Rants and Articles.
Deciphering Life.
Back when I was a kid, I started learning The Rules of Human Interaction™. This is very much still a work in progress.
I was born with an insatiable curiosity, and would tear apart, reassemble and enhance every toy I ever had (in this respect, “Transformers” were the best toys ever, although my “enhancements” usually rendered them powerless to transform). I had a natural adeptness for reading, and would go through books at a rate only limited by the amount of money my parents were willing to invest in my obsessions (that would be about one book every three days or so). I was also a natural for school. School was easy.
But I never got people.
I am being quite literal here. Due to terminal lack of empathy, I actually had to draw a set of rules and keep adding to it whenever the occasion would merit. The process goes something like this:
- Random person asks a question.
- You listen, evaluate, and say the most logical thing that answers the question (alternately, you may also say exactly what you think about the issue)
- Random person becomes sad / thoroughly pissed off / murderous / happy
- Random person proceeds to bitchslap you / twist your nipples / hug you / cry
- Depending on results from previous step, you add new rule to Social Interaction Set
When the same situation arises again, you have a rule ready that applies to it, and use it liberally.
Up until a few years ago, I thought this was quite normal, but at some point realized that not everyone has to do this.
I know I’m not alone in this field. At least one good friend of mine went through the same thing (I’m looking at you, Sal), and I met a lot of people like this at IBM (I think Engineering appeals to us as a career choice).
Although I wouldn’t go as far as calling it even a mild case of Asperger’s syndrome, (I was always functional, just not well-adjusted) the basic properties are all there. I recently read “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”, and there’s a very enlightening example of this in there. At one point, the protagonist (a semi-functional autistic kid) refers to this:
As “sad”. Then this:
As “happy”. When shown these:
He was unable to say what they meant.
Although I was never on that level, I definitely could relate to his experience. Growing up, there were lots of things I had to learn that people around me seemed to take for granted. On that note, I tend to reduce complex problems to basic sets of logical rules, one example of which is my theory on relationships:
- Person A has a list of things she’s willing to live with, and a list of things she’s willing to change about herself.
- Person B has same.
- Relationships break up when either person finds, in the other person, something (s)he’s not willing to live with, that the other person can’t change.
Or, as stated in code:
This is awfully simplistic, and turning relationships into a semaphorization problem may be considered not kosher, but it usually works as a good model.
Connecting with one’s emotions, communicating needs and desires, developing a music taste, learning not to (unintentionally) “fuck up” friendships/relationships… These are all lengthy processes to the empathy-impaired individual. At one point you learn to “hack” your brain, to fix stuff you wish were there, and make it happen. This has informed my approach to all things in life.
What about you?
— sergio on May 19, 2005 
Comments
Ah, if life could only be represented by boolean arrays. We could all simply fill in large questionnaires and have a computer program (not unlike yours) match us all with a perfect mate. Actually, I think there are some people who try to do that. I’d wonder how often it works.
And, to a degree, I can relate (and empathize) with your situation. I think that you may be right; people do seem to have lists of what they are willing to change about themselves and what they cannot accept in others. The more you can do either the more flexible you are and the more you can grow as a person. That list is all very well and good. It may be a good place to start. It will help weed out relationships that could never work.
I think that the problem is assuming that these lists are either fixed or boolean in nature. We constantly add to these lists, revise them, and adjust them every day as we encounter new things. Eventually, we have to take what know and make a choice with it. Our data is incomplete, it may be flawed, some of it may not even be valid anymore, but we must still choose. At the end of the day (or perhaps at the beginning) we choose what we want to do with our relationships. Sometimes we choose in spite of the facts.
What I’m getting at is that relationships are not as simple as a compatibility list. They depend on our choices, and rarely do our choices make sense to everyone else. Think of it as both those person classes having those lists as private members. And the only way you can get them is through a series of convoluted access functions that garble the data and provide a return value that might not even be what you expect. This is probably why it’s so hard to create artificial personalities.
Best of luck to you in deciphering people.
I can totally remember that scenario repeated throughout my life, stepping through the rules of engagment & updating them when the model didnt resolve to the desired outcome.
Im quite fluid at it now. But when I was a more selfish teenager, it took me awhile to realize that I was screwing up interpersonal interactions quite often. Then I read about game theory & tradeoffs. Revalation.
I love the relationship model BTW :-)
I can’t believe you just coded relationships. That is so geeky.
You are one complicated GP, from now on when ever I ask you something I’m going to be wondering about ‘the rules’.
Although most people don’t struggle with socializing, there are those who aren’t sensitive enough, while others (including myself) are far too sensitive. Both makes social interactions harder than you wish for.
Ha,that piece of code is definitely geeky. It’s going up right next to my “theme song”.
My guess is that the interaction rules are something that we’re supposed to learn as children; but when you have overprotective parents that won’t let you go out…how are you supposed to use them and apply what you’ve learned? Or what if they just forget to teach you such things?
Now, relationship secrets only God knows where those rules come from. If you just try and make them up as you go along…well, you saw what happened.
Intersting approach, Serg. I operate a more “natural law” type OS, so when something doesn’t parse with prior experience I end up just letting things happen. I’d make a lousy programmer or engineer because of my tendancy to think of things in abstract, non-absolutes. I’m not a fan of rules, so I evaluate things within loosely defined guidelines.
Plus, a lack of empathy was never a problem for me. Sometimes a little too good at seeing things from the other perspective.
…and the problem, (and here is where it gets really geeky), is that there are actually four arrays associated with each person: saysCanAccept, saysCanChange, actuallyAccepts and actuallyCanChange.
saysCanAccept != actuallyCanAccept && saysCanChange != actuallyCanChange.
What are we to do?
I just realized that the code I posted is awfully inefficient (well, aside from the fact that it could be implemented as a logical comparison byte by byte).
There should be a “break;” right after that “relationship = false;” statement. Otherwise it keeps on checking through all the data even though the result won’t change.
Perhaps it’s a feature? =)
I am in a proprietary relationship right now so I am prohibited from revealing any of its source code. Which means even if I were to discuss it here, I would have to charge license fees to people wanting to read it. Dammit! Why did I let that open source chick slip through my fingers… she was so flippin’ sweet, I swear!
The protagonist in the book Distress had a similar set of rules he had learned. Rules number one, two and three are: ‘Never let her know there are any rules’.
Most people have at least one part of their body that is not quite average. A mutation.
Some mutations you almost never see, like having 3% extra lung capacity. No good unles you are a non-smoking free diver or mountain climber.
Other are fairly obvious, like having only 2 fingers and a thumb on each hand. A mutation like this can make it very hard or impossible to perform normal activities. One has to find workarounds.
I beleive that the mind is an organ, residing in the brain. The most complex organ in the human body. How many mutations can be there that are only evident in very specific circumstances? I’ve met people so emphatic that they seem to read one’s mind. I am not one of them.
Actualy this morning I was thinking what a great society we could make if we selectively bred children for their sense of community, empathy, lack of jealousy and greed, and all that hippy-new-age shit. Then we the anempathic mutants could take over the world with a couple lines of code and a checklist.
Mmmmm.. Sergio, I’d add a little refinement to your algorithm:
if (A.isFemale()) {
A.set_accept_list( new cList(“/dev/urandom”) );
A.set_change_list( new cList(“/dev/urandom”) );
}
if (B.isFemale()) {
B.set_accept_list( new cList(“/dev/urandom”) );
B.set_change_list( new cList(“/dev/urandom”) );
}
I actually read that book last year, and I am currently doing study on it for my English class. When that part of the story came up, it was… strange. I’m not sure how to describe it. I just felt really sorry for him, and wondered how he might find the world to be.
To the ‘empathy-enabled’, the world is a difficult enough place, especially considering that humans are so damn liquid. The problem with formulating rules for people is that there is always a coefficient h, which depends entirely on their age/gender/location/morals/religion/personality…
All right, first can I say that I understood shit from those codes (no offence) And as a kid I did go throiugh that a bit (didn’t have a rule book though) and the thought ‘Why don’t they like me?’ arrose quiet a bit, untill I had an opifany (apiphany?) and that was ‘Fuck it’
So simple and easy, and yuo don’t have to write a book. Now, now, I’m not saying I’m better than any one here (keep reading and you’ll find out I’m not..) I’m just giving a different point of view.
Now where was I? I would just say/do the next thing that poped into y head, giving a shit what others thought, and as people shun away from you, because your not ‘acceptable’ to them, you start running into the right crowd, but in all fairness my friends are all pretty srewed up to…
But the thing is, being random (or as possible as I could be) you adaped and take on other peoples personalities, but not enough to be noticed. So through all my expiriences I can say (and I don’t mean to boast) that I ‘get people’ and I could change and get along with anyone if I really wanted to, but where the fuck is the fun in that?! So sitting 20 mintutes with some one, I could get a pretty good idea about them…(mind you, I wouldn’t KNOW them, because nobody’s life is worth only 20 minutes…)
So no rule book for me, (but I wouldn’t of put it past me back then…) interact in your own damn way, and eventualy you’ll find people that fit with you, and gain more social experience then just pushing ‘enter’…
(My IgNglsh is no god. Yes i’t’s my moter tong.)
I always had trouble communicating with other kids when I was young. I’m still trying to figure out if language is comprised of just words, or if it’s an object-oriented construct. Glad to see I’m not the only thinking about social interaction as C code.
//230,220th sentence
int cognitiveModule(‘parlative’) {
sentence[‘230220’] = new Sentence();
sentence[‘230220’].subject = ‘I’;
sentence[‘230220’].predicate = ‘want’;
sentence[‘230220’].object = ‘cheese’;
sentence[‘230220’].output();
sentence[‘230220’].append(‘…please?’);
sentence[‘230220’].response.eval();
sentence[‘230220’].respond(‘Why not?’);
}
Man, I am such a geek.
AJ: Epiphany ;)
Your approach towards socialising might seem to work better now, but in the end, the Rulebook triumphs. I’d like to see how you go in the real world, like business. You can’t just think ‘fuck it’ all of the time. Life doesn’t work that way.
Yeah, coding a relationship is awfully geeky. But my husband trumps that on a daily basis:
When I tell him to speak to me in basic terminology, he does…in BASIC terminology.
What’s even more geeky is that I can understand it, even though I don’t know a single line of code. *Sigh*
Sergio, I just may be your long-lost brother on this one. I often find myself bewildered in social situations. I enjoy people, and I’m generally well liked, but I feel like I don’t know what to do in groups larger than two. I run into someone I haven’t seen for awhile and I run out of ideas after asking them how they are doing and about their job. I hear others’ questions that are perfectly simple conversation starters and am baffled that I didn’t think of that.
I was the same as a kid: insatiably curious and a voracious reader. I moved on from toys and took apart my parents’ radios (much to their dissatisfaction), coasted through school, writing contests, work, etc. But go up to a stranger and start talking like it’s a natural thing? What am I, nuts???
I’ve often wondered how I made the friends I did. I have a smaller number of very close friends, and that’s the way I prefer it. But how did we become friends in the first place? Some of them are loud and social, some keep mostly to themselves, and others are somewhere in between. I can’t pinpoint that “thing” that some people have, but unexplainably they have unlocked that door that keeps my social inhibitions secured away and muffled so that most others don’t know they’re there.
This used to make me embarrassed of or want to downplay my talents, but growing up I’ve found that living comfortably with those actually makes the other part easier. If I can use my expressiveness to connect with people and initiate relationships, I’m more apt to be myself and things get off to a much better start.
great, hilarious post, sergio! myself, i’ve always tended to be rather perceptive about distinguishing facial expressions. otherwise, i’m not so good at reading people or knowing what to expect until i get to know them. when in doubt, wear body armor.
I’m confused (`o^o`)
Haha! Too true Baron!
Mark I agree with you about the question thing, conversations with end up in awkward silences and ‘Oh look over there! *disappear*. ( :O Did I just contradict myself?!…..Oh well..)
Though I just looked at the pretty pictures in books, and not at the ugly letters.
Before to get to the cycle, you should have a CASE of relationship:
CASE friend DO..
CASE BF/GF DO…
In the arrays thingsToConsider I think they should be double arrays so you can have a weight of importance:
[smoke][-26]
[drink][-10]
In the example, what I try to mean is that is easier to me accept somebody who drinks that someone who smokes…
I sugest also a random MoodMultiplyer this can affect the wight of importance array..
MoodMultiplyer = random((Date(day)*WhatIate&drink)/(Time+place))
So…
MoodMultiplyer = random((friday*cheeseburger&beer)/(18h+bar))
is different from
MoodMultiplyer = random((Monday*eggs&coffe)/(7h+office))
I dont know if I’m being understanding here..
And finally is posible to have a evolution.module but thats a plus; I mean:
If (relationship==false) then
{
evolution.module(thingsToConsider.failed);
}
evolution.module([]){
/*And somenthing here like..
does thingsToConsider.failed I really need it? how important is to me the person or the thingToConsider?…. */
}
I would modify the proposed code making comparison results a weighted values instead of a simple relationship=false
Also, we should consider that we all have bad habbits and that we all can live with some of others bad habbits.
Pleasures and desires should be counted like habbing a nerdy GF, sex life, fan of same sports, likes bowling, etc.
function evalBadHabbits(person a,b) {
foreach(a.BadHabits as thing) do
// if has a bad habit cant tolerate,big -
if ( canlivewith(thing,b)== false )
relation-=3;
return relation;
}
function evalWillingToChangeHabbits(person a,b) {
foreach(a.ThingsToConsider as thing) do
//if willing to chage something its a +
if ( considerthis(thing,b)== false )
relation-=1;
else relation+=1;
}
function evalDesirables(person a,b) {
foreach(a.Desirables as thing) do
//if has a desirable thing its a big +
if ( containsdesirable(thing,b)== true )
relation+=3;
}
relation=0;
relation+=evalBadHabits(A,B);
relation+=evalBadHabits(B,A);
relation+=evalWillingToChangeHabbits(A,B);
relation+=evalWillingToChangeHabbits(B,A);
relation+=evalDesirables(B,A);
relation+=evalDesirables(A,B);
// other relationship boost rules
if personB.IsOppositeSex() then relation+=10
if personB.IsSignificantOther==true then relation+=10
if relation
else relationship=true;
echo “Relationship is ” relationship
echo “Relationship weighted value ” relation
Heh nice post sergio. I guess this relates also to how women are acctually the root of all evil. Don’t personally believe that it’s as simplistic as you have shown in your code above.. But heh still a very nice post
Excellent article. Reminds me of a documentary I saw about autistic kids who needed to be “trained” to be social because they just didnt see the point. The only reason they needed this skill was to function in a world where everyone else consdiered it important.
Keep it up y’all, pretty sone you guys will make a program, that is basically human and then you’ll all win awards…..except for that Anonymous guy… oh well tough cookies…
Still being a kid (13 years old, for your information), I can relate to a lot of that, as for the engineer thing… *Wonders what it’s like inside 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino*
As for the book, it is good, although I still don’t get the maths thing in the appendix :P
Some of you guys are taking this programming thing a tad seriously o_O;
Dave (AKA troll-.-): If women are the root of all evil, why is it the men who seem to do 95% of the killing, murdering, warring, robbing, raping, maiming, and destroying in the world (and with glee).
As for you Sergio, for shame… breaking down relationships to a C styled programming. Relationships are far too complex for that. You need to use assembly^.^ j/k
I can sympathize with your plight to an extent, though. Perhaps that is why I keep coming back to this site. I was in a similar situation as a child. I didn’t keep a rule book, though. I never understood other people. It resulted in me becoming somewhat of a cynic and an exceptional debatist. I have friends that to this day won’t discuss any issue we disagree on (esp. science, religion, politics, and world views).
BTW, and perhaps a bit ironically, I’m curretly in college… double majoring in math/engineering.
Silence that is only a matter of perspective (the man/woman thing)
Woman are always complaining that they are the ones downgraded all the time and that women are more vulnerable then men(Like most rapists are: man attacks woman)
Not true, except that for women it’s advortised more. More men are raped than women, its just this idea a lil’thing called ‘Society’ (media, tv, and so and such) stuck in your head. So there, both man AND women are the root of all evil. (Why’d you think God kicked BOTH Adam and Eve out of Eden?)
I didn’t say men were the root of all evil. I said you should not say women specifically are. People are evil period. Look at Iraq, look at 9/11, look at the Crusades, and look at the World Wars to see that.
As for the more men than women are raped, that is quite false. It is true that men are sometimes raped, but it is no where near as common for men as it is for women. Look up the statistics sometime. We went over them in detail in my sociology: criminology class.
Also, I am quite aetheist. Adam and Eve are a redundant thing to bring up when argueing with an aetheist.
Lastly, in response to the comment: “Woman are always complaining that they are the ones degraded [sic-downgraded],” I didn’t once bring up women being degraded or down trodden once, I merely stated that to say women are the root of evil is a logical fallacy and pointed this out by showing all the ills that men cause in this world.
Try reading more carefully before you assume I’m pushing the feminist agenda next time, and remember “you make an ASS out of yoU and ME when you assume.”
Ha… I won in the geeky test, I had never had a relationship!! lol.
(but I’m in the process), and your code is a good hint.
*cheers
Although unfortunately I can’t empathize with you, I can relate to your empathy-impairment 100%.