So you have a system. All you want to do is judge how the individuality of the components compares to certain norms. You determine what contributes to achieving the particular goal that the system needs to. And then judge how well each individual rates with the particular yard stick.
Lets complicate this a bit more. You have a bunch of these which do similar things. Each has its own yard stick. Each does its own matriculation. But they are all similar. The average judgment is what you would say, okay.
Suppose you introduce a freak in one of the system. This freak fails, all the tests that the yard stick is for. But ultimately can reach the goal in a more effective, albeit different way.
Now you should know. These systems are not all that simple. Each have a bunch of tasks to do and all of them are similar. For each task, there is a freak, but maybe is not very standoutish.
This yardstick, seems to rationalize all the tasks together.
Now, should the system be more robust to account for the freakishness of the freak? If you do rationalize, dont you think you are killing the individuality? But if you dont, the freak remains a freak. And the effective and better way of reaching the goal is lost.
In the middle of all this what is the freak to do? Apart from dealing with the nametag?
In a reader
no system is perfect, that’s a given. so if these rules seem to work most of the time, it’s good enough.
and by definition, a freak is something that doesn’t fit into the rest of the system… so the question of the system accounting for the freak doesn’t arise.
unless you count some special ‘freak’ quota or something.
Comment by wanderlust — June 19, 2009 @ 11:05 pm |
WAT!
Comment by sg — June 22, 2009 @ 11:24 am |
What WAT?
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 22, 2009 @ 11:26 am |
“But ultimately can reach the goal in a more effective, albeit different way.” So why bother?
Comment by Solitary Reaper — June 22, 2009 @ 12:34 pm |
The yardstick does not reflect this. So the freak’s other way is not known or no one is ready to accept it…
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 22, 2009 @ 1:32 pm |
if the yardstick does reflect, the freak stops being a freak.
Comment by wanderlust — June 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
How willing is one ready to twist the model to fit the data
You would need higher order polynomials to define and deriving such is not only limited by the complexity but also by the availability of data to validate such a model.
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 22, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
But how important is the freak to the system? Wouldn’t excluding the freak be an easier route to choose than working with higher order polynomials?
Comment by Solitary Reaper — June 23, 2009 @ 3:18 pm |
It would on an everyday basis, either for the freak to conform or for the system to ignore.
But the system will remain in status quo. No change in the long run. No new ways of looking at things. But to disturb the inertia, the freak would need enormous energy.
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 23, 2009 @ 4:17 pm |
if the system is working fine, there’s no need to change it
Comment by wanderlust — June 23, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Stagnation by default is not good for any system
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 23, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Is accommodating the freak the only way of preventing stagnation? Changing and updating the yardstick would be one solution for the problem of stagnation, if preventing stagnation is the only goal here.
Comment by Solitary Reaper — June 24, 2009 @ 6:19 pm |
No. I was thinking on the lines of making life less miserable for the freak.
But from the stagnation point of view, while accommodating the freak in the system would be a mere knee jerk, letting the freak change the system would be a point-blank shot in the head IMO (which ofcourse would come with a lot of pain for the freak).
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 25, 2009 @ 7:58 pm |
The system evolves to include the freaks who deliver better results. And those freaks become a unit of measurement on the new yard stick. Haven’t we seen this before?
Comment by The Lonely Saint — June 26, 2009 @ 12:13 pm |
Its the transition that drives us nuts!
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 30, 2009 @ 11:13 pm |
You mean something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcNTkuEVig .
Comment by The Lonely Saint — July 3, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
In spite of the freakishness of the freak , he should be considered. and the yardstick should be made more robust by taking into account the freakishness and its not changing your system wholly. Its making suitable changes to prevent stagnation. Well a super heated discussion there!!
Comment by Shwetha — June 27, 2009 @ 12:21 am |
easier said than done
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 30, 2009 @ 11:12 pm |
Usually any ’system’ aims to be as stable and as ‘complete’ as possible and a freak knowingly or unknowingly tries to prove the ’system’ unstable and incomplete. After much struggle, freak manages to become ‘pain’ in the system’s butt. System, tries to become ‘complete’ by taking freak’s new ways in to consideration. So the ‘new ways’ become ‘not so new’. By the moment system tries to claim that its finally ‘complete’, there arises another freak and the whole cycle repeats. So the ’system’ wat we r talking abt is only a part of the whole system which is quite stable. Its not a good idea to make freak’s life easier because it may ruin the balance of the ‘whole system’ and freaks dont tend to like anything which is ‘easy’. :p
Comment by chethan — June 27, 2009 @ 7:26 am |
more or less yeah!
Comment by Tuna Fish — June 30, 2009 @ 11:14 pm |