Introducing The Diarched Shelter

I'll polish this up in July

I’m a sociology fanatic and as far as sociology is concerned, I tend to lean more towards the subset of functionalism and market theory.

Functionalism looks at a big machine being made of lots of small pieces like a venn diagram. Market Theory applies economic terminology to human interaction. However it shouldn’t be confused with Game Theory, which is a subset of Conflict Theory, of which Conflict Theory is in direct opposition to both Functionalism and Interactionism. But that’s another topic for another time! Now to start my point.

More information about the three root branches, are here.

On the macro scale, Miniature Mental Model

I tend to rely on miniture mental models that remain INTACT amongst systematic cross-referencing analysis amongst any scale or subset. Sometimes to the detriment of any sources, citations or testimony, when there is a huge lack of such.

Different ways of cross-referencing or sub-sampling a miniature mental model but within a uniform and standardised way, that remains consistent whatever the end result (output), the determining factors (input) or the observation point (where someone looks to start analyzing before and after the fact)

I need to improve the various wording, points and methods here

But you can see my overall point though!

Applying a functionalist lens to human behaviour

================================
Scale concepts down in isolation
================================

If you see a social phonomenon, remove all the parts associated with it that’s not important and just ancillary or loosely related, to then see if the expectation you hypothesise will STILL remain true, within your miniture mental model. If it doesn’t, then you’re probably wrong and have overlooked something and need to consider something else as either your cause, effects, hypothesis or compounding factor is wrong.

================================
Apply deductive reasoning 
(Much like sudoku or picross)
================================

If you can negatively screen against something to then eliminate the majority, based on what doesn’t fit the criteria

For example if there are precautionary measures against something and something manages to slip through the net, it could be done by rogue staff, an inside job or a false flag attack, if the deductive reasoning question is asked for how could any banned or improper behaviour possibly occur, if the chances anything could slip through the net, is so minutely and infinitely slim

The list goes on

I need to update that in the 2nd edition of my non-fiction book. I’ll still be keeping the 1st edition on sale.

Triple Discordant Peer Quandary

If we go beyond a clinical level about any social impairments that I would have

1) Muted facial expressions (blunted affect) and being unable to voluntarily change my facial expression
2) Lack of understanding about social norms that are context sensitive (not rules or boundaries)
3) Lack of common sense
4) Itemising disorder, well an unclassifiable language processing disorder with both written text and spoken word.
5) I would have to think, if that was the original question.

Let’s move on from that. There’s a more abstract level, regarding the affinity and attainment that we expect from each other.

The problem I would see with that is….

  1. People are often under-signalling what they want. People will often claim they want something, whilst actually wanting more than what they said they want.
  2. Sometimes people want and prefer the frilly mystique about something, rather than it based on its own merits.
  3. Sometimes people often interpret, when someone else speaks, that a preposition is presumably also a pre-emptive occurrence, falsely or not. It’s presentation over preposition.

In short, people contradict themselves without them being aware of it, as well as being fickle minded.

fill this in later

Preposition being presumably a pre-emptive occurence

  1. People are often under-signalling what they want. People will often claim they want something, whilst actually wanting more than what they said they want.
  2. Sometimes people want and prefer the frilly mystique about something, rather than it based on its own merits.
  3. Sometimes people often interpret, when someone else speaks, that a preposition is presumably also a pre-emptive occurrence, falsely or not.

The person in question is oblivious and doing it unintentionally, whereas if the external observer who is communicating with them, took them at face value, then they’d be nonethewiser to the true nature of the situation. What shall be inferred, triangulated, tacitly grasped or postulated – when mulling things over?

On a basic level, everyone has the same emotional needs but for emotional ATTAINMENT needs, everyone is rather different.

How does one reconcile the macro scale with the micro scale, when people unintentionally contradict themselves, then blame you for not meeting their emotional ATTAINMENT needs.

Which then leads me to my next point.

Diarched Shelter, on the micro scale

I came up with that terminology lol

When you’re younger, like a pre-teen and teenager, you tend to notice the relatively larger differences more. And no I don’t mean the protected characteristics under hate crime laws and the varying social class of people but sometimes things like hobbies, interests, subculture, introversion vs extroversion, self assured vs identity crisis. But as you become older like a young adult, you decide to chart your own path and find your own tribe, to find people who are more similar to you or more receptive to your conversation style with its topical repertoire and verbal vernacular. Well when you find your optimum or adjacent quadrant, in relation to the past and the quadrants around it, it then flips the other way round, you notice the smaller differences between people rather than the larger ones. This then causes a different type of repetitive style of experiences where you can newly see patterns, to then have you re-evaluate your experiences from 5, 7, 10 and 15 years ago.

After lots of arguments, quarrels and debates, especially the quarrels between friends, when I got to a certain age, I started to see a pattern. So I must of been doing this my whole life while not being aware of it lol.

Imagine that Cathy is sat at the bus station and that Kyle is sat at the petrol station.
Also imagine the caveat that Kyle is aware that the petrol station exists, whereas Cathy doesn’t.

Under architectural planning, have you ever noticed that they NEVER put a bus station and a petrol station in the same place? The traffic and congestion on the roads, would just be too high!

The scene is now set.

Imagine that while Cathy sits at the bus station, she is asked to count some frequent yet sporadic event. Maybe how many times those spinner seeds (I forgot what it’s called), how often they fall onto the ground. Or maybe how often the rain splashes off from the postbox to then splash onto a moving car.

Well for as long as she’s sitting at the bus shelter, the field of vision at the top and bottom, will be shielded by the bus shelter she’s sitting in. If she gets out the bus shelter, then she can have a clearer view.

Now to finish my point, imagine if Kyle can travel between both the bus station and the petrol station, whereas Cathy cannot, while on the flip side, within the proximity of the bus station, Kyle is unable to obtain as close a view of what is going on at that place, for only observing within the bus station, whereas Cathy is free to roam outside of the bus shelter whilst near the bus station.

Now to count some event like the twirler seed leaf thing or the splashing puddles thing, who do you say would have the best opinion about what is going on from WITHIN the bus station?

Kyle for being unable to get as close a view as Cathy is, so he would then be forced to EXTROPOLATE the events, by doing a comparison between both scenes, to then predict what the frequency and rate would be, if he was to get as close a look as Cathy did (which he cannot).

It would only apply, when the distribution is choppy

To illustrate how a bezier curve causes a choppy animation, look at the type of tween they did for the keyframes. That reminds me of when I used Macromedia Flash as a child but as Actionscript 2 was replaced with Actionscript 3, I considered the technology to be too unstable for me to invest time and effort into me learning, so I’d rather learn something about programming with a more stable standard, like PHP and Ruby.

Out of the Box - Together for Gender Equality

Here’s a good website for testing out using bezier curves to do tweens when animating. It makes the movement look choppy. If you use an iphone, you can use the Fabula app.

So when I think of how the behaviour I’m encountering or wading in the midst of, if it ever seems confusing for how things are going on in the micro scale, I then would think of some type of distribution model to explain what is going on.

Presupposition —-> Conceptualisation —-> Formulation —-> Actualisation

I’ve not yet fully formulated my opinions about the next part yet as I need to come up with more examples.

1) Concave Room Morality
2) Syllogism Logic Being Seemingly Futile
3) Rationing Pencils In a Classroom

Example 1/2/3

Just start reading the rest of the series!

Related Posts