We Can't All Be The Head Honcho

People often miss out on the big questions in life. That's because most of us are mindless drones who do what we're supposed to do and don't challenge the system. According to this video, we are either thinkers or leaders, and only thinkers care about the future of society. That's pretty much why this section is rife with logical fallacies, biased assumptions and pretentious ramblings. Fortunately not all the students fall for it.

When it comes to the issue of "big questions" Mark has a point, that "universities cannot give the answer". They are not there for that anyway. A good university wouldn't give you the answer. They would prepare you to find your own answer. The reason why is that the big question is not universal. It is impossible to tell the answer to all the big questions that everybody has. This is where Mark and I differ in thoughts. He seems to believe that there is one universal big question that is more than just our own focus. Gay marriage, abortion, that sort of thing. I, on the other hand, believe that the big question is relative to the person wondering about it.

A brief section of the video is when Deresiewicz and Edmundson discuss the difference between a leader and a thinker. I know, I'm digressing from the "big questions" but bear with me. This led to a fair amount of discussion in the two posts, despite being so small. Mark took this brief argument and made it the main focus of his post. He discussed how people either do or do not fall into the two predefined categories of "leaders" and "thinkers". Shelby also caught this problem. It is a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. But I disagree. People can be placed into two groups. But not leaders and thinkers. Rather, leaders and followers. And it's not such a bad thing being a mindless drone, a follower. After all, social movements would have no impact without the followers. Mindless does not mean useless.

But both of them have their valid points. Mark, for example, says that the definition for "leaders" is more befitting for "tools". And it's true. What Deresiewicz defines as a leader isn't exactly the kind of person that people follow. Think of some examples: Martin Luther King Jr., Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn, Ghandi, Jesus. These people weren't followed because they obeyed the system. They were followed because they challenged the system. Shelby brought up another good point. "Any person can encompasses[sic] both of these 'personalities'". Considering the definitions were either someone who assimilates into a system, or someone who is cynical, both are entirely possible. A person can be brought into a company, and slowly works up the corporate ladder, not just because of good performance, but because of innovative ideas that improve output and profit.

Really, who thinks about social injustice every day of their life? "What is the good life?" was an example of a big question given in the video. That is exactly the kind of question we ask ourselves every day. When we get up in the morning and look at ourselves in the mirror, do we really think "Do homosexuals deserve to be legally married?" or "Does freerice.com really help prevent world hunger?" No, we study our hair and try to brush it to get it that sexy look to attract somebody we like. But Mark wrote something that makes me realize why most of us think that: "Often times it is the 'Thinkers' who ask the 'Big Question'." We are not all thinkers/leaders. Those who question societal norm are true leaders. And like Shelby says, people who are true leaders share qualities of both. The people who get up in the morning and ask themselves "How can I help my people fight oppression?" Those are the Martin Luther King Jr.'s. The people who get up every morning and ask themselves "What military innovation can I use to rule the world with an iron fist?" Those are the Caesar's.

But it's not college where you learn that. Both of them get the wrong idea about college. Shelby talks about how colleges need to provide a "well rounded institution". That's all well and good, but if somebody is naturally a follower, they won't have any innovative ideas. They'll just spew the same material given to them. No matter how much you might train someone to lead, if they're not good at it, they won't succeed. Sarah Palin is the ultimate current example. Mark also uses the same point, that "being a well rounded individual is a key to success". Some of the greatest leaders in the world never made it to higher education: military generals, social revolutionaries, rich people. Here's another real world example: Bill Gates flunked out of Harvard. The key to success isn't your education, it's who you are. Bill Gates became a multi-billionaire because he had the balls to lie to a man about his purpose with DOS.

But that's the way it is. You can't make a leader. They are born. And they are rare. There aren't leaders and thinkers. There are many kinds of people, all with roles to play. All with a purpose in life. That purpose may be small, but it affects others, and in turn those others affect more, and in the end influence will always stretch far. But there will always be the rare person who comes along. That person will challenge conventional thought. They will be the ones who ask "the big questions". And it won't be because someone taught him to. Sure, it might help him to formulate arguments or reach more people, but in the end it will truly be because he was born that way.