09 November, 2016

Scattergraph, or May You Live In Interesting Times

Statistics are an interesting enigma to me. Not so much they themselves, as a study. That part isn't really an enigma. It's wonderfully and most gorgeously concrete, that part at least.


The enigmatic part is the human relationship with statistics. How we use them and abuse them; how we perceive them under disparate circumstances; how different people perceive the various statistics and give weight to them according to the different circumstances; how our behaviours change according to the various statistics that we are given, and under what circumstances we have been given said statistics; etc. etc. ad nauseam et infinitam, blarg; and all this to say that what we as a species do with numbers is absolutely hilarious, ridiculous, heart-breaking, and inspiring.

I'm both impressed and disgusted with us, guys. So weird. But overall, I am learning how our behaviours as a species change over time, and I'm starting to appreciate how lucky I am that I can change and learn so fast. Okay, so I'm a bit of a mutant, so what? Doesn't make me any better or special, and I'm not going to be able to help humanity unless I stop my habit of scattergraphing a series of stochastic behavioural reactions to equally random interactions on a daily basis just to see what sticks and what doesn't. What appears to stick and to not stick, I should say. Ugh, just when I think I've gotten pretty good at perceiving the most minute details about people -- tiny changes in appearance being particularly obvious -- I think I'm getting good at separating the actual words coming out of their mouths from what they are thinking, thus interpreting their true reactions... but nope. I think I'm far from the only person not to be able to do that though, aspie or no aspie.

People's reactions to me however I can control -- whether I tell jokes, act robotically, telegraph my location, or remain unseen -- and people always appreciate help in one way or another, it's obvious that humanity needs it. The key is learning who to help, when to help, how to help, in what measure, and in what order. Specifics that work for me.

Funny thing is (it's actually hilarious if you like irony), I can use statistics to type a bunch of numbers and letters into a machine (that is in turn conjured into existence thanks to a bunch of numbers and letters) that will in turn allow me to be able to discern who to help, when to do so, how to do so, in what measure, and in what order. The order part I don't particularly like; but short of completely burning down the fabric of society, I can't really have influence or change present social relationships and dynamics, so I have to work with legacy architecture. That's ok. We can put set numbers to that.

So. I could help the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time by effectively tetrising existing technology into people's daily lives, and you can do that by observing their habits and their levels of consistency, amongst other things. The trick is to make a tool that will make the change in people's lives pleasant in some way; make the benefits noticeable and obvious; and to reward the use of said tool. We are all a bit pavlovian, I guess. So the benefits of the change have to be almost instantaneous, whereas the change itself has to be extremely gradual; and it has to use statistics of some sort for it to be convincing and accepted as beneficial before the change actually occurs.