Things I am good analysing ( and things I am not)
What are some things I am good analyzing? What are some things I am not?
One thing I certainly like, if not ( and probably decently good at in atleast some of them) good at analyszing is things which are "abstract". Finance, economics, math, even random philosophical gyan and may be to a lesser extent stuff like sociological phenomena, psychology
What do i suck at? Anything to actually do with the physical world in some sense! might have some knowledge of it in certain cases but either uninterested or just totally useless at it or both. Physics- meh, Body language of people- suck at figuring out, How cars work or comparing two of them- not much idea or not much interest either. All physical worldish stuff in different ways!
This is a bit of a detour, but by a funny twist of fate ( or rather due to one among the many sucky and uninformed choices i have made in my life) i actually spent 4 years doing mechanical engineering btw (Very physical worldish even if man made worldish). God effing knows why. god effing knows how i managed to get through that with decent grades, better with quite a margin actually over my MBA grades in subjects i was far more interested in! Guess being mildly sincere , mildly competitive, hard working ( fair to say these qualities declined as i got older) beats liking, interest, passion etc eh
Its actually kind of interesting though that even within the abstract spectrum, my interests over the years moved from the certainity and some amount of linearity ( x leads to y) in most of math for example to things involving uncertainity ( markets). It kind of fits in , in some sense, with what i point to in the next part of the answer.
Back from the detour and to the original question. So one axis to answer the question is the abstract vs real axis. Another would be first person vs third person.
I actually think I (or rather the current me to be more precise) am a pretty super objective person. I think I was always good at analysing things objectively but what has changed over the years is my ability to look at things from various point of views (POVs), sometimes if need be even in a moral agnostic way ( the different POVs that is). It doesnt mean that i put different POVs at equal footing but i can understand where people are coming from and why they do what they do. I might not give them equal weight because i might view some things as being values wise superior. Or i might just view certain questions as intractable questions -- there are no right answers really ( just a random e.g think questions of politics/geopolitics etc), but that doesn't mean you don't choose a view, you can still choose one and stick to it! Biased but objective atleast internally in the thought process!
Which is a broader point. you can have your biases and blind spots but be cognizant of it. i think that's still objectivity. And i think I am ok at that ( and this has become better over the years)
This I can do at a third person level more easily. First person level more tougher . Why? things ranging from ego maybe to just personality type ( e.g introversion) to just the allure of status quo maybe to sometimes a bias towards optimism ( sometimes towards delulu maybe, but hey even delulu can be a "rational" delulu ( but delulu all the same))
To explain further, I can zoom out and look at myself in a third person sense, figure out what i am doing right, whats going right what isn't, how i should fix .Now setting that actually right, well that's first person stuff. way more difficult!
There is probably more "axis" on which I can think of, on answering this question but for now, guess this post itself is running quite long. Part 2 sometime else maybe
Comments
Post a Comment