Introduction
Was doing Sudoku yesterday with a pencil. Did one of the squares wrong, and didnt have an eraser. I dont like crossing out numbers. It disturbs my analysis.
Procedure
You know how they say " It all comes back". It did. Licked my finger to get some moisture, dried it a bit by rolling it with the thumb and rubbed it nice and slow on the square.
Result
It still works. A bit of black smudge, but the 3 i had analyzed wrongly was a goner.
Happy and elated, spent the next half hour recollecting school days and kids i know and their antics. When i returned to the puzzle, couldnt help the feeling that a kid, upon erasing a square would have gone straight ahead and finished the puzzle, or moved on to something more intresting, like building a paper boat, rather than mull or contemplate about the day he took his first step or uttered his first word or fascinate about being an adult. The best part about kids is that they dont know they will lose their innocence when they grow up.
And as soon as i finish typing this, i am going to find an eraser, apply a little oil on my hair and see if the age old printing trick still works. After that, i am going to find a magazine, and draw moustaches and beards on George Bush's photo. Must admit i did that all the way till my 10th standard, with my personal best being the beard i gave to Khudi Ram Bose portrait in my friend Ankit's 7/8th history book.
June 27, 2006
June 13, 2006
Thin Slicing and Blink
With due apologies and regrets for the absence, I was keeping quiet not because there was nothing going on, actually, there has been a lot, and very soon, I’ll write about all that but I have been quiet partly due to back pain, work overload, too much TV and mainly because I was not clear on my stand on most of the things and anyway most were just ‘all in a days work’ kind of experiences. But when i write, i write long, not because i have lot to say, but because i was poor at preci writing throughout.
I was watching the soccer World Cup Group E game against US and Czech Republic yesterday, and on impulse, started supporting the Czechs (and was extremely happy at the end of the day because i had backed the winning horse). I read a little too much into what caused me to want the Czechs to win, and here are a number of pros and cons for that with a confusing mix of personal experiences thrown in with a couple new flashy terminologies.
When it comes to sports, strong personal likes and dislikes for no rhyme or reason, i admit, is my nature. Making a virtue of it, it makes sport interesting to me. I can rarely enjoy any contest without taking sides. Most decisions are made in the blink of eye and then we prepare elaborate "Office Notes" to justify. There are centuries of human experience that goes into split second decision-making, the newfound terminology for this being ‘Thin slicing and Blink’.
This term has been coined and adopted from Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he explores the power of the mind to make split second decisions, the ability to reach a decision without really considering all information at hand. In essence, it says spontaneous decisions are often as good as - or even better than - carefully planned and considered ones.
The pro argument for thin slicing is that it feels great when it comes off -- that is the kick of liking Agassi and Sourav before the world. You feel as if your son is doing well. There are many times, when i have silently bargained for a Sourav century for my personal score in a local match. Of course, many of my strong likes and dislikes result in egg on my face - examples being Steve Waugh, Sampras, Flintoff (whom all i dislike) and James Anderson (I thought he was the next Donald + Mcgrath, but he's not even in the side now).
My way of following sport is totally opposite to my dad's. He never picks a side to win or a player to perform. " That creates an expectation, and if expectations are not met, its likely to cause disappointment, plenty of sulking and a loss of interest. Thats not why you watch sport. You dont watch it for a person. You watch it because the game appeals to you. Follow the game and you'll love it more". Sincere and lovely advise indeed, but hard to follow. Maybe when i am 50, i can appreciate that, but right now, its cool pick sides, root for that side and live it up when they win or say ‘ the opponents fouled’ otherwise.
Not just sport, movies, politics or any aspect of life for that matter, where a hint of a contest between two forces may be involved. It’s a little different with music. An absolutely awful song might still sound unbelievably super because you might totally relate to the lyrics or vice versa.
Usually, I do a small recap of the day (at least the sober ones) before hitting the bed and I was surprised at why the ‘Blink’ method had made me voice for the Czechs. The only reason I could think of is that Pavel Nedved is one of my favorite players. I am not familiar with anyone in the current US football team. But had I made a detailed analysis, I might have viewed things differently. The Czechs mean nothing to me, while I have been in the US for 2 years now. I wont say I’m a big fan of the American way of living and all, with their credit system and social security and mainly, tax returns, but US is definitely far more tolerant and friendlier to immigrants than any other nation and I have had a pretty positive experience over the past 2 years, and somehow not automatically rooting for the US somehow made me feel ethically wrong.
As opposed to the soccer, when I relate a similar experience with another US team sport, I recollect wanting the US Baseball team to do well in the World Baseball classic. Of course, I knew all the US players there, but once again, I could say I was indifferent to other teams fortunes because I did not know their players.
In the book BLINK, Gladwell had mentioned how our ability to "thin slice" can be corrupted by our likes, dislikes, prejudices and stereotypes, and can be overloaded by too much information.
Anyway, it seems to me, the more I think about this, the more complex it becomes. And in an effort to cleanse my conscience, I am going to try to consciously support US in Saturday’s game against Italy. To consciously support a team is one thing, but what surfaces from the ‘inner you’ is another. I mean, there I could be, telling myself to support the US, but who knows how im gonna feel if Italy score first up? Something similar happened when I was watching a match between Federer and Blake. I was consciously supporting Roger, but within myself knew that I wanted Blake to win.
Probably, I should just sod all these terminologies, go with my heart, not explore for a reason as to why I chose what. Or maybe I should just plain just try remembering and following what my dad says.
I was watching the soccer World Cup Group E game against US and Czech Republic yesterday, and on impulse, started supporting the Czechs (and was extremely happy at the end of the day because i had backed the winning horse). I read a little too much into what caused me to want the Czechs to win, and here are a number of pros and cons for that with a confusing mix of personal experiences thrown in with a couple new flashy terminologies.
When it comes to sports, strong personal likes and dislikes for no rhyme or reason, i admit, is my nature. Making a virtue of it, it makes sport interesting to me. I can rarely enjoy any contest without taking sides. Most decisions are made in the blink of eye and then we prepare elaborate "Office Notes" to justify. There are centuries of human experience that goes into split second decision-making, the newfound terminology for this being ‘Thin slicing and Blink’.
This term has been coined and adopted from Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he explores the power of the mind to make split second decisions, the ability to reach a decision without really considering all information at hand. In essence, it says spontaneous decisions are often as good as - or even better than - carefully planned and considered ones.
The pro argument for thin slicing is that it feels great when it comes off -- that is the kick of liking Agassi and Sourav before the world. You feel as if your son is doing well. There are many times, when i have silently bargained for a Sourav century for my personal score in a local match. Of course, many of my strong likes and dislikes result in egg on my face - examples being Steve Waugh, Sampras, Flintoff (whom all i dislike) and James Anderson (I thought he was the next Donald + Mcgrath, but he's not even in the side now).
My way of following sport is totally opposite to my dad's. He never picks a side to win or a player to perform. " That creates an expectation, and if expectations are not met, its likely to cause disappointment, plenty of sulking and a loss of interest. Thats not why you watch sport. You dont watch it for a person. You watch it because the game appeals to you. Follow the game and you'll love it more". Sincere and lovely advise indeed, but hard to follow. Maybe when i am 50, i can appreciate that, but right now, its cool pick sides, root for that side and live it up when they win or say ‘ the opponents fouled’ otherwise.
Not just sport, movies, politics or any aspect of life for that matter, where a hint of a contest between two forces may be involved. It’s a little different with music. An absolutely awful song might still sound unbelievably super because you might totally relate to the lyrics or vice versa.
Usually, I do a small recap of the day (at least the sober ones) before hitting the bed and I was surprised at why the ‘Blink’ method had made me voice for the Czechs. The only reason I could think of is that Pavel Nedved is one of my favorite players. I am not familiar with anyone in the current US football team. But had I made a detailed analysis, I might have viewed things differently. The Czechs mean nothing to me, while I have been in the US for 2 years now. I wont say I’m a big fan of the American way of living and all, with their credit system and social security and mainly, tax returns, but US is definitely far more tolerant and friendlier to immigrants than any other nation and I have had a pretty positive experience over the past 2 years, and somehow not automatically rooting for the US somehow made me feel ethically wrong.
As opposed to the soccer, when I relate a similar experience with another US team sport, I recollect wanting the US Baseball team to do well in the World Baseball classic. Of course, I knew all the US players there, but once again, I could say I was indifferent to other teams fortunes because I did not know their players.
In the book BLINK, Gladwell had mentioned how our ability to "thin slice" can be corrupted by our likes, dislikes, prejudices and stereotypes, and can be overloaded by too much information.
Anyway, it seems to me, the more I think about this, the more complex it becomes. And in an effort to cleanse my conscience, I am going to try to consciously support US in Saturday’s game against Italy. To consciously support a team is one thing, but what surfaces from the ‘inner you’ is another. I mean, there I could be, telling myself to support the US, but who knows how im gonna feel if Italy score first up? Something similar happened when I was watching a match between Federer and Blake. I was consciously supporting Roger, but within myself knew that I wanted Blake to win.
Probably, I should just sod all these terminologies, go with my heart, not explore for a reason as to why I chose what. Or maybe I should just plain just try remembering and following what my dad says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
