Intution and Verification

I have sometimes felt that I have an inkling as to why a certain thing would happen.I could not or explain only after rethinking continuously as to why I had arrived at the decision.I had believed that intuition was mostly to be relied upon and trusted.I had inkling that India would lose the 2003 WorldCup.I had no notion of how or why I arrived at the decision.Maybe my intrinsic pessimistic nature might have been the reason but I had started to trust and fear intuition.Mostly they related to fatalistic accidents to persons I know or disastrous results in the endeavors I undertook.

I would not verify how many of them had turned out to be right.I would not record them and check for its outcomes.All I remembered were the ones that had come true.My certainty had been based on an assumption that I had not  troubled to verify.Looking back I am sure that some of it might have been proved wrong.The probability that it would have turned to be correct would have been at the max 50-60%.This would have allowed me to take intuition lighter and not with the dread which consumed me particularly when they predicted doom scenarios.


It had lead me on a digressive path to wonder how much what I believe were crosschecked with available data and verified.A guardian article particularly reminded of this point.Jose Mourinho was believed to have often won 1-0's that it became his perceived image.But the author (analytic Jonathan wilson I think ) reminded that it was not the case and the number of matches he had won in similar scores during his real madrid tenure were 3.

But then should I not trust my intuition ?.I have no answer but mostly I will.Though in the frame of mind that I am now writing I am hopeful that I can add a bit of caution and not trust it completely. 

Structure and Agency

Its been a long time writing ,putting words into thoughts in a coherent manner.My considerable lack of writing practice have lead to long sentences,as my friend pointed out ,long sentences lead to difficult reading and comprehension.

I would like to continue this post correcting this flaw and present my ideas in short sentences.All the systems in the world have a structure,certain set of rules.Those that inhabit the system have to play by the rules in the system.This is same be it a sports field or an institution like family,society or politics.Some of these are explicit like laws and coded rules,others are accepted norms..Any deviation from the accepted norms is always frowned upon and the violator is always being forced or coerced to confirm to the norm.

My struggle seems to be to understand how much structure determines our actions.Whether our actions can have a freedom independent of structure,if so what are the consequences.Some of it are obvious,any violation of legal rules lands us in trouble.This allows us certain acceptable behaviour in a society.The acceptable behaviour can have a lot of individual freedom or more social order depending on how the rules are written.

 Norms are still more difficult.The following of Norms in any case whether by peer pressure or social acceptance tends to create a structure which limits your actions.In cycling it was speculated that everybody was using drugs.So you had to use them if you had to win.You could not do so but it would almost certainly lead you not to win.The other option was to report on widespread drug use which would carry its own pitfalls.The strucure and the objective had lead most to take only one possible option,to cheat same as others.