From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Various ramblings part 2: new approaches
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:06:06 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

Well, I hope this "new" format is a little better.  Instead of responding
to specific postings, I'll simply share my thoughts on various things and
let it go at that (though I'll occasionally respond to a specific point).
This should cut down on the traffic somewhat and increase the "useful"
(for lack of a better word :-) content of my postings.  My style, however,
will remain the same, and if you don't like it, I'm afraid there's not
a whole lot I can do about it.

A number of people have expressed confusion over the fact that I
simultaneously write reasonably well and had learning disabilities as
a kid.

The reason I write the way I do is because I *speak* the same way (even
to the extent that I *actually say* "i.e." and other such phrases!  I
should probably stop using "i.e." for that very reason if I'm to get
anywhere in the social world), and have trained myself to do so since I
was a little kid.  Because I had learning disabilities (pattern-matching
problems), I had to be dealt with in a very literal way, and ended up
being taught the same literal way of dealing with the outside world
(after all, logic ultimately requires literal data).

When someone says something, it can mean many things.  But unless I can
consciously derive the context, I will take what they say literally and
base my response on this.

Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult for me to understand jokes
unless I understand the context of the joke.  I often have to think
harder and longer about a joke before I'll "get it", whereas everyone
else "gets it" immediately.  The more familiar I am with the context of
a joke, the easier it is for me to "get it" because I have that much
greater knowledge of the context.  Thus, I understand many computer jokes
very well, particularly those aimed at Unix gurus :-).

As you would expect, this puts me somewhat at a disadvantage.

Another thing, too, is that I do a great deal consciously.  Someone
(Larry, I think) said that part of my problem with respect to dancing
is that I was trying to do it consciously, and that if I didn't do
that, I would get a lot farther.

If only I could do that.

I dance consciously in the same way that I drive consciously, in much
the same way that I walk consciously, and in much the same way that I
write and speak consciously.  Some of each of these activities is
subconscious.  Each of these activities has elements which are very
repetitive, and these things I can train myself to do subconsciously.
But that's the extent of it.  Literally.

As a result, I can't carry on a conversation when I'm driving in heavy
traffic.  There's too much going on.  In particular, I have to "track"
all the objects around me (with more attention going to closer objects,
of course) and make course corrections and the like *consciously*.  The
same is true of walking.  Get me in an environment where there's enough
going on, and I won't be able to carry on a conversation because I'm too
busy keeping myself out of the way of others.

My point, of course, is that except for things that are highly repetitive
(like typing) or that are completely automatic (like breathing), I do
*everything* consciously.

So: if you get me drunk enough that my conscious mind is no longer
working very well, it won't have the effect on my dancing that
you expect it to.  Instead, it'll cause me to be unable to dance at
all.

When I reach the limit of what my conscious mind can do, that's *it*.
It's a hard limit, not a soft limit, and the only way I can do any
better is by somehow training my subconscious to do the repetitive
things involved.  The fewer repetitive things involved, the more my
conscious mind must get involved.  I don't know if this is how other
people work, but it's how I work.

The things you see me trying to do here on the net are very much the
result of limitations like that.  I try to rationally figure out how
to go about doing things because it's the only process my conscious
mind knows how to use.  I can't do things unless I know how because
not "knowing how" means that my conscious mind has no plan of any sort
to follow, and there's nothing to fall back on (most people seem to
have this thing called "intuition", which is something that I seem not
to have, despite my efforts to find it).

As a result, if I'm placed in a situation in which I have no idea what
to do, I'll "freeze".  I won't do anything.  Again, I don't know if
this is how most people work or not, but it's how I work.

Now, I *am* capable of trying out new things, and I *am* capable of
discovering new things, but guess what?  This means I have to know
how to discover new things to try and, from that, discover how to
try them.  Without any sort of pathway to new things like that, I'm
lost.

This is why I may seem to lack imagination, for instance.  In some sense,
I *do* lack imagination, if "imagination" involves some non-repetitive
subconscious activity.  It's why I'm often asking questions to which
the answers may seem obvious to the rest of you.  Questions like "where
can I go to find women?".  The answer to that question isn't obvious to
me and it's not readily observable (okay, so there are exceptions, like
bars and dance clubs.  I've already checked out the environments that
seemed obvious to me).

It may be that I'm a realist because I have no other choice.

Along these lines, someone asked whether or not the development of "love"
was, to me a conscious thing.

I would have to say not.  If it were, I would never have been disappointed
by the rejections of my romantic overtures towards some of my female
friends (at least, not to the extent I was at the time.  But I was young
and fragile :-).

This is to be expected, of course.  Love is an emotion, and arises from
a different part of my mind than my conscious thoughts do.  The develop-
ment of love for me is no more conscious than the development of anger
or fear or happiness: they're side-effects of the events that are occur-
ring around me.  In short, they arise from the stimulation I experience
from the outside world.

Love is, of course, much more complex than that.  It has a much longer
time constant, for example :-).  This is in contrast to anger, which
can arise pretty much immediately.  Love isn't like that.

What do I expect to get out of a relationship?  (a) lots of physical
affection, (b) sex, (c) friendship, (d) support (emotional, intellectual,
and perhaps even physical when I need it), (e) opportunities to grow
and learn, and (f) an opportunity to give all the above.  Probably not
in that order.  Oh, yeah.  And sex, too.  :-)

This has me wondering whether or not that's too much to expect....



-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles