Synthesis vs. Analysis
How do we assess lumber?

I think this is a good time to talk about synthetic vs. analytic thinking, and the way it drives data interpretation, because that seems to be the axle that we get wrapped around the most during discussions, and it might be helpful in general.

Data by itself is nearly meaningless - or if not meaningless in absolute terms (gravity still matters whether or not you have enough data to interpret its effects) it cannot be put to use without reference and correlation.  If you ask me what someone is wearing and I say "green" that doesn't tell you whether that person is decked out in a parka, a thong or footie pajamas.  It's not enough information.

But WHAT someone provides as the information that they see, what data they choose to focus on, says a lot about how they interpret data, and life.

Maybe they say, "comfy clothes."  Maybe, "Hunter Green, cotton weave with vertical white stripes, ribbed cuffs and a tiger imprint on the collar." Maybe "Pants and a shirt, and some nice ebony Bruno Magli loafers buffed to a fine shine." 

Everybody can see the same basic items, but will focus on different aspects of what they see.  Focus and intent mean a lot - with data being meaningless absent someone to draw correlations, WHAT correlations you look for and how you put data together or take it apart makes a big difference in the picture you present to others, and allow yourself to see.

When Doc talks about having lightbulbs on, this is how I see it: knowledge is merely data, building blocks. The ladder picture isn't just for fun; if we cannot turn the data we have into functional application, it won't do us much good.  Interestingly, there are multiple ways to go about utilitizing pieces of data, and here's where we get back to Analytic and Synthetic thinking.

----------------------

The Analytic-Synthetic distinction is normally a philosophical term but it's been my experience that the difference is in the way the brain functions, not in how it argues.  From Wiki:

The analytic–synthetic distinction is a conceptual distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish propositions into two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world.

To put it more simply: analytic thinkers focus on the trees, while synthetic thinkers are looking at the forest.

An analytic mind will get incredibly frustrated if a synthetic misrepresents a tree with blight as being a healthy tree, while a synthetic one doesn't much care if that particular tree is looking a little brown as long as the forest itself is healthy.  Synthesists are looking at trends while analysts sift data. Analysis requires empirical data points, while synthesis requires the ability to tie disparate data points together.

That gets really interesting when two opposites on that spectrum debate each other, especially on message boards.

1) The synthesist will make statements in which he combines multiple ideas trying to find a narrative thread between them.
2) The analyst will rebut by breaking up that paragraph into multiple quotes he or she can address line by line.
3) The synthesist will address this by re-combining all the analyst's thoughts into more paragraphs to be addressed as a whole.

Chaos ensues - dogs and cats living together, basically all major signs of the apocalpyse.

An analyst wants to make sure that each building block is guaranteed to be true, validated as such after careful examination.  They sift wheat from chaff, inspect diamonds for minute flaws, and stamp "inspected by #11" on every item that passes their rigorous inspection.  That's what is meant by "analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning."  Once the intrinsic meaning of a piece of data is understood, it can be placed on the shelf as having its weight and import properly measured.

A synthesist isn't actually sure that any bit of data CAN be intrinsically true.  It's meaning and usefulness may change if it is connected to different other pieces of data.  Only when looking at the whole picture can conclusions be drawn, and one piece of data can be used in two different and polar-opposite pictures.  Truth is not in the bits of data but in the presentation and relation to the world at large. "Synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world."

----------------------

This is primarily a synthetic blog.  I'm sure it drives purely analytical types quite mad, because we will discuss WAR in one way one day, and another way the next.  We'll frown at a picture and say, "that doesn't look right" perhaps even without any actual hard data (on which we could show our work or otherwise illustrate the "truth" or mistruth of the empirical data itself).  And then we'll spend a few articles musing about the picture, and swapping pieces of data out trying to figure out why the whole doesn't seem to match the parts. This is why Logan and I had the conversation about whether the data we were using when drawing conclusion was "good enough" - for him I'm sure last year's data analysis techniques would never cut it, while for me I want the overall picture to be seen and understood and I'm less worried about being right to the third decimal place.

Although I am a synthetic thinker, let me please be clear: analytical thinkers are not approaching the various problems incorrectly, they are just doing it from the bottom up while I (and probably Doc/Jeff and some others) are looking at those same problems from the top down.  While the analysts are taking samples by the roots of tree #1473, I'm taking notes on the effects of the river running through the forest and wondering about drainage.

I love analysts because when I muse about the problems with the forest and speculate as to cause, they can definitively tell me that the soil samples taken by tree #1473, as well as their rigorous study of random soil collections taken in the range between trees #344 and #885 discount my theory. And then I can say, "hmm, well that's good to know, thanks!" and go on to musing about the overall picture, having crossed one thing off my list. :-)

Both are completely valid ways to study a problem, but when we talk past each other this is why: difference of focus.  Just please keep that in mind - and thanks for coming to the blog and allowing us to mesh analytic thinking with synthetic to provide a slightly different take for your enjoyment.

~G

Blog: 

Comments

1
Brent's picture

As I've mentioned more than once, I'm not exactly up to speed on the intricate, detail by detail ins and outs of all the SABR data. I haven't seen it put this way before and at least now I now what to call it when I looked at Ackley in the batter's box and thought "he just doesn't look comfortable up there. He's fighting something. I don't know what, but he's just not right." There were many thousands of words dedicated to what was (or wasn't) happening to him, why it was (or wasn't) happening for him, and I pretty much stayed out of it because I couldn't elucidate my feelings in a way that I thought would be accepted. It got better over the season, and I chimed in a little bit more, and to my surprise and relief I wasn't excoriated for expressing a view that didn't have a hundred data points to back it up. I know I'll never be more than average at this stuff, but at least I know if I have a question or opinion I can put it out here and I'll be commented upon in an adult manner, instead of what you get at other places which shall remain nameless but their initials are FG, BR, and (sometimes) LL. I actually use my real name here instead of the pseudonym I usually use on forums.
Plus, there's a whole lot less cursing here. I'm no prude, but I find it tedious to read the "F" word so frequently.
Thank you Gordon, Jemanji, Spec, and the rest of the folks who populate SSI.

2
F.Nietzsche's picture

Well said G,
The quantitative approach is, without a doubt, a highly effective means of extracing meaningful data that can be used to gain insight and plan. As an engineer by training, I find myself often reminding those close to me to not rely on their intuition or common sense in their decision making. Intuition can be easily tricked and often is, and the mind can create its own realities that can be proven false with simple data to the contrary. HOWEVER, 1's and 0's cannot and do not tell the whole story. If the entire universe could be quantified in discrete, quantifiable chunks of data, you might be able to make the argument that we need to rely solely on our data. But the magnitude of that information would be impossible to sift through with the current capabilities of the human brain, and regardless, we aren't even CLOSE to having that much of the universe quantified. IMO, we never will.
I've heard Alan Watts talk about "Prickles and Goo". Prickly people think that the world is composed of discrete, quantifiable chunks, while gooey folks insist that the universe and all of its components are continuous, holistic, and inseparable from one another. Engineers would be a pricklier sort, while artists would relate easily to the gooey mindset. Prickly folks will get frustrated when the can't fit the universe into nice, quantifiable boxes.
Both don't have the whole picture and never will, because the universe is made of gooey prickles and prickly goo.
Those well versed in the scientific method can mistakenly carry the process to its logical conclusion and insist "if I can't measure it, it either doesn't
exist or it is useless to my experiment". The scientific process in and of itself biased toward the attempt to places previously unquantifiable things into
nice, little boxes that can be easily controlled and understood. It is a triumph of the human mind. But it only tells half the story. What about aesthetics, feelings, pleasure? The analysis of the mechanics of these processes miss the meaning behind them. Because I can't quantify how much I love my mother, does that make it an illusion useless to my quality of life? I feel that it's a good thing that some things aren't quantifiable. I embrace unpredictability.
Take the skin on the back of your hand. The artist will admire its aesthetics, its function. The biologist will say,
"look closer, it's made of individual cells". Zoom in further you'll see the cell is made of individual components. Zoom in further you'll see the components are made of molecules. The molecules are composed of atoms. But then it gets weird. Weird because the atom then just becomes an unquantifiable cloud of probabilities. AT THE PHYSICAL BOTTOM OF MATTER THINGS ARE NOT QUANTIFIABLE.
Insisting on having all things be quantifiable (being able to "show your work") before you acknowledge their value is an endless road. You will never reach the point of absolute, quantifiable knowledge. You will never be satisfied. At some point, intuition and experience, FEEL, has to fill the gap.
Besides, when intuition is well trained it can actually be quite powerful and reliable. When a master guitarist is ripping an improvised guitar solo in real time, he is not thinking in 3rds, 5ths, keys, or vibrations per second. He likely practiced thinking this way while learning, but when it comes time to play that way of thinking is simply too slow. Besides, in that form of music, it entirely misses the point. I'm not dismissing the value of technically planned music, I quite enjoy it sometimes. Just saying that in music, as in most things, practice is a prickly process, while performance is a gooey one. But music is prickly goo. Practice is prickly, performance is goo.
Likewise, I myself enjoy the statistical nature of baseball. I love pouring through stats and analyzing the newest SABR-endorsed statistic. I like knowing that knowledge of the line drive rate of a certain batter can give me insight into a player that a competitor in my fantasy league may not have. But the stats don't tell the whole story and I doubt they ever will.
Finally, these comments are not meant as a diss against the analytical thinkers like Logan at all. On the contrary, I learn very much from them on a daily basis and I'll probably never reach their level of analytical prowess. I simply think that it's very important to remember to avoid any hubris that would lead us to think that we have "solved" the problem of baseball players in any particular way. We need to respect the value of aspects of baseball players that will never be quantified.

3

Agree with every word, plus the bonus of everything I learned reading it.
To pick one idea out of a dozen:  yes the difference is going from bottom-up, or from top-down.  And ABSOLUTELY those of us who go top-down NEED the check-and-balance from those who go bottom-up.
If you were a manager running a $10M budget and overseeing 30 employees, and you were a synthesist, you would be crazy not to have analysts around you.  You would wind up ruining the organization, and your career.
.........
In which category do you see Zduriencik, Gordon?  Bill James?  Jeff Sullivan?  Geoff Baker?
Like maybe Zduriencik is 60% synthesist, 40% analyst ... wouldn't the Ackley, 2B decision be way synthesist? ... Baker seems about 80-90 synthesist.  James may be an almost perfect 50-50 blend, but his default mode seems to be the big picture -- despite his grim insistence on precision data.

4

Just a quick clarification as to my own use of the idea .... "intuition" that is used as a SUBSTITUTE for knowledge is just guesswork.
At SSI, we speak of intuition as that which you turn to AFTER you have knowledge, the last piece of the puzzle that you use to run the last 10 yards over the goal line.
...........
That master guitarist used info download during the first 90% of his career.  As Eddie Van Halen put it, "I can still play everything Eric Clapton ever did, note for note."

5

One of the best articles EVER - (and that's in some heady company here as SSI).

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.