My life. My thoughts. My Coffee Cup Art. See how many times my fish can die in a month!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
I'm An Artist Too (3)
This is a random drawing of a woman. Women are harder than men to draw, but more interesting. More curves, and whatnot. :) You can see some anime influence in her face.
Monday, January 29, 2007
I Think We Need To Talk
Have you ever wondered if the conversations you have with other people are abnormal? I have. I know what a normal conversation with me is like, but I don't know how it compares to "normal" conversations between other people. I often wonder what a "normal" conversation sounds like, and if there is, indeed, a normal conversation.
I understand that there are different levels of conversations. The first level is cliches, things like "It's been really cold, lately, eh?" Mostly about the weather, or some inanimate shared thing in the immediate vicinity. Strangers talk at this level.
The second level is that of facts. This is slightly more deep than cliches. The facts aren't necessarily about anything immediate, or even necessarily shared. But it doesn't get very personal. Business meetings would be at this level of conversation.
The third level involves talking about feelings. This gets personal. This is where friends can talk. They don't always talk at this level, but it wouldn't be odd or awkward if it did. It might seem odd if a stranger started talking about their feelings to you.
The fourth level involves "we" statements. The definition of this level seems to be qualitatively different than the other levels.
I have also noted there are two main types of conversationalists. There are Question-Askers and Story-Tellers. Pastor Jack is a Question-Asker. If you talk with him he'll generally ask you lots of questions. I, on the other hand, am a story teller. Question-Askers always seem more interesting, or at least more enjoyable to be with because they get you talking about your favorite subject: You.
Story-Tellers tell you stories instead. The problem with this is that it tends to be less back-and-forth talk, and less personal, at least less personal for you. You can only get to know someone so well if all they do is tell stories. And if the person is not a good story teller then they are boring, and you tend to not want to talk to them.
Unfortunately for Story-Tellers (and those around them), most people are not great story tellers, so Story-Tellers tend to be somewhat boring.
Now, the aforementioned levels of conversation say nothing about flow or algorithm. I find some conversations follow this algorithm:
Another algorithm is:
I would be very interested in seeing the three most common conversation algorithms, and their ratings as the most interesting to each participant, and what the level of conversation was, and possibly the topic.
Of course, it might not be the topic or algorithm that makes a conversation interesting or boring. I'd be interested in knowing all factors, and their respective weights, in the I.F. (interesting factor) of a conversation. It could be expressed as an equation.
Let A, B, C, and D be I.F.s.
then
I.F. = wA + xB + yC + zC
where w, x, y, and z are importance coefficients such that 0 < {w, x, y, z} <= 1
Of course, it may be more complicated than that. Who knows. Do you know? If you do, then please comment.
Maybe I should have gone into social science instead of computer science. Except for the dealing-with-people part, and the writing of reports part, and applying for grants part....Yeah, I think I went into the right field.
I understand that there are different levels of conversations. The first level is cliches, things like "It's been really cold, lately, eh?" Mostly about the weather, or some inanimate shared thing in the immediate vicinity. Strangers talk at this level.
The second level is that of facts. This is slightly more deep than cliches. The facts aren't necessarily about anything immediate, or even necessarily shared. But it doesn't get very personal. Business meetings would be at this level of conversation.
The third level involves talking about feelings. This gets personal. This is where friends can talk. They don't always talk at this level, but it wouldn't be odd or awkward if it did. It might seem odd if a stranger started talking about their feelings to you.
The fourth level involves "we" statements. The definition of this level seems to be qualitatively different than the other levels.
I have also noted there are two main types of conversationalists. There are Question-Askers and Story-Tellers. Pastor Jack is a Question-Asker. If you talk with him he'll generally ask you lots of questions. I, on the other hand, am a story teller. Question-Askers always seem more interesting, or at least more enjoyable to be with because they get you talking about your favorite subject: You.
Story-Tellers tell you stories instead. The problem with this is that it tends to be less back-and-forth talk, and less personal, at least less personal for you. You can only get to know someone so well if all they do is tell stories. And if the person is not a good story teller then they are boring, and you tend to not want to talk to them.
Unfortunately for Story-Tellers (and those around them), most people are not great story tellers, so Story-Tellers tend to be somewhat boring.
Now, the aforementioned levels of conversation say nothing about flow or algorithm. I find some conversations follow this algorithm:
- Person 1: Story.
- Person 2: Story.
- Repeat ad infinitum.
Another algorithm is:
- Person 1: Question.
- Person 2: Story. Question.
- Person 1: Story. Question.
- Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad infinitum.
I would be very interested in seeing the three most common conversation algorithms, and their ratings as the most interesting to each participant, and what the level of conversation was, and possibly the topic.
Of course, it might not be the topic or algorithm that makes a conversation interesting or boring. I'd be interested in knowing all factors, and their respective weights, in the I.F. (interesting factor) of a conversation. It could be expressed as an equation.
Let A, B, C, and D be I.F.s.
then
I.F. = wA + xB + yC + zC
where w, x, y, and z are importance coefficients such that 0 < {w, x, y, z} <= 1
Of course, it may be more complicated than that. Who knows. Do you know? If you do, then please comment.
Maybe I should have gone into social science instead of computer science. Except for the dealing-with-people part, and the writing of reports part, and applying for grants part....Yeah, I think I went into the right field.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Blogging Is Good For You
It turns out, according to today's article, that writing is good for you. Now, I don't see me writing my memoirs. I mean, who would read it? But I do have my blog. Anyway, I don't think the mental health benefits come from people reading your work. I think it comes from the act of the writing.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
I'm An Artist Too Two
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Best Time To Philosophize
It seems I do my best philosophizing in bed. While in bed I recently figured out how people can still be accountable to God for their sin even if they don't have free will.
I've also come to the realization that the idea of election (in a Christian sense) can be rather scary. Someone recently said to me, towards the end of a conversation “The Elect are elect, period.” to which I replied something like "Yeah, and that in it's self can be rather scary." To which, he replied in his blog "Surely not!"
Unfortunately, I couldn't remember how I came to my conclusion. It seems initially comforting, if you're a believer, that once in Christ, always in Christ. "Phew! I'm in now, and
I've also come to the realization that the idea of election (in a Christian sense) can be rather scary. Someone recently said to me, towards the end of a conversation “The Elect are elect, period.” to which I replied something like "Yeah, and that in it's self can be rather scary." To which, he replied in his blog "Surely not!"
Unfortunately, I couldn't remember how I came to my conclusion. It seems initially comforting, if you're a believer, that once in Christ, always in Christ. "Phew! I'm in now, and
'No power of hell, no scheme of man, Can ever pluck me from His hand, 'Till He returns or calls me home.'"
A little while later I woke up at about 3:00am and remembered how I came to my scary conclusion, then went back to sleep. By the time I got in front of a computer again I couldn't figure it out.
But, hopefully I'll remember again at a more convenient time, at which time I'll give my response here, on this blog.
Of course, it could be that when I'm lying in bed I'm too tired to think clearly, and I can't see my obvious fallacies that I readily see when I'm awake.
A little while later I woke up at about 3:00am and remembered how I came to my scary conclusion, then went back to sleep. By the time I got in front of a computer again I couldn't figure it out.
But, hopefully I'll remember again at a more convenient time, at which time I'll give my response here, on this blog.
Of course, it could be that when I'm lying in bed I'm too tired to think clearly, and I can't see my obvious fallacies that I readily see when I'm awake.
Friday, January 19, 2007
I'm Gonna Move To The States
Today's links compares the U.S. with a police state. The Land of the Free indeed.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
I'm An Artist Too
The McQueen's aren't the only ones here who are artists. I do a bit too. I just had to find the right canvas. And I have found that styrofoam makes a good canvas. So I think I'll showcase some of my art here on my blog. If anyone would like to buy one of my pieces, let me know.
And, yes, all the cups are used cups.

This one shows why I am not the Dilbert artist. Scott Adams does a fine job without me.
And, yes, all the cups are used cups.
This one shows why I am not the Dilbert artist. Scott Adams does a fine job without me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)