A few days
before, came across an interesting tweet. This tweet is available here. The
tweet links to an article that talks about jargons and their usage in everyday
life. The author in the article points out that research indicates, the use of
jargons at every second instant reflects a case of insecurity and not academic learning
or competence. Therefore, one would
wonder, why people resort to jargons and high sounding words at the drop of the
hat. Of course, people like Shashi Tharoor or Manish Tiwari seemed to master
that. Therefore, it would be pertinent to decode the logic behind using
Tharoorisms so as to speak in the everyday life. If one goes further, there is
a tendency among the social scientists to increasingly resort to mathematical
formalism of late. Interestingly, the mathematical formalism only makes the
concept more complex than demystifying it. Unless the goal is to make the
concepts or language complex, there seems to be no reason why one should use
it. Yet people seem to bank on those.
A few months
back, there was a post
discussing the increasing use of Urdu when one run short of arguments. The post
had argued that this reflected rational behaviour and symbolised the only available
dominant strategy to the user. Superiority in the field entails the use of
language that is academic in nature or something that resembles the practice of
the art. Lawyers would prefer to use the language that will help them win
cases, doctors have their own jargons, so do the designers and engineers and so
on and so forth. The objective is to achieve a distinction in their field of
profession. Therefore, there is sufficient incentive to invest in development
of language and mathematics.
Social sciences
tend to ape sciences and they are perhaps consciously or subconsciously
desirous of getting accepted in mainstream science. Mainstream science thrives
on facts and thus focus on mathematical expressions. Therefore, a pursuit to
get accepted as a mainstream science compels the social scientists to use
mathematical formalism in the course of their practice. Similarly, those in the
field of humanities tend to use jargons to make themselves appear superior or
something different. Underlying in this strategy is a need to differentiate
from the rest. Given the number of practitioners in the field, there exists a
motive to appear different. People tend to get noticed when they are different.
This is best amplified by use of a mechanism, in the case language or
mathematics that stands them out from the crowd.
As with any
other instance, the need to stand out is not just within the circle but to the
crowd that keeps entering the field. In many ways, this serves as the barrier of
entry. Students desirous of entering these domains must perfect themselves with
these jargons of language, mathematical or otherwise. Those who do are
consigned to the side-lines.
If the resort to
formalism indicates a pursuit of a competitive advantage in an industry with
low concentration ratio, the question naturally comes to the mind is whether
such a strategy works in the first place. To this end, one needs to look towards
the game theory and prisoner’s dilemma in specific. Towards understanding this,
the first step would be to know whether the profession would be worse off minus
the use of these jargons. The answer is clearly no. The demystification actually
makes the subject more popular and attracts the laymen. It is the ability of
the practitioner to explain the concepts in a language that is intelligible
even to the kids that makes him or her proficient in the subject. Yet this is just
one part of the dynamics. The critical part is to establish themselves within
the practice of profession. In this context, they need to stand out and appear
intelligent. In other words, they have to follow a strategy that makes them
better off relative to the rest. Implicit in this tactic is the assumption that
others would not follow suit. Yet as goes with other cases, everybody is
pursuing a similar thought and thus end up using the same methodology to arrive
at the top. Therefore, when everybody pursues the same strategy, the outcome
will remain the same as it started off. Yet the costs of pursuing this line of
thinking is high. Therefore, as a profession, they appear to worse off
collectively. In an approach to make themselves better off, the net outcome is
ending up collectively worse off, thus manifesting what is known as prisoner’s
dilemma.
If this is the
outcome, then yet there seems to be no end to this practice. The answer again
lies in the dominant strategy. The question who will chicken out and move away
from the field. Though it is an arms race, nobody wants to become the chicken in
the game that has evolved. The costs of being a chicken is perhaps very high. Therefore,
it seems a sound and dominant strategy to follow the collective thinking or
going with the flow rather than fighting the currents.
The logic for
the above is very simple. It is about trying to evaluate what would be the
outcome if an individual does not follow the strategy of mathematical formalism
in academic disciplines like economics or psychology. There is no doubt that he
or she would master the subject and be proficient. Yet within the discipline,
they need to manifest themselves as someone outstanding. When everybody uses
the same language, the outcome might be prisoner’s dilemma but if they do not
use the language, there would be question marks raised over their credentials. To
build a standing, they need to make a presence within their domain. This in
itself would become impossible if they do not choose to coat themselves with
high sounding jargons and mathematical formulas thrown in at the drop of the hat.
They can resort to a simple language once they establish themselves but towards
that pursuit, they need to manifest their credentials. Thus to make a mark,
this becomes the only logical strategy to be followed. Once they have a made a
mark, perhaps they have little incentive to scale back as they pursue seeking
greater heights. Thus the procession continues.
Comments
Post a Comment