When you start exploring Psychology, one of the things that becomes apparent quite quickly is the belief that there must be a reason for everything, and if that reason is not known, then the most likely, or the reason that seems to make the most sense, is accepted as the reason. There's no tolerance for uncertainty and the unknown; you will rarely see a finite "It is not known why" instead there is always a clause "however studies have associated..." which in my view is a dangerous mentality.
Personally, I would rather hear the correct answer to a question or an outright statement that the correct answer is not known, than to have an answer presented that openly admits it's not correct. I must add the condition here that this is something I feel in terms of academic study, not in terms of ideology and philosophy. Explorative thought processes need to incorporate hypotheses and postulates to advance. I take issue with assumptions made especially in a medical context where a definite response will be pursued based on that response. When you are researching you pursue indefinite responses in order to find definite results. In the context of treatment however I think it's dangerous to pursue definite action based on indefinite responses.
To give an example, in terms of physical health, a person who has some symptoms of Cancer but has not been diagnosed Cancer, would not be treated for Cancer. Chemotherapy would not be given to someone who might not actually have Cancer. Yet when you leave physical health and venture into mental health there seems to be an attitude of "catch-all" conditions, where if you can't define the exact condition someone is suffering from you simply treat them for depression instead. There is a disturbing willingness in Mental Health in the UK to assume that either stress, depression, or some physical condition is the cause of any mental problem that cannot be diagnosed precisely.
If you embrace causality, then you believe that every cause has an effect, or that every effect, has a cause, depending on which direction you are looking. That has extended into many fields including healthcare where it has been somewhat modified to say that for every symptom there is a condition, or for every condition there are symptoms. The interesting thing here is that when you read the former it is agreeable, that namely, for every symptom there is a condition, but, when you read the latter, something doesn't sit right and becomes immediately apparent to you - for every condition there are symptoms - your immediate thought, or mine at least, is "Well, some conditions don't have symptoms..." - this is where you begin to see the flaw in using this reasoning - healthcare just is not that simple.
Yet despite this, the notion that multiple symptoms must all correlate to a single condition, is something that seems too prevalent in the Healthcare Industry. I should stress here I am speaking from experience of healthcare in the UK, but I would imagine this extends beyond the UK as I know a few other countries have a similar problem. I don't like the laziness of healthcare professionals to jump to conclusions that the root of all your problems is a condition that you probably don't even have. I don't like the fact GPs in the UK ask 3 things - do you smoke, drink, or do drugs - and if the answer to any is yes, they immediately try to link any symptoms you have to complications associated with those three. I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, and I rarely drink, when you pass beyond those 3 questions most GPs end up in a state of confusion - that or they don't believe you and insist that you must and that those are the cause. I dread to think what a visit to the doctor is like for people that do answer yes to any of those questions. While these 3 tend to be the "go-to" reasons for GPs, the same mentality exists with Mental Health, there as I said above, stress, depression, or physical conditions are used as their 3 "go-to" reasons as well.
When did Healthcare become "googlised" - where the most popular result must be the one you need? When did healthcare abandon the process of diagnosing people properly? There have been several times I have visited a GP and had no offer of any further tests or diagnostics to try and find out what might be wrong. GPs have effectively become a barrier to treatment rather than a gateway. Mental Healthcare in this country is already woefully inadequate, general healthcare it seems is not far off the same fate.
I've had very positive experiences of the NHS in the past, some of which I have written about on this blog. My overall opinion of it has been in steady decline for years now. I know many people are going to immediately retort that the NHS needs more money. It doesn't. I've worked for the NHS. The problems with the NHS are down to systemic failures, an idiotic Trust based structure that duplicates and triplicates work and propagates a postcode lottery, obfuscated policies and procedures that create goose-chase accountability where it's nigh on impossible to find out who is responsible for key services, and the widespread waste and mismanagement of resources. I have seen millions spent on unnecessary purchases, computer systems that cost billions which the majority of staff hate and many don't even know how to use because they are so badly designed and are often counter-intuitive; all this whilst primary care suffers, acute facilities close, and other services are outsourced to community organisations and third party private companies.
Unemployment Figures in the UK
A few months ago, the BBC and other news outlets in the UK took an editorial decision to report the headline unemployment figure by itself and no longer report the claimant count in tandem. That decision was I believe flawed, and ultimately represents a move away from reporting statistics and into the realm of propaganda. I'll explain why I believe this below and let you decide for yourself who is being truthful.
Firstly it's important to know what these two statistics are and where they come from. The first is the headline Unemployment Rate which is calculated by the Office for National Statistics using a mathematical model of the labour force survey. The second is the Claimant Count which is a figure produced by the Department for Work and Pensions which states the number of people claiming benefits seeking work. The former is an extrapolation from a survey of 40,000 households and has a confidence of +/- 79,000. The latter is a statistic produced from the number of claims issued for benefits seeking work. The former is an estimate, and the latter is a statement.
The difference here is crucial. If you were told that your bank balance "rose" by £30 last month, with small print saying that figure may be as much as £79 wrong in either direction, the reality is that your bank account could have risen by £109 or fallen by £49. If you had the choice between seeing your actual account statement each month and seeing the balance, or being told an estimate of how much your account went up or down, which would you choose to see?
This article from the BBC claimed that UK unemployment "fell" between May and July - that's based on the Office for National Statistics figure. However if you look at the Claimant Count figure for the same period, unemployment rose by 15,100 people. You might also notice that 7 out of the last 8 months reported a rise in claimants and the one month fall was a drop of 500 people - totalling 67,100 for the 8 month period. Using August as a particular example the BBC reported a "55,000 fall in unemployment" - based on the Office for National Statistics figure, and even mentions the claimant count in passing but doesn't report the claimant count figure, which if you look at the link above for August was a rise of 9,900 people. The difference between the headline estimate figure of 55,000 fall and the real figure of a 9,900 rise, is a 64,900 which is within the 79,000 confidence of the mathematical model.
So, there you have it. On the one hand, a figure that is an estimate which can be wrong by 79,000 either way, which is now the primary method of reporting unemployment, and on the other hand you have the actual figure for unemployment claims produced by the government itself from the department itself responsible for unemployment, from the actual number of people claiming those benefits - which is no longer being reported by the media, because it conflicts with the estimate.
So who's lying to you?
I have written about this in a previous post when I mentioned the fine line these media outlets walk, knowing what they can report and how to report it in a way that they can be misleading without being held accountable for it.
I'll leave you with one thought to dwell on. If you were told each month that your bank account rose by £30 when in reality it fell by £10, what would you do after a year when you look in your account and find out you have £120 less than when you started when you were expecting it to be £360 more? - A difference of £480.
Firstly it's important to know what these two statistics are and where they come from. The first is the headline Unemployment Rate which is calculated by the Office for National Statistics using a mathematical model of the labour force survey. The second is the Claimant Count which is a figure produced by the Department for Work and Pensions which states the number of people claiming benefits seeking work. The former is an extrapolation from a survey of 40,000 households and has a confidence of +/- 79,000. The latter is a statistic produced from the number of claims issued for benefits seeking work. The former is an estimate, and the latter is a statement.
The difference here is crucial. If you were told that your bank balance "rose" by £30 last month, with small print saying that figure may be as much as £79 wrong in either direction, the reality is that your bank account could have risen by £109 or fallen by £49. If you had the choice between seeing your actual account statement each month and seeing the balance, or being told an estimate of how much your account went up or down, which would you choose to see?
This article from the BBC claimed that UK unemployment "fell" between May and July - that's based on the Office for National Statistics figure. However if you look at the Claimant Count figure for the same period, unemployment rose by 15,100 people. You might also notice that 7 out of the last 8 months reported a rise in claimants and the one month fall was a drop of 500 people - totalling 67,100 for the 8 month period. Using August as a particular example the BBC reported a "55,000 fall in unemployment" - based on the Office for National Statistics figure, and even mentions the claimant count in passing but doesn't report the claimant count figure, which if you look at the link above for August was a rise of 9,900 people. The difference between the headline estimate figure of 55,000 fall and the real figure of a 9,900 rise, is a 64,900 which is within the 79,000 confidence of the mathematical model.
So, there you have it. On the one hand, a figure that is an estimate which can be wrong by 79,000 either way, which is now the primary method of reporting unemployment, and on the other hand you have the actual figure for unemployment claims produced by the government itself from the department itself responsible for unemployment, from the actual number of people claiming those benefits - which is no longer being reported by the media, because it conflicts with the estimate.
So who's lying to you?
I have written about this in a previous post when I mentioned the fine line these media outlets walk, knowing what they can report and how to report it in a way that they can be misleading without being held accountable for it.
I'll leave you with one thought to dwell on. If you were told each month that your bank account rose by £30 when in reality it fell by £10, what would you do after a year when you look in your account and find out you have £120 less than when you started when you were expecting it to be £360 more? - A difference of £480.
You're not OK
I don't like it when people tell me what I am thinking or what I am feeling because the majority of times when people do it they're wrong. In reality those people tell me what they think I am thinking or feeling rather than actually listening to me, or asking me. I know how frustrating this can be to be on the receiving end of, because it is patronising when other people think they know you better than you know yourself. That's the preface to this post.
On the flip side there are times when we delude ourselves. When we convince ourselves we are okay when in reality we are really not. Those who know us well can usually see right through this facade because we behave in a way that betrays what we say. We say we're fine but we are quieter than usual or we say we're feeling great and we put on a smile for the world to see but they see us when we think no-one is looking and they can see we're not happy.
Right now I feel pretty level, not ecstatic but not despairing. In this mindset I am quieter than usual and a lot more observant. I look at other people closer than I normally would. I've been in this position many times in my life and it has taught me a lot about other people and their behaviour. You will never hear more than when you stop speaking. What I have struggled with however is knowing how to approach someone when I can see they're not okay. I don't know how to avoid being patronising. I know people say just to ask how someone feels and talk to them but in my experience people are generally reluctant to speak about their feelings when they aren't positive. "I'm fine" is a difficult response to handle when you know it's a lie.
Mental Health is an issue that has become more prominent in recent years in the UK but in many ways I feel it is still taboo. The negative connotations outweigh the desire for a positive path forward for many; the dark clouds of negativity swirl and descend into a spiral that stops people from seeing the light, hiding blue skies with a vortex comprised of everything that's weighing them down. Words like "depressed" aren't taken with weight and are dismissed by many as synonymous with words like "tired", "bored", and "sad", to name but a few. A lack of understanding breeds ignorance of the true nature of depression, that it's more than these words, that it's not something you can talk yourself out of or go down the pub and have a few drinks with mates and you'll be fine.
When these issues go undiagnosed the impact they have on our lives are deepened with time. Like most conditions they become harder to treat if left unchecked. To that end a new paradigm is needed when it comes to mental health. Not just in terms of how we diagnose conditions, or treat them, but in the way we see them in society as a whole. We need to break away from the mentality that doesn't treat this as a serious issue. We need to break away from the mentality that we can't say "I'm not okay" without feeling shame or feeling weak. Above all this we need to break away from the mentality of hostility we hold when people say we're not okay. If I can do anything to change the way people look at mental health then at the very least I can do that. To recognise that if someone says it to me, it's not because they are trying to be patronising but because they care enough to say it and because they see something in me that makes them feel concern. That's not something I or anyone else should be discouraging.
So if you are okay, and someone thinks you're not, then let them know, but thank them for their concern. If you think someone is not okay, then talk to them, share your concern, and if they react negatively as I have done in the past, do not let it discourage you from showing that same concern for others. Don't ignore your instincts, trust them, and if you care about someone, no matter who they are, no matter how close you are then show them.
On the flip side there are times when we delude ourselves. When we convince ourselves we are okay when in reality we are really not. Those who know us well can usually see right through this facade because we behave in a way that betrays what we say. We say we're fine but we are quieter than usual or we say we're feeling great and we put on a smile for the world to see but they see us when we think no-one is looking and they can see we're not happy.
Right now I feel pretty level, not ecstatic but not despairing. In this mindset I am quieter than usual and a lot more observant. I look at other people closer than I normally would. I've been in this position many times in my life and it has taught me a lot about other people and their behaviour. You will never hear more than when you stop speaking. What I have struggled with however is knowing how to approach someone when I can see they're not okay. I don't know how to avoid being patronising. I know people say just to ask how someone feels and talk to them but in my experience people are generally reluctant to speak about their feelings when they aren't positive. "I'm fine" is a difficult response to handle when you know it's a lie.
Mental Health is an issue that has become more prominent in recent years in the UK but in many ways I feel it is still taboo. The negative connotations outweigh the desire for a positive path forward for many; the dark clouds of negativity swirl and descend into a spiral that stops people from seeing the light, hiding blue skies with a vortex comprised of everything that's weighing them down. Words like "depressed" aren't taken with weight and are dismissed by many as synonymous with words like "tired", "bored", and "sad", to name but a few. A lack of understanding breeds ignorance of the true nature of depression, that it's more than these words, that it's not something you can talk yourself out of or go down the pub and have a few drinks with mates and you'll be fine.
When these issues go undiagnosed the impact they have on our lives are deepened with time. Like most conditions they become harder to treat if left unchecked. To that end a new paradigm is needed when it comes to mental health. Not just in terms of how we diagnose conditions, or treat them, but in the way we see them in society as a whole. We need to break away from the mentality that doesn't treat this as a serious issue. We need to break away from the mentality that we can't say "I'm not okay" without feeling shame or feeling weak. Above all this we need to break away from the mentality of hostility we hold when people say we're not okay. If I can do anything to change the way people look at mental health then at the very least I can do that. To recognise that if someone says it to me, it's not because they are trying to be patronising but because they care enough to say it and because they see something in me that makes them feel concern. That's not something I or anyone else should be discouraging.
So if you are okay, and someone thinks you're not, then let them know, but thank them for their concern. If you think someone is not okay, then talk to them, share your concern, and if they react negatively as I have done in the past, do not let it discourage you from showing that same concern for others. Don't ignore your instincts, trust them, and if you care about someone, no matter who they are, no matter how close you are then show them.
"Keep Calm" - Fuck Off
2016 has not been a productive year for me. It didn't start well, for health reasons I wasn't able to get much done for a few months, after which yet more health concerns racked my mind, this time that of a very close friend. The year itself beyond these preoccupations was littered with events around the world that drew focus and attention on a level that has never been so hard to dismiss. "Keep Calm and Carry On" as they say has at times proven to be the most difficult thing to do.
I do find myself asking why we have to keep calm though. When you stop and think about it, panic, and fear, are perfectly normal reactions to worrying situations. These responses are shared not only by humans but by a magnitude of animals we share this planet with. Really when it comes down to it "Keep Calm and Carry On" really means "Repress It Don't Address It" which is a typically British response to problems. Is it healthy though? I know people will argue that panicking achieves nothing, but is that actually true? Or is it simply seen as such because panic is typically seen as a negative emotion. I would argue, if you look at crying, a behaviour which was also typically seen as being negative and of no benefit to an individual, and consider the fact that it has been shown that crying can actually be beneficial and therapeutic then consider the fact you wouldn't dream of telling someone at a funeral to stop crying, because something horrible happened where crying is a perfectly reasonable response, so why is the same mentality not extended to moments when moments of equal magnitude happen worthy of panic?
One could argue that most of the negativity associated with panic is to do with control and the idea that someone in a panic is hard to control; if we define the scope of behaviours we are allowed to exhibit as being within the limited scope of behaviours which we can consciously control then we would exhibit very little emotion if any at all.
I would argue in moments of distress panic is an acceptable response because in the very least it shows you comprehend the severity of the situation. Only once you accept the severity of a situation can you actually approach it with the weight that is needed. To "keep calm" is to repress this, and to approach all situations with the same brevity. I do not believe you should approach a mass shooting with the same mentality you would approach dropping a bottle of wine in a supermarket. The extremity of your response should be proportionate to the severity of the situation you find yourself in.
So if you want to panic, then do so. It's perfectly acceptable to show emotion. Don't "Keep Calm and Carry On" because that's bullshit, it's repression. It's a message that originated in Britain during the Second World War to motivate people. Let's be clear here, this was propaganda at the time and it still is, it's repression of emotion. Do you honestly believe people sitting in shelters beneath the streets of London during the Blitz weren't shitting themselves, weren't worrying about their futures, weren't worrying if they'd surface to find their homes in rubble, and weren't sitting thinking they might go to sleep that night and never wake up again? Fuck off and don't be so condescending. Emotion is not a crime. Repressing it is not healthy.
I do find myself asking why we have to keep calm though. When you stop and think about it, panic, and fear, are perfectly normal reactions to worrying situations. These responses are shared not only by humans but by a magnitude of animals we share this planet with. Really when it comes down to it "Keep Calm and Carry On" really means "Repress It Don't Address It" which is a typically British response to problems. Is it healthy though? I know people will argue that panicking achieves nothing, but is that actually true? Or is it simply seen as such because panic is typically seen as a negative emotion. I would argue, if you look at crying, a behaviour which was also typically seen as being negative and of no benefit to an individual, and consider the fact that it has been shown that crying can actually be beneficial and therapeutic then consider the fact you wouldn't dream of telling someone at a funeral to stop crying, because something horrible happened where crying is a perfectly reasonable response, so why is the same mentality not extended to moments when moments of equal magnitude happen worthy of panic?
One could argue that most of the negativity associated with panic is to do with control and the idea that someone in a panic is hard to control; if we define the scope of behaviours we are allowed to exhibit as being within the limited scope of behaviours which we can consciously control then we would exhibit very little emotion if any at all.
I would argue in moments of distress panic is an acceptable response because in the very least it shows you comprehend the severity of the situation. Only once you accept the severity of a situation can you actually approach it with the weight that is needed. To "keep calm" is to repress this, and to approach all situations with the same brevity. I do not believe you should approach a mass shooting with the same mentality you would approach dropping a bottle of wine in a supermarket. The extremity of your response should be proportionate to the severity of the situation you find yourself in.
So if you want to panic, then do so. It's perfectly acceptable to show emotion. Don't "Keep Calm and Carry On" because that's bullshit, it's repression. It's a message that originated in Britain during the Second World War to motivate people. Let's be clear here, this was propaganda at the time and it still is, it's repression of emotion. Do you honestly believe people sitting in shelters beneath the streets of London during the Blitz weren't shitting themselves, weren't worrying about their futures, weren't worrying if they'd surface to find their homes in rubble, and weren't sitting thinking they might go to sleep that night and never wake up again? Fuck off and don't be so condescending. Emotion is not a crime. Repressing it is not healthy.
Normalization of TV Characters
SPOILER ALERT: This post contains plot points about The Big Bang Theory seasons 1 through 10.
There's a TV show called 'The Big Bang Theory' which I used to love, primarily focused on the story of two guys who could only be described as socially awkward. One was named Sheldon and the other was named Leonard. From the start they were portrayed as social outcasts because of their high intelligence - Sheldon more so than Leonard as he himself would profess. Leonard was straight, that much was made obvious from the start as a love interest was introduced for him, whereas Sheldon was somewhat ambiguous at first, portrayed more so as asexual, someone with no experience of or interest in sexual attraction. The premise of the show centred around the difficulties their professions caused them in terms of their social lives. Sheldon was a Theoretical Physicist and Leonard was an Experimental Physicist. Their circle of friends was very small and consisted of Howard and Raj, an Aerospace Engineer and an Astrophysicist respectively who were also social outcasts.
The show is now in its 10th season and during that time the characters have grown quite a bit. One thing I have a problem with however is the idealisation of the characters' lives. Each of the original four characters, and the periphery characters associated with them, have been "normalised" through the course of the 10 seasons. Howard who was arguably the most repugnant of the four when it came to love interests, borderline perverted at times, was married off and is now expecting a child. Raj who was physically incapable of speaking to women because of his social anxiety was also turned into a character that not only has no problem speaking to women anymore, they often want him to shut up now. Raj is perhaps the most offensive transformation in the show to me as it completely undermines the struggle people have with social anxiety, his character experienced heartache that miraculously cured his anxiety and made him no only able to speak to women but actively lead conversations and speak with a confidence that betrays the notion he ever struggled in the first place.
Leonard was also married off to his love interest - Penny, someone who the show actually points out explicitly in one episode set at a convention how incredulous the storyline between them became. As for Sheldon, the character who struggled the most with social interaction, unable to comprehend many human emotions and someone who arguably is depicted with many symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome throughout the early seasons - although the show's creators have explicitly stated he is not on the Autism Spectrum. Nevertheless the depiction of the apparent ease the character has in overcoming his difficulties is rather unrealistic.
I do realise that the show is meant to be a sitcom, and I do realise many people will argue it's not meant to be realistic, but I would argue the word "sitcom" is a portmanteau of "situational comedy" and the show through its 10 seasons thus far has now basically abandoned the entire situation the comedy was derived from. Through the course of 10 seasons the characters have been normalised to the point where they are now four "normal" people as defined by the mainstream media's narrow definition of what it is to be normal. The show has reached a point where, for the most part, it's not funny anymore. The show was never meant to be about laughing at the characters, but laughing at the situation they found themselves in and depicting that. What it has become is a homogenised television series that at times becomes indistinguishable from the gargantuan mountain of crap the these networks purvey.
There's a TV show called 'The Big Bang Theory' which I used to love, primarily focused on the story of two guys who could only be described as socially awkward. One was named Sheldon and the other was named Leonard. From the start they were portrayed as social outcasts because of their high intelligence - Sheldon more so than Leonard as he himself would profess. Leonard was straight, that much was made obvious from the start as a love interest was introduced for him, whereas Sheldon was somewhat ambiguous at first, portrayed more so as asexual, someone with no experience of or interest in sexual attraction. The premise of the show centred around the difficulties their professions caused them in terms of their social lives. Sheldon was a Theoretical Physicist and Leonard was an Experimental Physicist. Their circle of friends was very small and consisted of Howard and Raj, an Aerospace Engineer and an Astrophysicist respectively who were also social outcasts.
The show is now in its 10th season and during that time the characters have grown quite a bit. One thing I have a problem with however is the idealisation of the characters' lives. Each of the original four characters, and the periphery characters associated with them, have been "normalised" through the course of the 10 seasons. Howard who was arguably the most repugnant of the four when it came to love interests, borderline perverted at times, was married off and is now expecting a child. Raj who was physically incapable of speaking to women because of his social anxiety was also turned into a character that not only has no problem speaking to women anymore, they often want him to shut up now. Raj is perhaps the most offensive transformation in the show to me as it completely undermines the struggle people have with social anxiety, his character experienced heartache that miraculously cured his anxiety and made him no only able to speak to women but actively lead conversations and speak with a confidence that betrays the notion he ever struggled in the first place.
Leonard was also married off to his love interest - Penny, someone who the show actually points out explicitly in one episode set at a convention how incredulous the storyline between them became. As for Sheldon, the character who struggled the most with social interaction, unable to comprehend many human emotions and someone who arguably is depicted with many symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome throughout the early seasons - although the show's creators have explicitly stated he is not on the Autism Spectrum. Nevertheless the depiction of the apparent ease the character has in overcoming his difficulties is rather unrealistic.
I do realise that the show is meant to be a sitcom, and I do realise many people will argue it's not meant to be realistic, but I would argue the word "sitcom" is a portmanteau of "situational comedy" and the show through its 10 seasons thus far has now basically abandoned the entire situation the comedy was derived from. Through the course of 10 seasons the characters have been normalised to the point where they are now four "normal" people as defined by the mainstream media's narrow definition of what it is to be normal. The show has reached a point where, for the most part, it's not funny anymore. The show was never meant to be about laughing at the characters, but laughing at the situation they found themselves in and depicting that. What it has become is a homogenised television series that at times becomes indistinguishable from the gargantuan mountain of crap the these networks purvey.
Batch Processing versus Real Time Processing Mentalities
In computing there are a number of different approaches to processing information. Two rather antiquated concepts that for a time formed the fundamental approaches were Batch Processing and Real Time Processing. I've been thinking about thought processes and how we as people often mirror the machines we create and act in the same way. Specifically when it comes to workload and our approaches to repetitive tasks these two processing approaches can be found in human behaviour.
In computing, real time processing is the approach whereby you process data as and when it becomes available, whilst batch processing is the approach whereby you save data up until you reach a specified level before you process it all at once. These processing approaches can be seen in human behaviour in things as simple as our washing. People who hold a real time processing mentality will wash their clothes as they go along, doing smaller loads more often. Whereas, those who hold a batch processing mentality will let their washing pile up until they reach a critical mass, either defined by the capacity of the washing machine, or until you run out of clean underwear for example.
Beyond daily tasks however, the distinction between the two mentalities interests me because I don't think it's accurate to say people conform to one or the other exclusively. I've seen people who do certain tasks daily without complaint yet they let others pile up. Personal and Professional lives provide a wealth of behaviours to examine. Take shredding as another example. I've seen many people, myself included, amass a mountain of paperwork to shred until they have the time to sit down and do it all at once. The truth is if you actually did it as you went along you wouldn't need to alot a time to do it.
Beyond computing, this concept extends into other industries, with equivalent approaches existing such as marginal accounting for example, where the cost of a purchase isn't just the principle cost but the associated expenditures factored in to the figure - "light bulbs" costing £50 on a balance sheet doesn't actually mean they spent £50 on a light bulb it means the cost of the bulb plus the resources used to purchase, fit, and dispose of the old bulbs - "parts and labour" in essence; this is equivalent to real time processing as it factors in complete cost of activity as you go. The obverse of this is financial accounting, this is transaction based and states the actual cost of the light bulb which is settled later by accounts payable, the additional costs of labour etc appear separately as transactions in and of themselves. This is equivalent to batch processing as whole amounts are exchanged at once to resolve outstanding balances.
The question this raises is which should you actually pursue personally and professionally? Which is more efficient? Is it better for example to write one article every day, or is it better to write a month's worth of articles in the first week of the preceding month? Do you work better doing 5 different things each day, or would you work better devoting a day to each thing? What do you do in a gym? Do you have a full body workout you do each time you visit or do you have days where you target a specific area?
At its base: "Bit by bit" vs "All at once"
In computing, real time processing is the approach whereby you process data as and when it becomes available, whilst batch processing is the approach whereby you save data up until you reach a specified level before you process it all at once. These processing approaches can be seen in human behaviour in things as simple as our washing. People who hold a real time processing mentality will wash their clothes as they go along, doing smaller loads more often. Whereas, those who hold a batch processing mentality will let their washing pile up until they reach a critical mass, either defined by the capacity of the washing machine, or until you run out of clean underwear for example.
Beyond daily tasks however, the distinction between the two mentalities interests me because I don't think it's accurate to say people conform to one or the other exclusively. I've seen people who do certain tasks daily without complaint yet they let others pile up. Personal and Professional lives provide a wealth of behaviours to examine. Take shredding as another example. I've seen many people, myself included, amass a mountain of paperwork to shred until they have the time to sit down and do it all at once. The truth is if you actually did it as you went along you wouldn't need to alot a time to do it.
Beyond computing, this concept extends into other industries, with equivalent approaches existing such as marginal accounting for example, where the cost of a purchase isn't just the principle cost but the associated expenditures factored in to the figure - "light bulbs" costing £50 on a balance sheet doesn't actually mean they spent £50 on a light bulb it means the cost of the bulb plus the resources used to purchase, fit, and dispose of the old bulbs - "parts and labour" in essence; this is equivalent to real time processing as it factors in complete cost of activity as you go. The obverse of this is financial accounting, this is transaction based and states the actual cost of the light bulb which is settled later by accounts payable, the additional costs of labour etc appear separately as transactions in and of themselves. This is equivalent to batch processing as whole amounts are exchanged at once to resolve outstanding balances.
The question this raises is which should you actually pursue personally and professionally? Which is more efficient? Is it better for example to write one article every day, or is it better to write a month's worth of articles in the first week of the preceding month? Do you work better doing 5 different things each day, or would you work better devoting a day to each thing? What do you do in a gym? Do you have a full body workout you do each time you visit or do you have days where you target a specific area?
At its base: "Bit by bit" vs "All at once"
How can you define a game?
How can you define a game? There are many things in life we do that must adhere to set rules but we wouldn't class all of these as games. In our professional lives we have to follow rules, policies and procedures in everything we do, yet we wouldn't consider these games. Likewise when it comes to fun and enjoyment, it's hard to use these as determining factors for games because there are many games we must play in life that aren't enjoyable.
There is the idea of players being the defining aspect of games, where a game is defined by the number of people that play it - single player, multiplayer, etc, but even then, if you choose not to play the game, you can still be part of it. Others can play games with you even if you don't want to, likewise you can be placed in a single player game and refuse to play, the fact you refuse to play does not nullify the game, you simply lose the game because you never tried.
The next question, assuming you managed to define what a game is, would be, when does a game stop being a game? If you explore game theory, one theme that recurs when trying to define a game is the existence of a winning strategy. That is to say something you can do in order to win the game, a strategy which if adhered to religiously can allow you to play a perfect game. What I find fascinating about this is the question that arises when you accept this as the defining aspect of gaming - what happens when you memorise the winning strategy? Is it still a game if you always win, never lose, and never fault? Take the Rubik's Cube for example, for most people the game of the cube is trying to solve it, but when you learn the algorithms which can be used to solve the cube, the random and strategic elements are removed and it simply becomes a memory test. If you can lift the cube every time and solve it every time remembering the algorithm, is it still a game?
By extension of this concept you can also ask, if there exists no winning strategy and the game is endless, which you can therefore never win, is it still a game? Taking Tetris as an example, the game is one that advances in difficulty as the player progresses, in some cases depending on the version the game can be endless, where you simply continue until you fail. Is this still a game if you can never actually win?
So we are brought back to our original question, how can you define a game? When does it start and end being a game?
There is the idea of players being the defining aspect of games, where a game is defined by the number of people that play it - single player, multiplayer, etc, but even then, if you choose not to play the game, you can still be part of it. Others can play games with you even if you don't want to, likewise you can be placed in a single player game and refuse to play, the fact you refuse to play does not nullify the game, you simply lose the game because you never tried.
The next question, assuming you managed to define what a game is, would be, when does a game stop being a game? If you explore game theory, one theme that recurs when trying to define a game is the existence of a winning strategy. That is to say something you can do in order to win the game, a strategy which if adhered to religiously can allow you to play a perfect game. What I find fascinating about this is the question that arises when you accept this as the defining aspect of gaming - what happens when you memorise the winning strategy? Is it still a game if you always win, never lose, and never fault? Take the Rubik's Cube for example, for most people the game of the cube is trying to solve it, but when you learn the algorithms which can be used to solve the cube, the random and strategic elements are removed and it simply becomes a memory test. If you can lift the cube every time and solve it every time remembering the algorithm, is it still a game?
By extension of this concept you can also ask, if there exists no winning strategy and the game is endless, which you can therefore never win, is it still a game? Taking Tetris as an example, the game is one that advances in difficulty as the player progresses, in some cases depending on the version the game can be endless, where you simply continue until you fail. Is this still a game if you can never actually win?
So we are brought back to our original question, how can you define a game? When does it start and end being a game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)