I have been often asked what it is like to usher in change while working for NGOs. Well maybe experiences differ but where I work it is not cake walk.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Caveat Amateur Astrologers
I am not a professional astrologer, this gives me the chance of exchanging thoughts with a curious lot of people who undertake to predict their future by doing some research on the Web. Trust me more often than not the predictions go awry. Not because astrology is a pseudo science as some people love to call it, but because these people are into pseudo research. Unless you have a foundation you cannot understand what astrology is all about. The bottom line is astrology does not deliver. We all know of amateur homeopaths who read a book, maybe Materia Medica, and start prescribing for themselves and others. Have a candid answer from these newborn homeopaths and you will see they find themselves suffering from 60% of the diseases in that few thousand page book and 80% of the medicines seem their acute requirement!
Surf the Web for result for a specific astrological incident in the natal chart you will have about 10, 000 results and 20 different observations on it. If you note each of them down and you will be shocked to find that for every negative prediction you have a positive prediction too. I call this amateur astrologers paradox. This does not happen with a seasoned astrologer because their base is strong. It does not require an amateur to take astrology classes to be clear sighted but it does require having a learned guide.
Astrology was popular in the past as it is today, and every civilization had its own version of astrology. Today we are a global village and we share all these versions in a common language, English. An unsuspecting newbie would be reading predictions of one astrological incident from all these different books expecting a unanimous prediction, that cannot be. Just as grammar of any language is different from another, so does the analysis and interpretation of a method of astrology differ. The Chinese system is easier to identify due to their naming convention by animals types, that too if you are on the right page. Indian, Arabic and Western astrology easily intermingle as one system. How many times do we check the name of the author of the article and judge their location and probable source of knowledge. Our amateur researches definitely miss this aspect most of the time. Sometimes even some authors are as confused as our amateurs, their research too suffers from the same disease.
Normally we end up reading articles of Indian astrology with that of western astrology as one whole, while each is a separate unit in itself. The predictive calculation of each is different from the other, yet amateurs easily conclude their future by using planetary location in their natal chart. The result is confusion due to varied prediction of the same incident.
If you have read till this point you must be wondering the solution is simply identifying which system of astrology the author belongs to by categorizing them into broad based groups like Indian, Western, Persian etc. Well you must not reach your conclusion yet. This is because in one system there may be various methods. In Indian system we have a bunch of methods, each different from the other in calculation and predictions. Even each have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Jaimini system is different from the Parashara system. In Parashara system we have further subsystems, like prediction through Astakabarga, Rashi and Argala, Nakshatra dasa , Rasi dasa, Yogini dasa, Sudarshana Chakra, Kalachakra, etc.
In astrology a line of text out of context will invariably leave you blundering, what would a mess up of the system lead to! If you are Indian especially from Bengal, you would know the story of the barber turned physician of the king. When this guy was just a barber he could easily slice off a mole from the king's nose without fear of medical complexities. The king promoted him to the rank of the king's physician and he now had to learn physiology. In future the king had a mole again but this time the barber turned physician fervently refused to do the same again, now that he was aware of the consequences that may take place.
This is the predicament of the serious practitioners of astrology. Professionals often deal with one sub-system and make a prediction without verifying with other sub-system about the validity of the forecast. Indian astrology has multiple systems with the purpose of cross verification and moderation of the results. Professionals hardly validate their results due to time vs. fee equation in their practice, resulting in dissatisfied patrons about the quality of predictions. It does not affect their practice since almost all practitioners have the same flaw. The success in prediction is directly dependent on multiple use of ratification methods, the more you recheck the more chances of being correct.
Would the amateurs still want to predict their future surfing the Net?
Well, a word of caution for the professional too, just in case you are one. Please do not correct the division method of Parashara from 360 days to 365 days. If you undertake the correction you need to correct the predictions to that degree too, that is not possible unless you are a seer too. Our miscalculations bring a bad name to the subject. Why would one suppose the ancients who could predict intricacies of astronomy without a telescope or modern gadgets, would falter in major details? They must have had their reason and since we cannot consult their gurukul today as they are long lost, let us not mess up their system, go wrong, and blame the science. Let us not forget astrologers must have intuition and their natal chart too must predict their astrological capabilities... that is what the Vedic astrological books say.
Surf the Web for result for a specific astrological incident in the natal chart you will have about 10, 000 results and 20 different observations on it. If you note each of them down and you will be shocked to find that for every negative prediction you have a positive prediction too. I call this amateur astrologers paradox. This does not happen with a seasoned astrologer because their base is strong. It does not require an amateur to take astrology classes to be clear sighted but it does require having a learned guide.
Astrology was popular in the past as it is today, and every civilization had its own version of astrology. Today we are a global village and we share all these versions in a common language, English. An unsuspecting newbie would be reading predictions of one astrological incident from all these different books expecting a unanimous prediction, that cannot be. Just as grammar of any language is different from another, so does the analysis and interpretation of a method of astrology differ. The Chinese system is easier to identify due to their naming convention by animals types, that too if you are on the right page. Indian, Arabic and Western astrology easily intermingle as one system. How many times do we check the name of the author of the article and judge their location and probable source of knowledge. Our amateur researches definitely miss this aspect most of the time. Sometimes even some authors are as confused as our amateurs, their research too suffers from the same disease.
Normally we end up reading articles of Indian astrology with that of western astrology as one whole, while each is a separate unit in itself. The predictive calculation of each is different from the other, yet amateurs easily conclude their future by using planetary location in their natal chart. The result is confusion due to varied prediction of the same incident.
If you have read till this point you must be wondering the solution is simply identifying which system of astrology the author belongs to by categorizing them into broad based groups like Indian, Western, Persian etc. Well you must not reach your conclusion yet. This is because in one system there may be various methods. In Indian system we have a bunch of methods, each different from the other in calculation and predictions. Even each have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Jaimini system is different from the Parashara system. In Parashara system we have further subsystems, like prediction through Astakabarga, Rashi and Argala, Nakshatra dasa , Rasi dasa, Yogini dasa, Sudarshana Chakra, Kalachakra, etc.
In astrology a line of text out of context will invariably leave you blundering, what would a mess up of the system lead to! If you are Indian especially from Bengal, you would know the story of the barber turned physician of the king. When this guy was just a barber he could easily slice off a mole from the king's nose without fear of medical complexities. The king promoted him to the rank of the king's physician and he now had to learn physiology. In future the king had a mole again but this time the barber turned physician fervently refused to do the same again, now that he was aware of the consequences that may take place.
This is the predicament of the serious practitioners of astrology. Professionals often deal with one sub-system and make a prediction without verifying with other sub-system about the validity of the forecast. Indian astrology has multiple systems with the purpose of cross verification and moderation of the results. Professionals hardly validate their results due to time vs. fee equation in their practice, resulting in dissatisfied patrons about the quality of predictions. It does not affect their practice since almost all practitioners have the same flaw. The success in prediction is directly dependent on multiple use of ratification methods, the more you recheck the more chances of being correct.
Would the amateurs still want to predict their future surfing the Net?
Well, a word of caution for the professional too, just in case you are one. Please do not correct the division method of Parashara from 360 days to 365 days. If you undertake the correction you need to correct the predictions to that degree too, that is not possible unless you are a seer too. Our miscalculations bring a bad name to the subject. Why would one suppose the ancients who could predict intricacies of astronomy without a telescope or modern gadgets, would falter in major details? They must have had their reason and since we cannot consult their gurukul today as they are long lost, let us not mess up their system, go wrong, and blame the science. Let us not forget astrologers must have intuition and their natal chart too must predict their astrological capabilities... that is what the Vedic astrological books say.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Quo Vadis Professional Certification in Documentation
Wondering if the current categorization of course diversification is really required as some of these certification institutes, even some universities, seem to be churning out a never-ending spiral of specialization that end up in propagating the same information that is inherently taught in the other courses or should be a part of a super set group.
I will not put any particular certification to test but without some example my concern may not be clear, and of course I do not expect your agreement with my ideas but just provide some food for thought.
Technical Writing, for example, would require skills in language and computer applications, and this same skill set is required for Instructional Design. Each one may require a specific domain knowledge and that is true for almost all professions and depends on a job profile in a particular company.
To make the context clearer, let us qualify that technical writing would require knowledge of English (just for this instance as my ramblings are in this language) and a degree in Education. Technical writers are nothing but educators, especially of a specific computer application or platform, and so are instructional designers, except that they may deal with a different subject matter but the education media would be computers. Essentially they are doing the same task of educating by using of the same electronic media and thus having the same skill set requirement. Yet we see a pseudo-differentiation as technical writers and instructional designers.
Instructional designers are often required to know educational models like, Behaviourist, Cognitivist, Constructivist, etc. Can technical writers be really successful in their objective of imparting knowledge that will be comprehendable if they are unaware of education methodologies? They cannot do away with educational theories if they are serious about their profession. So essentially they belong to the same super set of computer based educators. Classifying them into two water tight groups is like categorizing junior school teachers (excluding primary teachers) and senior school teacher as two separate classes of teachers who cannot function in each others domain.
Why then do we perceive technical writer as different form instructional designer? Is it because these groups get marketed as such by a third party whose business is to create certification courses and ensure they do not run out of business? Would I say a programmer who can only write codes are different from those who can can also store them in version control application or take part in configuration management to be different from each other? I would rather say the latter group or groups are the programmers with an extra set of skills but that still makes them programmers.
A technical writer with language skills and a background in education has a good standing in documentation. This background makes them a good instructional designer as well. So essentially they are both good documentation specialists. How incongruous does it look to have a company advertise for technical writers and instructional designer separately as if they are different professionals. Would it not be better to seek documentation specialists with skills in technical writing and instructional designing, just as we seek for skills in HTML, XML, SCORM, DITA, etc., or experience in one specific domain, rather than categorize a true group into perceived categories that may not stand the test of classification by exclusion.
In my experience as technical writer I have often had to create CBT and WBT, as another instructional designer may have ended up writing white papers and manuals. This is simply because both these groups fall under documentation specialist that a company has at its disposal often named as one or the other. I have even been into marketing communications while holding the job title of technical writer, because often companies do not have specialist with that job title or the technical writer may be best suited SME for a particular application. The company is aware that essentially these job titles and profile classifications do not fall into water tight compartments. Once we know what we are dealing with, this only raises the question if the HR of the company is really aware of what it seeks.
I am not contesting specialization courses that groom a professional in a particular set of skills but just highlighting the fact that technical writing, instructional design, marketing communications, etc., are essentially the same. Specializing in Human Resource or Marketing, while studying management makes one a management professional with a specialization in that area not a separate professional with a different degree. Its high time the institutes catering to separate technical writing and instruction designing courses realize what they are into, rather than create a poor impression about itself in the industry that knows what is required to do the job.
I will not put any particular certification to test but without some example my concern may not be clear, and of course I do not expect your agreement with my ideas but just provide some food for thought.
Technical Writing, for example, would require skills in language and computer applications, and this same skill set is required for Instructional Design. Each one may require a specific domain knowledge and that is true for almost all professions and depends on a job profile in a particular company.
To make the context clearer, let us qualify that technical writing would require knowledge of English (just for this instance as my ramblings are in this language) and a degree in Education. Technical writers are nothing but educators, especially of a specific computer application or platform, and so are instructional designers, except that they may deal with a different subject matter but the education media would be computers. Essentially they are doing the same task of educating by using of the same electronic media and thus having the same skill set requirement. Yet we see a pseudo-differentiation as technical writers and instructional designers.
Instructional designers are often required to know educational models like, Behaviourist, Cognitivist, Constructivist, etc. Can technical writers be really successful in their objective of imparting knowledge that will be comprehendable if they are unaware of education methodologies? They cannot do away with educational theories if they are serious about their profession. So essentially they belong to the same super set of computer based educators. Classifying them into two water tight groups is like categorizing junior school teachers (excluding primary teachers) and senior school teacher as two separate classes of teachers who cannot function in each others domain.
Why then do we perceive technical writer as different form instructional designer? Is it because these groups get marketed as such by a third party whose business is to create certification courses and ensure they do not run out of business? Would I say a programmer who can only write codes are different from those who can can also store them in version control application or take part in configuration management to be different from each other? I would rather say the latter group or groups are the programmers with an extra set of skills but that still makes them programmers.
A technical writer with language skills and a background in education has a good standing in documentation. This background makes them a good instructional designer as well. So essentially they are both good documentation specialists. How incongruous does it look to have a company advertise for technical writers and instructional designer separately as if they are different professionals. Would it not be better to seek documentation specialists with skills in technical writing and instructional designing, just as we seek for skills in HTML, XML, SCORM, DITA, etc., or experience in one specific domain, rather than categorize a true group into perceived categories that may not stand the test of classification by exclusion.
In my experience as technical writer I have often had to create CBT and WBT, as another instructional designer may have ended up writing white papers and manuals. This is simply because both these groups fall under documentation specialist that a company has at its disposal often named as one or the other. I have even been into marketing communications while holding the job title of technical writer, because often companies do not have specialist with that job title or the technical writer may be best suited SME for a particular application. The company is aware that essentially these job titles and profile classifications do not fall into water tight compartments. Once we know what we are dealing with, this only raises the question if the HR of the company is really aware of what it seeks.
I am not contesting specialization courses that groom a professional in a particular set of skills but just highlighting the fact that technical writing, instructional design, marketing communications, etc., are essentially the same. Specializing in Human Resource or Marketing, while studying management makes one a management professional with a specialization in that area not a separate professional with a different degree. Its high time the institutes catering to separate technical writing and instruction designing courses realize what they are into, rather than create a poor impression about itself in the industry that knows what is required to do the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)