what paradox?

I keep using this phrase many times to explain how simple thinking can make a big impact. Many times my colleagues ask me for gyan or some books. And in the event that I need to recommend a simple book, I explain ‘this is really quite straight or simple or logical. My wife understands this.’
It sounds derogatory but it isn’t meant to be. Its equivalent of my grandmother can run faster than that. It is the equivalent of - my wife is a house wife and you guys are supposedly smarter and more exposed while working but you are unable to think clearly. My wife is able to think better and clear.
Jasmine is a clear thinker with an unmuddled mind. It’s surprising how she refuses to see the possibilities in the choice offered. Sometimes it can drive me up the wall as I tend to create tree structures in my mind while she simply sees it as one road. But I learn from her to keep things simple and straight.
One interesting piece was when I was explaining the book Logicomix (link) to someone. It’s a graphic novel that tackles a seemingly infinite and complex subject. My colleague asked me if it was really that simple. The inference being, that me a different being, can common people understand it. I said ‘my wife understood the Russell paradox thanks to the book.’ In such situations since my wife would share most of my life experiences she tends to be the comparison point if I am removed from the equation.
But the book is that lovely. It helped me understand to whatever level possible, some depths of math. And I loved the Russell Paradox. To prove the books superiority I sent the wiki paragraph about it to the colleague and said, my wife now understands this thanks to Logiocomix. Here is the para reproduced for your interest. If you believe (or don’t believe) that something as complex as this can (or cant) be explained in a simple manner - then please buy the book. I loved the book. And yes, Jasmine loved it as well.

“It might be assumed that, for any formal criterion, a set exists whose members are those objects (and only those objects) that satisfy the criterion; but this assumption is disproved by a set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. If such a set qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox.”

the gist is simple explained as - if it does... it doesnt and if it doesnt then it does.

a little less sleep, a lot more thought

I have been getting all sleepy these days thanks to a little less sleep everyday. The reason - two back to back fantastic books. One I finished was called Logicomix – a graphic novel that traces Bertrand Russel’s quest for the foundation of mathematics. As dense as it sounds, I guess most the book I could not really claim to have understood in depth. Most of it would have been understood in spirit. I basically understood what the premise is and what the large issue was. But I know only enough to know of it and nod enough to speak of it. But that’s also a big thing.
Maths and physics were easily my favourite subjects. Scared stiff by the engineering competitions I choose to take up commerce and reduce all possible future tension. For the next five years at least. Till I figured that it led no where and I did my MBA. That the MBA also went no where is another matter altogether.
So whenever I get my hands on a half decent physics or math book which is written in a manner that a tenth pass can understand then I am completely keen and sold on. Some of my interesting books have been the dead famous series on Newton and Einstein along with the book that is essential the biography of the equation e=mc^2.
Once Logicomix got over, the book I picked was the Singapore story by Lee Kuan Yew. I have been a great admirer of his, especially after I had personally seen for myself the amazing city of Singapore. While there are enough critics but there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the man and the progress of the people.
I have just started the book and it is immediately a compelling read. He talks about his teachers and the effect they have had on his thinking. It made me sit up and think. Have I made a contribution to the kids I have had the chance to teach. As I have grown I have tried to teach what I think the kids really need to imbibe as a mindset. Much more than mere theory.
If I have been able to inculcate a mindset that enables them in the future to attack various situations and be able to keep their thinking clear, then it would have been well worth it. that’s why its always nice to meet old students. Some of them come upto you and tell you what they have learnt from you and how it really helped them. It is the same in office with my subordinates. That is how I guess I must judge myself and act in a manner that best allows this to happen. It’s not a popularity contest wherein the votes count immediately after the display of ‘skill’. This is a slow burn. Years and decades later if someone remembers you for the value you have added to them and not merely helped them at an unfortunate moment, then you have really done your job.
It also set me thinking on education opportunities. Instead of choosing the commerce stream, if I had taken the arts stream and got into the best college with the best teachers might have enjoyed my education better. Arts was for the women and the men who wanted to be near women. I am not so sure if my parents would have been happy to have their son in arts. Especially after my brother’s lost way in the education system. I was my dad’s final hope. He wanted me in science, an engineer perhaps but being principled that he would not influence choice of stream, commerce was still ok. At least I was not threatening to fail a la big bro.
Teachers have the ability to affect the minds of their wards. It’s a pity that they don’t see it as thus. But then at 200 bucks an hour that I get for teaching, I am ok as it’s not my bread and butter. I would be happy to pay. But how can it motivate a genuine talent to make it a profession. With good women now going to corporate life even the last hope of them joining the only “respectable profession” of teaching is fast diminishing. What’s good for the corporate may not be good for the country. But you can’t really do anything about it. The invisible hand of Adam Smith will transfer the best resources to where it will see the maximum value.
Only issue is that he talks about the long run and we live in the short run.