Skip to main content

04 Diamond of an Argument

What to expect from a well-formed argument?

I have always felt that when two disciplines of knowledge come together, great learning comes out of the exchange. And this is true irrespective of the nature of the disciplines.

Take for example this instance when I was thinking about forming a hypothesis for a client of mine during an audit assignment, when I came across this little article on gemology in my hotel room in Cairo. The article was about unique properties of diamond and how diamonds can be classified. It talks about four aspects of diamond that qualifies a superior diamond from inferior ones – these are called the four ‘C’s of diamond classification. They are: Color, Clarity, Cut and Carat. And then the article went on talking about the different aspects within the four.

But this got me thinking. Just like a diamond, don’t the same four parameters apply to anything else – say, an argument you put in front of your clients or colleagues, or a hypothesis / conjuncture that you form, or a statement that you make? Let’s consider how the four parameters stand in this case.

Let us say that you are working with a company, and the company is facing with a problem that they are losing business due to high costs. Now, what is your hypothesis? One could be that the company has very lopsided cost structure. The other could be that the pricing models are unrealistic. In any case, if you have to work your argument through, you can use the 4 C’s to ‘test’ your ‘diamond’ first.

Color – This would mean the bias that you carry when you make a conjuncture. And just like the best color for a diamond is no color at all, the best argument is the one which has no biases, no prejudices, and no baggage. I believe you will need to start from the drawing board, and without any personal biases before you come to a hypothesis. Make your mind free of thoughts and then apply it to the problem as if it was anew.

Clarity – The clarity of a diamond is viewed under magnification. Similarly, the clarity of an argument is viewed by magnifying the thought, expanding it, and seeing if there are any blemishes. The argument needs to be crystal-clear! (forgive my indulgence). In case there are any basic axioms / assumptions that are not cleared due to the nature of the argument, then they need to be either cleared wholly or included as ‘inclusions’ – that is the exact word gemologists use for tiny birthmarks in diamonds. The more the inclusions, the lesser is the clarity.

Cut – The cut of a diamond refers to its proportions, not its shape. Every diamond, regardless of its shape, gets its brilliance and glitter by cutting and polishing. Every argument, regardless of what it is about, makes an impression and shines well if it is well-formed and correctly articulated. An argument that is put in the correct form and structure is like a correctly cut, well-made stone that has the correct angles for dispersion and reflection so that the maximum beauty is realized.

Carat – As most of you would know, this refers to the weight of the diamond. This is the most significant parameter of all. As the weight of the diamond increases, so does its rarity and therefore its price. The weight, in case of an argument, is of course referring to the business impact it would have to the client. The more the impact, more is the value of your advice.

Well, that is that. Does this make sense?

The last line in the article read: ‘Don’t rush into your diamond purchase. Take your time and evaluate your diamond carefully’.

I spent five days and nights evaluating every argument I made to the client on the 4 C’s: Color, Clarity, Cut and Carat. I do not know if the client found a set of diamonds, but I surely found a great way to looking at every statement that is made to me or by me!

Best
Shreekant
8th August 2010

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Re-discovering Lin Yutang

It was a perfectly useless afternoon – like the one that Lin Yutang urges you to spend in a ‘perfectly useless’ manner. The chilly winter breeze of Northern India and its accomplice the dense soupy fog had made commutation redundant and I was confined to stay at home. It was then that I turned to my old bookshelf, rummaged some of the lesser accessed shelves and blew away dust from atop some of the volumes and made a nice pile on the center table. I had read some of these works partly earlier a long time ago, and the others I had kept for leisure reading. It was like meeting a handful of school friends once again after years – not at the planned alumni meeting, but while you are out shopping your week’s supplies – by sheer chance. I pulled out a mid-sized volume with a yellow cover that shows a man playing flute by the river and a few others listening to him, leisurely resting on the nearby rocks and trees. It was ‘The Importance of Living’ by Lin Yutang – a work I had discovered i

What Should I Read?

Like one of Douglas Adam's characters in the Dirk Gently series, I truly believe that the time spent in commuting is better spent in doing something worthwhile, so you can multitask. And just like the fellow in the story used to record his thoughts on a tape recorder and then have his steno type them out for him later - here is an attempt to write a post through a dicta-phone while driving from Delhi to Gurgaon and then converting it to text. Many times my students and other people ask - what should I read. What should one read? .. A lot of times I give some perfunctory answer and let that question pass. Or sometimes I give a very generic response to this question. But mostly I am not very comfortable when confronted with this kind of a question. And although I have always had this sense of discomfort, I was not sure why it was so. Recently, again, one of the students asked this question, and I decided to think a little bit more about it. Now when I started thinking about it,

05 Book Review: J Mingers Self-Producing Systems

John Mingers. Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press, 1995. xvii + 246 pp. I. Introduction A. Topic of the book This is an introductory yet comprehensive text about a process called Autopoiesis – which means ‘a process whereby an organization produces itself’ . The book is meant to be an introduction to the large body of work in this field, usually referred to collectively as the ‘autopoietic theory’. This theory was developed by two Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco J. Varela, since the early 1960’s as a result of their work on visual perception and the organization of the living (Maturana and Varela, 1980). Autopoiesis means ‘Self creation’ – a circular process in which components of a unity participate in processes of production, which in turn produce the components (pp.12). Maturana and Varela contend that all living systems are autopoietic – i.e. they have a circular, self-referencing and self-creating o