Bruce Kodish and Suzan Presby have an interesting chapter in their book 'Drive yourself sane' with regard to truth and falsehood. They quote a story from the European undergound under Hitler, as written by Korzybski:
In a railroad compartment an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Rumanian officer and a Nazi officer were the only occupants. The train was passing trough a dark tunnel and all that was heard was a loud kiss and Vigorous slap.
Now ask yourself: what happened. On what assumptions are my conclusions based? How sure can I be of these assumptions? Note to yourself what your thoughts are.
After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, "What a fine girl I have raised. She will take care of herself. I am proud of her." The granddaughter was saying to herself, "Well, grandmother is old enough not to mind a little kiss. Besides, the fellows are nice. I'm surprised what a hard wallop grandmother has." The Nazi officer was meditating, "How clever the Rumanians are! They steal a kiss and have the other fellow slapped." The Rumanian officer was chuckling to himself, "How smart I am! I kissed my own hand and slapped the Nazi."
Now think again about your previous conclusions how sure were you and what right did you have to be so sure?
The GS idea here is that there is a complete scale from certainty to wild guess, not just a polar true and false. It is wiser to evaluate in multi-valued way instead of a two-valued way. Closest to certainty come observable facts like 'The tunnel was dark'. Closer to wild guess come statements of inference: 'Two persons kissed each other in the dark,' where you assume that a kiss is always between to persons. Most people would even assume that the kiss was between a male and a female person, which is an even wilder guess.
This insight has been very useful for me in project management. A thorough scrutinizing of my assumptions and inferences has led to many timely discoveries of project risks. So I try to avoid thoughts of absolute certainty in the new product development, since you need to make a lot of assumptions when discussing something that does not yet exist.
But avoiding certainty in project team meetings has caused great nervousness, stress and even hostility in some of my fellow team members! Why? In the team I have the role of an expert. People need to be able to trust me in my field of specialization. What specialist that avoids affirmations in his field of expertise can you really trust? How sure can you be the project will finish successfully without experts you can trust? Some people seem to have a hard time living with uncertainty. So my advice is: Watch out for them and be careful to reassure them without over promising!
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Zen and quantum theory, chicken and egg
I came across this article in Wikipedia (link in title) about a book called 'The Tao of Physics'. The author writes that in an interview with Heisenberg, Heisenberg told him about his influences from eastern philosphy.
I had to think of a book I read, by Steve Hagen, "How the world can be the way it is", where the author illustrates Zen/Taoist truths with quantum physical examples. As if to say: "See, if even the latest science arrives at the same conclusions as age-old Zen, there must be truth in there."
I started to wonder: "What if quantum physics is just some clever statistical math, inspired by eastern philosophy? A clever approximation for measured results? What was first? The chicken or the egg? Tao proven by quantum physics or quantum physics inspired by the Tao?"
Apart from the examples in physics that Hagen shows us, his book is not a bad book by the way.
I think I want to read this 'Tao of Physics'. I also want to understand more about quantum mechanics, because I really know nothing about it.
I had to think of a book I read, by Steve Hagen, "How the world can be the way it is", where the author illustrates Zen/Taoist truths with quantum physical examples. As if to say: "See, if even the latest science arrives at the same conclusions as age-old Zen, there must be truth in there."
I started to wonder: "What if quantum physics is just some clever statistical math, inspired by eastern philosophy? A clever approximation for measured results? What was first? The chicken or the egg? Tao proven by quantum physics or quantum physics inspired by the Tao?"
Apart from the examples in physics that Hagen shows us, his book is not a bad book by the way.
I think I want to read this 'Tao of Physics'. I also want to understand more about quantum mechanics, because I really know nothing about it.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Intension and extension
Nope, that’s no typo in the title. I’ve been reading more about General Semantics. Here’s another part of Korzybski’s theory.
I’ve just read a bit about what Korzybski calls ‘describing by extension vs. describing by intension’. If you look up intension and extension in the Merriam Webster, you find that they are synonym to connotation and denotation. Denotation and connotation are nicely compared in the dictionary:
Connotation means: ‘an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic’
Denotation means ‘the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic’.
I think Korzybski’s words are easyer to memorize. For an INtensional definition you look INside the thing you want to define for properties and higher order abstractions. For an EXtensional definition you look EXternally for other EXamples for description. I remember similar definitions from basic mathematics where real numbers are extensionally defined as Z = {0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3,4,-4,5,-5,…}. Whereas you could define even numbers intensionally as ‘any real number multiplied by two’, referring to a property of even numbers.
Now that we understand extensional and intensional, let’s get to Korzybski’s point: in standard logic, in most situations, we tend to ask for definitions in an intensionial way. We ask for descriptions with higher order abstractions if someone tries to explain a (new) word. ‘Intension’ is not a bad way to think and relate in, but Korzybski points out a few dangers and short comings of intensional definitions.
-As explained in my first GS post, you cannot be sure that other people share the same higher order abstractions. E.g. you can define Polyethylene as ‘a thermoplastic produced by the direct polymerization of ethylene at high temperatures and pressures’ but if you don’t know anything about organic chemistry, you have no clue as to what polymerization or ethylene really are. Is ethylene bigger than a rabbit? What sound does polymerization make?
-You overlook properties of things falling outside the definition. E.g. you can define war as ‘conflict, between relatively large groups of people, which involves physical force inflicted by the use of weapons.’ This allows you talk about war over a nice cup of tea and make many assumptions or reach conclusions without ever knowing the emotion, the smell, the fear and the ugliness of real war.
-You allow for un-sane generalizations. E.g. If you really dislike a guy named Smith, and you define Smith as ‘the only guy I know who likes Jazz music’, you tend to start disliking guys who like Jazz music. And as a result you might even start disliking Jazz music, because you don’t want to be associated with Smith and his hobby’s! But if you realize that Jazz-lover(Smith1) is different from Jazz-lover(Smith2) you would be more open to Jazz music. And if you realize that Smith(today) is a different guy from Smith(yesterday) you have no reason to keep the grudge against him.
So intensional definitions are OK if you know what you are doing, but generally it is 'saner' to refer to an actual and specific experience or set of experiences (extensional).
This is pretty complex theory, but what’s the use of it? What I intend to do with it is this:
-When I want to explain something new I’ll try to let the other people actually experience what I’m trying to explain. If that’s not possible I’ll try to find a metaphor or an example referring to a shared experience.
-I will start to collect a whole set of samples and examples of things I frequently need to show or explain.
-If someone wants to explain something to me, I’ll insist on examples and specific cases. If possible I’ll try to experience these first-hand. I’ll experiment with his reasoning, “to get a better feeling for it.”
I’ve just read a bit about what Korzybski calls ‘describing by extension vs. describing by intension’. If you look up intension and extension in the Merriam Webster, you find that they are synonym to connotation and denotation. Denotation and connotation are nicely compared in the dictionary:
Connotation means: ‘an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic’
Denotation means ‘the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic’.
I think Korzybski’s words are easyer to memorize. For an INtensional definition you look INside the thing you want to define for properties and higher order abstractions. For an EXtensional definition you look EXternally for other EXamples for description. I remember similar definitions from basic mathematics where real numbers are extensionally defined as Z = {0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3,4,-4,5,-5,…}. Whereas you could define even numbers intensionally as ‘any real number multiplied by two’, referring to a property of even numbers.
Now that we understand extensional and intensional, let’s get to Korzybski’s point: in standard logic, in most situations, we tend to ask for definitions in an intensionial way. We ask for descriptions with higher order abstractions if someone tries to explain a (new) word. ‘Intension’ is not a bad way to think and relate in, but Korzybski points out a few dangers and short comings of intensional definitions.
-As explained in my first GS post, you cannot be sure that other people share the same higher order abstractions. E.g. you can define Polyethylene as ‘a thermoplastic produced by the direct polymerization of ethylene at high temperatures and pressures’ but if you don’t know anything about organic chemistry, you have no clue as to what polymerization or ethylene really are. Is ethylene bigger than a rabbit? What sound does polymerization make?
-You overlook properties of things falling outside the definition. E.g. you can define war as ‘conflict, between relatively large groups of people, which involves physical force inflicted by the use of weapons.’ This allows you talk about war over a nice cup of tea and make many assumptions or reach conclusions without ever knowing the emotion, the smell, the fear and the ugliness of real war.
-You allow for un-sane generalizations. E.g. If you really dislike a guy named Smith, and you define Smith as ‘the only guy I know who likes Jazz music’, you tend to start disliking guys who like Jazz music. And as a result you might even start disliking Jazz music, because you don’t want to be associated with Smith and his hobby’s! But if you realize that Jazz-lover(Smith1) is different from Jazz-lover(Smith2) you would be more open to Jazz music. And if you realize that Smith(today) is a different guy from Smith(yesterday) you have no reason to keep the grudge against him.
So intensional definitions are OK if you know what you are doing, but generally it is 'saner' to refer to an actual and specific experience or set of experiences (extensional).
This is pretty complex theory, but what’s the use of it? What I intend to do with it is this:
-When I want to explain something new I’ll try to let the other people actually experience what I’m trying to explain. If that’s not possible I’ll try to find a metaphor or an example referring to a shared experience.
-I will start to collect a whole set of samples and examples of things I frequently need to show or explain.
-If someone wants to explain something to me, I’ll insist on examples and specific cases. If possible I’ll try to experience these first-hand. I’ll experiment with his reasoning, “to get a better feeling for it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)