Fundamentals (Mean)

“That’s another thing – Don’t test the Sensei. You either hold it up here in armed position, or down in relaxed position. Don’t pull some “hur dur I’ll just hold it in the middle, he’ll never know~”. No. Don’t do that. I can tell.”

(I would name my Kendo Sensei, but that would give away too much information about who I might be.)


I often seek help on calculus homework from a friend who is a math major at UC Berkeley, and he often doesn’t end up helping.

It’s not that he sucks at math. He’s extremely good at it. It’s not that he doesn’t want to help either, I have no doubt of his good intentions. The problem is that what he says is not stuff that ends up helping me. When I am simply looking for how to convert an equation into a triple integral which I can get an answer for the homework, but he talks about all these things I could do and how this or that method has this or that kind of error. For him, I’m sure that’s what the problem appears to be. If he was doing the problem and he couldn’t do it, those would be the things he’d be worrying about. I don’t care so much. I find those things he talks about interesting to be sure, but it’s entirely irrelevant to me – those topics are specifics. On the other hand, I did not even know how to approach the problem.

I was failing at fundamentals.

We had a conversation later on a facebook status I had, and it happened again. I thought it was just him being enthusiastic about math when I was having problems with getting him down to my level there, but this was vaguely different.

(OP:) I just figured out who it is exactly that gives young men the idea that the correct way to woo women is to tell them how pretty they are.

So who is it?

someone for whom telling ladies they’re pretty is actually a valid option.

I think I misread the post. In any case, it would depend on the girl.

I dislike that perspective. It is approximately equivalent to saying how you should hammer is dependent on the nail.

Girls are not nails.

I don’t remember saying that girls are nails, but then again this culture is pretty ridiculous about what things you can say about girls. But we will talk about feminism on a different day.

The bolded portion is what bothers me. Regardless of what how you think you individually should approach the opposite sex, it is relatively undeniable that there are things which are more or less correct if correctness is defined as leading to bedding them and falling in love. This is because all women are more or less the same in some way – that’s why we have a category for them, and it’s called “women”. I believe that form defines function – women have a certain form, so their functions can only be within some certain range. That range is technically infinite if you want to look into it that far, just as there is an infinite amount of points in a 1×1 square on the Cartesian plane. But that is irrelevant in the larger picture – fact is, it’s a 1×1 square of area 1, and women are women. Women do not want to hear that they are fat. Or old. Or ugly. Or that they’re useless. Women want to be ordered. And loved. And protected. And to have a duty to fulfill.

That is what I believe.

Almost everyone who reads that will think that what I am emphasizing are the adjectives I threw in there: “ordered”, “loved”, “protected”, “duty to fulfill”. To me, these are pretty important – that is why I believe them. But while I’m talking on this blog, I don’t think I’ll be discussing those parts too much, at least for the time being. For all but a few which I can count on the fingers of my hands, the point I will need to emphasize is not that “Women Want Something“, but “Women Want Something”.

People don’t believe that these days though. They think that it’s dependent on the woman. It applies to seemingly all fields of human activity, this liberal progressive free diversity-respecting or whatever it’s called, “I look at a world on a case by case basis” attitude. Well.

That’s why nobody can cooperate and accept differences – they don’t think of communications and respect as skills.

That’s why nobody can do thinking and why thinking is now “critical thinking” – they don’t think of thinking as a skill.

That’s why nobody can get a stable and desirable long term relationship – they don’t think of love as a skill.

The mainstream talks about everything like my math major friend talks about his upper division concepts, but they’re really as bad as those skills as I am mechanically at calculus.

In statistics, one of the most basic concepts is the confidence interval. If you have a certain median or mean and you want to say that the number you have is true, you can’t say it’s absolutely true – it is true with some degree, because there’s all the distribution of points around that average. Basic math – average of points does not mean there exists a point equal to the average. It is possible to say that you are confident to some level that it’s within some interval. However, to get that confidence to 100%, you must extend it to all possible results. I can for certain say that for my physics midterm has a score of somewhere between 0% and 100%. But who’s going to listen to that? Everybody knows it’s going to be between 0% and 100%. This is the same with all confidence intervals – if you are 100% certain, nobody will listen to you because your results aren’t accurate at all. However, if you only give a specific number or a ridiculously small interval, nobody will believe you – there is no reason for anyone to believe that I will have exactly 93.5% as my score on the midterm.

Statisticians thus give a reasonable interval, and stick a confidence number with it: they are 90% or 95% sure that the result of some statistic they found is true, Mean+/-Standard Deviation: Mean being “the result”, and Standard Deviation being some number that they accept the result to be in (Technically it can be more than 1 standard deviation like with the 100% certainty case, but don’t worry about the specifics too much). This does not mean that if you did the same survey, that you would get the exact same results they did. What they are saying is that they believe 9/10 or 19/20 statistics done in the same field of data will give a result within what they stated – not too bad, if you think about it. If you can cook a dish correctly 19 out of 20 times, you’re well on your way to becoming a professional cook.

I am 95% sure that my physics midterm is somewhere between 80% and 92% (86%+/-6%). Sounds more reasonable than exactly 93.5%, right?

Normal Distribution, labelled with Mean, Standard Deviation, and probability that a result would be in what section of the distribution.

We throw all that out when it comes to human relationships and any human interaction. You can’t say that women want to be ordered around. That’s sexist. You can’t say that black people have a criminal mindset. That’s racist. You can’t say that gay people can’t raise children properly. That’s [what is it?]. You cannot say people are different. Because that’s [I don’t think we have a term for this yet but you get my point]. And yet… everyone wants you to take the world on a case by case basis. It’s pretty funny, really.

I do not share that belief. I believe that people who are similar should be treated in similar ways. I really shouldn’t have to say this, but this world is full of fucking retards, so I’ll spell it out clearly: I use categories which I find are effective. I was going to say children, but comparing political types out there to children would be insulting children on a level equivalent to saying they need to be watched over and managed like animals from age 6 to age 18.

Girls are not nails.

Then we can take that to the point where there is no such category as girl and no such category as time, and we cannot learn from the past or analogize from other situations we think as similar.

I prefer making generalized theories when possible. It is not my intention to live all life as halation.

I think you miss my point. Not all girls are the same.

I did not miss your point. I am saying the fact that all girls are unique does not mean that much in terms of fundamentals. It is true you hammer differently for different nails. But we don’t focus on that because it’s ridiculously irrelevant to general technique.

I have plenty of categories for people, but I don’t use all of them for everything. Just because I have a category today does not mean it will exist tomorrow, and just because I don’t have a category tomorrow doesn’t mean I won’t have one the day after that. They are created and forgotten based on what I am testing and what appears to be most effectively aiding me at completing my objectives. If what I feel is too many variations happens in one category, then I will not use it. If I can find a new category which can explain the variations to a degree which the variations are well within tolerable ranges, then I will replace the old with the new. Simple as that.

These are the fundamentals.

I would love to discuss what is and what isn’t effective at dealing with women. I would love to discuss what is and what isn’t right in economics and politics. But it doesn’t seem like anybody I talk to has any kind of clue as to how the fundamentals work. It’s as if they actually think that they’ve held the same beliefs their whole life. As one who has been all over the political spectrum and documented every step of the way, I believe I understand the fundamentals pretty well. My arguments have always had the same format and direction: I just registered myself as [whatever position] at that point in time. It’s like position versus velocity, or particle versus wave, or character versus story, or picture versus movie: you’re only seeing a snapshot. You’re not really seeing what it really is.

This is part of why I don’t take politicals seriously. They can only see the snapshot. They agree: that’s why “waffling” is such a big talking point for them.

All this hair-splitting these days on this or that issue is the same as this “snapshot” problem. Oh, all girls are different, so all relationships are different. Oh, all people are different, so you need to learn a new set of communication skills for each one. Oh, all debt is different, so you need to learn what types of debt is good.

Hair splitting is for those who can split other things. Don’t bother if you can’t even use a knife to cut an apple into slices. You don’t talk with a child about how to train for long distance running long before he can walk with a straight back. You don’t talk about how to best set up tabular integration before a student can properly execute algebra. You don’t start thinking about how to present your master’s thesis if you can’t pass the undergraduate writing requirement.

Hair splitting: Complaining about my examples, talking about how you could do all those things but it’d just be bad.

Retardedness: Not realizing that you’re self-righteously and pompously conceding that your argument is full of shit.

What’s even better is that hair splitters don’t even really believe in what they say. They say all this stuff about how every situation is different, and how they don’t have the answers, but then they come around and present an answer anyways. Everyone’s different, but we should have affirmative action, racial equality, child leave for women and not men, draft for men but not women, all illegal immigrants should be given amnesty, death penalty should be abolished, social security and education funding should be increased, blah dee daa dee dah. And then they go back to saying that people are dogmatic if they think they know the answers. And then they go back again. Conservatives are no better, but everybody already raps on them pretty hard already so I’ll leave that section for you to fill in yourself.

If you are failing at fundamentals, you should not be dealing mainly in specifics.

There is a communications skill: it is referred to as “etiquette”.
There is a thinking skill: it is referred to as “analysis”.
There is a love skill: it is referred to as “wooing”.

If there is a goal, then there is an optimal way to get to it, and if there is an optimal way to get to it, then it is possible to train and get better at it.

It is true that every situation is different.

But as long as you keep what you are looking for in mind, you see not an infinite amount of “locks” and the need to create an infinite amount of “keys”, but simply “locks” and the need to create a “master key”.

And if you find a different way to look at the world, one which requires fewer “master keys”, then that’s good.

That’s how you become a better person.


15 thoughts on “Fundamentals (Mean)

  1. Pingback: Blame « rezzealaux

  2. Pingback: Jon Stewart’s 19 Questions « rezzealaux

  3. Pingback: Halation « rezzealaux

  4. Pingback: Respectful (Opportunity Cost) « rezzealaux

  5. Pingback: Equilibrate « rezzealaux

  6. Pingback: Corruption « rezzealaux

  7. Pingback: Ghost in the Shell « rezzealaux

  8. Pingback: On Tommy Jordan « rezzealaux

  9. Pingback: A Tale of Two Girlfriends « All Else Is Halation

  10. Pingback: The Machinery of Order « All Else Is Halation

  11. Pingback: Virtù « All Else Is Halation

  12. Pingback: Dynamics: Scrubs Finale (Standard Deviation) « All Else Is Halation

  13. Pingback: Riding to Stanford « All Else Is Halation

  14. Pingback: A Late Introduction: Year One « All Else Is Halation

  15. Pingback: Halation – All Else Is Halation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s