Emotion: Satisfaction (with social life)
Unit of measure: Wedding party members living within X/5 miles
How it works: Satisfaction with one’s social situation may be measured in the number of people within X-number of miles who would be chosen and welcomed into one’s ideal wedding party (as a groomsmen or bridesmaid).
Relatives who are forced into wedding parties by necessity but would not have been chosen freely do not count on this scale. (See “cultural miles-geographic dissatisfaction scale” to account for these relatives.) Relatives or other loved ones who would traditionally occupy other positions in an actual wedding ceremony (i.e., “mother of the bride”) may be imagined and included as bridesmaids or groomsmen for the purpose of this scale.
Women may choose “groomsmen” as well as “bridesmaids,” and men may choose either as well. However, the total number of people chosen as one’s ideal wedding party must not exceed seven, and 7.0 is the maximum level of social satisfaction in this scale. Zero (0.0) is the lowest possible measure.
To calculate social satisfaction levels, each person in the ideal wedding party is the equivalent of 1.00 pwpm (potential wedding party members) when living within five miles. For every five additional miles away each pwpm lives, .05 pwpm is subtracted from each wedding party member’s initial 1.00. The lower number in the range of miles distant (i.e., “fifty to fifty-five miles away” is reduced to exactly fifty miles) is the number to be multiplied by .05 and subtracted from 1.00.
Example:
You have one pwpm living eighteen miles away. How many wpm is this person?
18 miles / 5 miles = 3, R3*
3 x 0.05pwpm = 0.15
1.00 pwpm – 0.15 pwpm = 0.85 wpm**
* Remainders are inconsequential in the Wedding party-social satisfaction scale.
**Once “real numbers” are determined for each potential wedding party member, units of measure change from pwpm to wpm.
The resulting numbers for each of the potential wedding party members are then added to determine social satisfaction.
Example:
One pwpm within five miles: 1.00 wpm
Two pwpms between five and ten miles away: 0.95 + 0.95 = 1.90 wpm
Three pwpms between thirty and thirty-five miles away: 3(0.70) = 2.10 wpm
One pwpm between eighty and eighty-five miles away: 0.20 wpm
Total social satisfaction: 1 + 1.9 + 2.1 + 0.2 = 5.2 wpm
Elaborations: This scale may also be used with the number of people “within a day’s drive” who would be chosen and welcomed into one’s wedding party, rather than the more particular 5-mile intervals. Individual definitions of “a day’s drive,” both in terms of number of hours one is willing to drive, and the distance able to be traveled over those hours, vary, but do not factor into this scale.
Limits: The total number of people chosen cannot exceed seven. This number accounts for the potential addition of two parents to the reasonable number of five bridesmaids/groomsmen, and must be adhered to exactly as a maximum for the sake of universalizing the scale.
Less than seven people in a potential wedding party is mathematically acceptable and preferable to adding people to the measure that one would not truly want to include in an ideal wedding party.
This scale cannot measure social satisfaction for those whose social satisfaction relies on factors totally unrelated to being in proximity with close friends and/or family, such as the ambitious, or hermits. See Lemon-Satisfaction scale for alternative measures.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query quantifiable living. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query quantifiable living. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Quantifiable Living: Levels of cleanliness
How it works: Unlike previous quantifiable living scales, the "levels of cleanliness" scale is meant to quantify how clean or dirty something is, within a certain range (rather than by absolute value). Rather than units of measure, cleanliness can be described using the following rubric.
In a pinch, this scale is equally useful for describing how physically soiled an object is and how "dirty" it is in terms of psychologically maladaptive or sexual content.
Most objects fall between Levels 3 and 4, making Level 3.5 a neutral pH for the scale.
Level 0: You can perform surgery on it.
Level 1: You can eat off it.
Level 2: You can show it to your Grandma.
Level 3: You can touch it.
Level 4: You can touch it, but you should wash your hands afterward.
Level 5: You shouldn't touch it.
Level 6: Looking at it makes you physically ill.
Level 66: Looking at it gives you recurring nightmares.
Level 666: After looking at a picture of it, you yourself become Level 6. (Other people become physically ill when they look at you.)
In a pinch, this scale is equally useful for describing how physically soiled an object is and how "dirty" it is in terms of psychologically maladaptive or sexual content.
Most objects fall between Levels 3 and 4, making Level 3.5 a neutral pH for the scale.
Level 0: You can perform surgery on it.
Level 1: You can eat off it.
Level 2: You can show it to your Grandma.
Level 3: You can touch it.
Level 4: You can touch it, but you should wash your hands afterward.
Level 5: You shouldn't touch it.
Level 6: Looking at it makes you physically ill.
Level 66: Looking at it gives you recurring nightmares.
Level 666: After looking at a picture of it, you yourself become Level 6. (Other people become physically ill when they look at you.)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Quantifiable Living: Cultural miles-geographic dissatisfaction scale
Per Jenny's request (see comments), I have sought the answer to the question of how to measure a quarter-life crisis in terms of dissatisfaction with all the various elements of one's life, intending to quantify each element in such a way as to make them comparable enough to facilitate eliminating most-dissatisfactory elements.
Unfortunately, as is the way in science, on the course to this discovery, I discovered that types of dissatisfaction require different units of measure: i.e., dissatisfaction of distance/proximity may not be measured on the same scale as dissatisfaction of existence/nonexistence [i.e. "I wish I had a boyfriend"], nor as possessing/not possessing [i.e. "I wish I had her boyfriend"].
Instead of a total-life scale, then, I present the cultural miles - geographic dissatisfaction scale, which when combined with other scales of types of dissatisfaction, should present a well-rounded view of quarter-life ennui.
The search for algorithms to combine dissatisfactions effectively is ongoing.
*****
Emotion: Geographic Dissatisfaction
Unit of measure: Absolute Cultural Miles
How it works: Levels of geographic dissatisfaction -- that is, un/happiness with one's geographic location based on proximity to positive factors (friends, cultural institutions, active local "hippie" population [for hippies], ice cream parlors, some family) or negative factors (enemies, Walmarts, active local "hippie" population [for Republicans], town dumps, some family) -- can be measured in absolute cultural miles (cult. mi.) from Trenton, NJ, which is the absolutely most dissatisfying place on the planet.
The geographically dissatisfied should compare their level of dissatisfaction with that they would be feeling if they were living in the exact geographic center of Trenton, NJ.
The more satisfied they are with the positive factors, the farther from the geographic center of Trenton, NJ, they will rate that factor.
The less satisfied, the closer to Trenton, NJ. they will rate that factor.
Example:
All friends within walking distance: 11,500 cult. mi.
Several independent ethnic grocery stores within walking distance: 8,990 cult. mi.
Smithsonian museum within walking distance: 7,500 cult. mi.
15 Walmarts within walking distance: 220 cult. mi.
Town dump, gelatin factory, and several undesirable relatives within walking distance: 3 cult. mi.
Although cultural miles have little in common with miles, being overset on the current globe, cult. mi. can range from 0 (the exact geographic center of Trenton, NJ) to 12,430 (the exact opposite side of the planet from Trenton, NJ).
Positive cult. mi. beyond 12,430 are not allowable, as any number higher than that would necessitate being closer to Trenton, NJ.
Calibration can be achieved by imagining the best possible circumstance in each aspect of life and rendering that possibility equal to 12,430 cult. mi.
The scale is flexible in terms of what aspects of life are to be considered, how those aspects are to be divided, and what values are assigned to each factor in relation to others. This flexibility accounts for individual variances on types and acuteness of dissatisfactions.
Limits: Actual proximity to Trenton, NJ is taken into account naturally by the scale and thus should not be figured in separately.
Similarly, anyone experiencing positive factors to such a great degree that they would rate one as 12,000 cult. mi. away need not figure where they would actually be living if 12,000 miles away from Trenton, NJ. Satisfaction with the geographic location of the alternative to Trenton, NJ, does not need to be measured on this scale.
Elaborations: There are several methods for using cultural miles to measure dis/satisfaction. These methods relate to each other similarly to mathmatical mean, median and mode, and can be used in various circumstances to calculate levels of dis/satisfaction.
Method 1 always produces a valid value; methods 2 and 3 occasionally do not.
The examples above refer to method 1 calculations.
Method 1: Each factor may be accounted for separately, then averaged.
Method 2: Positive factors may be measured and added to a total cult. mi. distance from Trenton, NJ; negative factors may then be rendered in negative cult. mi. (miles closer to Trenton, NJ) and subtracted from the total positive factor cult. mi. (Note: Cultural miles must fall between 0 and 12,430 for valid result.)
Method 3: Positive factors may be measured on a scale considering 12,430 cult. mi. as the absolute limit for cult. mi., keeping each in proportion to that limit. Negative factors may be measured as negatives considering -12,430 cult. mi. as the absolute limit, keeping each in proportion to that limit. Positive and negative cultural miles may then be combined for total cult. mi. (Note: Cultural miles must fall between 0 and 12,430 for valid result.)
Unfortunately, as is the way in science, on the course to this discovery, I discovered that types of dissatisfaction require different units of measure: i.e., dissatisfaction of distance/proximity may not be measured on the same scale as dissatisfaction of existence/nonexistence [i.e. "I wish I had a boyfriend"], nor as possessing/not possessing [i.e. "I wish I had her boyfriend"].
Instead of a total-life scale, then, I present the cultural miles - geographic dissatisfaction scale, which when combined with other scales of types of dissatisfaction, should present a well-rounded view of quarter-life ennui.
The search for algorithms to combine dissatisfactions effectively is ongoing.
*****
Emotion: Geographic Dissatisfaction
Unit of measure: Absolute Cultural Miles
How it works: Levels of geographic dissatisfaction -- that is, un/happiness with one's geographic location based on proximity to positive factors (friends, cultural institutions, active local "hippie" population [for hippies], ice cream parlors, some family) or negative factors (enemies, Walmarts, active local "hippie" population [for Republicans], town dumps, some family) -- can be measured in absolute cultural miles (cult. mi.) from Trenton, NJ, which is the absolutely most dissatisfying place on the planet.
The geographically dissatisfied should compare their level of dissatisfaction with that they would be feeling if they were living in the exact geographic center of Trenton, NJ.
The more satisfied they are with the positive factors, the farther from the geographic center of Trenton, NJ, they will rate that factor.
The less satisfied, the closer to Trenton, NJ. they will rate that factor.
Example:
All friends within walking distance: 11,500 cult. mi.
Several independent ethnic grocery stores within walking distance: 8,990 cult. mi.
Smithsonian museum within walking distance: 7,500 cult. mi.
15 Walmarts within walking distance: 220 cult. mi.
Town dump, gelatin factory, and several undesirable relatives within walking distance: 3 cult. mi.
Although cultural miles have little in common with miles, being overset on the current globe, cult. mi. can range from 0 (the exact geographic center of Trenton, NJ) to 12,430 (the exact opposite side of the planet from Trenton, NJ).
Positive cult. mi. beyond 12,430 are not allowable, as any number higher than that would necessitate being closer to Trenton, NJ.
Calibration can be achieved by imagining the best possible circumstance in each aspect of life and rendering that possibility equal to 12,430 cult. mi.
The scale is flexible in terms of what aspects of life are to be considered, how those aspects are to be divided, and what values are assigned to each factor in relation to others. This flexibility accounts for individual variances on types and acuteness of dissatisfactions.
Limits: Actual proximity to Trenton, NJ is taken into account naturally by the scale and thus should not be figured in separately.
Similarly, anyone experiencing positive factors to such a great degree that they would rate one as 12,000 cult. mi. away need not figure where they would actually be living if 12,000 miles away from Trenton, NJ. Satisfaction with the geographic location of the alternative to Trenton, NJ, does not need to be measured on this scale.
Elaborations: There are several methods for using cultural miles to measure dis/satisfaction. These methods relate to each other similarly to mathmatical mean, median and mode, and can be used in various circumstances to calculate levels of dis/satisfaction.
Method 1 always produces a valid value; methods 2 and 3 occasionally do not.
The examples above refer to method 1 calculations.
Method 1: Each factor may be accounted for separately, then averaged.
Method 2: Positive factors may be measured and added to a total cult. mi. distance from Trenton, NJ; negative factors may then be rendered in negative cult. mi. (miles closer to Trenton, NJ) and subtracted from the total positive factor cult. mi. (Note: Cultural miles must fall between 0 and 12,430 for valid result.)
Method 3: Positive factors may be measured on a scale considering 12,430 cult. mi. as the absolute limit for cult. mi., keeping each in proportion to that limit. Negative factors may be measured as negatives considering -12,430 cult. mi. as the absolute limit, keeping each in proportion to that limit. Positive and negative cultural miles may then be combined for total cult. mi. (Note: Cultural miles must fall between 0 and 12,430 for valid result.)
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Quantifiable Living: S’mores-firewood scale
Item: Firewood (size, burning power)
Unit of measure: S’mores
How it works: Size of kindling or logs for a fire can be measured in the number of S’mores it can make under ideal conditions. Similar to the definition of a calorie (the amount of energy it takes to heat 1ml of water 1 degree C), firewood can be measured in the amount of marshmallow and chocolate it can melt.
The making of a S’more consists of heating a marshmallow to a sufficient temperature to be 1. crispy and lightly browned on the outside, 2. hot and melted on the inside and 3. capable of melting half the mass of two squares of Hershey’s chocolate (such that the chocolate is neither still cold, nor melting off of the graham cracker onto one’s hand) previously kept at room temperature (70 degrees F).
Examples:
Small twig from living tree: .2 S’mores
Medium-sized stick from dead tree: 2 S’mores
Log from moss-covered dead tree in the forest: 24 S’mores
Log from well-seasoned, dry woodpile kept under cover: 37 S’mores
Elaborations: Ideal conditions here are a wind and rain-free day, and using a firepit or barbeque primed for a fire.
Firewood should be imagined as instantly catching fire and burning at perfect S’more-making temperatures; see separate scale for how good firewood would be at kindling a fire initially, as this scale describes only pure burning power.
Unit of measure: S’mores
How it works: Size of kindling or logs for a fire can be measured in the number of S’mores it can make under ideal conditions. Similar to the definition of a calorie (the amount of energy it takes to heat 1ml of water 1 degree C), firewood can be measured in the amount of marshmallow and chocolate it can melt.
The making of a S’more consists of heating a marshmallow to a sufficient temperature to be 1. crispy and lightly browned on the outside, 2. hot and melted on the inside and 3. capable of melting half the mass of two squares of Hershey’s chocolate (such that the chocolate is neither still cold, nor melting off of the graham cracker onto one’s hand) previously kept at room temperature (70 degrees F).
Examples:
Small twig from living tree: .2 S’mores
Medium-sized stick from dead tree: 2 S’mores
Log from moss-covered dead tree in the forest: 24 S’mores
Log from well-seasoned, dry woodpile kept under cover: 37 S’mores
Elaborations: Ideal conditions here are a wind and rain-free day, and using a firepit or barbeque primed for a fire.
Firewood should be imagined as instantly catching fire and burning at perfect S’more-making temperatures; see separate scale for how good firewood would be at kindling a fire initially, as this scale describes only pure burning power.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Quantifiable Living: Buttons-Loneliness scale (for women)
Emotion: Loneliness (women)
Units of measure: Unbuttoned back buttons
How it works: For women, loneliness can be measured in the number of back buttons left unbuttoned (bbu) by the absence of another person to help button them.
Though in most cases, real-life formalwear includes few or no buttons at the upper back and back of the neck, for the purpose of the scale, a gown that covers the entire back may be imagined. The number of buttons that would be unreachable to a woman wearing the dress while standing up straight, without contorting her arms, bending over or ripping the dress, indicates how lonely she is.
If a woman cannot reach four back buttons without help, she is indicating that she is twice as lonely as if she could not reach two back buttons.
Examples:
You feel an impulse to eat an entire pint of Chunky Monkey: 6 back buttons unbuttoned (bbu)
Your cat has been missing for a week: 14 bbu
You have one acquaintance in the urban area in which you live and no romantic prospects: 26 bbu
For the purpose of the buttons-loneliness scale, the buttons requiring buttoning are average plastic, smooth, flat, pea-sized buttons.
Limits: The bbu quantity should not exceed the number of pea-sized buttons that could possibly fit edge-to-edge across the mid-back to neck of an average-height woman; see elaborations if a higher indicator of loneliness is desired.
Elaborations: Type of dress may be invoked to assist others’ understanding of loneliness levels, though this is usually also measure of social awkwardness and openness to new experiences and meeting new people, rather than of pure loneliness, and so should be cross-referenced with scales for awkwardness and openness, for mathematical accuracy.
A dress revealing the entire back, or involving no buttons, indicates negligible amounts of loneliness: the revealing dress indicates openness to others, while the non-buttoned covered back indicates satisfaction in being alone.
The highest levels of loneliness may be measured in wedding-dress buttons, since a lonely bride (left at the altar, presumably) would likely be experiencing some of the most acute and focused loneliness available.
These levels of loneliness may be accurately measured using only the buttons-loneliness scale because rules regarding how many buttons may fit down an average-height woman’s back, and also how many buttons are deemed “unreachable,” obviously do not apply to wedding dresses. No other scale needs be applied or cross-referenced, though other relevant scales may be applied if desired. Units of measure for wedding-dress buttons are abbreviated “wdbbu.”
Difficulty of buttoning particular types of buttons – fabric-covered round buttons, for instance, rather than smooth plastic – may also be taken into account, using advanced math and the “difficulty of buttoning” scale.
A woman may also indicate that she feels so lonely she feels she cannot reach even buttons well within the grasp of an uncontorted arm, possibly on her lower back.
This may reveal that she feels incapable of even leaving the house due to loneliness, and so may be a helpful measure – though strictly speaking, this is hyperbole and not scientific. The buttons-loneliness scale cannot accurately measure this depth of loneliness, which is properly called despair, and loneliness exceeding the scale’s limits should be recorded as “∞” or “infinity.”
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Quantifiable Living: Selves-frazzlement scale
Emotion: Frazzlement due to over-busyness
Units of measure: Selves
How it works: Frazzlement (anxiety) levels can be measured in the number of selves that would be required to allow you to take a Caribbean vacation without guilt.
Selves should be measured with the original-you calibrated at zero. Thus, if you are currently taking a guilt-free Caribbean vacation, your frazzlement level is at 0 selves.
A typical day would require at least one self to free you for a Caribbean vacation. The number of selves required on any given day for frazzle-free vacationing should be calibrated by attempting to imagine a schedule for each self that would allow the multiple selves to feel capable and useful but not overwhelmed.
Example:
You have to pick up a jar of peanut butter from the store: 1 self
You have three newspapers to put out at once: 5 selves
You have to fill out insurance forms, pick up a child from daycare, take out the trash and clean the bathroom all at once: 7 selves (with 3 for the forms)
It is unnecessary to calibrate the scale for personal laziness or sour dispositions, as these are legitimate considerations in determining subjective frazzlement levels. However, pity levels for particularly lazy, sour or high-strung individuals may be calibrated according to personal criteria. (Levels of pity will not necessarily correlate to number of selves.)
Limits: Particularly guilt-ridden people will find this scale useless, as their dispositions likely render them incapable of taking a Caribbean vacation without guilt.
People who hate the beach, the Caribbean or vacations in general may have difficulty using this scale.
Travel time, expense and the potential stress created by booking and embarking on a Caribbean vacation should not be considered in the frazzlement scale.
Elaborations: This scale is flexible and may be useful for partial days as well as averaged over whole days, weeks or months.
Mode and mean are both relevant measurements for frazzlement, as it is legitimate and useful to discuss both the highest number of selves necessary in any given day as well as the average number of selves you would need to experience a guilt-free lay-out on a Caribbean beach.
Units of measure: Selves
How it works: Frazzlement (anxiety) levels can be measured in the number of selves that would be required to allow you to take a Caribbean vacation without guilt.
Selves should be measured with the original-you calibrated at zero. Thus, if you are currently taking a guilt-free Caribbean vacation, your frazzlement level is at 0 selves.
A typical day would require at least one self to free you for a Caribbean vacation. The number of selves required on any given day for frazzle-free vacationing should be calibrated by attempting to imagine a schedule for each self that would allow the multiple selves to feel capable and useful but not overwhelmed.
Example:
You have to pick up a jar of peanut butter from the store: 1 self
You have three newspapers to put out at once: 5 selves
You have to fill out insurance forms, pick up a child from daycare, take out the trash and clean the bathroom all at once: 7 selves (with 3 for the forms)
It is unnecessary to calibrate the scale for personal laziness or sour dispositions, as these are legitimate considerations in determining subjective frazzlement levels. However, pity levels for particularly lazy, sour or high-strung individuals may be calibrated according to personal criteria. (Levels of pity will not necessarily correlate to number of selves.)
Limits: Particularly guilt-ridden people will find this scale useless, as their dispositions likely render them incapable of taking a Caribbean vacation without guilt.
People who hate the beach, the Caribbean or vacations in general may have difficulty using this scale.
Travel time, expense and the potential stress created by booking and embarking on a Caribbean vacation should not be considered in the frazzlement scale.
Elaborations: This scale is flexible and may be useful for partial days as well as averaged over whole days, weeks or months.
Mode and mean are both relevant measurements for frazzlement, as it is legitimate and useful to discuss both the highest number of selves necessary in any given day as well as the average number of selves you would need to experience a guilt-free lay-out on a Caribbean beach.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Quantifiable Living: Story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale
Item: Story within a story (oral or written)
Unit of measure: Paul Austers (PA)
How It Works: This scale measures the levels of storytelling going on in any given storytelling experience. Each Paul Auster is equal to two stories, with one embedded in the other. If a person tells you a total of four stories within the aegis of one main storytelling experience -- that is, before they have reached the final purpose of the initial storytelling -- with each embedded in the last, for instance, that would be 2 PA.
This scale is especially useful when dealing with older people like Grandpa Simpson (or real-life equivalent), or younger people who tend to ramble, but it should not be applied too liberally. The stories that qualify for the "Story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale" should be relatively high-quality; should have an identifiable beginning, middle and end, even if they're not as fully developed as they could be; should give the listener a sense both of the interconnectedness of life and the ultimate inability to articulate one's "real truth" or "real self"; should cause one to question whether the story has any ultimate or practical meaning; should leave one with a haunting sense that one has missed something essential in listening, something that could prove the key to the whole story if only the listener had caught it.
These criteria may be met by the quality and content of the story itself (stories themselves), or by the listener's respectful and listening attitude toward the stories, such that the listener's attitude adds gravitas and reflection to stories that may not demand it. Where there is no respect, however, there cannot be a PA correlation, as all stories tend to blend together and create a different experience related more to sheer length of talking rather than story embeddedness.
Examples:
Someone tells you a story about going to the store and finding a penny on the way, diverging into a parallel story about how he used to collect coins when he was young and trusted the government: 1 PA
The same storyteller augments the penny-finding and collecting story with scenes from his stint in Vietnam, adding the perspective of a young Vietnamese girl who causes him to ultimately question the government's motives and reason for being there: 2 PA
You hear a story about a woman who met her husband when he came from the fire department to rescue her cat from a tree, and you hear how she came to get the cat, the story of the previous owner of the cat's mother who had hung herself from a tree for unrequited love, and also the content of the short story she was writing at the time, which had a flashback in it: 3 PA
Limits: A story followed by another story does not meet the criteria for the story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale. That would be a story cycle, or a series of stories, which can be measured by normal means: i.e., "one story," "two stories," "fifteen stories in a row," etc.
Elaborations: The borderline exception to this provision is if, at the end of the series of stories, the listener realizes that all the stories were actually interconnected in ways that became clear only through listening. In this case, either the usual method of story-counting (i.e. "five stories in a row") with an addendum of explanation (i.e. "and it turned out that all the people met each other at a party in the end") may be used, or the PA unit of measure may be applied, though carefully.
For instance, in the case of a series of five stories, all of which end up being the background of five people who show up at the same party, the PA measure is only 1, since the five stories are all embedded in the same overarching storyline, rather than being embedded in each other. Thus, the situation warrants the description "6 stories, 1 PA," indicating that there are six storylines (including the story of the party), with one of those being the frame and the other five being independent of all but the frame/overarching storyline.
More sophisticated methods of determining the relation between embedded stories and serial stories are in development.
Unit of measure: Paul Austers (PA)
How It Works: This scale measures the levels of storytelling going on in any given storytelling experience. Each Paul Auster is equal to two stories, with one embedded in the other. If a person tells you a total of four stories within the aegis of one main storytelling experience -- that is, before they have reached the final purpose of the initial storytelling -- with each embedded in the last, for instance, that would be 2 PA.
This scale is especially useful when dealing with older people like Grandpa Simpson (or real-life equivalent), or younger people who tend to ramble, but it should not be applied too liberally. The stories that qualify for the "Story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale" should be relatively high-quality; should have an identifiable beginning, middle and end, even if they're not as fully developed as they could be; should give the listener a sense both of the interconnectedness of life and the ultimate inability to articulate one's "real truth" or "real self"; should cause one to question whether the story has any ultimate or practical meaning; should leave one with a haunting sense that one has missed something essential in listening, something that could prove the key to the whole story if only the listener had caught it.
These criteria may be met by the quality and content of the story itself (stories themselves), or by the listener's respectful and listening attitude toward the stories, such that the listener's attitude adds gravitas and reflection to stories that may not demand it. Where there is no respect, however, there cannot be a PA correlation, as all stories tend to blend together and create a different experience related more to sheer length of talking rather than story embeddedness.
Examples:
Someone tells you a story about going to the store and finding a penny on the way, diverging into a parallel story about how he used to collect coins when he was young and trusted the government: 1 PA
The same storyteller augments the penny-finding and collecting story with scenes from his stint in Vietnam, adding the perspective of a young Vietnamese girl who causes him to ultimately question the government's motives and reason for being there: 2 PA
You hear a story about a woman who met her husband when he came from the fire department to rescue her cat from a tree, and you hear how she came to get the cat, the story of the previous owner of the cat's mother who had hung herself from a tree for unrequited love, and also the content of the short story she was writing at the time, which had a flashback in it: 3 PA
Limits: A story followed by another story does not meet the criteria for the story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale. That would be a story cycle, or a series of stories, which can be measured by normal means: i.e., "one story," "two stories," "fifteen stories in a row," etc.
Elaborations: The borderline exception to this provision is if, at the end of the series of stories, the listener realizes that all the stories were actually interconnected in ways that became clear only through listening. In this case, either the usual method of story-counting (i.e. "five stories in a row") with an addendum of explanation (i.e. "and it turned out that all the people met each other at a party in the end") may be used, or the PA unit of measure may be applied, though carefully.
For instance, in the case of a series of five stories, all of which end up being the background of five people who show up at the same party, the PA measure is only 1, since the five stories are all embedded in the same overarching storyline, rather than being embedded in each other. Thus, the situation warrants the description "6 stories, 1 PA," indicating that there are six storylines (including the story of the party), with one of those being the frame and the other five being independent of all but the frame/overarching storyline.
More sophisticated methods of determining the relation between embedded stories and serial stories are in development.
Friday, September 19, 2008
PSA: New feature debuts on Continue Unprotected!
"Quantifiable Living" will be a new feature on CU, intended to help you streamline your life, adding efficiency and the ability to quantify the previously unquantifiable.
Anyone who would like a previously unquantifiable emotion, concept or material quantified for greater success in all areas of life, please comment or send an email detailing the idea or item to be quantified.
Eventually, all aspects of life will be able to be expressed as data, making communication easier and more fun!
Anyone who would like a previously unquantifiable emotion, concept or material quantified for greater success in all areas of life, please comment or send an email detailing the idea or item to be quantified.
Eventually, all aspects of life will be able to be expressed as data, making communication easier and more fun!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
2008 in CU review
For those of you who missed any, most or all of the last almost-11 months of Continue Unprotected, here's a recap, and links to some of the essentials.
New words:
AMpty-headed
Antichrist Complex
Avoision
Blahgger
Calendarsthenics
Capastrophic
Christmess
Fopera
Halfiversary
Interestomercialitis
Marthastewartize
Nouveau Liche
Reaganitis
Sarcast
Texublican
Virgineers
X-mess
Quantifiable Living:
Measure these emotions in the following units:
Sadness > kittens
Geographic dissatisfaction > cultural miles
Frazzlement > selves
HTR Desperation > fruitcake
In Defense of Poppery:
"A Year From Now" -- Across Five Aprils
"Dog Park" -- The Saturday Knights
"Handlebars" -- The Flobots
"Sweetest Girl (Dollar Bill Song)" -- Wyclef Jean, Akon, Lil' Wayne, Niia
"The Mae Shi versus Miley Cyrus' See You Again" -- The Mae Shi
Vampire genre fiction
"With You" -- Chris Brown
My family:
Party Like It's 1999
How we were held over the Styx
1500, military time
Faith:
The Art of Shame
Resurrection
My bionic Jesus heart
My girl:
My Job is Revelation
How I became a McDonald's product
Flying should probably be its own reward
Personal:
Anatomy of an Honors Student: Buckle
"Skin is burning" / "Everyone's a building burning..."
Replace
New words:
AMpty-headed
Antichrist Complex
Avoision
Blahgger
Calendarsthenics
Capastrophic
Christmess
Fopera
Halfiversary
Interestomercialitis
Marthastewartize
Nouveau Liche
Reaganitis
Sarcast
Texublican
Virgineers
X-mess
Quantifiable Living:
Measure these emotions in the following units:
Sadness > kittens
Geographic dissatisfaction > cultural miles
Frazzlement > selves
HTR Desperation > fruitcake
In Defense of Poppery:
"A Year From Now" -- Across Five Aprils
"Dog Park" -- The Saturday Knights
"Handlebars" -- The Flobots
"Sweetest Girl (Dollar Bill Song)" -- Wyclef Jean, Akon, Lil' Wayne, Niia
"The Mae Shi versus Miley Cyrus' See You Again" -- The Mae Shi
Vampire genre fiction
"With You" -- Chris Brown
My family:
Party Like It's 1999
How we were held over the Styx
1500, military time
Faith:
The Art of Shame
Resurrection
My bionic Jesus heart
My girl:
My Job is Revelation
How I became a McDonald's product
Flying should probably be its own reward
Personal:
Anatomy of an Honors Student: Buckle
"Skin is burning" / "Everyone's a building burning..."
Replace
Monday, August 22, 2011
Local "Trivia": Things that happened since Aug 5, and how they seemed
I learned that my brother had found my blog and told my mom about it, though he never contacted me or commented here -- ominous.
I closed this blog to the public and decided to make a "constellation of blogs" instead/in addition, which are still a work in progress, so that the MFHTDWF and Quantifiable Living, for instance, can have their own foci in their own internet searchable "spaces" -- like evidence of paranoia, but hopeful.
I learned two salient facts that made my previously formed plan to drive my mother and all her stuff and birds down to Florida (since she's moving there for Sept 1) unworkable, which were 1. that my brother's health restrictions meant he could only drive during the day and needed to sleep in a motel bed each night and 2. my mother expected her ten birds to be partially uncovered in the rental car I was going to drive down following the truck -- somewhat frustrating.
I imparted the following facts to my mother and brother: 1. I'd anticipated driving over the night, not day, and so P.C. was working during the day they'd intended to leave, and 2. since I'm allergic to birds, I would not be driving a car with partially uncovered cages -- like a logic-puzzle brain teaser.
While at work in the midst of a 55-hour work week, I got yelled at via telephone by my brother, who hung up on me because I was "changing the plan at the last minute" -- overkill.
I set up a "family meeting" to discuss possible solutions with my mom -- dreadful.
I listened to mom and my brother discuss what various airlines serve for food nowadays on flights, for ten minutes, as I sat waiting to begin the discussion of the plan -- excruciatingly boring.
I suggested the "new" plan, which took all restrictions into consideration (that mom and brother drive the bird car down at their own pace during the day; that P.C. and I leave with the truck late at night and arrive at the same time or before they would in Florida) -- the only reasonable option.
I got yelled at -- abusive.
I got yelled at a lot more -- abusive.
I refused to discuss in detail what allergy medications I would take that could theoretically mitigate my bird allergy, which I'd already stated I'd be doing in any case, repeatedly -- futile.
I refused to point out that no one else's restrictions were a point of argument, because health concerns were not up for debate -- futile.
I got yelled at -- abusive.
I was impugned for "interrupting everyone all the time," told to "shut up," told I was "holding the family hostage," told I needed to "think of the family" and told I had "control issues" (which explained why I was needlessly "changing the plan" three weeks before the move and the first time details had ever been discussed, aka "at the last minute") -- frustrating and abusive.
I got a text of support from P.C. -- comforting.
I got a text from my brother telling me that I "knew" they had already "caved into your demands!" and that I was "interrupting everyone all the time!" and that I was "so rude and disrespectful!" and that I needed to "go back to your Mom/FAMILY and work it out!" -- funny, because the name didn't appear initially and in the context of P.C.'s supportive text, it seemed an obvious satire sent by one of my friends.
I realized my family, when it's working most efficiently and as it's been designed to, is a crap factory, producing nothing but a pile of useless crap to hurl around, and that my refusal to question anyone's health concerns, refusal to name-call (hurl crap), and flexibility in offering another, better plan to supplant the first unworkable one, was a betrayal of Crap Factory ethos -- as a metaphor, illuminating to me, invisible though enraging to them.
My mom decided to re-price a POD, which came out to about the same cost as the truck -- so relieving.
The new plan was formed, for brother and mother to drive the bird car down, and P.C. and I to fly down, help unpack the POD, and drive the car back up to avoid the one-way fee -- also relieving.
My mom asked if I could rent the rental car on my credit card and she'd pay me back, and I agreed -- neutral.
She said to rent it from Tuesday - Tuesday -- agreeable, but flawed, as my original plan had included us leaving late on Tuesday and the new plan necessitated renting the car early Tuesday morning.
I said we'd need to rent it until the following Wednesday at 8 a.m., because driving back up from Florida in two days on Labor Day weekend left no guarantee we'd get it back by Tuesday at 8 a.m., and hourly late fees are heftier than the extra day's fee -- reasonable to me, extortion to her.
My mom "put her foot down" about the car rental, stating if it got back a day late, I would need to pay the extra day -- reasonable and disciplinary to her, ridiculous to me, the one who was supposedly reserving the car I wouldn't be paid back for.
I realized that I'd become invisible as a separate person in the process, and instead had become a body to be used however the Crap Factory dictated -- stressful.
I realized that it had become assumed, somehow, that despite my efforts to help as a favor, and despite all evidence to the contrary, I would be treated as an enemy in this endeavor, and that helping would be treated like it was my job -- illuminating
I quit the fake "job," which included unreasonable demands and was costing me a week's pay even without a rental car charge -- the only reasonable response.
P.C. decided he'd had enough and texted my mom that he was no longer available to help -- relieving in comparison to previous stress levels, but stressful in its own way.
P.C. and I had a sushi dinner -- good, but lacking in comparison to our usual sushi place.
I took the weekend "off" of family, finishing my work week with a 25-hour residential shift on Saturday/Sunday -- relieving, but still tense.
I had to watch the Glee 3D concert movie during that shift -- absurd.
I made sure to recharge my "normal" shields so as to be able to interact with Crap Factory workers "normally" after the previous week, which is the only way to try to trigger normal instead of pathological reactions -- difficult, but familiar.
I showed up at my mom's apartment to help begin loading the POD on Monday morning -- "normal" (shield)
The new plan was for brother and mother to rent the bird car one way, incur the one-way fees, and attempt to move things in from the POD on their own -- dumb, but now necessary.
It turned out she was mad at P.C. for texting because "you should call in those situations" -- baffling, but not worth the effort to understand or argue about.
I was told I "shouldn't have gone whining" to P.C. -- "normal" (Factory talk)
I said I hadn't -- "normal" (shield)
I helped load the POD -- slow and allergy-inducing.
I witnessed my mom standing in front of me in the kitchen say, looking away, "I don't have any help" -- sad.
I replied "I'm right here" -- "normal."
She did not respond -- sad.
At the end of the week, likely still finding me invisible as a volunteer helper, my mom had my brother's wife down to help pack the POD -- inexplicable, since I'd always said I would help but never seemed to count as "another person"
I became obsolete, as only one other person was necessary to help with what was left -- befuddling but in a shoulder-shrug-oh-well-I-guess-I'll-leave kind of way.
My sister-in-law thanked me six or seven times "for coming to help" on the last day with the POD -- weird? As if she were hosting? As if she belonged there and I was a guest? As if it hadn't been the plan for me to help all along? Befuddling, also.
My mom said "I love you" to my sister-in-law as she left to drive the several hours home, and I realized I couldn't remember when we'd last said that to each other -- understandable.
The POD got picked up -- relieving.
I used a groupon to get a massage -- relaxing.
I began to be able to look forward to my 30th birthday with only P.C. and roller coasters -- finally.
I closed this blog to the public and decided to make a "constellation of blogs" instead/in addition, which are still a work in progress, so that the MFHTDWF and Quantifiable Living, for instance, can have their own foci in their own internet searchable "spaces" -- like evidence of paranoia, but hopeful.
I learned two salient facts that made my previously formed plan to drive my mother and all her stuff and birds down to Florida (since she's moving there for Sept 1) unworkable, which were 1. that my brother's health restrictions meant he could only drive during the day and needed to sleep in a motel bed each night and 2. my mother expected her ten birds to be partially uncovered in the rental car I was going to drive down following the truck -- somewhat frustrating.
I imparted the following facts to my mother and brother: 1. I'd anticipated driving over the night, not day, and so P.C. was working during the day they'd intended to leave, and 2. since I'm allergic to birds, I would not be driving a car with partially uncovered cages -- like a logic-puzzle brain teaser.
While at work in the midst of a 55-hour work week, I got yelled at via telephone by my brother, who hung up on me because I was "changing the plan at the last minute" -- overkill.
I set up a "family meeting" to discuss possible solutions with my mom -- dreadful.
I listened to mom and my brother discuss what various airlines serve for food nowadays on flights, for ten minutes, as I sat waiting to begin the discussion of the plan -- excruciatingly boring.
I suggested the "new" plan, which took all restrictions into consideration (that mom and brother drive the bird car down at their own pace during the day; that P.C. and I leave with the truck late at night and arrive at the same time or before they would in Florida) -- the only reasonable option.
I got yelled at -- abusive.
I got yelled at a lot more -- abusive.
I refused to discuss in detail what allergy medications I would take that could theoretically mitigate my bird allergy, which I'd already stated I'd be doing in any case, repeatedly -- futile.
I refused to point out that no one else's restrictions were a point of argument, because health concerns were not up for debate -- futile.
I got yelled at -- abusive.
I was impugned for "interrupting everyone all the time," told to "shut up," told I was "holding the family hostage," told I needed to "think of the family" and told I had "control issues" (which explained why I was needlessly "changing the plan" three weeks before the move and the first time details had ever been discussed, aka "at the last minute") -- frustrating and abusive.
I got a text of support from P.C. -- comforting.
I got a text from my brother telling me that I "knew" they had already "caved into your demands!" and that I was "interrupting everyone all the time!" and that I was "so rude and disrespectful!" and that I needed to "go back to your Mom/FAMILY and work it out!" -- funny, because the name didn't appear initially and in the context of P.C.'s supportive text, it seemed an obvious satire sent by one of my friends.
I realized my family, when it's working most efficiently and as it's been designed to, is a crap factory, producing nothing but a pile of useless crap to hurl around, and that my refusal to question anyone's health concerns, refusal to name-call (hurl crap), and flexibility in offering another, better plan to supplant the first unworkable one, was a betrayal of Crap Factory ethos -- as a metaphor, illuminating to me, invisible though enraging to them.
My mom decided to re-price a POD, which came out to about the same cost as the truck -- so relieving.
The new plan was formed, for brother and mother to drive the bird car down, and P.C. and I to fly down, help unpack the POD, and drive the car back up to avoid the one-way fee -- also relieving.
My mom asked if I could rent the rental car on my credit card and she'd pay me back, and I agreed -- neutral.
She said to rent it from Tuesday - Tuesday -- agreeable, but flawed, as my original plan had included us leaving late on Tuesday and the new plan necessitated renting the car early Tuesday morning.
I said we'd need to rent it until the following Wednesday at 8 a.m., because driving back up from Florida in two days on Labor Day weekend left no guarantee we'd get it back by Tuesday at 8 a.m., and hourly late fees are heftier than the extra day's fee -- reasonable to me, extortion to her.
My mom "put her foot down" about the car rental, stating if it got back a day late, I would need to pay the extra day -- reasonable and disciplinary to her, ridiculous to me, the one who was supposedly reserving the car I wouldn't be paid back for.
I realized that I'd become invisible as a separate person in the process, and instead had become a body to be used however the Crap Factory dictated -- stressful.
I realized that it had become assumed, somehow, that despite my efforts to help as a favor, and despite all evidence to the contrary, I would be treated as an enemy in this endeavor, and that helping would be treated like it was my job -- illuminating
I quit the fake "job," which included unreasonable demands and was costing me a week's pay even without a rental car charge -- the only reasonable response.
P.C. decided he'd had enough and texted my mom that he was no longer available to help -- relieving in comparison to previous stress levels, but stressful in its own way.
P.C. and I had a sushi dinner -- good, but lacking in comparison to our usual sushi place.
I took the weekend "off" of family, finishing my work week with a 25-hour residential shift on Saturday/Sunday -- relieving, but still tense.
I had to watch the Glee 3D concert movie during that shift -- absurd.
I made sure to recharge my "normal" shields so as to be able to interact with Crap Factory workers "normally" after the previous week, which is the only way to try to trigger normal instead of pathological reactions -- difficult, but familiar.
I showed up at my mom's apartment to help begin loading the POD on Monday morning -- "normal" (shield)
The new plan was for brother and mother to rent the bird car one way, incur the one-way fees, and attempt to move things in from the POD on their own -- dumb, but now necessary.
It turned out she was mad at P.C. for texting because "you should call in those situations" -- baffling, but not worth the effort to understand or argue about.
I was told I "shouldn't have gone whining" to P.C. -- "normal" (Factory talk)
I said I hadn't -- "normal" (shield)
I helped load the POD -- slow and allergy-inducing.
I witnessed my mom standing in front of me in the kitchen say, looking away, "I don't have any help" -- sad.
I replied "I'm right here" -- "normal."
She did not respond -- sad.
At the end of the week, likely still finding me invisible as a volunteer helper, my mom had my brother's wife down to help pack the POD -- inexplicable, since I'd always said I would help but never seemed to count as "another person"
I became obsolete, as only one other person was necessary to help with what was left -- befuddling but in a shoulder-shrug-oh-well-I-guess-I'll-leave kind of way.
My sister-in-law thanked me six or seven times "for coming to help" on the last day with the POD -- weird? As if she were hosting? As if she belonged there and I was a guest? As if it hadn't been the plan for me to help all along? Befuddling, also.
My mom said "I love you" to my sister-in-law as she left to drive the several hours home, and I realized I couldn't remember when we'd last said that to each other -- understandable.
The POD got picked up -- relieving.
I used a groupon to get a massage -- relaxing.
I began to be able to look forward to my 30th birthday with only P.C. and roller coasters -- finally.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Quantifiable Living: Fruitcake - Holiday traffic-related desperation Scale
Emotion: Desperation due to holiday-related traffic conditions
Unit of measure: Fruitcake
How it works: The desperation due to being stuck in holiday traffic or attempting to find a parking space (at the mall or elsewhere) may be measured in the amount of fruitcake (frc.) car occupants would be willing to consume to relieve the inevitable hunger that accompanies hours of sitting in a running-but-not-moving car.
Desperation should not be confused with rage or frustration; as such, desperation levels may not be measurable for some time, then may rise rapidly on an exponential scale.
Holiday-traffic-related desperation (HTR desperation) differs from desperation due to ordinary everyday conditions in its predictable annual appearance, its implications for whether much-loved family and friends will receive appreciative gifts this year, and its focus on the goal of getting to a location that will invariably involve waiting in more lines.
Different activities, even taking the same amount of time, are likely to induce differing levels of desperation, as the closer to the completion of the holiday-related task the holiday-related traffic occurs, the less desperate individuals tend to feel.
Example:
Waiting on shoulder of highway, 3 mi. from mall exit, 2 hours: ½ frc.
Circling mall parking lot for 47th time, 2 hours: ¼ frc.
Limits: The HTR desperation scale is limited to 0-1 fruitcakes, as consuming more than an entire fruitcake has proven lethal to humans. As such, desperation should be measured in fractions (i.e., 1/3 frc.). Individuals indicating they would rather be dead than wait in the car/store/line a moment longer may express their desperation level as 1 frc.
This scale does not measure frustration due to holiday-related traffic conditions, as no known scale is capable of handling the exponentially steep curve and volatility of this type of frustration.
Ongoing studies on logarithmic and possible four-dimension versions of a HTR frustration scale have thus far been inconclusive.
Unit of measure: Fruitcake
How it works: The desperation due to being stuck in holiday traffic or attempting to find a parking space (at the mall or elsewhere) may be measured in the amount of fruitcake (frc.) car occupants would be willing to consume to relieve the inevitable hunger that accompanies hours of sitting in a running-but-not-moving car.
Desperation should not be confused with rage or frustration; as such, desperation levels may not be measurable for some time, then may rise rapidly on an exponential scale.
Holiday-traffic-related desperation (HTR desperation) differs from desperation due to ordinary everyday conditions in its predictable annual appearance, its implications for whether much-loved family and friends will receive appreciative gifts this year, and its focus on the goal of getting to a location that will invariably involve waiting in more lines.
Different activities, even taking the same amount of time, are likely to induce differing levels of desperation, as the closer to the completion of the holiday-related task the holiday-related traffic occurs, the less desperate individuals tend to feel.
Example:
Waiting on shoulder of highway, 3 mi. from mall exit, 2 hours: ½ frc.
Circling mall parking lot for 47th time, 2 hours: ¼ frc.
Limits: The HTR desperation scale is limited to 0-1 fruitcakes, as consuming more than an entire fruitcake has proven lethal to humans. As such, desperation should be measured in fractions (i.e., 1/3 frc.). Individuals indicating they would rather be dead than wait in the car/store/line a moment longer may express their desperation level as 1 frc.
This scale does not measure frustration due to holiday-related traffic conditions, as no known scale is capable of handling the exponentially steep curve and volatility of this type of frustration.
Ongoing studies on logarithmic and possible four-dimension versions of a HTR frustration scale have thus far been inconclusive.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Special Features Commentary: Calendarsthenics on CU
Well, all, on the eve of failing for a second month to do all I tacitly promised to do here on CU, I decided my first month of meeting my post-number goals should end with a listing of all I haven't done, and more.
Over the last eight months or so, I've built up a set of expectations that have slowly congealed and eventually hardened into requirements for CU. You may have sensed the presence of these internal regulations already, but thanks to my not always following them, you might have figured they were more like guidelines than rules.
You were wrong. They're rules. I just keep breaking them.
So as to keep your scorecard more accurately riddled with my errors, and to cleanse my guilt over not posting a movie review for two months in a row, now, here's what you can expect from CU, both in the past and in the future.
Remember, though, the telos of Continue Unprotected: My posting a schedule of events is just as likely to cause me to aspire to offend you by continually flouting it as it is to keep me on task.
Posting frequency: I expect myself to post two items a day, ideally one long and one short.
Type of post, and frequency:
Once a week: At least one PSA and one Local Trivia; SYD reviews in season
Twice a month: Confessions
Once a month: Movie Review, In Defense of Poppery, Quantifiable Living, Accusations, Unsolicited Advice, New word, something involving Freud, something involving my personal life or family
Special features, to be posted as inspired: Phrases That Never Help, Mix CD lists, Carte Blanche answers
Anyone who wants to count up the percentage of this schedule I've stuck to and give me some kind of score is welcome to.
Just don't tell me about it.
Over the last eight months or so, I've built up a set of expectations that have slowly congealed and eventually hardened into requirements for CU. You may have sensed the presence of these internal regulations already, but thanks to my not always following them, you might have figured they were more like guidelines than rules.
You were wrong. They're rules. I just keep breaking them.
So as to keep your scorecard more accurately riddled with my errors, and to cleanse my guilt over not posting a movie review for two months in a row, now, here's what you can expect from CU, both in the past and in the future.
Remember, though, the telos of Continue Unprotected: My posting a schedule of events is just as likely to cause me to aspire to offend you by continually flouting it as it is to keep me on task.
Posting frequency: I expect myself to post two items a day, ideally one long and one short.
Type of post, and frequency:
Once a week: At least one PSA and one Local Trivia; SYD reviews in season
Twice a month: Confessions
Once a month: Movie Review, In Defense of Poppery, Quantifiable Living, Accusations, Unsolicited Advice, New word, something involving Freud, something involving my personal life or family
Special features, to be posted as inspired: Phrases That Never Help, Mix CD lists, Carte Blanche answers
Anyone who wants to count up the percentage of this schedule I've stuck to and give me some kind of score is welcome to.
Just don't tell me about it.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Quantifiable Living: Liz Lemon-Social satisfaction scale
Emotion: Satisfaction (with social life)
Unit of measure: Liz Lemons
How it works: Satisfaction with one’s social situation may be measured in Liz Lemons (LL). This scale may be used in two ways, and assists those who do not consider proximity to potential wedding party members to be the highest possible social good (i.e., the ambitious, who consider “networking” a high social good, or hermits, who consider proximity to anyone to be a social problem).
Unlike all other QL scales, the Liz Lemon-satisfaction scale relies partly on the use of particular grammar to properly relay its message of how socially satisfied an individual is feeling. This should not be construed as a “creative” use of language, as the usages are as specific and effective as functions in a math equation (i.e., “equals,” “times,” or “square root of”), and as creativity undermines the essential purpose of QL (to quantify all aspects of life).
One may feel “X-number like Liz Lemon” or feel “X-number Liz Lemons.”
“Like LL”: To feel “like” Liz Lemon is to feel embarrassed or temporarily dissatisfied with one’s social situation, often despite other apparent success (career, creative, etc.), due to a tendency to commit faux pas.
The number of feeling “like” Liz Lemon – l(LL), expressed mathematically – is, simply, the number of social faux pas one has performed in a day. Individual discretion may be used to determine what constitutes a faux pas, though typically this will be determined by the amount of shame one feels during or on recollection of the situation.
Examples:
Three faux pas performed in one day: 3 l(LL)
Seventeen faux pas performed in one day: 17 l(LL)
Elaborations: Individual discretion is purposely factored in to this scale, as more neurotic individuals who would judge “faux pas” on a stricter scale than most, are actually experiencing less social satisfaction than others.
Limits: Those who fail to judge their objectively legitimate faux pas as such (the extremely arrogant or otherwise socially inept) may fail to record any dissatisfaction, ever, using this scale, and may wish to resort to cultural miles-geographic dissatisfaction or wedding party members-social satisfaction scales in order to express their (dis)content with their social situations.
“Liz Lemons”: One Liz Lemon as a unit of measure equates to the feeling one gets from watching one Liz Lemon quip on an episode of 30 Rock. “Quip” here refers to not only the sarcastic phrases LL uses to get the upper hand in any given situation, but also those used to cope with obvious failure or faux pas. It often helps when using this scale to think of one’s favorite 30 Rock quip and imagine the enjoyment caused by hearing it to accurately measure how socially satisfied one is feeling.
Simply calculate current feelings of social satisfaction as multiples of one LL quip-watching.
Examples:
Found $5 on the street: 2 LL
Found $10 on the street: 3 LL
Found $32.49, the exact amount of money needed to pre-order 30 Rock, season 3, on amazon.com, on the street: 140 LL
Limits: Those who find a preternatural enjoyment in watching LL quips may find their LL levels to be consistently lower than others’, as each LL for these individuals amounts to a greater degree of happiness. These individuals may wish to double their LL levels when speaking to non-fans of 30 Rock, or else to think of a slightly less enjoyable quip before calculating their LL levels.
Unit of measure: Liz Lemons
How it works: Satisfaction with one’s social situation may be measured in Liz Lemons (LL). This scale may be used in two ways, and assists those who do not consider proximity to potential wedding party members to be the highest possible social good (i.e., the ambitious, who consider “networking” a high social good, or hermits, who consider proximity to anyone to be a social problem).
Unlike all other QL scales, the Liz Lemon-satisfaction scale relies partly on the use of particular grammar to properly relay its message of how socially satisfied an individual is feeling. This should not be construed as a “creative” use of language, as the usages are as specific and effective as functions in a math equation (i.e., “equals,” “times,” or “square root of”), and as creativity undermines the essential purpose of QL (to quantify all aspects of life).
One may feel “X-number like Liz Lemon” or feel “X-number Liz Lemons.”
“Like LL”: To feel “like” Liz Lemon is to feel embarrassed or temporarily dissatisfied with one’s social situation, often despite other apparent success (career, creative, etc.), due to a tendency to commit faux pas.
The number of feeling “like” Liz Lemon – l(LL), expressed mathematically – is, simply, the number of social faux pas one has performed in a day. Individual discretion may be used to determine what constitutes a faux pas, though typically this will be determined by the amount of shame one feels during or on recollection of the situation.
Examples:
Three faux pas performed in one day: 3 l(LL)
Seventeen faux pas performed in one day: 17 l(LL)
Elaborations: Individual discretion is purposely factored in to this scale, as more neurotic individuals who would judge “faux pas” on a stricter scale than most, are actually experiencing less social satisfaction than others.
Limits: Those who fail to judge their objectively legitimate faux pas as such (the extremely arrogant or otherwise socially inept) may fail to record any dissatisfaction, ever, using this scale, and may wish to resort to cultural miles-geographic dissatisfaction or wedding party members-social satisfaction scales in order to express their (dis)content with their social situations.
“Liz Lemons”: One Liz Lemon as a unit of measure equates to the feeling one gets from watching one Liz Lemon quip on an episode of 30 Rock. “Quip” here refers to not only the sarcastic phrases LL uses to get the upper hand in any given situation, but also those used to cope with obvious failure or faux pas. It often helps when using this scale to think of one’s favorite 30 Rock quip and imagine the enjoyment caused by hearing it to accurately measure how socially satisfied one is feeling.
Simply calculate current feelings of social satisfaction as multiples of one LL quip-watching.
Examples:
Found $5 on the street: 2 LL
Found $10 on the street: 3 LL
Found $32.49, the exact amount of money needed to pre-order 30 Rock, season 3, on amazon.com, on the street: 140 LL
Limits: Those who find a preternatural enjoyment in watching LL quips may find their LL levels to be consistently lower than others’, as each LL for these individuals amounts to a greater degree of happiness. These individuals may wish to double their LL levels when speaking to non-fans of 30 Rock, or else to think of a slightly less enjoyable quip before calculating their LL levels.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
PSA: Conferencing
Today and tomorrow, I'll be up at Brandeis going to lectures.
If I see anything funny or interesting, I'll blog it. Eventually.
If anyone sees anything I should have an opinion on, comment and I'll form one.
Also, if any of you have been hankering to have an emotion quantified, let me know. I'm a month behind on Quantifiable Living.
If I see anything funny or interesting, I'll blog it. Eventually.
If anyone sees anything I should have an opinion on, comment and I'll form one.
Also, if any of you have been hankering to have an emotion quantified, let me know. I'm a month behind on Quantifiable Living.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Quantifiable Living: Country song - patheticness
Social state of being: Patheticness, or the amount of pathos associated with a person involved in a social situation including or requiring a lost pet (i.e. dog), lost romantic partner (i.e. wife), lost or "beat up" pick-up truck, or any other item deemed "pathetic" by dominant culture.
Unit of measure: Country songs (Cs)
How it works: A long established link between country-western music and pathetic social situations -- one which long predates the unusually embarassing practice of collective country line dancing -- makes this scale almost intuitive, and easy to manage and use. Both the amount of social embarassment experienced by someone involved in the patheticness-incurring situation and the amount of perceived embarassment perceived as accruing to that or those individual(s) by those outside the situation may be measured by this scale.
Examples: Your credit card gets declines while you're attempting to buy feminine products: .3 Cs (for women); .6 Cs (for men)
The person who agreed to go on a date with you called out sick, but is seen later that night at the local Shake Shack with someone more attractive than you: 1 Cs
Your dog runs away with your romantic partner in your trusty beat-up pick-up truck: 5 Cs
Limits: This scale only measures the amount of patheticness involved in a social situation, not personal embarassment experienced in a non-social situation (i.e., when alone) nor any other emotion associated with the same situation. For truly accurate measures of emotionally complex scenarios, several scales must be used.
The scale also only refers to country-western songs that themselves describe pathetic situations, homogenized into the unit Cs. Garth Brooks is, in general, not involved in this scale; nor are any current or prior American Idol contestants, though the scale may itself be used in describing their rise to fame.
Unit of measure: Country songs (Cs)
How it works: A long established link between country-western music and pathetic social situations -- one which long predates the unusually embarassing practice of collective country line dancing -- makes this scale almost intuitive, and easy to manage and use. Both the amount of social embarassment experienced by someone involved in the patheticness-incurring situation and the amount of perceived embarassment perceived as accruing to that or those individual(s) by those outside the situation may be measured by this scale.
Examples: Your credit card gets declines while you're attempting to buy feminine products: .3 Cs (for women); .6 Cs (for men)
The person who agreed to go on a date with you called out sick, but is seen later that night at the local Shake Shack with someone more attractive than you: 1 Cs
Your dog runs away with your romantic partner in your trusty beat-up pick-up truck: 5 Cs
Limits: This scale only measures the amount of patheticness involved in a social situation, not personal embarassment experienced in a non-social situation (i.e., when alone) nor any other emotion associated with the same situation. For truly accurate measures of emotionally complex scenarios, several scales must be used.
The scale also only refers to country-western songs that themselves describe pathetic situations, homogenized into the unit Cs. Garth Brooks is, in general, not involved in this scale; nor are any current or prior American Idol contestants, though the scale may itself be used in describing their rise to fame.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Quantifiable Living: Windsor knot-Loneliness scale (for men)
Emotion: Loneliness (men)
Unit of measure: Windsor knot tying tries
How it works: For men, loneliness can be measured in the number of attempts it takes to tie a successful Windsor knot (aWk) in an average necktie, without help.
This scale may count imagined number of attempts rather than actual attempts, and includes attempts gone awry due to distraction as well as those due to confusion over how to tie a Windsor knot in the first place. It also includes attempts otherwise successful that cause the tie to hang at a socially inappropriate length down a man’s chest (too short or too long).
Examples:
You feel an impulse to work out for three hours at the gym: 4 attempts at Windsor knot (aWk)
Your cat has been missing for a week: 9 aWk
You have one acquaintance in the urban area in which you live and no romantic prospects: 17 aWk
Limits: The aWk quantity is partly a function of time, in that each attempt at tying a Windsor knot will take an average number of seconds; thus, the aWk quantity multiplied by time (i.e. 20 seconds) per attempt should not exceed the amount of time allotted to the activity for which one is dressing up.
If the aWk*seconds-per-attempt measure does exceed the time allotted to the social engagement, this may reveal that the man in question feels incapable of even leaving the house due to loneliness, and so may be a helpful measure – though strictly speaking, this is hyperbole and not scientific. The Windsor-knot-loneliness scale cannot accurately measure this depth of loneliness, which is properly called despair, and loneliness exceeding the scale’s limits should be recorded as “∞” or “infinity.”
Elaborations: For older men for whom tying their own necktie has become such a matter of course that they have difficulty imagining getting it wrong, a reasonably accurate alternate measure is the number of attempts to straighten the tied tie in the mirror before being satisfied that it’s straight.
However, to determine the limit of the scale in this case, due to the great range in amount of time it takes to attempt to straighten a tie (2 seconds – several minutes), attempts to straighten should be multiplied if necessary by the average amount of time it takes to tie a Windsor knot, in order to determine if despair (“∞” or “infinity” on the aWk scale) has been reached.
Bolo ties indicate negligible amounts of loneliness or desire for human female companionship, as with cowboys.
The highest levels of loneliness may be measured in bowtie-tying attempts.
Unit of measure: Windsor knot tying tries
How it works: For men, loneliness can be measured in the number of attempts it takes to tie a successful Windsor knot (aWk) in an average necktie, without help.
This scale may count imagined number of attempts rather than actual attempts, and includes attempts gone awry due to distraction as well as those due to confusion over how to tie a Windsor knot in the first place. It also includes attempts otherwise successful that cause the tie to hang at a socially inappropriate length down a man’s chest (too short or too long).
Examples:
You feel an impulse to work out for three hours at the gym: 4 attempts at Windsor knot (aWk)
Your cat has been missing for a week: 9 aWk
You have one acquaintance in the urban area in which you live and no romantic prospects: 17 aWk
Limits: The aWk quantity is partly a function of time, in that each attempt at tying a Windsor knot will take an average number of seconds; thus, the aWk quantity multiplied by time (i.e. 20 seconds) per attempt should not exceed the amount of time allotted to the activity for which one is dressing up.
If the aWk*seconds-per-attempt measure does exceed the time allotted to the social engagement, this may reveal that the man in question feels incapable of even leaving the house due to loneliness, and so may be a helpful measure – though strictly speaking, this is hyperbole and not scientific. The Windsor-knot-loneliness scale cannot accurately measure this depth of loneliness, which is properly called despair, and loneliness exceeding the scale’s limits should be recorded as “∞” or “infinity.”
Elaborations: For older men for whom tying their own necktie has become such a matter of course that they have difficulty imagining getting it wrong, a reasonably accurate alternate measure is the number of attempts to straighten the tied tie in the mirror before being satisfied that it’s straight.
However, to determine the limit of the scale in this case, due to the great range in amount of time it takes to attempt to straighten a tie (2 seconds – several minutes), attempts to straighten should be multiplied if necessary by the average amount of time it takes to tie a Windsor knot, in order to determine if despair (“∞” or “infinity” on the aWk scale) has been reached.
Bolo ties indicate negligible amounts of loneliness or desire for human female companionship, as with cowboys.
The highest levels of loneliness may be measured in bowtie-tying attempts.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Quantifiable Living: Kitten-sadness scale
Emotion: Sadness
Units of measure: Kittens
How it works: Levels of sadness can be expressed in units of kitten -- that is, the number of kittens it would take to bring one back up to *LOL* levels of happiness.
A 9-kitten day, then, would be significantly worse than a 3-kitten day, which would be a moderate level of sadness.
A typically happy day may warrant a 0-1 kitten level, with 0 being the absolute lowest the scale can sustain.
Example:
Your bike was stolen: 4 kittens
Your car was stolen: 6 kittens
Your house was stolen: 9 kittens
Your Mom was stolen: varies
Individual happy-day kitten levels may vary, as with human body temperatures; some people may find their days are typically 0 kitten days, while others may rate normal days 1 kitten. Take care to calibrate your own kitten level such that it translates to others.
Multiple kittens should be imagined playing together, thus ratcheting up cuteness and subsequent happiness levels on an almost exponential basis, i.e., the difference between six kittens and four kittens is much greater than the difference between two kittens and four kittens. (Similar to use of the Richter Magnitude Scale.)
Kittens should never be counted in fractions, as the gruesomeness of the image would defeat this scale's purpose. (Half or three quarters of a kitten would make no one *LOL* happy.)
Limits: It is impossible to rate any day a negative-kittens day. (See scales for happiness on how to express emotions beyond *LOL* happiness.)
This scale may be less useful to those who do not like kittens or do not think they are cute.
Elaborations: Events or people may be translated into units of kittens, i.e. "If I had some cotton candy right now, that would be worth 2 kittens" or "Your presence is worth more than 7 kittens to me."
The kittens allotted each positive-value factor may be subtracted from the total of kittens needed to achieve *LOL* level happiness.
Again, there can never be negative kittens, however many excess kittens are provided by positive-value factors on any given day.
Example:
8 kitten day + cotton candy + your presence =
8 kittens + (-2 kittens) + (-7 kittens) = -1 kitten = 0 kitten day
Units of measure: Kittens
How it works: Levels of sadness can be expressed in units of kitten -- that is, the number of kittens it would take to bring one back up to *LOL* levels of happiness.
A 9-kitten day, then, would be significantly worse than a 3-kitten day, which would be a moderate level of sadness.
A typically happy day may warrant a 0-1 kitten level, with 0 being the absolute lowest the scale can sustain.
Example:
Your bike was stolen: 4 kittens
Your car was stolen: 6 kittens
Your house was stolen: 9 kittens
Your Mom was stolen: varies
Individual happy-day kitten levels may vary, as with human body temperatures; some people may find their days are typically 0 kitten days, while others may rate normal days 1 kitten. Take care to calibrate your own kitten level such that it translates to others.
Multiple kittens should be imagined playing together, thus ratcheting up cuteness and subsequent happiness levels on an almost exponential basis, i.e., the difference between six kittens and four kittens is much greater than the difference between two kittens and four kittens. (Similar to use of the Richter Magnitude Scale.)
Kittens should never be counted in fractions, as the gruesomeness of the image would defeat this scale's purpose. (Half or three quarters of a kitten would make no one *LOL* happy.)
Limits: It is impossible to rate any day a negative-kittens day. (See scales for happiness on how to express emotions beyond *LOL* happiness.)
This scale may be less useful to those who do not like kittens or do not think they are cute.
Elaborations: Events or people may be translated into units of kittens, i.e. "If I had some cotton candy right now, that would be worth 2 kittens" or "Your presence is worth more than 7 kittens to me."
The kittens allotted each positive-value factor may be subtracted from the total of kittens needed to achieve *LOL* level happiness.
Again, there can never be negative kittens, however many excess kittens are provided by positive-value factors on any given day.
Example:
8 kitten day + cotton candy + your presence =
8 kittens + (-2 kittens) + (-7 kittens) = -1 kitten = 0 kitten day
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Quantifiable Living: Levels of trash
How it works: In a similar vein to the "Levels of Cleanliness" scale, the levels of trash scale indicates how gross a unit (bag, dumpsterload, heap) of trash is.
Unlike the "levels of cleanliness," the levels of trash uses a word-ranking scale rather than a number-ranking scale. This is the most efficient method for indicating all factors involved in determining a unit of trash's "grossness," which include sliminess, leakiness, smell and innate human revulsion (that is, the amount of natural disgust one feels at the trash's contents).
The appropriate words for describing trash will be listed from least to most offensive, with descriptions of sliminess (S), leakiness (L), smell (Sm) and innate human revulsion (IHR) to follow.
Rubbish: may be kept in a "bin"; may include such items as brightly colored candy wrappers or cake boxes; (S) contains no slimy items, (L) no leaky items, and therefore (Sm) does not smell and (IHR) does not provoke revulsion.
Paper waste: may be kept in a "waste basket"; may include all manner of papers; (S) contains no slimy items, (L) no leaky items, and therefore (Sm) does not smell; however, "paper waste" may contain distasteful photos of oneself or others, or evidence of fraud or embezzlement, each of which promote (IHR) and increase overall disgust.
Trash: must be kept in a "bag," which may be kept in a "container"; may include any item discarded by an individual or household, such as old broken toys and electronic equipment, clothes, leftover food from the fridge, and all paper waste and rubbish; on average, (S) will include old coffee grounds and perhaps a banana peel, (L) an old juice box drink and possibly leftover moldy meatloaf discarded still in its container, which will cause it to smell (Sm) approximately as bad as one's breath the morning after eating onions with dinner or a skunk spray from a mile away, all of which will increase revulsion (IHR) to the point of curling one's lip when asked to take the bag out.
Garbage: typically kept in a "bag," which may be kept in a "can" or "dumpster"; may include all manner of trash, with additional spoiled and leftover food contents such as chicken bones and innards, moldy yogurt three weeks past its expiration date, old tea bags, and failed stew experiments; on average, (S) will include items that ooze and cause one to immediately wash one's hands after contact, (L) will be barely contained by the bag and pool visibly at the bottom, causing one to run the bag to the curb "before it explodes," (Sm) will smell as bad as one's breath the morning after eating Doritos for dinner, or a dead skunk in the middle of the street in front of one's home. The revulsion (IHR) provoked by the sight of this discarded material will cause one to wince in physical pain.
Refuse: may be kept in a "can," "dumpster," or "container"; may include all garbage contents with the additional content of human bodily material such as vomit or items used to clean up vomit; (Sm) will smell as bad as one's breath the morning after bathing in garlic-parmesan sauce, or a dead squirrel slowly decaying in one's car engine. The innate human revulsion (IRH) in encountering these levels of slime, leakiness and smell will cause one to almost, but not quite, add to the waste content of the container.
Industrial-grade waste materials: must be kept in an industrial "drum," specialized "dumpster," "landfill" or "secret toxic waste dumpsite"; may include all manner of radioactive material, or, on the other end of the spectrum, all manner of animal offal, bones, parts and blood; (S) will cover part or all of one's body at some point in the disposal process; (L) will certainly leak, possibly in toxic quantities; (Sm) will cause one to physically lose the sense of smell, or else pass out, or both; will cause long-term madness in individuals with prolonged contact with the materials and blackouts in individuals with momentary contact. Repressed memories of such contact will resurface throughout one's life.
Elaborations: Special circumstances may also require the use of a word for discarded materials, from rubbish to refuse, that are not properly contained in garbage containers. There is a particular word for uncontained trash, which may or may not be repulsive ("litter"), described below.
Because seeing trash on the street increases IHR unnaturally, without increasing sliminess, leakiness or smelliness, the best way to measure litter's level of trash is to deposit it in an appropriate receptacle and then use the normal scale for levels of trash.
For your convenience, here is an addendum definition of "litter."
Litter: free-floating discarded items, ranging from receipts and musical theater ticket stubs to banana peels and dead scavenger animals (rats, pigeons). To be properly ranked, litter items must be placed in an appropriate trash receptacle.
Unlike the "levels of cleanliness," the levels of trash uses a word-ranking scale rather than a number-ranking scale. This is the most efficient method for indicating all factors involved in determining a unit of trash's "grossness," which include sliminess, leakiness, smell and innate human revulsion (that is, the amount of natural disgust one feels at the trash's contents).
The appropriate words for describing trash will be listed from least to most offensive, with descriptions of sliminess (S), leakiness (L), smell (Sm) and innate human revulsion (IHR) to follow.
Rubbish: may be kept in a "bin"; may include such items as brightly colored candy wrappers or cake boxes; (S) contains no slimy items, (L) no leaky items, and therefore (Sm) does not smell and (IHR) does not provoke revulsion.
Paper waste: may be kept in a "waste basket"; may include all manner of papers; (S) contains no slimy items, (L) no leaky items, and therefore (Sm) does not smell; however, "paper waste" may contain distasteful photos of oneself or others, or evidence of fraud or embezzlement, each of which promote (IHR) and increase overall disgust.
Trash: must be kept in a "bag," which may be kept in a "container"; may include any item discarded by an individual or household, such as old broken toys and electronic equipment, clothes, leftover food from the fridge, and all paper waste and rubbish; on average, (S) will include old coffee grounds and perhaps a banana peel, (L) an old juice box drink and possibly leftover moldy meatloaf discarded still in its container, which will cause it to smell (Sm) approximately as bad as one's breath the morning after eating onions with dinner or a skunk spray from a mile away, all of which will increase revulsion (IHR) to the point of curling one's lip when asked to take the bag out.
Garbage: typically kept in a "bag," which may be kept in a "can" or "dumpster"; may include all manner of trash, with additional spoiled and leftover food contents such as chicken bones and innards, moldy yogurt three weeks past its expiration date, old tea bags, and failed stew experiments; on average, (S) will include items that ooze and cause one to immediately wash one's hands after contact, (L) will be barely contained by the bag and pool visibly at the bottom, causing one to run the bag to the curb "before it explodes," (Sm) will smell as bad as one's breath the morning after eating Doritos for dinner, or a dead skunk in the middle of the street in front of one's home. The revulsion (IHR) provoked by the sight of this discarded material will cause one to wince in physical pain.
Refuse: may be kept in a "can," "dumpster," or "container"; may include all garbage contents with the additional content of human bodily material such as vomit or items used to clean up vomit; (Sm) will smell as bad as one's breath the morning after bathing in garlic-parmesan sauce, or a dead squirrel slowly decaying in one's car engine. The innate human revulsion (IRH) in encountering these levels of slime, leakiness and smell will cause one to almost, but not quite, add to the waste content of the container.
Industrial-grade waste materials: must be kept in an industrial "drum," specialized "dumpster," "landfill" or "secret toxic waste dumpsite"; may include all manner of radioactive material, or, on the other end of the spectrum, all manner of animal offal, bones, parts and blood; (S) will cover part or all of one's body at some point in the disposal process; (L) will certainly leak, possibly in toxic quantities; (Sm) will cause one to physically lose the sense of smell, or else pass out, or both; will cause long-term madness in individuals with prolonged contact with the materials and blackouts in individuals with momentary contact. Repressed memories of such contact will resurface throughout one's life.
Elaborations: Special circumstances may also require the use of a word for discarded materials, from rubbish to refuse, that are not properly contained in garbage containers. There is a particular word for uncontained trash, which may or may not be repulsive ("litter"), described below.
Because seeing trash on the street increases IHR unnaturally, without increasing sliminess, leakiness or smelliness, the best way to measure litter's level of trash is to deposit it in an appropriate receptacle and then use the normal scale for levels of trash.
For your convenience, here is an addendum definition of "litter."
Litter: free-floating discarded items, ranging from receipts and musical theater ticket stubs to banana peels and dead scavenger animals (rats, pigeons). To be properly ranked, litter items must be placed in an appropriate trash receptacle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)