I wrote this thing on another blog and I thought it would be nice to write my findings here. For those who don't know it has to do with a twisted variation of the Monty Fall problem that bugged me for days. I first wrote about it in my previous blog entry. I am not the guy who spends a lot of time in endless discussions on twisted quizzes or counter-intuitive problems cause usually I am more practical, like who solves sudoku or IQ tests when I actually manage to write a new algorithm that is both clever and usefull? But this one for some reasons hit me and I became a little obsessed with it. I still don't know if it's 1/2 (I'd say, inspired by PHd comics that it's pi/2 :) but the simulation with my own rules does it even if the mathematicians prooved the problem differently (they didn't even defined if something happens when the host accidentally reveal the car,.. oh well just read at the end ps or just get familiarized with the monty hall/fall problems, except if you don't want to waste your time :)
For the Monty Fall problem (the second variation) there is too much controversy and that is I think because the description is kinda weird and I can't think of a way I could possibly simulate that in reality nor can I have a good insight (yet) of what is the difference or what hard math or a very deep perception of statistics or probability that I could possibly lack. Till now I thought this was also 2/3 and tried to find out why they say (Marilyn, the PDF with the probability math I still haven't read, etc) it's 1/2.
One think that is not explained is what happens if the host accidentally opened the car. This is not defined. It says that he slips in a banana and randomly happens to get the goat. So, does he always randomly slips and gets the goat (so that the game show makes sense) or is revealing the goat just a specific run (and what happens in this case) and in the other runs the host would possibly reveal the car too. Yet we are asked if in the specific run that a goat is revealed (but a car could be revealed in other runs too) what would happen?
Although to be able to check it in a simulation a rule must be set for what happens if the host chooses the car. So I invented my own two different rules for my simulation:
1) The unfair rule: The game goes on and the player switches from a goat to a goat and looses anyways. So, the host can accidentally reveal the car and make the player instantly loose. In a C programm the simulation really gets us the proposed 1/2. That's easy.
2) The rerun rule: If the host randomly reveals the car then that run is simply discarded (and not counted in the total runs) and we setup a new one and try again. Now in this one I initially made a 2/3 but when I explained the monty hall/fall problem to my brother he surprisingly came with nice ideas to use in my simulation. My mistake was that when I had a new run with the 3 doors, getting the car I started the simulation again but with the same contents in 3 doors. That means, if I had GOAT CAR GOAT and the host opened the 2nd door with the car, I reran with the same GOAT CAR GOAT (didn't randomized again a new set of doors) and randomly the host would select the 3rd door and let the run continue. But this was like canceling the mistake of the host and selecting always the goat, bringing it back to the old monty fall (not hall) problem, thus 2/3.
He actually told me:
CAR | GOAT GOAT
GOAT | CAR GOAT
GOAT | GOAT CAR
"In the occasion of the second or third row the host has a 50% probability to fuck up and select CAR. In the 1st row the mistake will never happen. So if you change your simulation programm so that a wrong choice actually reruns the game by shuffling the car/goats order in the doors, you will get twice times the first row than the others. In the first row if you switch you certainly loose. So you have two cases that switching makes you loose (two times the 1st row) and two other rows (2nd and 3rd) that switch makes you win. This is 2/4 aka 50%."
And so it actually worked in simulation for both rules getting 50%.
p.s. Although I don't think that the people who originally invented the Monty Fall version of the problem thought of these rules for the solution. If they had they would be more precise. Somehow I feel that the Monty Fall is a slight variant of the Monty Hall deliberately made to get a 1/2 effect maybe to justify the several PHDs who did it wrong on the first problem and say that, they understood the Monty Fall variation from the description, not the Monty Hall description. They say that Marilyn had an unclear description of the initial problem. But Marilyn's description is just plain right. It's the Monty Fall variation that has an unclear or misleading or not complete (needs more data) description for me. It's just a counter-intuitive problem that most of us reply 1/2 at first sight. Did all of us thought of the Monty Fall problem? No. We just didn't see the whole image, just hide the revealed car and worked independently of the initial choice. A common pitfall. I don't believe that all those PHDs and especially other non-mathematical people just got it different. They got it wrong with a first guess as I initially and my brother and my friends did.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Mind twisting
It's been three days since I started obsessively analyzing a simple probability problem and different versions of it. Several years ago a friend told me the story of a woman who baffled several mathematicians by insisting in her extreme sounding solution which proved at the end to be true, and her case made an impression on me yet my friend couldn't remember her name or I didn't googled it enough then. And just few days ago I was ecstatic to find the story at Coding Horror.
I won't explain the problem since it's very nicely written in the link above and many people might be familiar already with it (please visit the link first if you aren't). It's just funny that after you read the problem you initially say 1/2 and it sounds so logical, you read 2/3 and you are certain that she is wrong, even though her explanations are quite simple and they are truly making sense (even to the math illiterate), while even famous mathematicians say this can't be right, till a call for trying to simulate a probability experiment proves them wrong. I tried the same thing in a C program and it really shows after few runs. There are even java applets that let you play the game of the problem for several runs and report the probabilities. Wow! (It's funny to read the story on the site of Marilyn and grin at the reactions regardless the simple mathematical or empirical explanations.
Of course I didn't described the problem but sent you into external links because it's not the one I want to discuss (it's already resolved) but the extension of it.
Say that you have the three doors again, you start with your choice and later the host opens one of the two remaining doors but randomly this time (not deliberately revealing the one with the goat). This means that he could also mistakenly open the door with the winning car. Although because in that case the show would be disaster it assumes that he gets lucky and randomly chooses a door with a goat. What's the possibility of switching from your initial choice to the alternative remaining one?
I would assume at first that since the host selected the goat, whether he did it deliberately or not this occurrence returns us back to the first version of the problem. You have taken one door and the host reveals a goat, your probability of switching is still 2/3. But both Marilyn, the wikipedia article and some mathematical pdf explanation states it's 1/2. And that's where the baffle begins.
First of all the example is quite imaginary and I could not easily think of a practical way to do the many runs and find out the experimental results. In the classic problem the host would deliberately select the door with the goat. So if he knew that one of the two doors contained the car he wouldn't chose it at all to not ruin the show. In the description of the extended problem the host forgets which door has the car and randomly chooses one of the two remaining doors, although it assumes that he luckily avoids choosing the door with the car. One could mistake that by thinking that even in several runs he always gets uberlucky to always not hit a car. But if I understood the description well you could assume that in that particular run he gets lucky and selects the goat yet the rules of the game is that he could even have chosen the car (someone would say that we don't care what would happen then since we only analyze this run). Yet I still have some good arguments why switching might not be 1/2.
First of all somebody should give an insight of what would happen if in a specific run the car is revealed. Because it matters if some of us wish to run a hundred of runs in experiment or computer simulation to be convinced. In that case, would the host say "ooops", pause the show to create a new arrangement of goat/car placements and start from scratch? This is like discarding the cases where he accidentally chooses the car so he always chooses the goat bringing us back to the initial problem with the 2/3 solution.
The second alternative would be that there is a special rule that says, if the host randomly reveals the car the competition goes on normally and then the player looses anyways. In my simulation program I removed the code that denies the host from revealing a door if it's a car. And then I don't care what would happen in real life if such a thing occurred and just run the simulation. A switch between the unrevealed doors will move from a goat to a goat and the player will loose anyways. Say that it's unfair rules of the show. This simulation gives a 1/2 after several runs. The problem though is that it doesn't suppose that a host slips in a banana and randomly reveals a door that happens to be a goat, etc, etc. It takes as valid that he reveals a car too.
There is something seriously wrong with the description of the second problem. It assumes that the host randomly chooses a door yet again it claims that it has to be a goat, yet it's still could be a car but it never is, while it doesn't claim what it would happen in the case it ways which isn't necessary seems we assume that it randomly is always (or in one run) a goat. I mean,.. it's as crazy as Schroedinger's cat!
A way it would make sense is to split it into four categories. Two of them happens before the game starts, the other two take place just after the host reveals a door.
I say to a friend that I want to go to a game show where at the end there are the three doors and the host always randomly reveals one after my initial choice. He speculates:
Case 1: If accidentally revealing a car forces the host to cancel this run and do it again from the beginning (and the next one accidental car choice, recursively forces him to discard the next run again) then the only valid run that finally happens is the one where he reveals a goat. This goes back to the original problem with the solution of 2/3.
Case 2: Accidentally revealing the car by the host results in the unfair rule of the player loosing. Either he switches or stays he gets the goat. Remember, I am not in the middle of the game, my friend speculates what are the possibilities either I switch or not based on the unfair rule. I don't know yet if he will select a goat or a car in the future. It tells me that if I play such a game in the future and given the possibility to switch, I have a probability of 1/2 to win either way.
I am already in the last part of the show, I have already chosen a door that I don't open yet and the host is about to reveal another one of the two. In the situation that the rule of case 1 was valid (discarding the revealing of the car mistake and doing it again) it would still fit in the old problem with the 2/3 solution. We only discuss now the situation when the unfair rule is at work.
Case 3: The host accidentally reveals the car. Either switch or stay gets a probability of zero.
Case 4: And now for the most important case. This is the one that is described in the problem in my opinion. The answer for this matters the most. The host randomly revealed the goat. He actually gave you an advantage! There was a possibility that he would hit case 3 but he didn't and your turn comes after that fact. He eliminated some negative odds of choosing the car concerning the unfair rules are at play. I can't think but the fact that it brings us to the old goat problem with 2/3 probability. While scientists, wikipedia and Marilyn says 1/2. This is where I am still baffled what am I thinking wrong!
It's hard to think that all those people have made a mistake again, so maybe I should have a look at this article (at the monty fall problem) and decide. I hope the theoritical math of this one can also give me a practical view of how this solution could apply and be explained using your perception in the real world. I'd like to see the theoritical proof and then see if somehow it also makes sense in reality. And how could someone create a probability experiment on this one? How to make the host randomly open the door yet he always chooses the goat? Doesn't this eliminate the other case of taking the car? Doesn't this converge our simulation to have several runs that look like the ones in the old problem bringing us the 2/3 result again?
If I am really wrong on this one then I would like to hear some proper explanations of why the 1/2 persists? The old problem sounded baffling but wasn't at all when you thought of the explanation. But the new one, if I get a proper answer it will either be something that changes my perception to something ever more crazy or the not so interesting yet revealing answer that the description of this problem and the way it's solution is suggested suffers from bad logic.
It will surely occupy my brain for more days. What a mind twister!
I won't explain the problem since it's very nicely written in the link above and many people might be familiar already with it (please visit the link first if you aren't). It's just funny that after you read the problem you initially say 1/2 and it sounds so logical, you read 2/3 and you are certain that she is wrong, even though her explanations are quite simple and they are truly making sense (even to the math illiterate), while even famous mathematicians say this can't be right, till a call for trying to simulate a probability experiment proves them wrong. I tried the same thing in a C program and it really shows after few runs. There are even java applets that let you play the game of the problem for several runs and report the probabilities. Wow! (It's funny to read the story on the site of Marilyn and grin at the reactions regardless the simple mathematical or empirical explanations.
Of course I didn't described the problem but sent you into external links because it's not the one I want to discuss (it's already resolved) but the extension of it.
Say that you have the three doors again, you start with your choice and later the host opens one of the two remaining doors but randomly this time (not deliberately revealing the one with the goat). This means that he could also mistakenly open the door with the winning car. Although because in that case the show would be disaster it assumes that he gets lucky and randomly chooses a door with a goat. What's the possibility of switching from your initial choice to the alternative remaining one?
I would assume at first that since the host selected the goat, whether he did it deliberately or not this occurrence returns us back to the first version of the problem. You have taken one door and the host reveals a goat, your probability of switching is still 2/3. But both Marilyn, the wikipedia article and some mathematical pdf explanation states it's 1/2. And that's where the baffle begins.
First of all the example is quite imaginary and I could not easily think of a practical way to do the many runs and find out the experimental results. In the classic problem the host would deliberately select the door with the goat. So if he knew that one of the two doors contained the car he wouldn't chose it at all to not ruin the show. In the description of the extended problem the host forgets which door has the car and randomly chooses one of the two remaining doors, although it assumes that he luckily avoids choosing the door with the car. One could mistake that by thinking that even in several runs he always gets uberlucky to always not hit a car. But if I understood the description well you could assume that in that particular run he gets lucky and selects the goat yet the rules of the game is that he could even have chosen the car (someone would say that we don't care what would happen then since we only analyze this run). Yet I still have some good arguments why switching might not be 1/2.
First of all somebody should give an insight of what would happen if in a specific run the car is revealed. Because it matters if some of us wish to run a hundred of runs in experiment or computer simulation to be convinced. In that case, would the host say "ooops", pause the show to create a new arrangement of goat/car placements and start from scratch? This is like discarding the cases where he accidentally chooses the car so he always chooses the goat bringing us back to the initial problem with the 2/3 solution.
The second alternative would be that there is a special rule that says, if the host randomly reveals the car the competition goes on normally and then the player looses anyways. In my simulation program I removed the code that denies the host from revealing a door if it's a car. And then I don't care what would happen in real life if such a thing occurred and just run the simulation. A switch between the unrevealed doors will move from a goat to a goat and the player will loose anyways. Say that it's unfair rules of the show. This simulation gives a 1/2 after several runs. The problem though is that it doesn't suppose that a host slips in a banana and randomly reveals a door that happens to be a goat, etc, etc. It takes as valid that he reveals a car too.
There is something seriously wrong with the description of the second problem. It assumes that the host randomly chooses a door yet again it claims that it has to be a goat, yet it's still could be a car but it never is, while it doesn't claim what it would happen in the case it ways which isn't necessary seems we assume that it randomly is always (or in one run) a goat. I mean,.. it's as crazy as Schroedinger's cat!
A way it would make sense is to split it into four categories. Two of them happens before the game starts, the other two take place just after the host reveals a door.
I say to a friend that I want to go to a game show where at the end there are the three doors and the host always randomly reveals one after my initial choice. He speculates:
Case 1: If accidentally revealing a car forces the host to cancel this run and do it again from the beginning (and the next one accidental car choice, recursively forces him to discard the next run again) then the only valid run that finally happens is the one where he reveals a goat. This goes back to the original problem with the solution of 2/3.
Case 2: Accidentally revealing the car by the host results in the unfair rule of the player loosing. Either he switches or stays he gets the goat. Remember, I am not in the middle of the game, my friend speculates what are the possibilities either I switch or not based on the unfair rule. I don't know yet if he will select a goat or a car in the future. It tells me that if I play such a game in the future and given the possibility to switch, I have a probability of 1/2 to win either way.
I am already in the last part of the show, I have already chosen a door that I don't open yet and the host is about to reveal another one of the two. In the situation that the rule of case 1 was valid (discarding the revealing of the car mistake and doing it again) it would still fit in the old problem with the 2/3 solution. We only discuss now the situation when the unfair rule is at work.
Case 3: The host accidentally reveals the car. Either switch or stay gets a probability of zero.
Case 4: And now for the most important case. This is the one that is described in the problem in my opinion. The answer for this matters the most. The host randomly revealed the goat. He actually gave you an advantage! There was a possibility that he would hit case 3 but he didn't and your turn comes after that fact. He eliminated some negative odds of choosing the car concerning the unfair rules are at play. I can't think but the fact that it brings us to the old goat problem with 2/3 probability. While scientists, wikipedia and Marilyn says 1/2. This is where I am still baffled what am I thinking wrong!
It's hard to think that all those people have made a mistake again, so maybe I should have a look at this article (at the monty fall problem) and decide. I hope the theoritical math of this one can also give me a practical view of how this solution could apply and be explained using your perception in the real world. I'd like to see the theoritical proof and then see if somehow it also makes sense in reality. And how could someone create a probability experiment on this one? How to make the host randomly open the door yet he always chooses the goat? Doesn't this eliminate the other case of taking the car? Doesn't this converge our simulation to have several runs that look like the ones in the old problem bringing us the 2/3 result again?
If I am really wrong on this one then I would like to hear some proper explanations of why the 1/2 persists? The old problem sounded baffling but wasn't at all when you thought of the explanation. But the new one, if I get a proper answer it will either be something that changes my perception to something ever more crazy or the not so interesting yet revealing answer that the description of this problem and the way it's solution is suggested suffers from bad logic.
It will surely occupy my brain for more days. What a mind twister!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Blogs
What is happening with my blogs?
It's not that I am opening too much. I am just trying to organize. A lot of things will change. This primary blog is a mess. Some of the others are kinda messy too. I am not sure what I will do with them.
Computer Hermit started very well. I like how it's going. I am also trying to keep the articles not as big and chaotic as here. Not an easy thing. I just hope the same to The burden of Normality (I am not sure if I will keep or change the title. Maybe "Revising Normality" or "The delusion of Normality" would do it?). Actually this one is my most precious one as it has to do with primary ideas that mattered me mostly even in this blog here. If there are some not big enough and good articles from here I could be transfering (or rewritting) them in that one. Με έχουν πιάσει Οτινανισμοί.. is a joke. Maybe I need once in a while to write random absurdities. It reminds me the past craziness of what used to be Gates to Delirium. I later used this one as a blog about my coding projects. It all needs a clean up. I am wondering when I will be doing all this work.
Maybe I will write small random stuff in here or links to articles I will be writing in the other blogs. Maybe not. It's all a mess. But I like my new two blogs. It's just like I am splitting posts that could normally be here in different categories for different blogs. Nothing is lost.
Now, I am not sure about the background. Designing your blog takes effort, something I never managed to do :P
It's not that I am opening too much. I am just trying to organize. A lot of things will change. This primary blog is a mess. Some of the others are kinda messy too. I am not sure what I will do with them.
Computer Hermit started very well. I like how it's going. I am also trying to keep the articles not as big and chaotic as here. Not an easy thing. I just hope the same to The burden of Normality (I am not sure if I will keep or change the title. Maybe "Revising Normality" or "The delusion of Normality" would do it?). Actually this one is my most precious one as it has to do with primary ideas that mattered me mostly even in this blog here. If there are some not big enough and good articles from here I could be transfering (or rewritting) them in that one. Με έχουν πιάσει Οτινανισμοί.. is a joke. Maybe I need once in a while to write random absurdities. It reminds me the past craziness of what used to be Gates to Delirium. I later used this one as a blog about my coding projects. It all needs a clean up. I am wondering when I will be doing all this work.
Maybe I will write small random stuff in here or links to articles I will be writing in the other blogs. Maybe not. It's all a mess. But I like my new two blogs. It's just like I am splitting posts that could normally be here in different categories for different blogs. Nothing is lost.
Now, I am not sure about the background. Designing your blog takes effort, something I never managed to do :P
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Chemicals
I often wonder how much is happening right now in my body or brain while I am not aware about. How strongly can my mood be affected by things that our out of my control and not even know the source of the cause.
I had this rare condition yesterday which is kinda way cool even if it's excessive and possibly energy consuming. It doesn't happen frequently, usually I am the other way around. I had it yesterday and I remember another time I had it too, which was positive in a way because it made my hyperactive and hypersocial. I remember having a great mood and throwing jokes all the time. And after that comes the usual drawback effect when it all arrives back to normal. Ok, that's to be expected.
Yesterday I tried to really observe the phenomenon, to notice at realtime that something is happening to me and actually try to understand what triggers the effect. Whether it's some kind of food rich in specific bitamins, some psychological effect or just pure coincidence I would be interested to know. I am not taking drugs or anything, it just happened. One interesting things I noticed was that my hands were shaking. And of course the hyperactivity was extreme. Maybe it looked like I was nervous. I also wasn't in a diet. But somehow I felt I wanted to eat something. Maybe I am lacking specific bitamins?
But how can this thing made me more social (I wouldn't say less anxious)? Simply things were going fast and when I wanted to say something I opened my mouth and said it. There was no slow down process where I have to analyze what I want to say or my emotional filters block me from saying things. Not necessary bad things but silly socialization attempts which would normally be 90% avoided at first. When this happens I feel like I am transformed.
Could I learn more about this thing and possibly get some clues on various things that interest me? Building a better mood, enjoying socialization, fighting anxiety or just getting to know more about myself and the chemicals affecting me. Maybe somebody who is happening to read this blog could give me a clue. If they are usually submissive like me but rare burst of hyperactivity and hypersocialization with similar effects (tension, hand shaking) has happened to them and they already know what it might be or how to induce that effect to oneself?
I had this rare condition yesterday which is kinda way cool even if it's excessive and possibly energy consuming. It doesn't happen frequently, usually I am the other way around. I had it yesterday and I remember another time I had it too, which was positive in a way because it made my hyperactive and hypersocial. I remember having a great mood and throwing jokes all the time. And after that comes the usual drawback effect when it all arrives back to normal. Ok, that's to be expected.
Yesterday I tried to really observe the phenomenon, to notice at realtime that something is happening to me and actually try to understand what triggers the effect. Whether it's some kind of food rich in specific bitamins, some psychological effect or just pure coincidence I would be interested to know. I am not taking drugs or anything, it just happened. One interesting things I noticed was that my hands were shaking. And of course the hyperactivity was extreme. Maybe it looked like I was nervous. I also wasn't in a diet. But somehow I felt I wanted to eat something. Maybe I am lacking specific bitamins?
But how can this thing made me more social (I wouldn't say less anxious)? Simply things were going fast and when I wanted to say something I opened my mouth and said it. There was no slow down process where I have to analyze what I want to say or my emotional filters block me from saying things. Not necessary bad things but silly socialization attempts which would normally be 90% avoided at first. When this happens I feel like I am transformed.
Could I learn more about this thing and possibly get some clues on various things that interest me? Building a better mood, enjoying socialization, fighting anxiety or just getting to know more about myself and the chemicals affecting me. Maybe somebody who is happening to read this blog could give me a clue. If they are usually submissive like me but rare burst of hyperactivity and hypersocialization with similar effects (tension, hand shaking) has happened to them and they already know what it might be or how to induce that effect to oneself?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The music curse
"I was asked the question 'What was the first single you ever bought?' and I thought 'I have never bought a single or an album'. Even as a teenager!It's strange. I don't like listening to music. People find it hard to understand that." (From The Enya Realms / Quotes)
I had this thing bothering me in my youth. For some reasons I didn't listen to music before my eighteen. I didn't have a favorite kind of music, I wasn't a fan of any music group, I simply would occasionally listen to what would randomly play on the radio or the stereo because someone else would turn it on in the area. I liked music, a random song would possibly play which I would find attractive but I never listened music on my own in my whole childhood. And it mattered. It mattered because every time someone asked me the question "What music do you like?" I would become uneasy with the particular one.
There were reasons I avoided listening to music. When I am thinking about it, it's hard to describe. And it sounds silly. I think that to go in a store and buy a particular CD and listen to it or to turn on the volume of the stereo and select a specific music was something I felt "shy" about. I don't know if "shy" is the right word. I actually felt "shy" about a lot of things in my youth even the simplest ones and I was aware and constantly described this feeling to myself. I think one of the reasons might be that I was so sensitive to music that I felt uneasy or vulnerable, especially if I didn't listened with my headphones but others in the room would be able to listen my preference and maybe it could also reveal my emotions.
For most, music is mainly a kind of social connection which defines to which group of people do you belong. Somebody once asked me which is my favorite group or kind of music and when I told him I don't have one he said that this is not normal, that all people are fans of at least one kind of music and a group. For me, listening to music was something that I envied because there was that curse that didn't let me listen to something that was emotionally appealing. I was at a dead end. And I was also frustrated by that view where it's supposed that everyone listens to music as everyone likes sex or pizza.
After several years I got my first truly own PC while MP3s came into play, meaning that I could stay alone in my room and listen to music through my headphones without all the burden that made me avoid it. Much later, USB players also made it possible for me to listen while at road or as I was sleeping. I also explored various music styles and people sometimes tell me they adore my vast music preferences. I find it funny now when I meet people who have a very narrow music taste, even disregarding other genres, especially those who criticized me in the past for not listening to music. Maybe if music wasn't so emotionally overwhelming to me but just a cold social meme that defines group belonging then I would also be a fan of one group and would prefer only one music kind :P
Gladly I am more than that. My old psychological condition I'd like to call here 'the music curse' has to do with how overwhelming music can be for me. I am quite sensitive to it which can be good and bad. Which means that music has a true meaning for me, more true than those who think that I have to listen to it in order to be normal or to belong to a specific group of people. This is the first time I openly speak about this to anyone (And not liking or avoiding to listen to any kind of music for any reasons is not as uncommon as I thought).
I am glad that Enya said that quote for once. For I have read it and it totally shattered my past insecurity about that. Thank you!
I had this thing bothering me in my youth. For some reasons I didn't listen to music before my eighteen. I didn't have a favorite kind of music, I wasn't a fan of any music group, I simply would occasionally listen to what would randomly play on the radio or the stereo because someone else would turn it on in the area. I liked music, a random song would possibly play which I would find attractive but I never listened music on my own in my whole childhood. And it mattered. It mattered because every time someone asked me the question "What music do you like?" I would become uneasy with the particular one.
There were reasons I avoided listening to music. When I am thinking about it, it's hard to describe. And it sounds silly. I think that to go in a store and buy a particular CD and listen to it or to turn on the volume of the stereo and select a specific music was something I felt "shy" about. I don't know if "shy" is the right word. I actually felt "shy" about a lot of things in my youth even the simplest ones and I was aware and constantly described this feeling to myself. I think one of the reasons might be that I was so sensitive to music that I felt uneasy or vulnerable, especially if I didn't listened with my headphones but others in the room would be able to listen my preference and maybe it could also reveal my emotions.
For most, music is mainly a kind of social connection which defines to which group of people do you belong. Somebody once asked me which is my favorite group or kind of music and when I told him I don't have one he said that this is not normal, that all people are fans of at least one kind of music and a group. For me, listening to music was something that I envied because there was that curse that didn't let me listen to something that was emotionally appealing. I was at a dead end. And I was also frustrated by that view where it's supposed that everyone listens to music as everyone likes sex or pizza.
After several years I got my first truly own PC while MP3s came into play, meaning that I could stay alone in my room and listen to music through my headphones without all the burden that made me avoid it. Much later, USB players also made it possible for me to listen while at road or as I was sleeping. I also explored various music styles and people sometimes tell me they adore my vast music preferences. I find it funny now when I meet people who have a very narrow music taste, even disregarding other genres, especially those who criticized me in the past for not listening to music. Maybe if music wasn't so emotionally overwhelming to me but just a cold social meme that defines group belonging then I would also be a fan of one group and would prefer only one music kind :P
Gladly I am more than that. My old psychological condition I'd like to call here 'the music curse' has to do with how overwhelming music can be for me. I am quite sensitive to it which can be good and bad. Which means that music has a true meaning for me, more true than those who think that I have to listen to it in order to be normal or to belong to a specific group of people. This is the first time I openly speak about this to anyone (And not liking or avoiding to listen to any kind of music for any reasons is not as uncommon as I thought).
I am glad that Enya said that quote for once. For I have read it and it totally shattered my past insecurity about that. Thank you!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Unseen changes
In several occasions, I've been longing to find some free time to have a look back at my past. I am not meaning here to be involved into old forgotten worries but to have a modern look on old things and see how different it feels today. Sometimes I stumble upon things that bring back older memories but what I would like to ask from myself is some good moments to do this intentionally and under the appropriate mood. Still, the unplanned rendezvous with the past happens more often than you think and it's one of these occasions which prompted me to write these thoughts.
At first I was searching for an old post. I haven't found it yet but then I read some old comments from a specific person that wrote several long analytical comments just like me. Then I decided to look back at the older archives in order to collect all these posts from the specific person in a txt file so that I can read it later. In the past there were some things I couldn't understand in their entirety on his comments, so it would be interesting to see what I can understand now that my personal view of myself and the world might have evolved. Well, I haven't collected these texts yet because I was occupied by reading the very first posts in this blog and remembering the past. It's more than 3 years since I have started this blog (I only realized this today).
A common occurring pattern in the very early posts is that of myself crying out about my life or how much I can't enjoy the demoscene and so on. If I told you that it's quite different now you wouldn't believe me. Recent fragments of drama can still be found in my blogs, pouet or whatever. Who knows whether another outburst happens again soon? I have proven to the world that I cannot be trusted on that.
I just felt for a while, as I was reading one of the first posts, that this is not myself. Most possibly because right now I am ok and who knows how good or bad I might feel tomorrow? I have that feeling for a while and it slipped. I could say that the frequency of current drama posts is much less than then and less excessive. I won't stop writting posts with a melancholic or pessimistic feeling because this is what I like to do. But maybe it's the feeling that is changed, one the comes closer to an understanding and acceptance of who I am and my position in the world.
Thoughts that my life is getting worse, that everything is in deep shit, or I have lost hope or that eveyrthing is feeling vain (feelings that I express a lot in many of my old posts) do not circulate currently in my mind a lot. I actually don't believe that. There is a friend of mine with whom we walk in the city at night and speak about things like that. One of our conversation goes like this: "We have fucked up our lifes. We are getting deeper and deeper. Maybe we are growing up. Maybe we have come to understand that things we did in the past are vain. And of course our demomaking hobby (among other things) is coming out of vanity. We have destroyed our lifes.."
Sometimes I laugh because I know that the next time I will meet him out in the city he will tell me exactly the same things word by word. And while in the past I could relate better with these words (which are similar to the feelings in my oldest blog posts) something has changed on me that I don't feel the same at all as my friend. I don't think I have fucked my life (I also don't think the same about him) because I see life as a journey. Well, maybe I did some mistakes, I had some bad moments I could have handled better but if I don't bump into mistakes and frustration how can I learn? I really can't understand people who try to tell you what's right and what's wrong in life so that (as they say) you don't make the same mistakes as they did. But if you don't make a mistake how are you going to understand what did you do wrong in order to not repeat it? By this view, it's meaningless for me to look back and wish I could correct something in my past. It's senseless to regret for something that I was bound to encounter in my journey at the end.
No, I don't feel like in the past. For a long time I try to observe myself, the world and everything else under a more complete vision, one that struggles to accept and understand things as they are and discover the reasons behind it. One that tries to investigate further who I am and how do I fit into this world and what can I do to be more compatible without having to erase my personality. I try to find a balance. I try to learn more.
Knowing is actually the most important part in me. This one hasn't changed in it's core. From the excessive and over-exaggerated past manifestation to the more understanding and accepting function of it at peace. In the past I was even very regularly frustrated for my inability to answer to anything with certainty (that damn skepticism of me :) but now I have accepted that the truth can wait and the quest for it is what matters the most. There are changes, slowly coming, to the better. But the core is there. I always felt that knowing the deeper reasons of our problems, trying to understand how someone feels inside, something that we may not easily see but keep residing in ideologies and afforisms, knowing not like an encyclopedia but like a deep thinker who first tries to "feel", to "see", to "understand" the whole image and later uses logic to put an order and explain it to the world, is a force that I should always count on.
Knowing releases me. In the core I remain the same. Changes are happening slowly slowly (evolution is slow) to improve the core by transforming the elements related to it. People are afraid to know. They tell me to stop thinking. But knowing is a relief no matter if there is a possibility to encounter something that I don't like. At least I will know. And I will enjoy the process.
People hardly change. And those changes are slow because evolution is slow. The common problem here is that when looking one day or a month back you think you have not changed. This is also because the core that defines your personality never changes so you don't see any important changes. And even the changes outside the core are almost never dramatic. That's why people don't seem to change. But when I look back in the past I can see that there are important changes, yet the core will be always the same. People are criticizing someone else who is slightly different than them and expect him to change. In the meantime he might have made important changes in his life and his personal views. Which the most critics won't notice or see as an improvement. But the core, it's the personality, the older groups of neurons that form the illusion of consciousness. You can't wipe that out! You can't expect someone to change in his core, not even in 20 years or ever.
I am changing. But in the core I remaing the same.
At first I was searching for an old post. I haven't found it yet but then I read some old comments from a specific person that wrote several long analytical comments just like me. Then I decided to look back at the older archives in order to collect all these posts from the specific person in a txt file so that I can read it later. In the past there were some things I couldn't understand in their entirety on his comments, so it would be interesting to see what I can understand now that my personal view of myself and the world might have evolved. Well, I haven't collected these texts yet because I was occupied by reading the very first posts in this blog and remembering the past. It's more than 3 years since I have started this blog (I only realized this today).
A common occurring pattern in the very early posts is that of myself crying out about my life or how much I can't enjoy the demoscene and so on. If I told you that it's quite different now you wouldn't believe me. Recent fragments of drama can still be found in my blogs, pouet or whatever. Who knows whether another outburst happens again soon? I have proven to the world that I cannot be trusted on that.
I just felt for a while, as I was reading one of the first posts, that this is not myself. Most possibly because right now I am ok and who knows how good or bad I might feel tomorrow? I have that feeling for a while and it slipped. I could say that the frequency of current drama posts is much less than then and less excessive. I won't stop writting posts with a melancholic or pessimistic feeling because this is what I like to do. But maybe it's the feeling that is changed, one the comes closer to an understanding and acceptance of who I am and my position in the world.
Thoughts that my life is getting worse, that everything is in deep shit, or I have lost hope or that eveyrthing is feeling vain (feelings that I express a lot in many of my old posts) do not circulate currently in my mind a lot. I actually don't believe that. There is a friend of mine with whom we walk in the city at night and speak about things like that. One of our conversation goes like this: "We have fucked up our lifes. We are getting deeper and deeper. Maybe we are growing up. Maybe we have come to understand that things we did in the past are vain. And of course our demomaking hobby (among other things) is coming out of vanity. We have destroyed our lifes.."
Sometimes I laugh because I know that the next time I will meet him out in the city he will tell me exactly the same things word by word. And while in the past I could relate better with these words (which are similar to the feelings in my oldest blog posts) something has changed on me that I don't feel the same at all as my friend. I don't think I have fucked my life (I also don't think the same about him) because I see life as a journey. Well, maybe I did some mistakes, I had some bad moments I could have handled better but if I don't bump into mistakes and frustration how can I learn? I really can't understand people who try to tell you what's right and what's wrong in life so that (as they say) you don't make the same mistakes as they did. But if you don't make a mistake how are you going to understand what did you do wrong in order to not repeat it? By this view, it's meaningless for me to look back and wish I could correct something in my past. It's senseless to regret for something that I was bound to encounter in my journey at the end.
No, I don't feel like in the past. For a long time I try to observe myself, the world and everything else under a more complete vision, one that struggles to accept and understand things as they are and discover the reasons behind it. One that tries to investigate further who I am and how do I fit into this world and what can I do to be more compatible without having to erase my personality. I try to find a balance. I try to learn more.
Knowing is actually the most important part in me. This one hasn't changed in it's core. From the excessive and over-exaggerated past manifestation to the more understanding and accepting function of it at peace. In the past I was even very regularly frustrated for my inability to answer to anything with certainty (that damn skepticism of me :) but now I have accepted that the truth can wait and the quest for it is what matters the most. There are changes, slowly coming, to the better. But the core is there. I always felt that knowing the deeper reasons of our problems, trying to understand how someone feels inside, something that we may not easily see but keep residing in ideologies and afforisms, knowing not like an encyclopedia but like a deep thinker who first tries to "feel", to "see", to "understand" the whole image and later uses logic to put an order and explain it to the world, is a force that I should always count on.
Knowing releases me. In the core I remain the same. Changes are happening slowly slowly (evolution is slow) to improve the core by transforming the elements related to it. People are afraid to know. They tell me to stop thinking. But knowing is a relief no matter if there is a possibility to encounter something that I don't like. At least I will know. And I will enjoy the process.
People hardly change. And those changes are slow because evolution is slow. The common problem here is that when looking one day or a month back you think you have not changed. This is also because the core that defines your personality never changes so you don't see any important changes. And even the changes outside the core are almost never dramatic. That's why people don't seem to change. But when I look back in the past I can see that there are important changes, yet the core will be always the same. People are criticizing someone else who is slightly different than them and expect him to change. In the meantime he might have made important changes in his life and his personal views. Which the most critics won't notice or see as an improvement. But the core, it's the personality, the older groups of neurons that form the illusion of consciousness. You can't wipe that out! You can't expect someone to change in his core, not even in 20 years or ever.
I am changing. But in the core I remaing the same.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Theory of mind?
Going out and meeting with people is ok. It gives me insights in things that bother me. Things that have to do with me and my incompatibility with people. Some people of my family always told me that I should do that because it's good to be social. I am not sure if they can give me a good reason for that though, but it seems like they have followed the same pattern of being social without knowing why because other people told them that it is good who also heard it from other ones that don't know the reason. That's from the side of the clueless who just do things because everyone in society tells them it's good without explaining why.
I recently found another side. I might have encountered people of this side in the past , it's only that it's the first time I develop my ideas concerning me and their suggestions deeper. These people are just like the previous ones. They tell me that I should go out and meet people. The difference is that they gave me further insights on why should I do that. Although under further investigation I think that they are no much different than the first group. What I mean is that they might explain me now why I should go out more and meet people but with the same kind of recursivity, suggesting me what the others do and that being good because everyone does this and everyone says so.
To reach to the point. First of all I AM social. In my own sense. I was never locked up in a room for a month or a year all alone. I had a lot of social opportunities in my enviroment (family, school, university, work, scene, leisure, etc.) that you can't say something was missing and I didn't evolved. And I DO communicate. However the second group of people (some of which I met at recent Breakpoint and thanks for the insightful discussions) tells me that I should get out and meet more people more because this way there are higher possibilities to observe how most people actually communicate and try to look like them.
At least that's how I understand that they mean it. They made the observation that I do actually communicate but in my own weird way. A way that might look annoying, egoistic or just abnormal by most of them (I'll speak later about it, after I make my main point). Which might be explained (for them) by the fact that I was very rarely meeting people to be able to see how most people communicate and so I never learned. And their suggestion is that I should go out more and meet people so that I learn and meme the way most people communicate. Which is not exactly right because the main reason I stubornly keep on my own special way of communication is (which I'll explain later, after I make my point, as I said) is the fact that it is my nature to stay so. Going out and being involved in boring casual socialization won't change anything.
Theory of mind. I only have to admit that I wasn't even fully aware in the past of my difference in communication and how it's perceived by other people. I always thought that the way I feel and communicate is similar to the rest of the people. Only during the recent years I am becoming more aware that some of the things I have in my nature might be annoying for other people while I can't see them as such. This is called theory of mind.
I learned about this theory during my research on subjects concerning autistic people and how they relate to the rest of the world. A lack of theory of mind is generally attributed to persons with autism or asperger's. It's supposed that there is a difference in the way autistic persons perceive communication in comparison to neurotypicals (what we would call 'normal' people or those without autistic traits). Autistics seems to be living in their own world, not being able to communicate properly the way most neurotypicals expect them to do. Neurotypicals are suposedly having it right and all the misunderstanding is the fault of the other side :P
Except if it's also the other side who does not get it. If say 95% of the population communicate in the same neurotypical way as almost everybody does then they dismiss the other 5% as having it wrong. It's easy to be in the majority and feel that the way you think and perceive communication is the same as all other people. 95% of the times you will be right. But for the rare individuals who differ in that aspect it's more probable that they will notice one day that something is different with them and that other people don't feel or behave the same as them.
I read the wikipedia article on theory of mind again and stared a little longer at the last part of the first sentence. ..to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own. Hmm,. the interesting and funny here is that this is what most 'normal' people (or those who are preaching me to be normal and just like the rest) fail to do. They don't even recognize the reality that 5% of us might be different by nature. They expect us to be just like the rest. How does the theory of mind apply to their case?
I'll tell you something. I believe that some of the people who preach that I should be just like the rest are autistics in disguise. I just have a feeling about this but you don't have to take my words for it. I know I may be wrong. Also, we usually attribute some autistic traits with geekness. And we think that neurotypicals always have to look like our view of a 'normal' person. What if a specific autistic individual used some of his autistic abilities in order to become something like a social savant? What if 50 or 500 years from now the view on what is 'normal' is not the same? I think that we are missing the bigger picture here.
Of course normal is just a variable that changes through history according to the way the majority perceives the world. There is also neurodiversity in the play. Sometimes the notions of autism or other so called mental disorders are a bit too narrow. Specific mental disorders can be perceived as conditions where an individual is quite incompatible with the rest of the world. Genetics play a role in this difference yet the outcome is not naturally wrong, it's that most people perceive neurodifference as wrong attitude and that brings trouble.
Of course this doesn't exactly give the right to an autistic individual to justify any peculiar attitude that might bring trouble or confusion to other people. However this justice doesn't come equally from the other side. A neurotypical never brings in his mind that some of his 'normal' attitude or expected communication protocol might be harmful or annoying for autistic individuals. Because they already accept without a second thought that there way of doing things is a normal and expected way and so right without question. At least 95% of the people will agree, so they even have a vast confirmation to feel confident about.
My different communication way was about how I started talking to someone and actually monologized the conversation. They said that this can be either boring, annoying or egoistic from my side. That's my problem. The other side they suggest me trying is casual chat. Small sentences (and no big analysis) about trivial things, which is like passing the ball to the rest. My way seems a bit like they pass me the ball and I keep it to myself. It is like an inner flame inside me makes me speak and analyse endlessly and I have a great desire to dwelve deeper in what matters me. Casual talking would be like socializing for the sake of socialization (an end in it's mean). It's what the majority does. They remind me that I should go out more frequently and meet people but even if I did that more frequently it wouldn't change the way I naturally communicate. Casual talking is something that I hate actually.
I can accept that it can be annoying, I can imagine how it might confuse or put people in an ackward position (And here is the interesting, this is because they are just not used to it and don't know how to react to this different kind of communication. They have learned their communicating skills in an environment where casual talking is the common thing to do.) but I just can't be you. Well, actually I have news for you. Since a long I decided that it's not worth it. Even if I try to communicate my own way in a casual social occasion the most possible is that they will simply ignore me. The alternative, casual chat, is boring. So, either way it doesn't make sense and I stopped caring. Could that mean that I will go less out and communicate less? Ah, the irony..
This article became much longer than I have wished for and there are still a lot to write about. It's one of the harsh written article I actually hate :(
Nevermind.
I recently found another side. I might have encountered people of this side in the past , it's only that it's the first time I develop my ideas concerning me and their suggestions deeper. These people are just like the previous ones. They tell me that I should go out and meet people. The difference is that they gave me further insights on why should I do that. Although under further investigation I think that they are no much different than the first group. What I mean is that they might explain me now why I should go out more and meet people but with the same kind of recursivity, suggesting me what the others do and that being good because everyone does this and everyone says so.
To reach to the point. First of all I AM social. In my own sense. I was never locked up in a room for a month or a year all alone. I had a lot of social opportunities in my enviroment (family, school, university, work, scene, leisure, etc.) that you can't say something was missing and I didn't evolved. And I DO communicate. However the second group of people (some of which I met at recent Breakpoint and thanks for the insightful discussions) tells me that I should get out and meet more people more because this way there are higher possibilities to observe how most people actually communicate and try to look like them.
At least that's how I understand that they mean it. They made the observation that I do actually communicate but in my own weird way. A way that might look annoying, egoistic or just abnormal by most of them (I'll speak later about it, after I make my main point). Which might be explained (for them) by the fact that I was very rarely meeting people to be able to see how most people communicate and so I never learned. And their suggestion is that I should go out more and meet people so that I learn and meme the way most people communicate. Which is not exactly right because the main reason I stubornly keep on my own special way of communication is (which I'll explain later, after I make my point, as I said) is the fact that it is my nature to stay so. Going out and being involved in boring casual socialization won't change anything.
Theory of mind. I only have to admit that I wasn't even fully aware in the past of my difference in communication and how it's perceived by other people. I always thought that the way I feel and communicate is similar to the rest of the people. Only during the recent years I am becoming more aware that some of the things I have in my nature might be annoying for other people while I can't see them as such. This is called theory of mind.
I learned about this theory during my research on subjects concerning autistic people and how they relate to the rest of the world. A lack of theory of mind is generally attributed to persons with autism or asperger's. It's supposed that there is a difference in the way autistic persons perceive communication in comparison to neurotypicals (what we would call 'normal' people or those without autistic traits). Autistics seems to be living in their own world, not being able to communicate properly the way most neurotypicals expect them to do. Neurotypicals are suposedly having it right and all the misunderstanding is the fault of the other side :P
Except if it's also the other side who does not get it. If say 95% of the population communicate in the same neurotypical way as almost everybody does then they dismiss the other 5% as having it wrong. It's easy to be in the majority and feel that the way you think and perceive communication is the same as all other people. 95% of the times you will be right. But for the rare individuals who differ in that aspect it's more probable that they will notice one day that something is different with them and that other people don't feel or behave the same as them.
I read the wikipedia article on theory of mind again and stared a little longer at the last part of the first sentence. ..to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own. Hmm,. the interesting and funny here is that this is what most 'normal' people (or those who are preaching me to be normal and just like the rest) fail to do. They don't even recognize the reality that 5% of us might be different by nature. They expect us to be just like the rest. How does the theory of mind apply to their case?
I'll tell you something. I believe that some of the people who preach that I should be just like the rest are autistics in disguise. I just have a feeling about this but you don't have to take my words for it. I know I may be wrong. Also, we usually attribute some autistic traits with geekness. And we think that neurotypicals always have to look like our view of a 'normal' person. What if a specific autistic individual used some of his autistic abilities in order to become something like a social savant? What if 50 or 500 years from now the view on what is 'normal' is not the same? I think that we are missing the bigger picture here.
Of course normal is just a variable that changes through history according to the way the majority perceives the world. There is also neurodiversity in the play. Sometimes the notions of autism or other so called mental disorders are a bit too narrow. Specific mental disorders can be perceived as conditions where an individual is quite incompatible with the rest of the world. Genetics play a role in this difference yet the outcome is not naturally wrong, it's that most people perceive neurodifference as wrong attitude and that brings trouble.
Of course this doesn't exactly give the right to an autistic individual to justify any peculiar attitude that might bring trouble or confusion to other people. However this justice doesn't come equally from the other side. A neurotypical never brings in his mind that some of his 'normal' attitude or expected communication protocol might be harmful or annoying for autistic individuals. Because they already accept without a second thought that there way of doing things is a normal and expected way and so right without question. At least 95% of the people will agree, so they even have a vast confirmation to feel confident about.
My different communication way was about how I started talking to someone and actually monologized the conversation. They said that this can be either boring, annoying or egoistic from my side. That's my problem. The other side they suggest me trying is casual chat. Small sentences (and no big analysis) about trivial things, which is like passing the ball to the rest. My way seems a bit like they pass me the ball and I keep it to myself. It is like an inner flame inside me makes me speak and analyse endlessly and I have a great desire to dwelve deeper in what matters me. Casual talking would be like socializing for the sake of socialization (an end in it's mean). It's what the majority does. They remind me that I should go out more frequently and meet people but even if I did that more frequently it wouldn't change the way I naturally communicate. Casual talking is something that I hate actually.
I can accept that it can be annoying, I can imagine how it might confuse or put people in an ackward position (And here is the interesting, this is because they are just not used to it and don't know how to react to this different kind of communication. They have learned their communicating skills in an environment where casual talking is the common thing to do.) but I just can't be you. Well, actually I have news for you. Since a long I decided that it's not worth it. Even if I try to communicate my own way in a casual social occasion the most possible is that they will simply ignore me. The alternative, casual chat, is boring. So, either way it doesn't make sense and I stopped caring. Could that mean that I will go less out and communicate less? Ah, the irony..
This article became much longer than I have wished for and there are still a lot to write about. It's one of the harsh written article I actually hate :(
Nevermind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
