A few of you may recall that I often claim that Dictionairies rule the world. I bought one the other day. It was on special. It cost $8. Its worth... $8.
Dictionairies are essentially a massive cirular reference. If you look up the definition of a particularly tricky word, you oft have to look up a word used to define the original word you where researching. Dictionaries use words to define other words. If you didn't have a vocabulary already (you know no words) a dictionary would be useless to you. How do we then learn our first word?
Lets make a romantic assumption that the first word we all learn is 'mum'. There are essentially a couple of ways we could learn it, the most likely in my mind, is by sound association. We learn of the object 'mum' through experience and then we associate the sound 'mum' with the object that feeds, cleans and takes care of us. From the sound association we eventually learn to spell the word 'mum' and vola, we have our first word.
A more likely example is 'aaaaaarrrrrrgggwhaaawhhaaaa' which we associate with the possibility of getting fed, or cleaned, or not-being-held-in-that-particular-way-that-makes-my-nappy-go- right-up-my-bum. of course we wouldn't know any of this right? It would more likely be an association with x, y, z. Where x, y, z represent those things. Do you see the problem here?
Unless we have some innate ideas when we are born, we are not going to know anything. We will not know what hungry is, we are not going to know what x, y, and z stand for. How do we even know to go 'aaaaarggggghhhhwhhhaa?'
Tuesday, 4 April 2006
Monday, 3 April 2006
Identity obscured?
Hi Alvin and the Canada Crew!
To carry on the identity/success debate:
I think mum is right in a lot of respects. The focus of the previous post and the ensuing comments was a little too materialistic orientated. What I was trying to get at was the existence of those people who identify their personal success in life with some degree of success at work, measured in part by their personal work ethic, achievement of firm goals and objectives, personal recognition within the firm, and other factors which could describe 'a job well done'.
However, as before, this all needs to be tempered in light of materialistic influences as well, which is why management accounting is so problematic! Their are just too many variables and too many paradigms to describe the relations between those variables.
As for the working to pay the bills idea, I'm sorry, but thats only for suckers stuck in the rat race (Which if you are one, don't worry, their are plenty of other people with you). Plenty of evidence exists to indicate that motivation of highly skilled and highly paid employees is not determined predominantly by money (Surprising hey!) and that once an employees personal 'comfort thresh-hold' has been reached they will no longer be motivated by pecuniary compensation. Makes you wonder why these CEO's get so many stock options, don't it!
What is a persons comfort-thershold? I'm not sure, but is basicaly a point in life or level in income at which they are no longer concerned with money for survival. Money essentially becomes an object of luxury. So, for all those people in the rat race, its probably half way through retirement when your living on the income of your offfspring. It changes between individuals and varies a great deal and is predominantly lower for disadvantaged famalies/countries. It is hypothesised to have something to do with the reason why poorer society is so often easily satisfied in comparison to western countries (ie no history of consumption or luxury).
As for the body image, I think Magda is correct. Our society is rife with people who achieve a high authoratative status because of their body image. By Authoratative status I mean that they exert an above average influence on society. Eg. Hollywood.
As for body image in the workplace, I wonder if it is a more agreeable theory if we consider it in terms of poor body image. Its unlikely a person with (very)poor body image will achieve a position of authority at work. Yes maybe your boss is overweight, but are they obese? Keep in mind the ideal Body image changes across cultures, Eg. Budha.
To carry on the identity/success debate:
I think mum is right in a lot of respects. The focus of the previous post and the ensuing comments was a little too materialistic orientated. What I was trying to get at was the existence of those people who identify their personal success in life with some degree of success at work, measured in part by their personal work ethic, achievement of firm goals and objectives, personal recognition within the firm, and other factors which could describe 'a job well done'.
However, as before, this all needs to be tempered in light of materialistic influences as well, which is why management accounting is so problematic! Their are just too many variables and too many paradigms to describe the relations between those variables.
As for the working to pay the bills idea, I'm sorry, but thats only for suckers stuck in the rat race (Which if you are one, don't worry, their are plenty of other people with you). Plenty of evidence exists to indicate that motivation of highly skilled and highly paid employees is not determined predominantly by money (Surprising hey!) and that once an employees personal 'comfort thresh-hold' has been reached they will no longer be motivated by pecuniary compensation. Makes you wonder why these CEO's get so many stock options, don't it!
What is a persons comfort-thershold? I'm not sure, but is basicaly a point in life or level in income at which they are no longer concerned with money for survival. Money essentially becomes an object of luxury. So, for all those people in the rat race, its probably half way through retirement when your living on the income of your offfspring. It changes between individuals and varies a great deal and is predominantly lower for disadvantaged famalies/countries. It is hypothesised to have something to do with the reason why poorer society is so often easily satisfied in comparison to western countries (ie no history of consumption or luxury).
As for the body image, I think Magda is correct. Our society is rife with people who achieve a high authoratative status because of their body image. By Authoratative status I mean that they exert an above average influence on society. Eg. Hollywood.
As for body image in the workplace, I wonder if it is a more agreeable theory if we consider it in terms of poor body image. Its unlikely a person with (very)poor body image will achieve a position of authority at work. Yes maybe your boss is overweight, but are they obese? Keep in mind the ideal Body image changes across cultures, Eg. Budha.
Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Benefits
Some interstin' ideas thrown about in class today. Nothing really to do with accounting so you can read on! Hehe, Wusses!
First thing was the imapct that working for big firms, and tertiary and secondary education has on a persons identity. Particular focus was the work environment. The question raised was: Why do people work so hard, and do so much overtime?
The simple response is ambition, money, and peer group pressure.
The complex response is that people define themselves within a working context. People evaluate themselves in regards to their performance at work, given a particular work environment.
This plays down into society, especially materiality. In the context of an accounting firm, Life success is subtly played out as partnership, but the fast car, the beautiful wife, big house, sexy boat and blonde mistress (Sorry its a fact majority of partners are male!) are all part of the picture painted, and accepted by workers. There is more to this simply saying success is measured in terms of money, its a influence that runs deeper then the hip pocket and often gets to people without them noticing.
This can be extended even more into politics... I just forget what the link is. More on this topic soon.
First thing was the imapct that working for big firms, and tertiary and secondary education has on a persons identity. Particular focus was the work environment. The question raised was: Why do people work so hard, and do so much overtime?
The simple response is ambition, money, and peer group pressure.
The complex response is that people define themselves within a working context. People evaluate themselves in regards to their performance at work, given a particular work environment.
This plays down into society, especially materiality. In the context of an accounting firm, Life success is subtly played out as partnership, but the fast car, the beautiful wife, big house, sexy boat and blonde mistress (Sorry its a fact majority of partners are male!) are all part of the picture painted, and accepted by workers. There is more to this simply saying success is measured in terms of money, its a influence that runs deeper then the hip pocket and often gets to people without them noticing.
This can be extended even more into politics... I just forget what the link is. More on this topic soon.
Monday, 20 March 2006
Variability
Just read and covered an interesting article by Kothari, Laguerre and Leone which analysed the relative degree of uncertainty of future earnings attributeable to current R&D investment, compared to current Capital expenditure.
The key finding was that R&D investments generate more uncertain future earnings then other capital expenditure. Not that surprising really. However, considering the majority of studies focus on the impact of investments on share price or return, its a little unusual.
Risk plays a large part in the buy/sell/hold decision of investors, and the uncertainty of earnings plays a large part in determining the riskyness of a project or prospective investment.
Does Risk play a part in evaluation? Do we consider risk when we consider the value of an item, or is it a completely seperate factor? I believe it is interrelated.
If a company is not providing a satisfactory return for its inherrent risk, a rational investor will sell his/her shares in that company.
How could I incorporate a similar analysis of a major accounting cost driver or cost centre intot eh evaluation of a company. Just as an aside, are investors really concerned with the inherent risk of the company they are invested in or the risk that they are missing a better alternative investment. (ie. cost of capital or opportunity cost)?
The key finding was that R&D investments generate more uncertain future earnings then other capital expenditure. Not that surprising really. However, considering the majority of studies focus on the impact of investments on share price or return, its a little unusual.
Risk plays a large part in the buy/sell/hold decision of investors, and the uncertainty of earnings plays a large part in determining the riskyness of a project or prospective investment.
Does Risk play a part in evaluation? Do we consider risk when we consider the value of an item, or is it a completely seperate factor? I believe it is interrelated.
If a company is not providing a satisfactory return for its inherrent risk, a rational investor will sell his/her shares in that company.
How could I incorporate a similar analysis of a major accounting cost driver or cost centre intot eh evaluation of a company. Just as an aside, are investors really concerned with the inherent risk of the company they are invested in or the risk that they are missing a better alternative investment. (ie. cost of capital or opportunity cost)?
Thursday, 9 March 2006
What's in a theory?
Crazy smart people win prestigious prizes for coming up with amazing theories... so what's in a theory? What is it about theories that gets so many people worked up, frenzied and excited?
"A Theory is a coherent set of propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, assumed to hold throughout a broad range of specific instances"
What does that mean? I dunno, sounds more like the definition of a paradigm to me! Read Kuhns "The structure of scientific revolutions". Its actually interesting. Explains how irrational scientists really are!
Anyway, my guess is the purpose of a theory is to provide a foundation from which it is possible to predict when phenomena will occur, understand why phenomena occur and what they are.
Apparently we all use theories everyday. If you look out the window, and its cloudy, what do you think? Hmm, maybe its going to be cold. I guess thats a theory of kinds, but iof you put it like this; its an argument right?
(Argument 1)
Its cloudy today.
Its cold when its cloudy.
Therefore today will be cold.
2 propositions and a conclusion. Looks like an argument, smells like an argument, it is an argument. So are arguments and theories the same? I doubt it. Maybe theories don't have conclusions? Maybe when you actually make the prediction, it becomes an argument. That would make sense, because we know from my posts last year that their is a difference between arguments and explanations, and that difference is?
An argument makes a claim, an explanation does not make a claim. Ok, so a theory is just the propositions behind an explanation, with alternative conclusions depending on the phenomena that is observed?
(Explanation 1)
Its Sunny today
Its cold when its cloudy
that's why it is warm today.
Notice the subtle difference. Good. Yes I'm schitzophrenic. Hi me! Your sexy! No - you are! oh shush, your making me blush! Your girlfriends hot. Why thankyou!
Same premises, different observation, but we used the same theory (albeit the first example was an argument) in the background to determine the conclusion. So despite my best efforts, the theory remains an implicit thing within these examples... The theory is essentially the background method, framework or thinking used to arrive at the conclusion given an observation(phenomena) and set of premises.
"A Theory is a coherent set of propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, assumed to hold throughout a broad range of specific instances"
What does that mean? I dunno, sounds more like the definition of a paradigm to me! Read Kuhns "The structure of scientific revolutions". Its actually interesting. Explains how irrational scientists really are!
Anyway, my guess is the purpose of a theory is to provide a foundation from which it is possible to predict when phenomena will occur, understand why phenomena occur and what they are.
Apparently we all use theories everyday. If you look out the window, and its cloudy, what do you think? Hmm, maybe its going to be cold. I guess thats a theory of kinds, but iof you put it like this; its an argument right?
(Argument 1)
Its cloudy today.
Its cold when its cloudy.
Therefore today will be cold.
2 propositions and a conclusion. Looks like an argument, smells like an argument, it is an argument. So are arguments and theories the same? I doubt it. Maybe theories don't have conclusions? Maybe when you actually make the prediction, it becomes an argument. That would make sense, because we know from my posts last year that their is a difference between arguments and explanations, and that difference is?
An argument makes a claim, an explanation does not make a claim. Ok, so a theory is just the propositions behind an explanation, with alternative conclusions depending on the phenomena that is observed?
(Explanation 1)
Its Sunny today
Its cold when its cloudy
that's why it is warm today.
Notice the subtle difference. Good. Yes I'm schitzophrenic. Hi me! Your sexy! No - you are! oh shush, your making me blush! Your girlfriends hot. Why thankyou!
Same premises, different observation, but we used the same theory (albeit the first example was an argument) in the background to determine the conclusion. So despite my best efforts, the theory remains an implicit thing within these examples... The theory is essentially the background method, framework or thinking used to arrive at the conclusion given an observation(phenomena) and set of premises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)