Note to recruiters

Note to recruiters: We are quite aware that recruiters, interviewers, VCs and other professionals generally perform a Google Search before they interview someone, take a pitch from someone, et cetera. Please keep in mind that not everything put on the Internet must align directly to one's future career and/or one's future product portfolio. Sometimes, people do put things on the Internet just because. Just because. It may be out of their personal interests, which may have nothing to do with their professional interests. Or it may be for some other reason. Recruiters seem to have this wrong-headed notion that if somebody is not signalling their interests in a certain area online, then that means that they are not interested in that area at all. It is worth pointing out that economics pretty much underlies the areas of marketing, strategy, operations and finance. And this blog is about economics. With metta, let us. by all means, be reflective about this whole business of business. Also, see our post on "The Multi-faceted Identity Problem".

Thursday, April 7, 2016

RESPONSE: Response to Manivannan

I came across a citation of my paper on the Tamil language on the Internet. I believe that my paper has been improperly cited. So this post is by way of response.

I am going to request this author to not cite my paper in the future. This is because I don't think he has understood it. Furthermore, I hate to say this, but I don't think he is conducting himself professionally.

However, given that he has chosen to cite my paper, I would like to respond to Mr. Manivannan (the person who cited my paper but done so improperly). My response has two substantive portions:

(1) Note on manner of academic engagement:

Mr. Manivannan claims to have read our paper (and, therefore, implicitly to have understood it).

I do not believe, however, that the author of the paper has done two things required to professionally engage with the paper: firstly, to make an attempt to fully understand the paper itself; and secondly, to make an attempt to either understand the mathematics in a paper or report inability to do so. Here is the requisite section of the paper where Mr. Manivannan has attempted to place this paper in the context of other papers, other proposals, et cetera.

Usage of diacritics to render foreign sounds, loan words, academic notation, etc., is not a new idea. There have been other proposals to use diacritics to render Sanskrit (Sharma, L2/10256), Hindi (Manikutti, 2012) or other foreign sounds (Sevakumar, 2010) in Tamil using the Tamil character set. However, such usage in random proposals, printed texts or a few other non-standard sources needs to be weighed against standard practices of language community. 

(Simply put: If you do not understand the math, Mr. Manivannan, you should say so. It is okay. It is acceptable to say that you don't understand the math in the paper but that you disagree with it.)

(2) Notes on the points raised:

(a) Mr. Manivannan has not clarified what his actual point of disagreement with my proposal is.

(b) In fact, Mr. Manivannan has not clarified what his actual point of disagreement with any of the other proposals, in fact, is. Calling another scholar's work a random proposal -- and clubbing it with other authors as well -- is rank unprofessionalism. I don't even know whether my proposal should be considered under the category of "printed text" or "random proposal".

(c) There is no indication that Mr. Manivannan has understood any of the mathematics in the paper.

(d) It is to be noted that, one of the sub-proposals in the paper goes as follows: use such characters as "|", "_", et cetera, to introduce foreign sounds. These are already being used in Tamil. So much for lack of conformance with Tamil orthography.


The only thing I can think of at this point is complete disengagement. Let Mr. Manivannan do what he wants, but he needs to start providing some proof that he understood the math.

(Btw, at this point, James Bonilla has this to say: "By talking about a paper you clearly don't understood, Mr. Manivannan, you look like a fool. You have clearly not understood the paper. You are clearly dismissing the paper. God! What a jerk!!" Sorry, but those were James B.'s exact words.)

If Mr. Manivannan so wishes, we can engage on Quora or some platform where a BNBR-type ("Be Nice Be Respectful") norm is enforced by external moderators.