The writer has had a continuing interaction with academia (and think-tanks). And thus while it takes time (to read voluminous research notes and materials) he has enthusiastically mentored a couple of PhD candidates. Where he’d focus them is in the construct of their hypotheses. Surely they could teach the writer loads about the requisite stochastic or algorithmic exercises to test these hypotheses – especially in Eastern Europe where they have an abundance of quants or quantitative analysts.
“Why does the US beat Europe in innovation, especially in commercializing more and bigger ideas (a Belgian friend asked the writer many years ago)? Granted they spend more on R&D – but beyond that, they bring a different perspective in idea generation”. That is the typical starting point when the writer is focusing a PhD candidate in developing a hypothesis! (We ought to seriously ask ourselves the same question because we don’t have a product-development heritage? But more to the point, decades after the world adjudged us a high-potential country, how come we’re still underdeveloped – we can’t keep running round in circles?)
“They ‘start with the end in view’ – instead of filling their thoughts with immovable barriers they expect to encounter along the way” (the “knee-jerk” the writer observes in developing countries – as opposed to a “can-do” attitude)! While algorithmic exercises are inherently linear, constructing a hypothesis should not be – because the object when describing the end goal is clarity!
When clarity is established at the get-go, the way forward is much clearer. Perceived obstacles are put in perspective as opposed to turning them into insurmountable barriers. Net, energy and enthusiasm must not be compromised and undermined by negative thoughts!
Do we wish to internalize what the World Bank, the ADB and Moody’s (and the foreign chambers) are telling us about our economy – that our goal is to be a developed economy; and such an economy is characterized by high investment levels and high competitiveness and low poverty? They are “starting with the end in view”! (But our comfort zone is in linear and incremental thinking?) Do we wish to apply academic rigor to their hypothesis?
Do we find their hypothesis too simplistic – thus too good to be true? Or do we foresee loads of obstacles – thus unrealistic?
As Bill Gates says in awe, simple is the genius of Warren Buffett. But of course there are barriers – i.e., corruption and crony capitalism! But they are man- or Filipino-made? We should take personal responsibility in slaying them: “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God which are God’s”? We can’t keep passing responsibility to our “muchacho” . . . and then asking for “awa ng Diyos”: (1) we have to learn to focus like a laser – so that these perceived barriers turn into an obstacle course that can be navigated, (2) given a mindset that is dynamic, inquisitive and forward-looking, and (3) as importantly, defeatism has no place in development work – or in winning or success, for that matter.
The writer has talked about our culture of compassion and inclusion – does it make it difficult for us to focus like a laser? Because to focus is to be “suplado” – i.e., we will be forced to prioritize and make choices, “for or against”? Yet we can be “suplado” given our “señorito-muchacho” culture? So we can be “suplado” in the positive sense – with the view to expanding our economic pie and bring prosperity to Filipinos?
And let’s get off that carousel?
“Why does the US beat Europe in innovation, especially in commercializing more and bigger ideas (a Belgian friend asked the writer many years ago)? Granted they spend more on R&D – but beyond that, they bring a different perspective in idea generation”. That is the typical starting point when the writer is focusing a PhD candidate in developing a hypothesis! (We ought to seriously ask ourselves the same question because we don’t have a product-development heritage? But more to the point, decades after the world adjudged us a high-potential country, how come we’re still underdeveloped – we can’t keep running round in circles?)
“They ‘start with the end in view’ – instead of filling their thoughts with immovable barriers they expect to encounter along the way” (the “knee-jerk” the writer observes in developing countries – as opposed to a “can-do” attitude)! While algorithmic exercises are inherently linear, constructing a hypothesis should not be – because the object when describing the end goal is clarity!
When clarity is established at the get-go, the way forward is much clearer. Perceived obstacles are put in perspective as opposed to turning them into insurmountable barriers. Net, energy and enthusiasm must not be compromised and undermined by negative thoughts!
Do we wish to internalize what the World Bank, the ADB and Moody’s (and the foreign chambers) are telling us about our economy – that our goal is to be a developed economy; and such an economy is characterized by high investment levels and high competitiveness and low poverty? They are “starting with the end in view”! (But our comfort zone is in linear and incremental thinking?) Do we wish to apply academic rigor to their hypothesis?
Do we find their hypothesis too simplistic – thus too good to be true? Or do we foresee loads of obstacles – thus unrealistic?
As Bill Gates says in awe, simple is the genius of Warren Buffett. But of course there are barriers – i.e., corruption and crony capitalism! But they are man- or Filipino-made? We should take personal responsibility in slaying them: “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God which are God’s”? We can’t keep passing responsibility to our “muchacho” . . . and then asking for “awa ng Diyos”: (1) we have to learn to focus like a laser – so that these perceived barriers turn into an obstacle course that can be navigated, (2) given a mindset that is dynamic, inquisitive and forward-looking, and (3) as importantly, defeatism has no place in development work – or in winning or success, for that matter.
The writer has talked about our culture of compassion and inclusion – does it make it difficult for us to focus like a laser? Because to focus is to be “suplado” – i.e., we will be forced to prioritize and make choices, “for or against”? Yet we can be “suplado” given our “señorito-muchacho” culture? So we can be “suplado” in the positive sense – with the view to expanding our economic pie and bring prosperity to Filipinos?
And let’s get off that carousel?
No comments:
Post a Comment