Sunday, March 18, 2007

Neither black nor white - Grey

As I combed and recombed my hair looking into the mirror to conceal the silvery riches, this fleeting thought ran through my mind. Increasingly, life is more grey than either black or white. Anyone who has observed the silvery grey transformation happening up on my head would instantly understand why this thought even came on. (I wish it were in my head, as in grey matter, rather than on my head) It's suddenly not black or white, just grey.

I can remember how questions were infinitely easier to answer several years ago. It usually was a 'Yes' or 'No'. Yes, that's true or no, it ain't. Yes, that's funny. No, it is not funny. Yes, I like that or No, I hate that. Most often, I notice that that is not the case anymore. Even if the transition from averring and "putting my foot down on something" to "...I guess that depends" was gradual rather than sudden, that realization suddenly struck me that evening when I was combing my hair. I wondered why Rumsfeld or Bush or whoever was asked anything about the "War on Iraq" (or almost any other topic) could never start an answer with "Yes" or "no". In fact, yes or no was not any part of their answer. That might be a different issue, so we'll leave it at that.


Looking back, I was opinionated, one might say. I always thought, with age comes exposure, experience and wisdom. Thinking along those lines, as the sample size of experiences increases, your confidence level should increase, thereby making you sound more confident and making you more opinionated. Perhaps, the confidence level starts high, then decreases before increasing once again, creating a downward bell shape curve, with age/experience on the x-axis.

As we "get seasoned", the numerous variables that are in play come to our focus, and as we scramble to factor all that in to formulate a response to a questions asked, we almost always start with "...I suppose that depends ....." making the response immediately sound less than 100% sure. Unless, we are one of those people who almost never have been wrong. I don't necessarily think I know more than I did before, but I know now that there is infinitely more to know. I even wonder sometimes whether I take all these other factors or variables into consideration, read and re-read the question, just because I don't want to come off as politically incorrect. As I remember it, I never gave political correctness any consideration a decade or so ago. But, I digress.

The word "ceteris paribus" comes to my mind and I find myself thinking "ceter may not be paribus", thereby casting major doubts in the precept used to understand almost all economics principles and more. The variables are important..atleast some variables are! I looked online for what would be the opposite of "ceteris paribus". It was not "ceter ain't paribus" like I had thought. Its called "mutatis mutandis" meaning, "having considered the necessary differences".

As my thoughts wander along the highway that we so casually call "Life", I think about all the seniors in my family. They seem to incline one way or the other in their views. Their answers are not as iffy and don't typically start with "I believe...", "I suppose...", "I guess...." or "...that depends..". I wonder if they have understood something from their experiences that I am yet to unravel. That they somehow have imbibed the meaning of "ceteris paribus". That they somehow have relied on their numerous more experiences in having one view versus the other and they have already taken all factors into consideration before they formed their views. All their experiences, positive or negative, have possibly formed the basis of their opinions or intuition, which in itself is a whole different topic for another blog. Or maybe they just realize that the listener does not want to hear that long convoluted answer? I'll end this blog with the "..maybe".

7 comments:

Survivor said...

"Life is more grey than black and white".-- Very well said...
I had to refer the wikipedia for "ceteris Paribus" though !:-)
Regarding seniors not doubting their words, that is just the confidence speaking more than wisdom or experience,I GUESS.

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

I do second the fact that the world is analog than digital..continuous, rather than discrete. In some cases, it is the discrete analysis that makes a problem easier to solve... But, it is also true that constructing a discrete model with less samples would make it inaccurate and less reliable. I think, our seniors had less samples to come up with an opinion or generalisation than we do, just due to sheer exposure to information, which is ubiquitous these days due to Web...Maybe...

Mad Max said...

Uncertainty sums up everything!

Having a larger sample size does not ensure a higher level of confidence, especially if the variation within the sample size is substantial. The idea behind increasing the sample size to achieve higher levels of confidence is based on the theory that the larger the sample size, the better the convergence towards the population.

Now as we gain experience, my argument is we tend to become "more " or "less" opinionated (forceful assertion or agree with certainty) depending on our subjective beliefs about the learning that has taken place.

Some of us are so stubborn that despite have information to the contrary, we prefer to stick to a particular decision. Ohters become less opinionated because, given the gain in experience, either they are unable to process the information completely or are unsure about the quality of the information. Hence the level of confidence in decision making comes down, as one does not see a unique solution in front of him/her.

Therefore what was a "Yes" or "No" a few years back, when we knew with certainty what things meant, now becomes a "Maybe". The induced dependency is on account of the uncertainty associated with how the larger sample size is related to the population. The higher the degree of convergence, less reliance on "maybe" and vice versa.

Therefore i would think that the shape of the distribution depends on the type of person one is. We probably need to fix certain chracteristics and then see how the person reacts with age/experience on the x-axis.

For some it might be a normal (more rational) and for some it might be chaotic (i dont know what shape the distribution will look like) hehehe..

okie now lemme stop rambling.

Suresh Sankaralingam said...

@mad-max, I was talking to sampling from an electronics engineer point of view from nyquist sampling theory. In simple terms, Nyquist says that if you sample a signal at twice its max-frequency component or more, you can reproduce the signal without any distortion...

I do agree with you on the fact that things differs based on the people who respond to a situation. Even the same person respond to the same situation differently based on the context.

I am not sure if uncertainty is applicable to this context in the way you have described it. Uncertainty has always been there from time immemorial. But, how people deciphered and responded at times of uncertainty has changed and I think that depends upon information. I think, attributing every good or bad happenings to god is a classical example of such oversimplification...

Manohar said...

@mindframes and madmax: Only true geeks can convert this topic into an analysis of sampling, nyqists criteria and sample sets. :)

Survivor said...

@Mano,
You bet. Nyquist didn't even enter my mind when I read the blog..:-) And madmax is capable of analysing everything with samples & probability....Too good..

Mad Max said...

@ Mindframes: Sampling from an scientific (controleed experiment) stand point is a little easier to understand. Because when it comes to controlled experiments, if the same experiment is repeated "n" number of times holding the environment constant, the result should be the same. Again this is the basis of classical probability theory. However we know that when it comes to human behaviour, this definition can become subjective and does not always hold true. That was exactly the area i was focusing on.

In fact your second paragraph mirrors the opinion I have in my comment. We area reading from the same page....hehehehe

@ Mano and Survivor: cheezzz folksss...just tried to reason it out...BTW there is an explicit paragraph in the blog which talks about sample size and confidence levels. So i presumed bumblebee was thinking about formal reasoning...