Neutrality synonym for indecisiveness!!! - Page 3

no, it is not synonymous with indecisiveness. it really depends on how you get there. it can be as reasoned a stance as being pro-or-for. in each of these three cases, your 'decision' of course could still be wrong.

here i think most people are confusing true neutrality as being the mid-point. the neutral point is simply the point at which the two opposing sides are in balance, after weighing them both, much like in physics. just that it might and often should take you closer to one side or the other if you are aiming for neutrality or equilibrium. 😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

no, it is not synonymous with indecisiveness. it really depends on how you get there. it can be as reasoned a stance as being pro-or-for. in each of these three cases, your 'decision' of course could still be wrong.

here i think most people are confusing true neutrality as being the mid-point. the neutral point is simply the point at which the two opposing sides are in balance, after weighing them both, much like in physics. just that it might and often should take you closer to one side or the other if you are aiming for neutrality or equilibrium. 😊

neutrality and equilibrium are two different concepts😃

as in cases of weighing in physics, if two substances have equilibrium , then they are said to be equal or same in weights

whereas ....issues or decissions are concerned .........it is not the issue or decission which has an equilibrium....or they are equal issues or same decissions...its our point of view ......either we agree to it ........or disagree to it...........or not come to a decission and remain with the two.......😕 saying we are neutral...😊

Originally posted by: rockstallion

neutrality and equilibrium are two different concepts😃

as in cases of weighing in physics, if two substances have equilibrium , then they are said to be equal or same in weights

whereas ....issues or decissions are concerned .........it is not the issue or decission which has an equilibrium....or they are equal issues or same decissions...its our point of view ......either we agree to it ........or disagree to it...........or not come to a decission and remain with the two.......😕 saying we are neutral...😊

i used the example there hoping it would be simpler. oh well. let's try this again.

let's say we have an angel and a devil. angel is 90% good, 10% bad. devil is 90% bad, 10% good.😛 now if you say you find both angel and devil equally good because you wanted to stay out of their fight, hoping to stay neutral, then you are not really being neutral, are you?

in short, the mid-point is often a biased point. in the example above, you should be 9 times more supportive of the angel than the devil if you wanted to stay neutral, no? so often people are not really neutral even though most think they are. whereas a true neutral point has no bias, and when we understand that, it is not being indecisive to stay neutral😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

i used the example there hoping it would be simpler. oh well. let's try this again.

let's say we have an angel and a devil. angel is 90% good, 10% bad. devil is 90% bad, 10% good.😛 now if you say you find both angel and devil equally good because you wanted to stay out of their fight, hoping to stay neutral, then you are not really being neutral, are you?

in short, the mid-point is often a biased point. in the example above, you should be 9 times more supportive of the angel than the devil if you wanted to stay neutral, no? so often people are not really neutral even though most think they are. whereas a true neutral point has no bias, and when we understand that, it is not being indecisive to stay neutral😉

Haha! What an example? Ok! Consider the same example of Devil and Angel.

Even in that context ,we can say that:

1. Angel is good because it has 90% good attributes
2. Devil is bad because it has 90% bad attributes

If one cannot say that Angel is good ,it might be the "fear " of the devil which is 90 % bad or because of the 10 % badness in the Angel. In any case it is being indecisive! Not able to estimate the current situation properly😉.However a bad example😛,I personally have'nt seen Angels and Devils with this proportion of goodness and badness😛!! Most of the Angels and Devils or issues or systems are 50-50 good-bad and they are not seperate entities ,they are in single entities only and there comes the problem of decision making!!😉

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

Haha! What an example? Ok! Consider the same example of Devil and Angel.

Even in that context ,we can say that:

Angel is good because it has 90% good attributes
1. Devil is bad because it has 90% bad attributes

If one cannot say that Angel is good ,it might be the "fear " of the devil which is 90 % bad or because of the 10 % badness in the Angel. In any case it is being indecisive! Not able to estimate the current situation properly😉.However a bad example😛,I personally have'nt seen Angels and Devils with this proportion of goodness and badness😛!! Most of the Angels and Devils or issues or systems are 50-50 good-bad and they are not seperate entities ,they are in single entities only and there comes the problem of decision making!!😉

no it is not being indecisive. it would be actually neutral and proper for, say, a mary to go out on a date 9 times out of 10 with the angel, and she should go out once every ten times with the devil. 😉 or maybe the other way around if she prefers bad boys. 😉anything else would be bias, non-neutral and imo wrong. being indecisive does not even come into the picture when the "neutral" decision itself is right.

and what examples of "same entity" are you speaking about which also involve making decisions that could be neutral? doesnt neutrality refer to making choices, meaning more than 1 choice?😛

Originally posted by: chatbuster

no it is not being indecisive. it would be actually neutral and proper for, say, a mary to go out on a date 9 times out of 10 with the angel, and she should go out once every ten times with the devil. 😉 or maybe the other way around if she prefers bad boys. 😉anything else would be bias, non-neutral and imo wrong. being indecisive does not even come into the picture when the "neutral" decision itself is right.

and what examples of "same entity" are you speaking about which also involve making decisions that could be neutral? doesnt neutrality refer to making choices, meaning more than 1 choice?😛

there u are.😃 as u said neutrality is making more than one choice in other words not deciding on one.....ie. indecissive ...........😃

Originally posted by: rockstallion

there u are.😃 as u said neutrality is making more than one choice in other words not deciding on one.....ie. indecissive ...........😃

lol. here we go getting excited. let's try this again.😆

say we have a universe of 2 stocks. now what portfolio should you hold? 1 stock? that would be like loading the boat, putting all your eggs in one basket. the neutral/ right thing to do would take into account respective risk/ return profiles on an expectations basis, and the result most often will not be 50% each for both stocks. rather it will/ should be skewed towards the higher return/ lower risk stock, although again you should probably not want all your holdings in one stock.😊

😆

Originally posted by: chatbuster

lol. here we go getting excited. let's try this again.😆

say we have a universe of 2 stocks. now what portfolio should you hold? 1 stock? that would be like loading the boat, putting all your eggs in one basket. the neutral/ right thing to do would take into account respective risk/ return profiles on an expectations basis, and the result most often will not be 50% each for both stocks. rather it will/ should be skewed towards the higher return/ lower risk stock, although again you should probably not want all your holdings in one stock.😊

😆 it is getting intresting..

kinda complicated example😉 but hats off to your fighting spirit👏

i understood your example...its from business studies .😆..hmmm i would say in your example u are not being neutral....the term is probability...

there are some laws in business.. and this is one of them ..the law of assumptions and probabilities... where you need to assume looses and beaware of risks as well as expect profits from the same thing....

let me give a simple eg. of this...

when a business launches a product ....it leaves no stone unturned to make the product liked by the consumer....after product launch it anticipates profits ...(now comes business law) as well as it has a risk of losses due to product failure....

anticipating profits and fearing risks of losses are business terminologies...

i fear they would'nt be described as neutrality😃

rockstallion ji great going 👏!!!!

Will come back with my views in the later part of the day!

@ CB ji :

Need to consider /read your example .... to understand it better😉😛

Originally posted by: chatbuster

no it is not being indecisive. it would be actually neutral and proper for, say, a mary to go out on a date 9 times out of 10 with the angel, and she should go out once every ten times with the devil. 😉 or maybe the other way around if she prefers bad boys. 😉anything else would be bias, non-neutral and imo wrong. being indecisive does not even come into the picture when the "neutral" decision itself is right.

and what examples of "same entity" are you speaking about which also involve making decisions that could be neutral? doesnt neutrality refer to making choices, meaning more than 1 choice?😛

That is not neutrality. Its more like playing the field because Mary cant decide if she likes the angel enough to go steady with him. So she keeps an option open by dating the devil. 😆