i.1 what is intuity?
Intuity is a strange thing with respect to humanity. In general terms, we think of things as intuitive when they require little thought to understand. How very-non-human! Humans are, perhaps, the most complex creatures ever to exist on earth.
Intuity, as it relates to humanity, is the amount of ease with which an individual can be read by others, and by which his or her attributes are readily ascertained. If one needs to ask, “Do you get my meaning?” said meaning is probably not intuitive.
In my day job, I design screens for computer software. I measure the intuity of a screen by how readily a user knows the purpose of the screen and what it can and cannot do without asking any questions of anyone or anything.
Intuity is best examined as follows:
- If it cannot be said in less words, it has maximal intuity
- If the focal point of an image or object is clear and obvious, it is likely high in intuity
- If the volume is comfortable but neither too loud nor too soft, it is acceptable in intuity for hearing people
- If it is hidden, it is has low intuity
- In it is innuendo, it has low intuity
- If the meaning is not transparent to anyone without resorting to multiple uses of dictionaries and thesauruses, it is low in intuity
There are many more lenses – nearly-infinite in number, through which we can examine intuity.
How, then, does this relate to humanity? First, humans must interact with each other whenever two meet. Interaction needn’t be verbal, to be clear; people share pheromones, compete for oxygen, smell of detergents, shampoos, fabric softeners, and the like, without saying a word. What do these things say (or not say) about us? Intuity is a measure by which we can analyze ourselves and see if others see us both as we see ourselves or how we wish to be perceived.
Science does not provide much in the ways of intuity and its myriad of definitions. While all of the mechanics upon which intuity is based in the physical universe are dependent upon scientific principles, humans are irrational and illogical beings who will not necessarily accurately intuit the meaning of the a given situation or set of stimuli. How, then, are we to know if we are high in intuity in our messages?
Let us examine a common situation across all of humanity: at some point or another we have had to navigate the hell that is dating. Dating is a precarious activity in which we seek a partner for ourselves, and try to convince others of our worthiness to be their partner. Given the advancement of humanity from a male purportedly clubbing a female and dragging her back to a cave (the most interesting take on Natural Selection of which I’ve ever heard) one person must successfully woo the other whilst at the same time the other person is wooing him or her (possibly!) in return.
Sir Isaac Newton’s first law of motion is not only my favorite, but a great quote:
“An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force. An object in motion remains in motion, and at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.”
When discussing intuity, this means that an interaction is going nowhere without some type of force. What that force may be and how it expresses itself are two different things. The first is a choice of the acting party (or his body, perhaps) and the second is based on the intuity of the first. Many of our sayings, proverbs, and axioms come from situations where intuity is perhaps too obvious. Let us say that our proverbial caveman had to get the cavewoman within range of his club. So, he bathes in the musk ox of the musk he recently…clubbed to death. He really bathes in it – literally – so that it coats him. He then sets out, club on shoulder, to find his mate. She smells him coming, and for the first time in history she thinks, he’s really laying it on thick. In this instance, he is patently intuitive. She knows what he did, why he did it, and what to expect.
Modern dating is more accurately represented by Dante’s Nine Rings of Hell found in Inferno. Add layers on top of layers to the real intuity of a meaning. The Internet compounds this drastically, because it removes all of those science-things on which our body also acts. If you create a profile on a dating site, you almost always are asked to upload a picture. But, which picture to upload? Millions of thoughts rapidly flow through your head as you select the one that has your best profile, but your hair isn’t as nice in that picture, then the next picture doesn’t have a great smile, and the next one still shows your eyes a little bit closed…ad infinitum. Contrast this to meeting someone in person, wherein the other sees what is, and draws conclusions based on our level of intuity. What type of clothing did we choose to wear? In what state is our hair (if relevant) and did we shave or not? Where did we elect to meet, and at what time? Do we have a subtle hint of a perfume or cologne, or do we reek of it? Did we shower, recently, and if so, are the scents in our shampoos and body washes, deodorants, soaps for clothing, conditioners, fabric softeners, hand soaps, and shoe insoles all competing with the perfume or cologne we so carefully applied in a light fashion?
What words did we pick to say “hello” other than “hello?” Here intuity plays a large role. Saying, “I’ve looked forward to meeting you, [name], and it’s a pleasure to be face-to-face at last” holds more meaning than does, “hello.” But, if present in a large, noisy room, “Hello, [name]. I’m [name] and perhaps we can go somewhere more quiet?” might be better.
Obviously, epic novels have been written about love, and the equation remains unsolved; indeed, perhaps love is an unsolvable equation. Historically, however, I have learned that the more effort placed into making our actions as simple and intuitive as possible, the more likely we are to attain understanding. This isn’t to say that there isn’t fun to be had in a bit of obfuscation now and again, and in its most simple definition, clothing is counterintuitive. But, as societal creatures we must observe some norms to function in society (clothing recommended for first dates, for example, especially in public!) but the smart person is the one who chooses to be high in intuity in the expected areas, and mysterious in the unexpected.
Good luck, and may your journeys be full of intuity.
—fin—
u.1 what is utility?
Utility is a word with many meanings, thus this entry shall first define which means do not apply to this discussion. This discussion is not about those entities that provide you with electricity and water. This entry is also not about the degree to which a thing is utilized.
Utility, as it relates to humanity, is the amount of positive, meaningful change that a noun can provide to a human. And as I do in all of my topical introductions, I shall state that humanity is defined simply as belonging to the species homo-homo-sapiens. To state that something is humane or inhumane is not a part of this discussion on utility.
In my day job, I design screens for computer software. I measure the utility of a screen by how much value it provides to a user; that is, does it make her job easier and, if so, by how much? I can measure that empirically using a timer and asking a user to perform a task, but with respect to utility and humanity, it’s a more nuanced question.
First, I must expose one of the most common errors people make in determining utility, and to do so, I will use a book, or several as it may come to pass. Let us begin with an individual walking into a room and seeing a large book on a table. For the scientific types, it is about 10” wide by 14” long and 5” thick, and weighs 6 lbs. (For true scientists, 25.4 cm w x 35.6 cm l x 12.7 cm t, and 2.7 kg.) What is its utility?
Before this question can be answered, types of knowledge need be defined.
Intelligence is that which can be learned through study, simply.
Wisdom is that which is learned through experience, commonly called “common sense.”
The most obvious answer is that the utility of the book depends upon its contents. And, that answer would be incorrect. The book could be used in the following ways:
- To hold down a ream of paper when there is a great amount of airflow in a room
- To hold open a door that will not remain so on its own
- To hide paper within the pages of the book
- As a leveler for a table or chair that is unleveled by 5”
- As a weapon with which to smack an unsuspecting intruder into stupor or unconsciousness
- As a device to hold a beautiful bookmark
There are many more – an almost infinite number, actually. The ways in which it can be used is limited almost exclusively by the creativity of the person contemplating its usefulness. Furthermore, the content of the book isn’t even a certain marker of utility: children with any drawing instrument can and have found hours of enjoyment writing on pages of paper regardless of existing content. The common misconception is judging a book a book, rather than an object most often used as a book.
How, then, does this relate to humanity? To answer that question, I shall use two different books of roughly the same proportions: The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, and the Christian Holy Bible. The first is a book that seeks to provide clarity to speakers or would-be speakers of the English language on how words are spelled, pronounced, and defined. The second is a book considered holy to sub segments of the population who consider themselves “Christians.”
The utility (with respect to knowledge) of the first is dependent upon its age to a large extent. A speaker of modern English (proper) would not find definitions for such things as “transistors,” “Internet,” “email,” or “voicemail” in a dictionary that is 60 years old. Go back further, 100 years, and “Pluto” will be defined as the Roman deity of the underworld, not as the ninth planet, and not as a “dwarf planet.” The second is much more complex. Nearly every book except holy texts are subject to editorial review and revision, or they are classified as words of fiction (and still may be subject to editors and revision prior to publication). The tome of Æsop’s Fables is considered by the plurality of society to contain short stories that have good morals. The events portrayed in the story are not considered literal transcriptions of events. Similarly, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is understood to be a fictitious play created for entertainment. Accordingly, while these works undergo slight revisions for better understanding to modern speakers of various languages, the general stories remain unaltered.
Enter the Bible. (Here, when capitalized, this refers to the Christian Bible containing the “Old” and “New” Testaments.) The first element of utility of a written work is its relationship with its audience. When an author seeks to write a work, she decides if it will be a children’s book, a cook’s book, a home-improver’s book, or a general-purpose story. She also decides if it will be a work of fiction, or non-fiction. Non-fictitious books must not contain any unproven facts, or must state that such items are merely presumed to be true. Fictitious works often contain facts, but the plot itself is not based on actual events in a literal fashion.
The Bible was written for goat herders over 2,000 years ago. With respect to intelligence, students who have passed the first grade of primary education have more intellect and understanding of the world than did this group. The societal norms and strictures of 2,000 years past were entirely different as well. Books were not common, as Gutenberg’s printing press was well over a millennia away. So, to even say that the Bible was written is a misnomer: the Bible was “collected” over a great period of time, being penned by various men as they “learned” of its “teachings.”
The utility of the Bible to goat herders was likely very high. The divine laws that it proscribed brought order to an otherwise-chaotic society, and fellow “believers” were likely to follow the same set of “laws” for fear of an all-powerful “God.” Women were chattel, and accorded barbaric standards considered quite acceptable at the time given sections were added to the collection. Many current readers do not even know that the calendar employed then did not consist of twelve months!
How this applies to utility in humanity is that one is not condemned to hell for not knowing the how to respond when called a misodoctakleidist (to save you time, it is a person who hates practicing the piano), and is not condemned to death by stoning for being a clapperdudgeon (a beggar who is the child of beggars). As we learn new things about biology, chemistry, avionics, physics, physiology, neurology, meteorology, and psychology (to name a miniscule few), we revise our texts explaining the principles and facts that govern those subjects. Therefore, revision is a natural way of increasing the utility when done so in a way that benefits readers by the refinement of provable, actual, actionable truths.
Science does not prohibit divinity from ultimately being responsible for creation, but it does disprove some a great many passages contained within the Bible presented as truth. Revision of the Bible is considered heretic and sacrilegious, heterodoxy in its purest form. Tell a parent that his child is being taught from a ten-year-old physics book and he’ll (rightly) demand that his child’s school use a current text. Tell that same literal-biblical-Christian parent that his child is being taught that the Bible is mythology along with tales of Mount Olympus and the Titans, and the School Board will be convening a hearing on the matter and apologizing for treading on religious freedoms.
Consequently, the utility of the Bible to modern audiences is extremely low because it cannot be updated to take into account the facts that have proven it inaccurate. Even the very wording used to explain passages as infallible because they are “the gospel truth” is damning to the very cause the Bible purports to promote – common understanding and peace. This can be demonstrated no better than with Einstein, of course.
e=mc2
Einstein is considered by a vast plurality of the population of Earth to have been a genius. He states that the amount of energy is equal to the mass of something times the speed of light, squared. This is known as Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is more importantly not Einstein’s law, rule, or constant of relativity. It is and remains a theory until proven false, or less true. Moses, however, is not told to have received The Ten Recommendations, nor The Ten Guidelines to a Better Life. Disagree with the Ten Commandments and you are in contradiction with a purportedly omnipotent, all-knowing deity who shall strike you down or condemn your soul to hell because you exercised the free will that deity supposedly gave you.
If you are poor and your children starving, and your neighbor rich and gluttonous, you break a commandment if you take food without permission to feed your children: thou shalt not steal. Literally speaking, women are lucky regarding the Ten Commandments, for there’s nothing stating a woman cannot covet her neighbor’s husband, or (preferably-adult) son. Utility is found almost everywhere but in the Bible. Let us look elsewhere for an example of a law.
Sir Isaac Newton has three laws of motion. For brevity’s sake, I shall examine only the first, which reads:
“An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force. An object in motion remains in motion, and at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.”
The key word in this law is “unless.” If this had been written biblically, it would read, “an object at rest remains at rest; an object in motion remains in motion.” Conversely, if a commandment had been written scientifically it might have read,
“Steal not from others, unless they are greedy and your need is great; ask first for what you need, and take what you need without permission only as a final resort.”
I could rewrite all of the commandments, and major scriptures as well, but the point is hopefully made upon the readers. The utility of anything is based upon its relevancy to its user. Furthermore, that utility must be for the collective good to be considered valid. Where within our society do the pious and righteous walk up to police officers and state, “you are going to hell, for you have killed!” Modern society has deemed that when one individual threatens another, or many, forces up to and including lethal ones may be employed.
You shall not kill, unless the killing of another is the only way that the protection of innocents and the greater benefit of society is the result from the killing. You shall first employ all attempts to resolve a situation that do not involve killing, and use so only when it is a last resort.
Is that too verbose? Perhaps it is difficult to convey in Aramaic. An all-powerful god certainly could have whipped up another tablet or two if space was an issue, or emblazoned in a smaller type.
The casual reader will likely interpret this as an attack on the Bible, or on Christianity when in fact it is neither. This is an examination of an example in which the utility of an object pertinent to a large portion of humanity has purposely been allowed to erode! Taken literally, biblical texts do more than condemn homosexual men to death by stoning (again, women are not mentioned in Leviticus in that respect), women who are raped in the city must be stoned to death, eating shellfish is a sin, as is wearing blended-fiber clothing. (Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:23, Leviticus 11:12, and Leviticus 19:19)
While I am grateful that in most countries these are not taken literally, the greater question is what utility these passages have in modern times? We do not stone people in western culture, at least not in the civilized portions thereof, and yet we leave these passages unchanged. This has nothing to do with secularity of states, and everything to do with the stupidity of not revising a text to make it relevant.
While I would enjoy rewriting the bible into modern text as an academic exercise, there are computer screens that demand my attention. I ask only that when you look at any object, you weigh its utility as it relates to humanity before deciding how – if at all – you will employ it in your life.
—fin—
f.1 what is fluidity?
One of the three tenets of my professional designs is fluidity, with the other two being intuity and utility. What, then, is fluidity? In design, it is the ability to effortlessly switch or transition between on task, screen, or action, to the next. But what is fluidity in humanity?
To answer this question, one must first define what it means to be human. Biologically, one must be of the species homo-homo-sapiens to be human, but nothing else. Many people often speak of “being human,” but of what exactly do they speak? Furthermore, how does that relate to fluidity? (The relationship between humanity to utility and intuity shall be discussed in a subsequent posting) Foremost on my mind as I write this is the intrinsic ability of some people to “bend” whereas others are quite rigid. I disdain stereotypes of any kind, but I find that the less educated one is, the more likely one is to be on the “rigid” end of the spectrum.
Fluidity is not, however, synonymous with flexibility. When discussing the precept of fluidity it must be understood that in this context, there are no synonyms. Fluidity is the ability to move with, around, under, over, and through obstacles in our journey in life. Indeed, humanity is the journey that we experience from birth until death. Whatever comes after death, if anything at all, transcends humanity. The degree to which one agrees with the likes of Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and the philosophy of existentialism, may have broader implications with respect to how fluid one views life. Predestiny is the belief of serving the wishes of some form of providence – in my opinion – goes against the very nature of self-determination and free will.
Theology is a relevant topic that has come up frequently in my recent discussions with friends, all intelligent, with varying viewed thereof. I do not judge the rightness or righteousness of any individual view except the level to which I personally agree or disagree with said view. Unlike facts, which are provable and largely immutable by definition, individuals are and must be entitled to opinions. To prohibit freedom of opinion is utterly against fluidity. Each individual’s fluidity is unique, and where two people’s lives intersect there ranges a level of turbulence from zero to extreme. The more disconcordant two people’s worldviews are, the more the convergence resembles white-water rapids. The most turbulent interactions I find are people who have faith versus the people who have blind faith. To those who have blind faith, it is the equivalent of driving down a busy highway and closing one’s eyes for thirty seconds and blinding having faith that you will open them again unscathed. (Note: I do not recommend you attempt said exercise)
One correlation that I have through my own, unofficial research is that the more one embraces and embodies fluidity, the happier one tends to be. When troubles arise, those who are most fluid find away around, under, over, or through the trouble with the least disturbance in their daily purpose. Troubles range from frustration at a long-red-traffic light to death of a loved one. (Interestingly, the more fluid one was, the more likely he or she was to believe that death is a natural part of the cycle of life instead of a thing to be feared.)
Unfortunately, it seems that fluidity is largely intrinsic and involuntary; some people are just not fluid by nature. While I don’t necessarily ascribe this to genetics, I find that telling people who are not fluid to “go with the flow” to be as effective as demanding a sinestrous person to suddenly become dexterous [c.f. Latin definitions.] Predispositions aside, I wish for maximal happiness and, yes, fluidity in your life and that when you encounter difficulty, that you can overcome it in the most fluid way your nature allows.
-fin-
intuityfluidityutility.wordpress.com 