I wasn’t much for Statistics class in Graduate School. The professor was a kind gentleman from Korea, with a very strong accent and a stronger mind. He was funny, approachable, and a terrible teacher. For some reason, he related each of his statistical models to studies or correlations for Viagra.
This was in the late 1990’s, so maybe using the Viagra model was shiny and new for him. Or, maybe he forgot we were all graduate students and not sophomoric young men. I believe my final grade for that class was a B (might have been a C). Thankfully, he graded on a curve, because my actual final percent in that class was 37. Really.
I liked looking at scatterplots, even though at the time the method to create scatterplots hurt my brain. I could interpret data quite well. Constructing data, especially from disparate pieces of Viagra, I mean information, was another story.
Lately, I have been thinking about how scatterplots look. How at first glance they can appear to be chaotic and disconnected dots, with no relationship with the other dots on the graph. As you likely know, as the scatterplot is studied and interpreted, the dots have relationship to one another and to some larger thing.
Thinking can be a lot like a scatterplot. Not the actual physical and chemical process of thinking, but rather thinking in terms of a metaphysical and existential pursuit. How we look at various aspects of our lives or the happenings in the world, and they might seem to have little or not connection to other aspects and happenings.
But, upon closer examination, they likely connect. How what I choose to do today can be connected to and influenced by what you do today. How the choices we make and beliefs we hold are closer in relationship to one another than we likely know.
It’s not as obvious as Viagra. It’s not always on the surface and readily seen. And, I would challenge us to keep looking for connections in seemingly random and disparate events and relationships.