Commentary

Egerton Chang, Contributor

WE are all aware of the often-used statement, 'A man's home is his castle'. This dates back to Cicero of Roman times: Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium? It translates: What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home?

While this common-law position has been eroded somewhat in particular aspects, it remains basically the law.

But what about his car? Can it be considered an extension of his house? Is it as sacred? Is it his castle? I think many motorists would like these questions to be answered. What with windscreen washers and roadside vendors becoming more aggressive and intrusive, what right do we motorists have?

We are all well aware of the windscreen washers who sprinkle (shower) our car with water even after being told not to. Oftentimes, they sprinkle our entire car and maybe even us with water. They also menacingly shower you with curse words, particularly when you do not give them anything. I have had the situation whereby a windscreen washer actually sat on my bonnet (hood) and tried to wipe my windscreen.

How do we deal with them? One vendor, at a gas station on Slipe Road, actually pushed his head and arms into my daughter's car. I had escorted her there one Sunday morning to fill her car (gas cheaper than most). When I told him to go away, in addition to the usual curse words, he proceeded to ask if I had ever seen a '45' (gun) before.

It is not uncommon to hear of vendors and other street people pushing their hands into cars and stealing something. What can we do to make sure these wind-screen wipers, vendors, etc, do not do anything to our vehicles or to us without our consent? Perhaps the police or some lawyer could let us know.

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is often stated as follows:

The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum, and vice versa. This makes the uncertainty principle a kind of observer effect.

The observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement, he himself becomes a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter or observer. If in an exact science, such as physics, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, what then does this imply for other fields of human knowledge?

Observer effect

In the social sciences and in general usage, the observer effect refers to how people change their behavior when observed. People often do not behave in their usual manner when aware of being watched (Hawthorne Effect). This has implications for news gathering. The very fact of gathering the news actually changes the news to some degree. Do we act the same way naturally as when we know we are observed or will be in the news? What about in front of the mike or television camera?

Having been made aware of first the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and subsequently, the Hawthorne Effect, they have constantly been changing my outlook on life, particularly latterly.

I have taken them to mean that nothing in life is absolute, in black and white. I cannot be positively certain of anything, particularly concerning the human condition and situation. This is more so concerning the solution to any human problem.

Rather, the solutions must be graded on probability of success. And even here, this calculation of probability is not absolute. Even our justice system must be based on probabilities (preponderance of evidence). There is no absolute truth.

That is why I could not be a politician, or other of like kind (preacher), who states his or her position with such absolute conviction, as if there were no room for another point of view or solution.

I used to marvel at the longevity of some employer-employee relationships and of some friendships, including between husband and wife. I have come to realise that some relationships exist for so long because faults are often overlooked or forgiven, or after a long while, forgotten. There is no absolute right or wrong.

Having been in my current relationship for almost 30 years and having some employees for almost 20 years, I have, over the years, become more forgiving and understanding of human error and them of me. Or perhaps I am getting soft in my 'old age'.

When I was a youngster, it was every young boy's or 'face man's' or 'sweet boy's' dream of getting a dance with a girl at any party or dance. More particularly, you could go home with a certain degree of satisfaction and achievement if you had danced a slow (soft) tune ('rent-a-tile') with a member of the opposite sex. Even if she danced with you at arm's length with her arms outstretched.

I asked my 18-year-old daughter if she had ever danced a soft tune with a boyfriend. Like most girls her age, she loves to party. I was surprised when she told me never.

To broaden my sample just a little, I asked a 21-year-old female worker at my office the same question. She laughed out loud and replied "Never!" And she has an 18-month-old baby boy.

Is this a sign of the times?

Egerton Chang is a businessman. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com