" Miyathe anayaa ithi maya " - Maya is that which can be measured.
The mentioned verse is from some sanskrit source . Yet to verify the source though. My questions at this point are
1. Is the statement valid according to the philosophical axioms of praxeology
2. If true, does it explain the preference for qualitative mthodology over empirical or analytical methodology by miseans of the world.
3. Is the implication significant as far as mathematics as an appropriate tool in social science ( apriori science ) is considered
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Eye opener
When two parties in disagreement over their interests, share same basic premise, the one more consistent to that fundamental premise WINS.”
AYN RAND, FROM CAPITALISM AN UNKNOWN IDEAL
is it a valid statement???? if valid, its implications are huge.. need to verify
AYN RAND, FROM CAPITALISM AN UNKNOWN IDEAL
is it a valid statement???? if valid, its implications are huge.. need to verify
The Lessons from AAmir
The lessons from AAmir
AAmir was here in IIMB as part of his shooting for 3 idiots and he had a Q&A session with students
The most important lesson which I had no clue of but which I always wanted to learn as I knew instinctively knew that it was important. Before going into the substance of what aamir had to offer as true argumentation , let me phrase my question which has bothered me for quite some time. Why is profit making so important for everyone. The unstated part of this same question is why is profit making so important for even rich people. More specifically, why is it important for evry rich person to be concerned about making money with every project they embark on. More generally, it was about why money making such a crucial indicator of worth of a person.
Now what I got from AAmir. He started off saying that the role of producer in film making is more than what meets the eye. He is not just a financier of the movie though a producer can have a financier. The critical unobserved role of the producer is to ensure that the movie is made (completed) in a budget that ensures that the movie makes profit. This statement requires some ex-ante assumptions to make a coherent meaning. Assumptions no. 1 is that a movie has a potential revenue given the stars, the story, appeal, director, treatment, sons etc. Assumption No.2 is that the cost of making movie is independent of this potential revenue. Given these assumptions, the criticality and the complex nature of his job is very clear, that of controlling the expenditure schedule and ensuring that the film makes profit irrespective of all other factors..
Now that is a stunner. Irrespective of everything else, a manager has to make profit..or rather it is possible to make profit irrespective of all contingencies.
Now why is this role important in the first place, especially for other stakeholders in the project (film) at all? Here comes the answer for the larger questions regarding role of profit in business or importance of money making. The argument that aamir gave is that, if a film does not make profit ( despite collecting a lot of money), that project would be marked red against all the stakeholders name. This would act as a deterrent for other prospective partners in collaborating with you.
The second important lesson is regarding how he select films. Now the corresponding question in my mind is how can we make decision involving choice given limited information ( bounded rationality) and all uncertainties. He said he relied basically on three factors. One is the script as such. A script according to him, to be successful as a money spinner regardless of the quality of the story or intent, must set a goal in the beginning and the goal must be accomplished and only at the end of the movie. A contrary example he elaborated was that of ‘ Lakshya’. There the protagonist is a lazy teenager as shown in the start of the movie. He says the goal is set with that premise. The protagonist is lazy and the goal is to make him industrious and conscientious individual. The fault there came in terms of meeting the goal during the interval of the movie. The guy passes out from NDA in flying colors and the second half is about kargil war and all. He says the moment the protagonist completed the NDA trial, the movie has practically met with the goal of the movie. The rest was just waste of time. The second factor that he mentioned was the credibility of the creative as well as the production team. The director, producer etc must be credible in the sense that they should be able to complete the movie in right earnest and then be able to release the movie to a wider audience. The third factor was the most crucial one. He termed it thus, the director should have a story to tell. That sounded interesting for the complexity of the construct. What he meant was that the story must be something which has excited the director so much that he badly wanted to tell that story to others. Something like what sashi tharoor described as the motivation for writing books. He had said that for him writing books is like milb given out of a full mummary opf a cow. If you don’t write, it will create immense pain in you. Similarly, the director must feel the utmost need to communicate some story to others. Once the director has this felt need, the rest of the details like the technique of story telling etc will follow through. He also said that he used to gauge this in a director by asking the director to narrate the story and then trusting his own feelings when it gets narrated. Now, that is complex and subjective .
This sets me to another context. What is more important, improving skills in technologies given the quality of mind or improving the quality of mind at the cost of not learning the fad technologies. Learning technologies is more of a defender strategy while the other is more of a prospector strategy.
AAmir was here in IIMB as part of his shooting for 3 idiots and he had a Q&A session with students
The most important lesson which I had no clue of but which I always wanted to learn as I knew instinctively knew that it was important. Before going into the substance of what aamir had to offer as true argumentation , let me phrase my question which has bothered me for quite some time. Why is profit making so important for everyone. The unstated part of this same question is why is profit making so important for even rich people. More specifically, why is it important for evry rich person to be concerned about making money with every project they embark on. More generally, it was about why money making such a crucial indicator of worth of a person.
Now what I got from AAmir. He started off saying that the role of producer in film making is more than what meets the eye. He is not just a financier of the movie though a producer can have a financier. The critical unobserved role of the producer is to ensure that the movie is made (completed) in a budget that ensures that the movie makes profit. This statement requires some ex-ante assumptions to make a coherent meaning. Assumptions no. 1 is that a movie has a potential revenue given the stars, the story, appeal, director, treatment, sons etc. Assumption No.2 is that the cost of making movie is independent of this potential revenue. Given these assumptions, the criticality and the complex nature of his job is very clear, that of controlling the expenditure schedule and ensuring that the film makes profit irrespective of all other factors..
Now that is a stunner. Irrespective of everything else, a manager has to make profit..or rather it is possible to make profit irrespective of all contingencies.
Now why is this role important in the first place, especially for other stakeholders in the project (film) at all? Here comes the answer for the larger questions regarding role of profit in business or importance of money making. The argument that aamir gave is that, if a film does not make profit ( despite collecting a lot of money), that project would be marked red against all the stakeholders name. This would act as a deterrent for other prospective partners in collaborating with you.
The second important lesson is regarding how he select films. Now the corresponding question in my mind is how can we make decision involving choice given limited information ( bounded rationality) and all uncertainties. He said he relied basically on three factors. One is the script as such. A script according to him, to be successful as a money spinner regardless of the quality of the story or intent, must set a goal in the beginning and the goal must be accomplished and only at the end of the movie. A contrary example he elaborated was that of ‘ Lakshya’. There the protagonist is a lazy teenager as shown in the start of the movie. He says the goal is set with that premise. The protagonist is lazy and the goal is to make him industrious and conscientious individual. The fault there came in terms of meeting the goal during the interval of the movie. The guy passes out from NDA in flying colors and the second half is about kargil war and all. He says the moment the protagonist completed the NDA trial, the movie has practically met with the goal of the movie. The rest was just waste of time. The second factor that he mentioned was the credibility of the creative as well as the production team. The director, producer etc must be credible in the sense that they should be able to complete the movie in right earnest and then be able to release the movie to a wider audience. The third factor was the most crucial one. He termed it thus, the director should have a story to tell. That sounded interesting for the complexity of the construct. What he meant was that the story must be something which has excited the director so much that he badly wanted to tell that story to others. Something like what sashi tharoor described as the motivation for writing books. He had said that for him writing books is like milb given out of a full mummary opf a cow. If you don’t write, it will create immense pain in you. Similarly, the director must feel the utmost need to communicate some story to others. Once the director has this felt need, the rest of the details like the technique of story telling etc will follow through. He also said that he used to gauge this in a director by asking the director to narrate the story and then trusting his own feelings when it gets narrated. Now, that is complex and subjective .
This sets me to another context. What is more important, improving skills in technologies given the quality of mind or improving the quality of mind at the cost of not learning the fad technologies. Learning technologies is more of a defender strategy while the other is more of a prospector strategy.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hypocrisy Series - 1
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, if a person were to tell one to stop smoking cigarettes yet they smoke themself, this is hypocrisy. - Wikipedia
'Do unto Others as you would have done unto Yourself' as Matter (and thus Humans) are the size of the Universe thus the Other is a Part of the Self. - spaceandmotion.com
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation - Hillel in response to the request from a prince to teach him the whole of torah while stands in one leg
The idea is to write a seeries on hypocrisy which I consider as the greatestest of all evils. Sorry I am wrong here. I actually understand that hypocrisy is the only evil in the world, the only form of ignorance that one needs to fight against. Why so? the other natural question that follows is whether other accepted evils like murder, stealing, raping etc are not evils as per my understanding. The answer is simple. some of them can be evil, all need not be.
Let me explain one case here. Take the case of murder. It could be that the person who committed it have done it with the understanding that the deceased deserves capital punishment and he would not mind getting such a punishment for the same crime. In such case, as per my understanding of evil, the person has only done the right thing though he might have to pay the price of such an action by a possible costly litigation. But then all human actions have costs and benefits and human beings can only be rational in deciding what is good and what is bad in any given situation given the potential costs and benefits.
'Do unto Others as you would have done unto Yourself' as Matter (and thus Humans) are the size of the Universe thus the Other is a Part of the Self. - spaceandmotion.com
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation - Hillel in response to the request from a prince to teach him the whole of torah while stands in one leg
The idea is to write a seeries on hypocrisy which I consider as the greatestest of all evils. Sorry I am wrong here. I actually understand that hypocrisy is the only evil in the world, the only form of ignorance that one needs to fight against. Why so? the other natural question that follows is whether other accepted evils like murder, stealing, raping etc are not evils as per my understanding. The answer is simple. some of them can be evil, all need not be.
Let me explain one case here. Take the case of murder. It could be that the person who committed it have done it with the understanding that the deceased deserves capital punishment and he would not mind getting such a punishment for the same crime. In such case, as per my understanding of evil, the person has only done the right thing though he might have to pay the price of such an action by a possible costly litigation. But then all human actions have costs and benefits and human beings can only be rational in deciding what is good and what is bad in any given situation given the potential costs and benefits.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Question No. 1
Theme : Certainty, Uncertainty, Forecast
Question: Which is more difficult to predict or forecast , the short term movement or the medium or the long term movement.
Initial Guess: The most difficult would be the short term one, followed by the long term one. The only possible forecast possible is the one in the medium term. This provided adequate knowledge in the domain and wise enough in general and lastly bestowed with luch and fortune.
Question: Which is more difficult to predict or forecast , the short term movement or the medium or the long term movement.
Initial Guess: The most difficult would be the short term one, followed by the long term one. The only possible forecast possible is the one in the medium term. This provided adequate knowledge in the domain and wise enough in general and lastly bestowed with luch and fortune.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Another instance of high return low risk game
In the case of long gestation infrastructure projects,the private sector wants to pass on legitimate commercial risk to the public while keeping the profits involved in the construction of the project in private hands through the instrument named Government guarantees. Is it not another case of high retun low risk game being played by transfering the risk component to hapless tax paying public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)