Saturday, October 30, 2004

 

Nab's Triangle

1. Great minds discuss ideas.
2. Average minds discuss events.
3. Small minds discuss people.

With few exceptions, I think people can safely be categorized into one of the above principle groups based on what they most enjoy discussing. Most of us are fed our thoughts by the media, and since we are what we eat, it follows that we are also what we read/watch/follow in newspapers/magazines/TV etc. The majority of us would fall under the third group, the People group. This is the one that enjoys discussing people around us and people we are totally unrelated to, but strive to be like them for materialistic reasons. The Events group is the one that enjoys active discussion of world and local events. Lastly, the Ideas group is the group of people who discuss new and old ideas and ideologies.

The triangle below shows how each group fits with the media.





The higher you are in the Triangle, the more intellectual you probably are. I will now describe each group in greater detail.

Those who follow the People sector are, for the most part, too preoccupied with their trivial lives that they can no longer find time to take a peek at the other side of the wall. It has been discussed numerously before; they are usually sufferers of AAD (RealTM, August 2004.) The underlying symptom behind their juvenile behaviour is their incapacity to original thoughts. Their opinions are usually driven by what they hear from the mainstream media (the People sector of Nab's Triangle) and they have the misled impression that if everyone else believes in something, it must be true. As the Third Principle implies, these people excel at discussing people (i.e. gossip) because such a form of discussion requires little-to-no original thinking, because the majority of the discussion involves reiterating speeches and stories that are of very small Mind Nutrition Value. They avoid unconventional topics because they are not accustomed to the depth involved in them. As a result, the People sector of the Triangle does not cover unconventional issues. The result is a narrow minded, blurry scope that lacks originality and appeal. It can be said that such people are so preoccupied with their soap opera lives and TV that they no longer have time to create their own thoughts. Therefore, they must use pre-packaged thoughts and ideas manufactured by the mainstream media. This sector refuses to accept changes because change would involve rethinking and reforming ideas.

The Events sector might be the most complex because it contains the most diverse people, in terms of interests, intellect and backgrounds. The Events sector of the Triangle shows us that the media coverage here focuses on, well, events mostly. Events from around the globe that deal with politics, society, sports and so on. What distinguishes this group from the previous is the fact that Events people can reflect over what they read and they have the capability to comment on the events with their own thoughts. In a way, the Events people are the mediators between the people and the ideas.

Finally we come to the group of people of which we have the least individuals. These people are capable of discussing anything, but what they enjoy most is discussing ideas that can have a direct effect on events and therefore can affect people. These people are more intelligent because they realize how the Triangle works. Their thoughts are unformulated, they question everything they see and hear, and they are not easily influenced by people who fall under the Events and People groups. Their speech sounds original and moving. Oftentimes, the Ideas people are not appreciated by the People people, because the originality of the Ideas people is unconventional, and small minds are incapable or processing unconventional info.

Clearly, ideas shape events that shape people. This top-down process gives the greatest amount of power to the fewest number of people. Remind you of something?

In feudal societies great power was in the hands of the few. But we live in the enlightened society right? The society of individualism, property rights and representative democracy. That's about as true as this. Obviously, we aren't as enlightened as we thought. When the majority of the people can fit into the Events bracket we can truly say that society has advanced.

Comments:
hey nab, that is a good article and the idea is clear but just the fact that you wrote this article makes you a small mind. Aren't you gossiping in the blogging world by categorizing people! That's what gossip does, categorizes people. Also, you have to realize that there is nothing wrong with discussing people, not that you say it but the impression of the article suggests it. Ideas come from people and talking about people is talking about their ideas, indirectly. Please prove me wrong, maybe, I am just looking too much into this.
 
"Aren't you gossiping in the blogging world by categorizing people!"

Eeek. That's some bad deduction.

gos·sip n.

1. Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
3. Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
4. A close friend or companion.
5. Chiefly British. A godparent.

cat·e·go·rize tr.v. cat·e·go·rized, cat·e·go·riz·ing, cat·e·go·riz·es

To put into a category or categories; classify.

I guess sociologist and anthropologist are just gossipers.
 
The article presents an idea and an original thought. Nab 1, Ank 0.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Good model, as I have agreed earlier. However as is the case with every model, it presents a very simplified view of the real phenomenon. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate the usefulness of these models in trying to understand what is going on in the world.
We should always leave enough room in our minds for other variables in real life, that would render the model quite complicated, and closer to real life. And I guess the bigger goal is to try to understand and appreciate the various aspects of life that cause people to act in the ways they do, rather than criticising people, because, unless we can connect with people in an approachable manner, we wont be able to bring any positive change in these attitudes, that seem to limit their scopes of life. Then again comes the big question, what is really the scope of one's life? While there is no clear answer to that, I'd like to believe that it is definitely NOT: "being taken advantage of, by other people"
 
The fact that you handled the reply immaturely just made the score Anks 1 Nab -10 because all I did was present my thought to you on this issue and if u read carefully, I asked you to prove me wrong because I was debating whether you blogging about this topic in itself isn't talking about people on its own level. I guess small minds wouldn't understand my side of things
 
Ankstotle. The very first sentence in this article says that great minds discuss ideas. The entire article presents a substantially original idea, even though it involves discussing people. The extended description of the Third Principle says the following: “These people are capable of discussing _anything_, but what they enjoy most is discussing ideas…” So, it is safe for great minders to discuss people in the non-gossip manner (see RealTM’s comment for definitions.) What must be realized is that small minds discuss people rather that ideas that underlie people’s behaviour.
I do realize that there is nothing wrong with discussing people, or I would’ve stated so explicitly. I am only labelling their mental capacity.
You also said, “Ideas come from people and talking about people is talking about their ideas, indirectly.” Following your logic (or lack of, if we must say), discussing J.Lo’s ass would indirectly be discussing her great ideas. The only way this can be true is if her ideas do literally emerge from her ass. And yes, I do know that I am blogging about people, but that is not an issue when I am presenting an idea.
Lastly, how was my reply to your comment immature? I simply stated that the article presents and idea, and it therefore qualifies as a discussion by a great mind. So your comment was quite unneccessary. To put it another way, I countered your entire rabble of critique by a single sentence.
Let’s not turn this into a flame war, but Nab 2, Ank 0.
 
i must have just misread it then.. for some reason, i got the idea from your article that if you are discussing people, you are a small mind but I didn't put much thought into it when i wrote my first post.. Thanks for clearing that up for me tho. and i appreciate your humour about the score keeping but I don't think that's what blogging and commenting about it is all about so I will just save me some time by not getting back at you for it
 
I will try to help Ankstotle out. I think the immaturity in your reply, Nab, was that you keep the score, even though it might be implied as humour, it is not right to use it when you are in a debate, and foremost, and more importantly, not to keep the score yourself. I believe it is in the hands of a "third" person to judge who is being more convincing in a debate. Bringing in score-keeping makes everything go off-topic, as is seen in Ankstotles reply, where he (for some reason I think Ankstotle is male) tries to get back at you, Nab, and even continues with the none-sense score keeping. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong (any of you two), but that's just my original thought, not meaning that I put myself in the top category of "Nab's triangle".

Now to that triangle.

I almost agree with the general idea, but then again, I thought a little deeper. From growing up I can say that I have made experience with all of these types of people, but I have also made experience with people who are just focused on discussing ideas (Great minds as you say). These people seem to be ignorant of the, I won't say events, but definetely of the PEOPLE people. I can't find another way to categorize such people but as nerds, at this time (it's 2 am and I'm tired). They tend to have a superiority to the other people.

You put it this way in your article: "Oftentimes, the Ideas people are not appreciated by the People people, because the originality of the Ideas people is unconventional, and small minds are incapable of processing unconventional info." This makes me think of Bush, yes Bush, and how his ideas affect the people of America, or even the world. Now, I know there are people who agree with Bush's views (half of the USA unfortunately, and ununderstandably), and they would categorize him very high in your triangle, but what about the people who dislike him? You say that if people are not appreciative of the thoughts of IDEAS people , it makes them small minded because they are "incapable of processing unconventional info", as you say. This can lead some to agree more with the middle part of the triangle than with the top part, and therefore categorize somebody totally different. My point is that you cannot have the triangle as a general idea for everybody, but only on an individual basis, because no one thinks on the same level, and therefore one categorizes people according to one's own level of knowledge or thought capacity.

These are basically my ideas about your article, and i'd appreciate if you correct me on anything that you think I might have interpreted in the wrong way. Without keeping the score if possible :-) I am not trying to beat you with a better idea, but only to come to a complete, thought-out idea that is influenced by several minds.
For now,
Arrivederci, Au revoir, Auf Wiedersehen, Good Bye!!
You are given the right to guess whose comment this is until I become a member of this Blogworld.
-Badfinger08-
 
I appreciate your feedback, Badfinger. Most of what you say is true. The Triangle is no more than a model, and no model is a perfect representation of real life. I am a strong believer in individual differences, and ironically, it is through the differences (which lead to similarities) that people are often generalized.
 
This is all incoherent babble...

Sorry, bad mood. But for those of you who were intrigued by this article as much as I was I suggest you check back later next week. I hope to write a follow up to it. As you can see, I have been inactive for quite a few days largely due to the horrible timing of midterm exams and assignments.

For that last anonymous poster, I eagerly await your arrival in the blogosphere as long as you promise not to put "unnecessary" quotation "marks" around words. I'm a bit picky. Also, I assume Nab already knows who you are since you insist on playing a little guessing game with him. If he doesn't then I suggest you quit while you're ahead. Oh, and I think you are a girl/female/woman/whatever makes you feel comfortable. Good guess on Ankstotle by the way!
 
Still lazy to sign up! I would really like for you, RealTm, to point out for me where I have unnecessary quotation marks, because from the essay-writing studies that I've done, I am confident to say that the quotation marks are used in the best way possible. When you quote someone, you put it in quotation marks! Now if you mean something else, like that I've quoted too much then you could be right. Even i think that my response was too long anyway, but I had enough time.
And I don't think it was necessary for me to guess who Ankstotle was, but like I said, I had enough time, and I felt like writing. If I guessed wrong, it won't happen again. Some logic..hahaha.
Now to your guess, RealTm!
Very bad! All I have to say for now.
Have a good night/day whatever applies!
-Badfinger08
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?