A (sub)scripted life
Okay, for this post, a symbol like X_y reads “X sub y”; in other words, y is a subscript.
For awhile now I have been thinking about how I sometimes act or feel or think differently in different situations. While I am generally okay with that, sometimes it bothers me; sometimes I think that my reaction should remain constant over a variety of scenarios.
In other words, often I want K_i = C for all i, where K_i refers to my reaction given some context i, and where C is a constant.
This simply isn’t always possible. So usually I’ll end up with something more like: K_i = C_i. Here, my reaction changes depending on i.
And when this happens, I find myself questioning the nature of i. What does “i” index? The person I am interacting with? My emotion of the day? Age/the passage of time? Reflection? I often tend to assume that i is some intrinsic quality of myself (my own emotional state, the amount or quality of reflection I do on a topic, etc.). And there, the question becomes when and whether I should strive to reduce (or expand) the range of i. For a weird example, should I have a different personality when interacting with each of my friends (i labels friends), or should I have just a few different personalities to choose from when interacting with friends (i has only a few values, so i labels subsets of friends), or should I always just be me (i has one value)? Just so that you’re not too worried, I don’t think about this particular case very often – besides, you all know how scatterbrained and wacko I can be!
And instead of indexing some intrinsic quality of myself, is it possible that i can sometimes index some quality about something completely external to myself? Basically, can “i” be not just an index, but an indicator? For a silly example, I’ve noticed that often K_i = good on sunny days but K_i = bad on overcast days. That suggests that i is an index for weather. Even Mom tells me that this trend was apparent back in my days in the crib (crib being a real baby crib, not ghetto slang for something else). :)
posted by Katie @ 10:06 AM
7 Comments:
If you'll allow me to convert to a more computer sciencey notation, it sounds to me like what you're saying is:
K = f(W, C, T, ...)
Where:
K is Katie's personality
W is the weather
C is present company
T is time
And you want to produce an f() such that its variation is minimal so that change in K is minimal. Is this a correct interpretation of what you're getting at?
Or are you assuming that f() is not changeable, but the variables are, and you want to find the balance of variables such that change in K is minimal? Or am I way off?
Ew! Computer science! Okay, I just have to remind myself that it all boils down to math anyway. :)
I thought about getting into multiple indices (especially to allow interaction between internal and external components), but decided against it for now. However, I do agree that your function notation is applicable to this case (because I don't have to worry about having one set of domain variable values map onto more than one K value).
That said though, I'm not even sure what I want. Most of the time I simply think that it is good to use noticeable changes in K to try to identify the variables of the domain (W, C, T,...). Perhaps I should kick one of the variables out, or include another. Perhaps I do need to try to alter the function itself, because I cannot expect that the important variables are going to change (by change, I mean disappear, appear, or have a different set of values). Or perhaps it's just an interesting thought experiment that allows me to better understand myself and my areas of weakness.
And in the end, I'm not sure how much change in K is desireable or healthy anyway. I think that the desired variation in K is itself a function several factors, most of which are hard to identify. Man, I hope that this is making some sort of sense.
Ew! Computer science! Okay, I just have to remind myself that it all boils down to math anyway. :)
And if you ever doubt it, just come work where I work. ;)
Or perhaps it's just an interesting thought experiment that allows me to better understand myself and my areas of weakness.
Not to nitpick here, but why look at it as understanding weakness? It's really about understanding oneself, and doing so increases the power you have to influence K.
I'm reminded of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People. In it, he points out that we have time after an action occurs to determine what our reaction will be. That really struck a chord with me, because as soon as I was aware of it, I became able to respond to situations with more patience and perspective.
This exercise strikes me as similar. You're gaining an awareness of yourself which will help you be able to influence how you feel. Perhaps Covey would add a variable, F_c: how you choose to feel. Obviously other variables can override that one, but it can have quite a bit of power.
K_i depends on C_i, obviously... we all know that... the trick is that it's more accurately C_{K_i}: how Carl wants Katie to feel at index i, and really this whole thing should be done as a function of time :)
If you're thinking, but wouldn't C_{K_i} be constant anyway? That's not true... there are degrees of misery I wish upon you at any given time, and they do vary... :)
ROFL! K, all you really need is this.
That and don't pay any attention to Carl. ;-)
Now you've done it. Katie is going to be distracted for the rest of her life now. ;)
That's awesome!!
And yes, I will be distracted. That wonderful chocolately link reminds me of my trip to Maine last summer, when I got to meet Lenny the Chocolate Moose!. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home