Climbing the Eigen
May. 6th, 2003 04:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerIn the fascinating "Figments of Reality" (a most excellent book on the effect that the extelligence of our culture has on us) the writers talk about eigenfaces. If you imagine the perfectly average face, then an individual face can be described by the differences between it and that average. This 'difference map' is an eigenface.
They were fascinated by the fact that masculine and feminine faces were both represented by the same eigenface, with one being the inverse of the other - they had expected the 'average male' and the 'average female' to bear little relationship to each other facially, so to discover that they were inverses of each other was pretty amazing. They theorise that they are this way precisely because it makes it easier to recognise them - you only have to memorise one 'value' in order to recognise both types of faces.
Anyway, this same kind of idea can apply to lots of things. Thinking about what I was saying before (and what Stephen said in his comments) I think it comes down to how predictable the eigenperson is. As I said, I think I've got a fairly good handle on "people" now (and before I get accused of even more of a superiority complex than I have, I don't think this means I understand people perfectly. Not at all), which presumably means that I grasp the basic eigenperson (at least a basic eigenperson - there's bound to be differences between the one I've grasped and the human-wide average).
So what interests me are either people whose difference map is very complex, thus meaning it takes much longer to get the hang of them, or whose difference map is quite different to the one I know.
Alternatively, people that change and grow over time are perennial favourites. I've chatted to some people for years because they constantly do knew things and have knew ideas - you can't get used to someone whose always changing.
They were fascinated by the fact that masculine and feminine faces were both represented by the same eigenface, with one being the inverse of the other - they had expected the 'average male' and the 'average female' to bear little relationship to each other facially, so to discover that they were inverses of each other was pretty amazing. They theorise that they are this way precisely because it makes it easier to recognise them - you only have to memorise one 'value' in order to recognise both types of faces.
Anyway, this same kind of idea can apply to lots of things. Thinking about what I was saying before (and what Stephen said in his comments) I think it comes down to how predictable the eigenperson is. As I said, I think I've got a fairly good handle on "people" now (and before I get accused of even more of a superiority complex than I have, I don't think this means I understand people perfectly. Not at all), which presumably means that I grasp the basic eigenperson (at least a basic eigenperson - there's bound to be differences between the one I've grasped and the human-wide average).
So what interests me are either people whose difference map is very complex, thus meaning it takes much longer to get the hang of them, or whose difference map is quite different to the one I know.
Alternatively, people that change and grow over time are perennial favourites. I've chatted to some people for years because they constantly do knew things and have knew ideas - you can't get used to someone whose always changing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-05-06 09:39 am (UTC)Are dynamic people more interesting?
I think that a lot of animosity stems from trying to "figure people out." Sure understanding someone and figuring someone out are closely related but the methods are entirely different. Understanding someone is accepting who they are and allowing your relationship to them to evolve. Figuring someone out involves applying typing methods that are known to you to the people who are around you and through a trial and error process stumbling onto something that almost fits them and then repeating when discovering something new about them...
At least that's what I think. I've never been a fan of categorization of any type. I think that it limits the evolution of the mind.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-07 01:49 am (UTC)I rarely categorise people and when I do I bear in mind that a categorisation is a description of a part of them, not all of them. However I definitely reach a point where people aren't saying anything new to me or surprising me, where they become predictable (at least in general ways). I'm well aware that I'm the same and I don't hold it against people - I just like to be surprised and kept interested.
Re:
Date: 2003-05-07 08:53 am (UTC)Why do you think people become perdictable? Is it just easier to follow patterns of behavior? Is it a defense mechanism? Surely it could be both of these things and more but what have your observations told you?
And then, what is interesting to you?
no subject
Date: 2003-05-07 11:45 am (UTC)People do whatever works for them - if they find a series of actions that has a good outcome for them, they'll keep on following that sequence until it no longer works.
We are, after all, just animals - our brains are learning machines that do a very good job of training themselves to tasks, which by definition means finding the best way to do something. Once we're in a rut unless we get bored (which lots of people seem not to do) or the rut stops being good, we stay there.