus - frankly this is none of our business. Consider how this started - with a single car traffic accident. This everyday occurrence resulted in a $164 dollar fine and four points on Tiger’s driving record. Sure it’snot expected, but it’s not like it’s never happened before. But of course, we aren’t just talking about anyone, we’re talking about Tiger Woods. So instead of sympathizing with Tiger’s minor injuries - as one would in a normal accident - the invasive media obsessed with the situation itself. Why was Tiger out in the middle of the night? Why were his windows smashed? Was he fighting with Elin? Did Elin attack him? Is Tiger cheating on Elin? The absurdity of this just boggles me. It’s 2, Tiger could have been jet-lagged, he could have been hungry for a midnight snack, or maybe he just wanted to go for a drive. In fact, maybe he and Elin did have a fight, like any normal couple, and he wanted some personal space. Again, these things are not expected, but it’s not like they’ve never happened before. The presumptuous media has absolutely no right to conduct “investigative” journalism on this fairly typical matter. They have no right to publish “malicious rumors” and expose an athlete’s personal life to the public microscope - I am 100% behind Tiger in his first statement. As Tiger said, it was a personal issue, and he is completely entitled to keep it that way. I’ve read recent garbage (I’ll water down the word I really want to use) saying that we are “entitled” to know the details of the situation, and “Tiger owes us an explanation.” Okay I’m just going to say it, that’s complete bullshit. If I’m having relationship problems or craving a burger, that’s my business and not the publics - I don’t expect Tiger to tell me what he ate for dinner or how is marriage is going. Anyone who reasons that Tiger, because he is a high profile figure, owes us an explanation is flat out wrong. I can understand the argument that elected officials are accountable to their constituents, but this is completely different. Tiger is an incredibly gifted athlete who has won numerous tournaments though his own talent. The public didn’t elect Tiger to his success nor did he ask us for it - he earned it. Tiger’s accountability to sponsors is a slightly different issues, they pay him good money to represent them. I am more sympathetic to a corporate sponsor requesting an explanation - because they are directly linked to Tiger (or at least his image). And if the sponsor so chooses, they can drop their contract with Tiger and move on; nothing is stopping them. But for the average consumer, don’t claim that because you buy Gatorade Tiger, the man owes you an explanation. If that’s your logic, you should stop buying Gatorade Tiger.

The sad thing is, because it seems that there is more to the Tiger story than a simple crash, the media is going to win. We do not know what will come out the next few days, but it may very well be that Tiger had one or multiple mistresses during his marriage. I don’t condone that, and it is going to make me look at Tiger differently; I don’t think Tiger is impervious to all fault. But it is awful that, with these allegations, the crimes of the media will be overlooked. Maybe Tiger isn’t perfect, I can accept that. But I can’t accept the endless extremes the media will go to expose such stories. Depending on what comes out in the next few days, Tiger might lose some of my respect. But equally, if not more so, he will gain my pity and sympathy - he doesn’t deserve this invasion on his personal life.

Perhaps lost in what I wrote above (it’s been bugging me for a while, I apologize if it became a borderline rant) is what “Tiger-gate” says about society, and why I titled this post with the GG quote.

Frankly, he’s right.

Society has come to a point where it will go from worshiping idols to ripping them apart in a matter or seconds. Forget that we all loved Tiger and root for him every Sunday. Forget that when he’s not playing in a tournament, that tournament might as well cease to exist. Forget that he has his own charitable foundation which is regularly active. And forget that many kids grow up hoping to become like Tiger - often with parental encouragement. Let’s forget all that, and instead now let this transgression ruin everything Tiger ever stood for. Sounds kind of stupid (at least to me), but it’s what’s happening and might continue to happen depending on how events unfold. I can understand curiosity, it’s something I’m guilty of myself. Yes part of me is curious to know what exactly happened here, part of me is curious to know if Tiger cheated. But the obsession society has on scandals like this transcends typical curiosity - this is malicious invasion. Society isn’t just curious to see if Tiger cheated, many want Tiger to have cheated. Many want to see Tiger do wrong. Why? Because it shows that this extraordinary person is still human. Because it shows, despite earning over 1 billion dollars now, that this man is still capable of wrong. Because it shows that he isn’t so great after all; in fact, we might even be better than him.

This sick, twisted notion of reveling in one’s demise sickens me. We shouldn’t have to see our heroes fall to lift us up. It’s one thing to admire a person’s accomplishment, but it’s quite another to think that he or she is perfect and capable of no wrong. And that’s our fault, we shouldn’t have built Tiger up to be some perfect man - because no one is. It should not take an extra-marital affair for society to realize that Tiger isn’t perfect. More than that, fans shouldn’t take away some guilty pleasure from seeing Tiger fall. I don’t mean to say I am above society (I’m not) when I say that this whole Tiger incident has not given me that guilty pleasure. And I don’t think I’m alone, I think many are genuinely sad - but too many are happy. Feel pity for Elin and Tiger for having to deal with this under the scrutinizing public eye. Feel sorrow for their children, who might be too young to realize the happenings right now but will surely be exposed to it later in life. But don’t feel satisfaction in seeing a hero, one that you once loved, fall.

America’s Comeptitive Advantage Part 2

So in the last part, I ended with the point Friedman has already made: Imagination is America’s competitive advantage. Before I move, I just want to clarify that by imagination, I essentially mean innovation. Innovation in how we use energy, make calls, transport ourselves, etc.

What exactly does this mean? To paraphrase Friedman again, his point was essentially that the doomsday sayers are not 100% accurate. Yes, it is becoming ever more inevitable that China will join the US in the ranks of world superpowers, if it hasn’t done so already. But, unlike what many are saying, this does not necessarily mean that China will replace the United States. America has, and certainly can continue to be, the hub of creative thinking where great ideas are born. There’s a reason technology entrepreneurs congregate around Silicon Valley, and there’s a reason why so many world class scientists come to American institutes to conduct their research. There’s a a reason the overwhelming majority of major international companies were started in America. And it’s simple, the American lifestyle and culture inspires creativity and encourages everyone to go out and do their own thing. Or at least it did.

This is what really got to be when I heard the professor speak a couple weeks back, how America might be losing the competitive advantage it has had for over two centuries. The problem itself is an ironic paradox. With the increase of higher education and graduate school education, America is arguable diminishing its age old atmosphere of creativity. Higher education is good for many things. For one, those with a college degree on average well over a million dollars more over their lifetime to non-degree laborers. Coupled with masters degrees or other graduate/specialty degrees, a college education allowed people to go on and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, and other highly respected and well paying careers.

However, there’s a glaring omission on this list: entrepreneurs. This is certainly an arguable topic, but I don’t think entrepreneurship is something that can be taught in the class room. If you are a hopeful future entrepreneur, but go to full time college like most others - you really aren’t sure if the whole entrepreneur thing is going to work out. You don’t know if you’ll just be able to go out there and start some revolutionary company that has a billion dollar IPO, you don’t know if you’ll make the next Microsoft or the next Google. Honestly, if you want to be an entrepreneur but are in college, you probably don’t even know if you can create a small company that just makes ends meet. And because of this uncertainty, you come to college; a degree provides a fall back that still generally assures a good life. I know this, becase I think I fall in this category. If I knew today that I could quit college to start my own company and be set for life, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I don’t, and college is a sense of insurance that will allow me to still fulfill some of my lifelong dreams.

This is where the problem is. By using college as a safeguard, that entrepreneurial spirit is often killed. While one might have gone into college with dreams of creating his own company, 4 years later he’s out there doing interviews looking to work for a firm. College is great for so many things, but not entrepreneurship. College doesn’t teach you how to run a company, how to get venture capital, or many of the other skills needed to innovate. College, rather, largely teaches students higher level skills that allow them to get professional, well-paying jobs. College doesn’t teach one to risk everything they have to create something that could be great, it teaches one to learn, rehearse, and prepare for a relatively static and traveled path in life. I’m not saying college is an all together bad thing; much of our recent economic growth is due to higher level education. But when it comes to entrepreneurship, college needs reforming.

And this is how Friedman ultimately ended his speech, with a call to reform education. Today’s schools are so fantastic if you want to become a doctor, an engineer, an economist, etc - all of which are respectable fields. But when it comes to creating entrepreneurs - what has always been America’s competitive advantage - higher education is woefully lacking. Colleges need to focus more on teaching emerging adults how to innovate and implement, not just learn and follow. Colleges need to encourage and support those who are willing to take a shot and inventing the next big thing. Colleges need to be a nurturing ground for regular ingenuity, not simply repeated adequacy.

Personally, I don’t think college has really helped me further my entrepreneurial goals. I think mine are still alive and entirely possible, but I can’t deny that college has made me think long and hard about setting into a more certain career path. That’s what I think the problem is. College right now is good if you have a set path that you are going to follow and fulfill, but if you’re unsure and are really an entrepreneur at heart - it can be tough. There are so many things here that kill the entrepreneurial spirit and make you think of where your career is “really” going to go in a few years. And that’s a shame, because in these tough economic times, America desperately needs its innovators.

Random Rant

Okay so this isn’t the second part to the last post, I still plan on doing that, this is just a random rant.

This just happened a few minutes ago, and I’m not quite sure what to take from it. I’m president of my dorm, and I asked a member of the exec board how she was doing with an upcoming event. As a little back story, registration for this event is on Tuesday, and she just sent out an email regarding the event yesterday. Quite frankly, that email should have gone out at least two weeks ago, if not earlier. And, more annoyingly, that email should have gone out without me having to nag her at least 15 times to send it out. Yeah I know that sounds like an exaggeration, it’s not. This exec member’s primary responsibility is to see that this event is successful, and right now not only am I disappointed by her effort, I’m afraid as to what will happen. I’ve been taking a more active role to put some safeguard in case this person continues her trend of incapability. I want to see this event be successful, and ultimately the blame, if she fails, will fall back on me.

It would be completely unfair of me if I didn’t consider this from her side, which I have. She is very involved in campus, and in addition to tough class, has many other commitments she has to take care of. I’m sure there are numerous other things I’m not even aware of that add stress to her life as well. Not to mention, she has been sick a week or so ago, and now has to catch up on a weeks worth of missed classes - not an easy task. With all this mental baggage, the last thing she needs right now is my persistent questioning/nagging in her life. Caught up in so many things, she has unfortunately and unintentionally neglected some of her duties on exec board.

This is where I come in, worried and annoyed of her negligence, trying to set things write. Initially (and this is all what I think, I don’t know what she thinks), I tried to be friendly and address the concern, and gently asked her to initiate the process and gave her my trust. A few days later, after no action, I went again. This time, a little disappointed, I was friendly again and asked her to make a deadline for herself, so that there would be something I could hold her accountable to. 6 hours after the deadline, after my many emails and texts, she sent out an email.

Let me pause a moment to say how much it boggles my mind that I had to invest that much time and effort to get one measly email sent out.

Now, and predictably, I have annoyed this board member and if I try to follow up and get updates, I am either ignored or treated with bitterness and frustration - not where I wanted to be. To her, I probably come off as an overbearing, micromanaging, annoying asshole who has no sympathy, can’t understand all she has been through, and is impossible to work for. The thing is, I have tried very hard, and do understand her situation, and I don’t want to be any of those things - I’ve tried actively to avoid that. But at the same time, it is my job to make sure these things get done, and I have to draw the line at some point.

Personal annoyances aside, the biggest thing I take from this is disappointment. I’ve disappointed this exec member has neglected her duty, and I’m disappointed that she’s frustrated with me, because I really would be happy if she did what she was elected to do. I’m sure this is a problem most positions of leadership face, that notion of being the “bad guy” who’s constantly in peoples faces. I really wonder where the ideal balance is. I’m probably a bit more on the micro-managing side than I should be, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as it could be. And the alternative, being completely hands off, would not have good consequences.

More than likely, that email still would’t have gone out.

America’s Competitive Advantage

Okay it’s not two weeks so technically I’m still on pace…better then last time anyways.

So this topic is something that’s been mulling in my head for a long time, years to be honest. It starts with my extended family back in India. Many of them have a somewhat cynical view of America, and given India’s recent economic success, some have - with a little too much excitement - told me things like “So what’s happening to America now? India is the place to be.” For the most part I would brush these aside, reasoning that these relatives are ignorant and biased.

What used to be whispers have spread so much that now you can hardly go a few days without hearing some article or interview claiming that “the end of America” is near. Again, I largely dismissed those claims too - the media has been known to exaggerate before. But last week, during the inauguration of  Northwestern’s new president, Thomas Friedman spoke. After outlining some of the concepts in his book Hot, Flat and Crowded, Friedman moved to the area of education. And here Friedman advocated something that has stuck with me: We need an imagination revolution in education. America’s top export, by far and large, has been ingenuity and innovation - applied imagination in other words. As Friedman argued, our excuses not to use imagination are running out. With the internet, it’s incredibly easy to find a programmer, a graphic designed, a marketer, and any other tools one might need - all we have to do is provide the idea.

Today, a Professor came to my dorm to discuss this speech, and he raised a fascinating point. This Professor, Adam Goodman, recently visited China over the summer. Once Goodman landed in China and entered his cab, he faced a starling revelation. Not knowing any Chinese, Goodman figured he should be fine; after all he was leaving a major international airport. So, without hesitation, Goodman proceeded to give his driver directions in English. The driver responded with a blank look - not only did he not know English, he didn’t care. And, according to Goodman, this is when he knew that one day, very soon, America will no longer be the lone superpower of the world (if we can even retain that status). Discussing this issue in China, Goodman heard someone profound. As Goodman explained how he felt America’s time was up, this man responded, “No see, we are great at taking ideas and streamlining them to make them better - that’s our specialty. But we still need America to come up with the ideas for us.” Like Friedman said, imagination is our competitive advantage.

I’m going to write soon (like hopefully this weekend) about the future of this competitive advantage, unfortunately right now there isn’t enough time. But the follow up to this post will be up very soon.

The Body Type - Personality Relationship

This is actually one of many topics I’ve been thinking about for a while - another problem with taking a break over a month. But I noticed this a lot as I moved back into college. Those first few days, there are all the initial introductions, and keeping up with names is challenge enough. But after a week or two, you really get to start to know some people. And as I get to know more people I really start to notice similarities between people I already know. This absolutely might just be me, but I so often think “wow, person X really reminds of person Y from high school”  And it’s not just because they act the same, it’s because the look similar too. For me, Person X and person Y share key traits in appearance and character. So I’m wondering does body type play a fundamental role in shaping up personality? Maybe it’s vice versa? Or maybe, better yet, it’s neither, and just largely in my head. Let’s consider each of the possibilities:

• Body Type » Personality
  • The concept is simple enough - based on the limitations your body places on you, there are consequences to what you can do and subsequently who you become. For example, take an athletically gifted child. From the start, this kid is going to play spots, get involved in teams, and spend key moments of his/her life with teammates and on the field. This is going to lead to a certain type of personality, and certain types of behaviors, that will probably carry over to personality and character development. Similarly, think of someone who is fairly big, not necessarily obese, but tall and large. This person is typically going to be bigger than any peers, and this could lead to different type of personality development, maybe one that’s more leadershipesque. Similarly, those with smaller figures might get used to being adored, but unfortunately these people might not be taken too seriously because of a short stature. Is this person more likely to be turned away from leadership and more towards charming people?
• Personality » Body Type
  • Even as I was writing the previous section, I realize there are obvious exceptions, some famous to all, others very notable to me personally. And it’s definitely too much of a generalization, there are many diminutive leaders, just as there are large laborers. Which makes me think maybe is is personality that is dominant, and that affects our bodies. Someone with a very easy going, accepting personality will probably take life as it goes. They’ll eat what they want, take part in physical activities, but not stick to some strict workout regiment. Depending on metabolism and daily diet, they might be average or obese. On the other side, someone who has the personality of a perfectionist, they might regulate their body and workout routine extensively to have a very fit body.
• It’s in our heads
  • Ultimately (and I kind of came to this conclusion while writing this article) a lot of it is mental. I feel that people in general have a desire to find connections, and in terms of this, it’s exaggerated. We see a few notable similarities that are reasonable, but then we start to see similarities that are stretches, and some that simply aren’t there. And through these errors in our memory, we make two people much more similar than they really are. To address the earlier ideas (the effect of body on personality and vice versa), I think they have legitimate applications. In some instances, personality can really be defined by body, and body can really be modified by personality - but in no way is either school of thought universal. Overwhelmingly, personalities are too complex to attribute purely body type, and a lot of the similarities we see in people are creations from our desire to connect. So next time you meet someone new and think they are exactly like someone you already know - be careful - that might be an error on your part more than anything.

Catching Up/Sophomore Year

Wow, I don’t want to make a habit of this, but it’s been almost 2 months since my last post. I won’t spend 5 minutes talking about how shocked I am and how much more often I’ll try to post, but I will say that I’m making a realistic goal of posting once a week. We’ll see how that goes though - not committing to anything.

Anyways, over the past 2 months, I finished up my summer and moved back to Northwestern for my sophomore year. Summer was relaxed and refreshing, but it’s really nice to get back into a routine at college. I’m living in the same dorm in a nice sized single, which I love. Since I am a self declared introvert, it’s nice to have this place to retreat to. That being said there’s plenty of room so any high school friends reading this, definitely come visit soon. Classes are all very interesting, taking my first poli-sci class, international law, which I’m almost  positive I’ll end up writing about in the near future. My econ class is somewhat math based, but it also applies to the real world, which makes it really nice. Arabic is picking up again and it’s not easy, but it’s doable and an incredible language. And my final class, early modern Indian history, is something I’ve been wanting to take for a long time. Growing up in America, I’ve never really known even close to what I should know about my heritage, and it’s so fascinating to finally gain some of that. That professor is great too - passion is so important in teaching.

So for this blog going forward, I’m probably just going to stick to the stream of conscious/random thoughts trend I’ve usually had with my topics, sorry if that’s incredibly frustrating for some. This is meant to be something that’s fun for me more than anything, so I really just want to write about what’s interesting and easy for me to talk about. But comments and feedback are always appreciated (unless you’re making fun of my typos - jerks).

Competition vs. Dominance

If you were to ask me to name my favorite athletes, the list would be something like: Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning. I know, you could call me a frontrunner because all these athletes have been highly successful and accomplished some of the greatest achievements in their respective sports. And you would be partially right, it certainly is easier to root for someone when they win.

But the main reason I root for all those athletes is not just because they win, it is because they are dominant perfectionists. These athletes aren’t one time wonders, they have repeatedly succeeded and are arguably some of the best athletes in history. This argument is possible because they have performed at the highest level consistently. Sure these guys are talented, and that does account for some of their success, but many athletes are talented. What truly separates these athletes, and why I tirelessly root for them, is the fact that they are perfectionists. These athletes are some of the hardest workers around, they truly love their sports and never stop working to be the best possible. I admire this quality because it’s something I want to live by, and that’s why it is so natural and easy for me to root for guys like Tiger and Federer. So I can understand why I could be accused of jumping on the bandwagon, but that’s not why I root for them. I support my athletes not just because of their success - rather I give my support because I admire their constant pursuit for perfection.

All that being said, what I’m really wondering right now is if I would rather see competition or dominance. I think the easy answer for me is dominance. When Federer was on his ridiculous 3 year stretch, where her won 9 grand slams and pretty much never lost - well I loved every moment of it. I loved turning on the TV and knowing that Federer would win no matter what tournament it was (except Rolland Garros). I enjoyed watching his hard work pay off, as he gracefully beat one player after another. But those days are gone, today the US open is less than two weeks away, and I think any one of four men (at least) could win the title. And in other sports, Tiger gave up a final round lead for the first time in history today as he lost the PGA Championship. Tom Brady went out last year because of a season ending knee injury. As dominant as these men have been in the past, there is an opening right now, other atheletes have a chance - there is competition. And I don’t really like it, I don’t like seeing Federer losing in the quarter finals, or Tiger going one calender year without a major - because for me that represents what I value most still not paying off.

But I can’t say I hate competition. I don’t like watching it necessarily. I don’t like watching Nadal time and time again beat Federer, and I don’t like watching Tiger let a major slip through his fingers. But there are certainly good effects that come from this. Of course it’s refreshing to see a new face win for once, and show the rest of the world that these Sport Goliaths are human. And it’s nice to see some parity - dominance can get boring. For me, however, the most important consequence of competition is that it inspires future dominance. Because of the emergence of Nadal, Federer has had to work harder than ever before to keep up, and honestly he has become a better player because of it. The same could be said of any dominating figure who faces competition. A threat to one’s dominance will only inspire that person to practice harder - in hopes of preserving that dominance.

So I will grudgingly say that I like competition. I don’t really like watching it as it happens, and I still feel bad when Federer or Tiger lose, but I take the time to realize that those losses only inspire them to try harder for future wins. So competition in the present often gives birth to future dominance. Competition are Dominance are not mutually exclusive, rather they are the opposite. Without competition we would not have periods of dominance, and that’s why I like competition.