Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Rating Our Celebrities

I invite you to a test.

According to Stephen J.Dubner, who co-authored Freakonomics with Steven D. Levitt, being smart is expressing "a lot of mental horsepower, to be sure, but also nuance, precision, conceptual and practical elements combined in the same sentence, and psychological astuteness".

Try rating the "experts" and "elites" celebrated by our mainstream media on a scale of 0 to 10 and you would not be far from solving half of Dodoland's enigma!


Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

Are you really sure that large negative numbers are not possible?

sanjivP said...

Though I would concur that being rated ZERO is just that, that is rating someone as a void is a semantic to being nothing.

The definition of zero goes back to its origin , to the days of Aryabatha, in the late fifth century, when he symbolised the sanskrit definition of void, 'sunya' by our familiar zero.

Hence rating somebody zero is like calling that person a void. In physical terms, zero has no weight.

These days, in Dodoland, carrying aroung our rated personalities would be a rather easy task, since this is tantamount to dragging around very, very light objects.