the bottom of the pyramid

i'm now tired and sleepy, but wanted to get in a word on the best class discussion i've been part of since i joined berkeley: today we discussed prahalad's theory on the fortune that lies at the bottom of the pyramid. i was one of the self-appointed leaders of this discussion, and therefore thankfully, had gone prepared with a half-decent understanding of the subject. the class is 3 hours long, and that i was wishing it would last another 3 lays testament to the fact that classes are much improved when one has done the readings and made an effort to understand them.

what was intriguing was the realization that academics are more often than not, well, academics. almost as soon as a theory is proposed, they ready themselves to beat it down. i do not enjoy that, and therefore i will never be an able academic (if even one). as expected, i took on the 'balancing' role for every discussion we ended up in. i am not passionate about the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, but i do believe the theory deserves a listen, and serious consideration. is it not much too easy to perceive it as flawed and beat it down? much too hard to accept the merits of it without doubt? do we take critical thinking a tad too far sometimes? is it taking away our ability to adapt, to accept, albeit with a pinch of salt?

but for now: good night!