♪I Know You, You Hate Me♫

Relationships weren’t meant to last.

Recently, it has come to my attention that popular culture has decided to go in a ‘relationship’ direction, giving television viewers saucy love lives and newspaper addicts some juicy marital gossip on celebrity icons. In fact, Helga tells me that this has been going on for quite a while, and i must be some nomadic hermit not to notice. Forgive me for enjoying the more complex things in life besides updates on either fictional characters or the people who play fictional characters.

Untrue remarks aside, it has come to my attention also that people rather enjoy something as trivial as the relationships of those more fortunate than they, as if it were of some importance. Untrue remarks permitting, this is incredibly interesting to me.

The reason I bother to bring this up is not to point out how poorly it is that people choose to spend their waking lives, nor how ridiculous it is that prime-time dramas have their own magazine. I am here to discuss relationships, and how they were intended to work. Be advised, the following content may lead to thoughts of incredible irony and a thirst for human elbow grease.

You see, I have had the pleasure of never being in a serious relationship, be it marriage, girlfriend, boyfriend, friend-with-benefits, or any of the other synonymous statements relating to anything more than a friend. I have, however, had the chance to observe those around me in said relationships, be they deep and loving, or just plain fruitless. And so, without the distraction of human companionship on a deeper level, my mind has been clear enough to assess other relationships and come to a decent theory that would have a high standing in any field of research involving human behavior.

When an individual enters a relationship, they usually enter it because the other individual of the pair have some quality that the first individual [refers, be it their looks, their intelligence, their friendliness, or any of an assortment of qualities that make humans so ‘human’. Indeed, the occasional couple may find that they are perfect for each other, and fall madly and deeply in love. Usually, a relationship ensues, and regular systems of chronological process are followed blindly and inefficiently.

However, human psychology was not designed with relationships in mind. In fact, relationships of certain degrees can cause severe damaging to an individuals mental health, both short and long term. No, relationships are the bane of human existence, and the mind recognizes this, even if the body refuses to.

There is a theory that states that no two people are perfect for each other, for no two people are exactly the same. This is a truth that the mind is programmed with, and is seen quite clearly through the actions associated with a relationship.

To put bluntly, relationships, no matter how strong or devoting they are, can never exist indefinitely: people will eventually despise each other, and the relationship will fail. ‘True Love’ is a concept thought up by movie producers who thought that love was an excellent catalyst for money (strangely, this is true: how much do you spend on your loved one?). For those not in a solid relationship, read on if it suits you. For those with strong, wonderful relationships, you’re welcome too.

In relationships, there is a ‘link’ between two people. This link acts as their reason for being together, comprised of all the good qualities they see in each other, and naturally the better the relationship, the bigger and stronger the link. As time goes on, that link begins to suffer slightly, age beginning to fray it about the edges. When, at long last, a fragment of the link is separated and lost from the link, the mind quickly act to fill that link with something. Unfortunately for those in a relationship, the replacement is never quite as good as the original piece.

This ‘false’ piece of the link inspires further decay as the remaining original link attempts to compensate for lost effort: chunks of the link are destroyed, leaving nothing behind, having to be replaced by inferior qualities. As this process wears on, the individuals of the link begin to lose the relation elation that kept them together, and the new-found negativity brings about further weakening of the bond between the two.

And so, the process continues: as the powerful bonds that held people together are severed one by one, weaker bonds take their place. And even when all the original linking bonds are gone, the replacement bonds begin to suffer also, being replaced with either better or worse links. This explains why people have a ‘falling out’ stage, and have a brief reconciliation before leading to further decay.

Eventually, the link holding two individuals together is at breaking point, having been pulled to it’s last bonds. The individuals feel none of the old feelings they had for each other, instead feeling a deep loathing towards one another. This is the final stage of a relationship, and applies to any kind of relationship. Even deep friendships can be affected by this, though this is rare, and commonly requires a more powerful catalyst than time to weaken a link.

Naturally, there are certain relationships that last the test of time, examples being when a married couple die loving each other, though this is no different to the original theory: the link holding the individuals together was strong, but would have eventually worn away, given more time. The couple were just lucky enough to die before their love life did. Of course, there would have been some imperfect bonds in the relationship while alive, though lack of sufficient living entities would have led to minimal results, though the couple would have felt differently about each other from when they first met to when they died, and all probability states that they would have been all the worse for it. Oh well.

This theory has been widely criticized. So much so, in fact, that is is now a major accepted theory on behavioral psychology, is in the running for a Nobel Peace Prize (heavens knows why) and is being made into a major motion picture starring Robin Williams and Shia LeBeouf (I plan to remove the latter actor by any means necessary, or by whatever means I deem most inventive, as soon as my schedule frees up). So the theory is certainly sound.

If you happen to be in a relationship with someone at the present time, there is a short-term solution I can recommend: dump the current individual you are with, find a lesser quality individual, and spend a time of your choosing with that individual. Assuming the other individual hasn’t done the same thing, you are then free to leave and return to the original, better relationship and continue along the track without the wear of time destroying the original link. Unfortunate side effects may include a corrupted link, less satisfying relationships and greater effects on existing links in future by extended periods of time. This one’s a wild card laced with nitro glycerin, so only commit to it if you lack a creative spark of your own.

Yours Unaccountably,

Crane.

All Listen, None Learn

Vocals are way off.

I was having a chat with a friend of mine not long ago, when a person of an anonymous nature came up and began speaking with my chatting friend. When I attempted to engage in conversation with her, she put forward an idea based upon my voice, coming to a conclusion of my sexuality based on how I ‘sounded’.

Needless to say, she was completely wrong. And instead of being offended by it, I was silently thankful to her for putting forward an interesting bit of human psychology I hadn’t paid much attention to before:

When a person talks, they have a certain style in which they form their words, a format that suits them, and is therefore their own way of speaking. However, the placement of words is only part of the structure, as the way that the words sound is also an important key factor in the overall effect of a persons speech.

There are people  who utilize both structure and sound well. These are the average people, those with a steady balance of both elements. There are those with poor structure, but an effective sound, those commonly known as singers and performers, whose structure is set out prior to release of vocals.

Then, of course, there are those with a brilliant structure to their speech, a truly effective and informative style of speaking, but who lack the appropriate voice to express their opinions in words as well as they ought. These people, usually those of a higher intelligence but of lower social poise than those of an average level, are mostly uncommon in today’s society, and it pains me to have to admit to being one such individual.

Naturally, there are some mutations in people, where their speaking is exceptional in both voice and structure. An example of this is Adolf Hitler, who combined the power of his voice, the sway in his words, and the bullets in his guns to rule over Germany unopposed by the people for an extended period of time. There are also those that lack the structure and the voice to be a proper speaker, Whom are best described under the banner of ‘Nada’.

The interesting part is that other people who listen to these styles of speakers develop an image about people, based entirely on how well they can communicate. those who have an effective method of speaking are usually judged to be normal, while those of a lesser quality are viewed as ‘Nada’. Usually, one who has excelled in one of the fields of speaking, but not another, are usually unaware of their effectiveness. one could be particularly irritating in speech, but their structure is viewed so well in their minds that they can’t help but go on. This is commonly viewed as a ‘chatterbox’ or ‘diarrhea of the mouth’, and is seen in the eyes of others as a stereotype for a particular style of speech ill suited for the speaker.

Take my experience, for example: my wording was advanced, as seen by the confused expression of the woman  listening to me. However, the sound made by my voice was that of an unusual variety, brought on from natural development, and so the woman assumed me of a more ‘fruity’ individual than I was. Her inability to focus on what was said rather than what it sounded like led to a rash decision with little more than stereotypical evidence to back it up. It is likely that she didn’t even notice what kind of person I was, so absorbed by her own fantasies as she was.

Others that I have met have made nasty comments about the intelligence of those with less structure in their speech, making remarks about the idiocy and incompetence of people with such things as stutters and lisps (both words being a cruel irony to those who suffer from them respectively). I have known many people with issues with speech structure, and known a select few to be even more intelligent and capable than myself, a moderately difficult feat to those smart ass readers out there.

This is, of course, an obvious flaw in human beings, believing everything to be of surface value unless taught otherwise. Don’t feel that you are a good person throughout, for you are not: no person is born understanding, but rather misunderstanding. Everything must be learned from others who themselves learned at one point.

Helga is in full agreement with me when I say that the people that you meet are the worst people you will ever know. If you have anything wrong with the way you speak, be it a mild case of lisp, or perhaps an irritant in your vocal prowess, you are bound to first be judged unfairly on those qualities which you have no control over.

In a related point, if you have a terrible voice and a terrible way of structuring what little you have (I’m looking at you, Nada), then it is only fair that you avoid from talking to others about the way that they speak, regardless of how good you’ve fooled yourself into thinking that you sound. Hypocrites are nothing more than an attempt at salvation in other people’s follies.

Don’t judge others on voice, as it is near impossible to gain any useful knowledge from the sound that people make, or the way that sound approaches you.

Yours Illusory,

Crane.

Killer Ideas

I only just realized this.

I was looking at a small 5 Amp resistor today, and I found myself wondering how best to utilize it as a weapon. I thought of increasing the magnitude of the cutoff spark, extending beyond the glass casing, blowing shards of glass shrapnel in every direction, while at the same time blinding all within range through a brilliant flash of energy.

When I expressed these views to a friend, with whom I usually confided my thoughts, he responded with a look suggesting that my idea was to be expected of me. When I asked what was wrong, he informed me that I always think such things.

“Every time you see something”, he had told me, ” you have to envision it as a weapon designed to cause grief or death”

For a moment, I had been stunned by this conclusion, thinking that he was basing it on one or two events before. But then I thought about it, and it made sense.

Since the time I held my first blunt object, I had seen everything in a manner befitting a weapon in some way, be it by adding metal spikes to a bouncy ball, or by imagining how to best manifest an old man’s cane into a portable Gatling gun. I was insanely obsessed with weapons, to the point where I hunted down several antique swords of differing origin, and collected every legalized weapon available.

But now that I realize my obsession, I wonder what it all means.

Do I have some deep, unknown sadistic nature that is still waiting to fully form, or do I have some form of compensation issue that I’m not facing? Do I have some developmental issues that make it more difficult for me to associate weapons with danger, or do I have some lack of morality that inhibits my understanding of the world and it’s principles?

The answer could be any or all of those. Though based on common reactions in people around me, whereby any sudden movements of mine will usually make them flinch or twitch slightly, I may be able to narrow it down to a single cause.

So, let’s recap: I have a thing for weapons and harming people, I enjoy the idea of destruction, and I probably would have no problem blowing up a building of starving orphan waifs. I doubt that even a highly trained psychiatrist would be able to reach a conclusion that didn’t involve the use of a trained lobotomist and a dark alley during happy hour.

I wonder: what does everyone else think of this? Do you all think I’m insane, not to be trusted with my own office, let alone a squadron of staff members, all incredibly capable in their respective fields, or am I just lonely, and in need of a hug?

If you choose the latter, let me make it perfectly clear that I’m not cured yet, and am completely willing (and most probably able) to perform immoral acts without batting an eyelid. I only ever hug my mother, and only once biannually.

Oh, and a last side note: recently, Ive had several complaints from the mathematical community, most of them based on my scathing comment on the subject of their work ethic. In order to avoid mass murder charges, Helga has given me the alternative of apologizing.

I don’t like this alternative.

So, I came up with a better, more user friendly one: either the monstrous mob of miffed mathematicians leaves, or I pull out the big guns, starting with the Ackermann Function with Graham’s Number. I feel it also prudent to warn you all that I have an Erdős Number of 6. Mathematicians, you have been warned.

Yours Tautologically,

Crane.