posted
Ha ha ha! Lady Jane, I was trying to think of exactly that response The first paragraph, anyway.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Maybe it's my background in scholarly writing (in fact, specifically on these issues) that makes it so I take what he says at face value and expect the ideas to be made explicit, instead of implied. I don't know. From my perspective, it looks like you give him a lot more benefit of the doubt than I do. Like in this case, can you see how someone would take pretty much what I'm describing out of what he wrote?
I can see what you're saying, but I think that your interpretation comes more because it's your interpretation based on your understanindg of these things, rather than because it's the obvious conclusion from what he wrote.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me be a little clearer about what I'm saying. I don't think OSC explains every aspect of Schwartz's theory, or even every important aspect. I don't think he intended to. I do think the way he presents it is much richer than "less choices = good," and I think he is focusing on how to be healthy, not how to not be sick.
Expanding just a little, I think two almost-opposite metaphors are needed to explain how he presents information like this. In one sense, he's starting at with a single tile and adding other tiles throughout the article until the picture is complete. In another sense, he's starting with a basic shape and whitling away extraneous material in a refining process.
The fact that he does both at once is both impressive and maddening to me. I think it delivers a clearer picture in fewer words than is otherwise possible, but only to certain types of readers. (And I'm not suggesting that one type of reader is better than another.) One thing it does is make it very easy for large sections of a piece to be "out of context."
posted
See, and I think that the context he provides puts the repeated assertion that we need to voluntarily restrict our choices in the centerof the essay, rather then the peripherery. I don't think I read it out of context. From my perspective, there was a strong central theme from which other ideas were developed, not an initial idea introduced that was later superceded by a more encompassing explanation. I would have agreed with the later and if that's the way you see it Dag, I can understand why you think I'm off base. But I really don't see it.
I'm not saying that there wasn't more complexity to it than simply "less choices = good". I'm saying that the more complex ideas were introduced as outgrowths of the choice thing, and not as things that supplanted it as the central focus.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it's my background in scholarly writing (in fact, specifically on these issues) that makes it so I take what he says at face value and expect the ideas to be made explicit, instead of implied.
This is likely the case. My primary fields of study involve the carrying of most meaning in the relationship between entities (data modeling/systems analysis) and the requirement to produce clear, explicit rules from non-explicit source material (both law and systems analysis). Further, both types of reading are "interrupt-driven," which is my own description for work that requires constant context changes within a single work (indeed, within a single sentence).
quote:Like in this case, can you see how someone would take pretty much what I'm describing out of what he wrote?
Certainly. That's why I think this is so interesting, and it's why I commented on it. Not to convince you, because there's no real point. But to expose as best I can the thinking process that allows me to arrive at my conclusion and entice you to do the same.
My interpretation is still crystal clear to me upon reading it. And I hadn't heard about this theory at all except for the title of the book prior to reading this article. Going by the title, I'd suspect my interpretation of the actual theory to be more like the "more choice is bad" interpretation.
I'm equally sure that your interpretation is crystal clear to you. And I don't think there's a way to know for sure who's right (or more right).
quote:See, and I think that the context he provides puts the repeated assertion that we need to voluntarily restrict our choices in the centerof the essay, rather then the peripherery. I don't think I read it out of context. From my perspective, there was a strong central theme from which other ideas were developed, not an initial idea introduced that was later superceded by a more encompassing explanation. I would have agreed with the later and if that's the way you see it Dag, I can understand why you think I'm off base. But I really don't see it.
I don't think you're off base. I think we have two very different cognitive frameworks.
quote:I'm not saying that there wasn't more complexity to it than simply "less choices = good". I'm saying that the more complex ideas were introduced as outgrowths of the choice thing, and not as things that supplanted it as the central focus.
I saw that as a literary device - present the easier-to-grasp part of it first, and use that as a springboard into the "real" issues. Kind of like teaching kids that hydrogen and oxygen combine in a 2 to 1 ratio to make water, then later getting into the whole underlying structure of electron shells to explain why. And, of course, then using those principles to figure out why chlorine and sodium combine in a one to one ratio.
Basically, the "too much choice" idea is a touchstone to keep readers oriented, not a foundation. Schwartz uses it for the title of his book for much the same reason, doesn't he?
Thinking about it through the lens of different domains, I would be more inclined to agree with your intrepretation were this is the product of an informal and/or interactive context. Like a transcription of a conversation or something. Essay writing, for me, is a place where you can't afford to leave your important points inferential and one where you establish your main theme at the front and it is assumed that this remains your theme unless you explicitly contradict or supercede it later on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if you're correct, then, to me the essay failed to convey what OSC thought because of the way he constructed it.
edit: And really, all I think would be needed is one sentance making it explicit that the choice issues were only a part of a much wider thing. That sentance isn't there, so it's difficult for me to say if it would have changed the way I understood his point, but I think it would have.
posted
Just to be clear. I liked the column. It was a nice mix of folksy and profound and thoughtful. It's a little bit of all of them and not too much of any of them, and all of it carried off in a manner appropriate to a breezy newspaper column. It's a good piece.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiousity, Dag, what languages/types of programming did you like most? I was thinking about the explicit versus contextual inference thing and it gave birth to some inchoate ideas about programming.
I like OOPing, mostly with Java and I prefer Information Technology stuff, often using databases. Right now, I'm working on my own little project I call Diderot that analyzes academic journal articles for sections (i.e. you can now browse them by "here's the introduction, here's the Studies, etc., pretty much it XML's them), content (pulls out keywords and the like), and linkages (each bit of information can be examined in relation to it's relationships to others, ike if there's an author, you can get all the other things he's written, who are the people he's collaborated with, who/what does he cite, who/where is he cited, etc.). It also gives the ability to add your own meta-content (i.e. comments, rankings, and summaries on the articles, sections, and whatever else).
That's what gets me jazzed. I'm still not sure how/if that fits, but I'm interested to hear what you like.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the data side, I loved the relational model and SQL. Set alegebra is fun.
I learned programming on Pascal and Fortran. Professionally, I started in dBase and Clipper, then did a lot of Delphi (object Pascal) and VB. On the web, it was ASP and COM+ applications using ASP and VB. I got into OOP with Clipper; once I read up on it formally, I realized I had been structuring my programs in an object-like manner for years. I dabbled in Java but didn't do any full-fledged apps in it. We were just moving to .Net when I left the business.
My favorite language is still Delphi, although I haven't programmed it in years. I was fairly impressed with C# as a language, but the frameworks were just good, not great. Since I left, I've picked up PHP by force - I hate weak typing and lack of compiler time variable checking.
My favorite part of programming was data and object modeling. Which, by the way, is an immensely useful skill in law school.
...and that could be yet another type of decision-making: the program is already written; you already know what's going to happen; you handle the decision-making as it comes without perturbing the overall purpose of the program.
Just make sure you already have a process in place for each interrupt!
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had an interesting experience related to this topic. I'd say I'm generally a satsificer, but I think I go two or three levels deep in setting up my criteria for what constitutes an adequate outcome.
Recently, I made a choice which I was perfectly happy with. However, I based that choice on faulty information. I inadvertantly came across better information, and now the choice I made is significantly inferior to a choice I could have made, one that will affect my quality of life many times for the next year.
The reason I didn't have the correct information was carelessness on my part. This is rare - or at least rare that I discover it - and when it happens, I get very annoyed with myself.
posted
Dag, That's kind of another one of the paradoxes that make this so interesting for me. You have to doubt in order to plan adequately, but, while it's usually a good idea to imagine worse cases than what is probably going to happen, if you doubt too much you won't get started. And once you start doing something, it's best to commit to it fully.
edit: I'm not sure if it's my Daoist leanings or just my contrary nature, but I'm very big on paradoxes and the union of opposites.
quote:And once you start doing something, it's best to commit to it fully.
I tend to do this (and, in fact, committing fully was the reason I couldn't have a chance at both choices). One thing I do, though, is count on my ability to react midstream to allow course adjustments as needed. For this reason, future flexibility is usually something I'll consider up front in my decision-making process.
And I'm more attracted to self-references and the associated paradoxes than union of opposites. I'm not sure why.
My wife and I visited a pewter foundry in Estes Park, Colorado several years ago while on vacation. We hadn't planned on buying anything, but the tour guide was so congenial that we ended up buying not one, but two limited edition pewter figurines for $750.
We were sick to our stomachs for the remainder of the vacation.
Fortunately, the value of the figurines jumped within a matter of weeks, and we sold the pair on consignment for $1500.
One thing that helps with choices like this is knowing ahead of time how much you can afford to lose or knowing in advance how big of a hit you can take. Then you can sometimes just jump in blindly and hope for the best. If you take a hit because of a bad choice, at least you know that your risk buffer will cover it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The first paragraph, anyway.
