Its supposed to be, just about everything..

A philosphers survey

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:58:00 +0000

Its common to find surveys on most things on daily life buts its very rare to find surveys on what (modern) philosophers think and believe... Here is an that rare survey and and a summary.

"... Philosophy is now a highly specialised discipline. A don working on, say, ethics, may not even know the terminology used by logicians, and vice versa. This will be grist to the mill of those who feel that analytical philosophy has given up dealing with the big questions of life and is now mired in technical minutiae. But not so fast. Even Plato was attacked in his own time for treating philosophy as if it were all mathematics. And 1,800 years ago the great doctor Galen moaned about “the over-refined linguistic quibbling of some philosophers”.

People have always wanted philosophers to provide digestible wisdom, yet it is as true now as it was in Plato’s time that disciplined thinking is hard. So next time you sit next to a philosopher on a plane, talk about the movie, not the meaning of life. "

More about this: [paper from PhilPapers.org link] & [article link]

I am an Informavore

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:58:00 +0000

In a recent edge.org article/video interview, German journalist Frank Schirrmacher gives an overview of what it means to be living in an age of informavore (originally attributed to George Miller, popularized by D. Dennet, S. Pinker and others). What are the consequences ...etc. It is certainly an interesting read.

A small snippet from the interview:
"As we know, information is fed by attention, so we have not enough attention, not enough food for all this information. And, as we know — this is the old Darwinian thought, the moment when Darwin started reading Malthus — when you have a conflict between a population explosion and not enough food, then Darwinian selection starts. And Darwinian systems start to change situations. And so what interests me is that we are, because we have the Internet, now entering a phase where Darwinian structures, where Darwinian dynamics, Darwinian selection, apparently attacks ideas themselves: what to remember, what not to remember, which idea is stronger, which idea is weaker."

More about this here: [The Link]

Tyranny for the Commons Man

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:07:00 +0000

In a recent article (aug 2009) Barry Schwartz talks about the Tyranny of the Commons Man. The problem is posed very elegantly. "How does one escape a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting in their own rational self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource—even when it is clear this serves no one in the long run?" Building upon recent works like Non-zero, Evolution of Cooperation and others, he puts forward few ways to overcome some of the dilemmas. One approach is to appeal to the moral side of the people and the states. Another approach is to appeal to the self-interest side, offering incentives for the good behavior and punishments for the bad. An interesting and relevant issue is also discussed, which is a slippery slope in cooperation issues - the issue of naive realism...
.."As states enter these negotiating processes, leaders must also beware of “naive realism” and “reactive devaluation.” Parties to a conflict tend to think that while they see the issue “objectively,” the other side is biased. Stanford psychology professor Lee Ross dubs this psychological characteristic naive realism, and it’s not hard to see how it can lead to a negotiating impasse (“We’re being so reasonable; why are they so intransigent?”). It is hard to get into a virtuous cycle of cooperation if the parties cannot see the negotiations from the other side’s perspective. Because not only do states suffer from naive realism but they tend also to devalue what the other party offers. Suppose, for example, limits on fishing rights in international waters and standards for smokestack emissions are on the table. “We’ll pollute less if we can fish more,” you offer. “No deal,” says your negotiating partner, “you’re getting more than you’re giving.” “OK, then,” you say, “we’ll fish less if we can pollute more.” “No deal,” says your negotiating partner, “you’re getting more than you’re giving.” And you, of course, would say the same thing if your partner made either of those offers. We seem to assume that if someone is willing to give something up, it must be worth less than we think it is."..

In the end, he puts out a thought which indicates simply how difficult this problem is and the solution could start with just one small action taken by one person in the right direction.

"I know, I know. America really is exceptional. We are entitled to drive Hummers. We need those tanks because the safety of our kids is more important than the safety of anyone else’s. This feels right and true, so I understand how it might govern the attitudes and behaviors of most people (in America). But then I remind myself of the phenomenon of naive realism. Everybody, everywhere, has exactly the same feelings as we do. Like us, they can’t understand how people in other places don’t see things the way they do—don’t see things as they “really are.” This reminder of the above-average effect, sometimes called the “Lake Wobegon effect,” is enough to get me into the market for a Prius."

More of this here: [The Link]

What you don’t know about your friends

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:43:00 +0000

Here is an interesting article from boston.com about relationships.
..."A growing body of experimental evidence suggests that, on the whole, we know significantly less about our friends, colleagues, and even spouses than we think we do. This lack of knowledge extends far beyond embarrassing game-show fodder - we’re often completely wrong about their likes and dislikes, their political beliefs, their tastes, their cherished values. We lowball the ethics of our co-workers; we overestimate how happy our husbands or wives are."

..."Although such blind spots might at first seem like a comment on the atomization of modern life, the shallowness of human connection in the age of bowling alone, psychologists say that these gaps might simply be an unavoidable product of the way human beings forge personal bonds. Even in close relationships, there are holes in what we know about each other, and we fill them with our own assumptions."

..."But perhaps most surprisingly, these blind spots might not be a bad thing, and may even strengthen relationships. Many of the benefits that friendship provides don’t necessarily depend on perfect familiarity; they stem instead from something closer to reliability. And it may be that a certain ignorance of our friends’ weaknesses, or of the realms where we disagree, may even help sustain the deep sense of support that friends are there to provide."

More about this here: [The Link]

Which one to choose? paperback, audiobook, Kindle, and iPhone

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:37:00 +0000

A book can nowadays be found in many different formats to be read in different ways. But which one better? Do all have a niche role? I came across this recent article in chronicle describing an experiment to read a book in four different formats: paperback, audiobook, kindle and iPhone. Its an interesting read...

More about this here: [the link]

The Uses of Adversity, Can underprivileged outsiders have an advantage?

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:22:00 +0000

Write Malcom Gladwell in NYT, Annals of business gives an interesting perspective of how adversity can be used to become successful.. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"The rags-to-riches story—that staple of American biography—has over the years been given two very different interpretations. The nineteenth-century version stressed the value of compensating for disadvantage. If you wanted to end up on top, the thinking went, it was better to start at the bottom, because it was there that you learned the discipline and motivation essential for success.....
...
Today, that interpretation has been reversed. Success is seen as a matter of capitalizing on socioeconomic advantage, not compensating for disadvantage. The mechanisms of social mobility—scholarships, affirmative action, housing vouchers, Head Start—all involve attempts to convert the poor from chronic outsiders to insiders, to rescue them from what is assumed to be a hopeless state. Nowadays, we don’t learn from poverty, we escape from poverty..."

More of this here: [the link]

Impact of sterotyping ourselves..

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:01:00 +0000

An interesting article from Scientific American about "How Stereotyping yourself contributes to your success (or failures)"

People's performance on intellectual and athletic tasks is shaped by awareness of stereotypes about the groups to which they belong. New research explains why— and how we can break free from the expectations of others.

Here are some key concepts from the article:

Sterotypes and Success

Faults in performance do not necessarily signify a dearth of skills or abilities, social scientists have found. Instead the failures may arise from awareness of stereotypes that others hold about the groups to which we belong.
Social identity research examines not only how we both take on (internalize) and live out (externalize) identities that are shared with our peers but also how these things can change.
This research can help us identify ways of responding to others’ stereotypes so that human talent and potential are not squandered. Although stereotypes can promote failure, they can also lift a person’s or group’s performance and be tools that promote social progress.

More of this here: [The Link]

To globalize or not: An optimistic thought experiment

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:38:00 +0000

It seems there are few trends in the global scene that makes globalization a good bet:

In the long run, there are no good bets against globalization (to put it differently: There are no good investments in a twenty-first century where globalization fails)

Almost every financial bubble has involved nothing more nor less than a serious miscalculation about the true probability of successful globalization.

Financial bubbles and exaggerated stories about globalization are nearly synonymous because the greatest uncertainties about the future of the world have involved questions about the rate and the nature of globalization.

More of this by Peter Thiel at hoover institution's policy review: [the link]

How much information can you absorb continously?

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:25:00 +0000

Here is an article in washingtonpost about what happens when a person is fed with information continuously for 24 hrs? Is it worth it, can it be done, are we any wiser with a 24/7 instant feed to information?

Read more of it here: [the link]

Do All Companies Have to be Evil?

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:22:00 +0000

Here is an interesting article from Scientific American, by Micheal Shermer, about how the foundations of a company which sets the office environments has an impact on the ethical issues. Personal-responsibility and openness is key to creating an environment of trust.

"Humans are by nature tribal and xenophobic, and thus evolution has enabled in all of us the capacity for evil. Fortunately, we are also by nature prosocial and cooperative. By studying how modern companies work, we can gain insights into the evolutionary underpinnings of our morality, including concepts such as reciprocity, altruism and fairness. When we apply these evolutionary findings to economic life, we learn that Enron and the Gordon Gekko “Greed Is Good” ethic are the exception and that Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto is the rule. Two conditions must be present to accentuate the latter: first, internal trust reinforced by personal relationships, and, second, external rules supported by social institutions. The contrast between Enron and Google here serves to demonstrate what in corporate environments creates trust or distrust.
"....

More here: [The Link]

Failure of Indian Middle Class in Politics and Social Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:47:00 +0000

An interesting article about the growth and the challenges faced in India:
"India's 200m-strong middle class is the most economically dynamic group on the planet, but is largely uninterested in politics or social reform. Until it begins to engage politically, India will suffer from a lop-sided modernisation"

More of this here: [The Link]

Another example (Travellers Dilemma) which shows that our models for human decision making is insufficient...

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:05:00 +0000

Lucy and Pete, returning from a remote Pacific island, find that the airline has damaged the identical antiques that each had purchased. An airline manager says that he is happy to compensate them but is handicapped by being clueless about the value of these strange objects. Simply asking the travelers for the price is hopeless, he figures, for they will inflate it.

Instead he devises a more complicated scheme. He asks each of them to write down the price of the antique as any dollar integer between 2 and 100 without conferring together. If both write the same number, he will take that to be the true price, and he will pay each of them that amount. But if they write different numbers, he will assume that the lower one is the actual price and that the person writing the higher number is cheating. In that case, he will pay both of them the lower number along with a bonus and a penalty--the person who wrote the lower number will get $2 more as a reward for honesty and the one who wrote the higher number will get $2 less as a punishment. For instance, if Lucy writes 46 and Pete writes 100, Lucy will get $48 and Pete will get $44.

What numbers will Lucy and Pete write? What number would you write?

Traveler's Dilemma (TD) achieves those goals because the game's logic dictates that 2 is the best option, yet most people pick 100 or a number close to 100--both those who have not thought through the logic and those who fully understand that they are deviating markedly from the "rational choice. Furthermore, players reap a greater reward by not adhering to reason in this way. Thus, there is something rational about choosing not to be rational when playing Traveler's Dilemma.

For complete article follow the link: [The Link]

In summary the article says: "Forget game-theoretic logic. I will play a large number (perhaps 95), and I know my opponent will play something similar and both of us will ignore the rational argument that the next smaller number would be better than whatever number we choose. What is interesting is that this rejection of formal rationality and logic has a kind of meta-rationality attached to it. If both players follow this meta-rational course, both will do well. The idea of behavior generated by rationally rejecting rational behavior is a hard one to formalize. But in it lies the step that will have to be taken in the future to solve the paradoxes of rationality that plague game theory and are codified in Traveler's Dilemma."

In a controversial study about diversity

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:00:00 +0000

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

More of this from here: [The Link]

However on a more positive note the article indicates "....It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon."

On Relationship: Friendship and Respect

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:59:00 +0000

Most of the times when people demand respect they mean it to based on friendship, to be treated equally. But sometimes many people mistake respect to be based on inequality, often accompanied by special previlages. If that is the prevailing understanding of respect then I want to describe how the relationship between two people would look like. But first, what do I mean by friendship and respect.

Friendship between two people is about being open, honest, forgiving, having argmuents, supporting each other, it is about being EQUAL. There could be difference of opinion, difference of ideas, one person can make the other person angry, but inspite of all those they are honest and support each other and be there for one another. Establishing friendship is about establishing EQUALITY. Equality is the essensce of friendship. If any of these does not hold, then the relationship is not friendship, but something else (could be acquantaince, co-worker, pupil, ....etc).

Respect towards one person means holding that person in high esteem. Whatever that person say or do can go unquestioned, it is taken as given, to some extent taken on the basis of belief or faith. The person who respect the other feels inferior w.r.t to the other. When the question of respect comes in a relationship, then as a consequence there is inequality between the people in that relationship. Establishing respect in a relationship is all about establishing inequality.

By their inherent nature these two aspects conflict each other. If we want friendship then we
can cannot hope to have respect. If we want respect then we cannot hope to have friendship. We have to chose one or the other. What I am trying to do is describe the relations: what happens when we go for one or the other. The choice is ours, we are solely responsible of what we choose to do.

When both want friendship, then there is no problem.

When both want respect, then clearly it is a clash of ego. We can expect the relationship to be filled with friction and conflict. Basically both of them are trying to establish inequality, with one on top of the other. It is ones authority over the other. They are both competing for the same higher position, but only one can previal. It is a zero-sum situation. One of them wins other person loses. This relationship will be difficult.

The situation is more complex when there is a mix. We need to go into more details. We need to know who wants and who offers. In a relationship One person can either want(expect) friendship or offer friendship. Similarly, the other person can want(expect) respect or offer respect. Combination of these leads to the following four situations:

- When one wants friendship and other wants respect, both will be dissapointed and hurt. The person who wants friendship is dissapointed with lack of enthusiasm from the other. The person
who wants respect is hurt becuase the other person does not care about this persons status or accomplishments. This person wants to establish superiorty but the other person wants to establish equality. This combination usually leads to friction, uneasiness and conflict.

- When one wants friendship and other offers respect, then the person wanting friendship is embarressed and the person offering respect might be dissapointed. But this combination is usually ok, only that in the long-run one wanting friendship is dissapointed.

- When one offers friendship and other wants respect, then the person expecting respect is dissapointed & hurt. The person offering friendship might be ok, but the person expecting respect gets irritated by the other persons need to establish equality.

- When one offers friendship and other offers respect, then this combination is usually ok, in the long run they might turn out to be friends.

Does it mean, the relationship between people should always be friendship. Well it depends want one expects or wants and what consequences they can live with.

Till now the description was about relationship between two people. Now, should a person always seek respect or should a person always seek friendship? Well the answer is not so simple. It depends on the context of the relationship. Relationships are always set in some larger context: professional, personal, family, marriage, travel...etc Depending on the context, friendship or respect based relationship could be beneficial. e.g. for relationship between a child and and a parent. This should be based on respect when the childern are young. There is certainly an inequality between an adult and a child. If this relation is based on friendship, then the child is under pressure and could be detrimental for the childs grown. But, When they grow up the respect should gradually evolve into friendship.

Remember the saying -"it is lonely at the top"- there is some truth in it. One who always wants respect and if he/she succeedes, then inequality triumphs and person will be very lonely. It is our decision to make, but first know the consequences.

GÖDEL IN A NUTSHELL (consistency & incompleteness)

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Wed, 17 May 2006 08:50:00 +0000

The essence of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that you cannot have both completeness and consistency. A bold anthropomorphic conclusion is that there are three types of people; those that must have answers to everything; those that panic in the face of inconsistencies; and those that plod along taking the gaps of incompleteness as well as the clashes of inconsistencies in stride if they notice them at all, or else they succumb to the tragedy of the human condition.

The first kind are prone to refer to authorities; religion, bureaucracy, governments and their own prejudices. They postulate a Supreme Being that knows all the answers because everything must have an answer. With inconsistencies they deal by hopping over them, brushing them aside, sweeping them under a rug, ignoring them or making fun of them. These people are unpredictable and exasperating to deal with, though often disarmingly charming.

The second kind are the more heroic and independent thinkers. They are not afraid of vast expanses of the unknown; they forge ahead and rejoice over every new question opened up by questions answered. But when up against the walls of inconsistencies they go berserk. These claustrophobics are in fact the scientific minds.

And then, finally, there are the ordinary humans who make do with both inconsistencies and gaps in their experience of life and the world. Some of those, when driven to the brink of endurance by roadblocks of paradox and pitfalls of the unknown, go mad.

(VERENA HUBER-DYSON) in www.edge.org)

Human well-being and progress of science

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:55:00 +0000

A clear-eyed defense of science needs to take seriously the original “bargain” that Haldane himself describes: that free research produces increased well-being. To investigate the meaning of well being, or doing well, means neither the dogmatic acceptance nor the dogmatic rejection of the moral values of one’s neighbors. It requires avoiding cynicism and utopianism about human motives and possibilities. It requires a willingness to look at the question of the human good with care and seriousness. And even if such an investigation yields a complex and mixed picture of what a good life is and how science contributes to it, the defense of science still requires the willingness to encourage what is valued and discourage what is troublesome, knowing that we will face many grave uncertainties and honest disagreements along the way. (more in this link).

Beyond Computation

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:00:00 +0000

"We have all become computation-centric over the last few years. We've tended to think that computation explains everything. When I was a kid, I had a book which described the brain as a telephone-switching network. Earlier books described it as a hydrodynamic system or a steam engine. Then in the '60s it became a digital computer. In the '80s it became a massively parallel digital computer. I bet there's now a kid's book out there somewhere which says that the brain is just like the World Wide Web because of all of its associations. We're always taking the best technology that we have and using that as the metaphor for the most complex things—the brain and living systems. And we've done that with computation." -- Rodney Brooks (link from edge.org)

Technology and courage

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:31:00 +0000

"Exploring the horizons of technology requires courage because research carries risks, even if we cannot always articulate them in advance. Generally they are not physical risks, although physical risks exist in some fields of science. Often they are not immediate personal financial risks, because these may be borne by the university, an industrial employer, or the government sponsor of the work. Usually the risks are more subtle but no less strong: they are social and emotional risks, risks to reputation and to pride; they are risks that are felt but difficult to identify and describe..... " -- Ivan Sutherland (More of this)

More Choice, what does it mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:00:00 +0000

An excerpt from
Consumer Vertigo, by Virginia Postrel

"Liberty and responsibility really do go together; it's not just a platitude. The
more freedom we have to control our lives, the more responsibility we have for how they turn out. In a world of constraints, learning to be happy with what you're
given is a virtue. In a world of choices, virtue comes from learning to make
commitments without regrets. And commitment, in turn, requires self-confidence
and self-knowledge.
Scwartz (Author of: Paradox of Choice) says We are free to be the authors of
our lives, but we don't know exactly what kind of lives we want to write.
But, maturity lies in deciding just that..."

Interesting video by Barry Scwartz at Google about paradox of choice: [The Link]

Started

noreply@blogger.com (Murali Jayapala) — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:21:00 +0000

Whats this rush about blogs?