Strange!!!

[cooljat]

Hi All,

Found this beautiful piece of writing on a blog, how truly it describes strangeness in us -


People are different in many ways. Some are tall, while others are short. People could be extroverts or they could be introverts. You could come across optimistic people or you could come across pessimistic people. But when it comes to a select few, the word strange falls way short of describing their exact nature.

What could seem to be right with them at one point in time, may seem altogether wrong at another. What they might promote today, could be completely different from what they promoted two days ago. They might tell you that something you did was wrong in whichever way you look at it. But if the tide reverses, and they find themselves in a similar position, they will repeat the "so called" mistake that you had done. Just when you want to discard the feeling of anger because you do not want to make an issue out of it, they would come up to you with an explanation that compels you to think that your brain had stopped thinking for some time. They could find fault with someone today, but tomorrow, they could repeat the same mistake and tell you without pausing even for a moment, that what they did was nothing short of perfect!

Strange, chaotic, crazy all of these words fall way short of expressing such people. But if I tell you that they are, not selfish, but self-centered to such an extent that nothing else would matter to them apart from themselves, you can start painting a picture of the people I am describing here. The thing that they desire for themselves might be any of the following... money, ego, power, status or recognition. At the end of the day, however, what matters most to them, is just themselves. Others, well, they could please go to hell.

Welcome to the world of strangers whom you know so well, but can't express in words that could make others understand how strange they are. Welcome to this strange feeling of strangeness. The best way is to explore it around you. Who knows, it could have been an point that you missed comprehending in a person near you.


we are not human beings on a spiritual journey but spiritual beings on a human journey...


Rock on
Jit

 

[sachinb]

This world of strangers is really wonderful and they think that they are the best people. Actually all these are human traits and sometime they come or sometime they remain supressed.

Appreciate the topic Bro

 

[annch]

Hi Jit,

Nice topic.
To stir up the discussion: So, whatever is beyond the author's comprehension is labelled "strange"?
The author is herself/himself not "strange", then how does she/he know what these "strange" people desire? (It takes one to know one)

Regards,
Anju

Hi All,

Strange, chaotic, crazy all of these words fall way short of expressing such people. But if I tell you that they are, not selfish, but self-centered to such an extent that nothing else would matter to them apart from themselves, you can start painting a picture of the people I am describing here. The thing that they desire for themselves might be any of the following... money, ego, power, status or recognition. At the end of the day, however, what matters most to them, is just themselves. Others, well, they could please go to hell.

Welcome to the world of strangers whom you know so well, but can't express in words that could make others understand how strange they are. Welcome to this strange feeling of strangeness. The best way is to explore it around you. Who knows, it could have been an point that you missed comprehending in a person near you.


we are not human beings on a spiritual journey but spiritual beings on a human journey...


Rock on
Jit

 

[sunillathwal]

Hi All,

What could seem to be right with them at one point in time, may seem altogether wrong at another. What they might promote today, could be completely different from what they promoted two days ago. They might tell you that something you did was wrong in whichever way you look at it. But if the tide reverses, and they find themselves in a similar position, they will repeat the "so called" mistake that you had done. Just when you want to discard the feeling of anger because you do not want to make an issue out of it, they would come up to you with an explanation that compels you to think that your brain had stopped thinking for some time.

seems somebody described a part of me..

it is true.. we all do have bits and pieces of strangeness in us which is beyond the other's comprehension and vice-versa...
at times circumstances compel us to walk outside the territories of expected behavior.. if other can 'understand' and 'feel' those wedges, well and good.
if not, obviously our behavior is 'strange' to them.

 

[anilsinghd]

People are different in many ways.

Woooh , thats a statement I love !

seems somebody described a part of me..

You bet!

To stir up the discussion: So, whatever is beyond the author's comprehension is labelled "strange"?
The author is herself/himself not "strange", then how does she/he know what these "strange" people desire? (It takes one to know one)

That can only be one way of classifying something/someone as strange , another one ( and a more "pure" one ) would be to categorise the large deviations from mean as the "Strange" one. Remember my most used word "fat tail". Its the left and the right extreme data points ( humans in this case) which I would be tempted to call as strange !

Who agrees with me that the normal(guassian , bell ) curve can be used to represent the human behaviour ?

And anju , this definition of mine would probably not require one to be "strage" to classify someone as "strange"!

 

[annch]

Anil,
So spake the mathematician
Yes, you can definitely apply mathematics to human behaviour, but only for a close APPROXIMATION, but not as a fact.
A question-Can you rank people in a linear manner based on human behaviour/ strangeness?
Regards

That can only be one way of classifying something/someone as strange , another one ( and a more "pure" one ) would be to categorise the large deviations from mean as the "Strange" one. Remember my most used word "fat tail". Its the left and the right extreme data points ( humans in this case) which I would be tempted to call as strange !

Who agrees with me that the normal(guassian , bell ) curve can be used to represent the human behaviour ?

And anju , this definition of mine would probably not require one to be "strage" to classify someone as "strange"!

 

[anilsinghd]

Anil,
So spake the mathematician
Yes, you can definitely apply mathematics to human behaviour, but only for a close APPROXIMATION, but not as a fact.
A question-Can you rank people in a linear manner based on human behaviour/ strangeness?
Regards

Agree , I also look for a close model , not an exact one !!!


A question to answer your question : Why do you want me to do the hard work ? Why cant you give it a try to rank people in an linear manner , or if you are against it , lets hear your concerns!!!

Should not be difficult to guess that i am very lazyy today !!

 

[kapdal]

What are we talking about?

Agree , I also look for a close model , not an exact one !!!


A question to answer your question : Why do you want me to do the hard work ? Why cant you give it a try to rank people in an linear manner , or if you are against it , lets hear your concerns!!!

Should not be difficult to guess that i am very lazyy today !!

Have been out of touch with maths for a while. But what am I missing here? If you are talking about a normal curve, how can you agree with a "linear manner"? Normal curve is based on continuous probability distribution around a mean and is bell shaped. Linear curve is y=mx+c and is straight line. What am I missing in this debate?

 

[annch]

Kapil,
I am a complete d-uh in mathematics except the basic commercial one. let me try to rephrase (i hope i succeed in clarifying it )
"How will you decide values for human behaviour/ strangeness, and then rank/order people in a linear way?"
Regards

Have been out of touch with maths for a while. But what am I missing here? If you are talking about a normal curve, how can you agree with a "linear manner"? Normal curve is based on continuous probability distribution around a mean and is bell shaped. Linear curve is y=mx+c and is straight line. What am I missing in this debate?

 

[anilsinghd]

Have been out of touch with maths for a while. But what am I missing here? If you are talking about a normal curve, how can you agree with a "linear manner"? Normal curve is based on continuous probability distribution around a mean and is bell shaped. Linear curve is y=mx+c and is straight line. What am I missing in this debate?

Missing a lot of things mate


So hear from Prof. Anil Singh !

Yes , when i say about linear ranking , i referred that i can put people on a linear scale.

I would calculate the measure of each person as some M , where M belongs to -infinity to +infinity.

Now when i plot these people on this scale , What i am saying is that the distribution will come out to be normal!

Lets talk in your language

Imagine you doing an analysis of a ra ndom variable , you will run Monte carlo and assign the variable values based on some function. The set from which the variable ta kes its values from will be real numbers , which is linearly ordered , right ?

Now when you plot the realisations , if you see a normal curve the variable is normal

I am sure i have confused you enough !

 

[anilsinghd]

Kapil,
I am a complete d-uh in mathematics except the basic commercial one. let me try to rephrase (i hope i succeed in clarifying it )
"How will you decide values for human behaviour/ strangeness, and then rank/order people in a linear way?"
Regards

That's the difficult part mate Try and define two things :

1) A function c onverting the behaviour into a "VALUE".
2) A order on the set of VALUES !

And you will be done !

 

[annch]

Guruji,
Manne koni bera, par aapke kisi post mein BIAS ka zikra tha....aur human behaviour mein causality bhi aa jaa gi...
Meri "bad science" toh "bad conclusion" kadhegi, aap hi marg darshan kar dyo..thank you
Aur ab toh Kapil bhi active ho gya hai...
Regards

Agree , I also look for a close model , not an exact one !!!


A question to answer your question : Why do you want me to do the hard work ? Why cant you give it a try to rank people in an linear manner , or if you are against it , lets hear your concerns!!!

Should not be difficult to guess that i am very lazyy today !!

 

[anilsinghd]

Guruji,
aap hi marg darshan kar dyo..

Jaroor Baalike Yeh lo neeche hai maargdarshan !

That's the difficult part mate Try and define two things :

1) A function c onverting the behaviour into a "VALUE".
2) A order on the set of VALUES !

And you will be done !

 

[annch]

Guru ji,
Function kaise decide karoge?

That's the difficult part mate Try and define two things :

1) A function c onverting the behaviour into a "VALUE".
2) A order on the set of VALUES !

And you will be done !

 

[kapdal]

Kapil,
I am a complete d-uh in mathematics except the basic commercial one. let me try to rephrase (i hope i succeed in clarifying it )
"How will you decide values for human behaviour/ strangeness, and then rank people in a linear way?"
Regards

Yeah, I am no great shakes either . I am not sure how what you want to do intersects with gaussian maths (maybe anil has some ideas). But basically, as per normal curve, most people would be close to average behavior (that is the probability of that behavior would be maximum). And as you go further from average behavior, the number of people corresponding to that behavior would decrease. If we look at a physical attribute like height and say that average indian male height is 160cm. Then according to gaussian maths, if you try to arrange indian population on a graph, you will get max. people in the 155-165 cms range. Then lesser people in 145-155 or 165-175 cm range. Even lesser people in less than 100 cm or greater than 200 cm range. If you plot a graph, you will get a bell shaped curve (see link).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

What you want to do on the other hand, seems entirely qualitative to me. But now thinking about it, one way of using above theory is to probably list 10 qualities and make their normal curves based on human population. Then look at the people who are present in most tails- they are truly strange, as they show rare behavior in all qualities. For illustration, if I reduce the number of qualities to 2- height and weight (taking objective characteristics just for ease of description). Then <100 cm would be very few. Similarly >150 Kg would also be very few. But less than 100 cm AND >150 kg would be very very few (that is the joint probability of finding both these characteristics is very low). Extending this to your set of qualities, you can arrange the population in descending order of strangeness. Hope it makes some sense.

 

[kapdal]

Missing a lot of things mate


So hear from Prof. Anil Singh !

Yes , when i say about linear ranking , i referred that i can put people on a linear scale.

I would calculate the measure of each person as some M , where M belongs to -infinity to +infinity.

Now when i plot these people on this scale , What i am saying is that the distribution will come out to be normal!

Lets talk in your language

Imagine you doing an analysis of a ra ndom variable , you will run Monte carlo and assign the variable values based on some function. The set from which the variable ta kes its values from will be real numbers , which is linearly ordered , right ?

Now when you plot the realisations , if you see a normal curve the variable is normal

I am sure i have confused you enough !

I have my disgreements with the above (basically I believe that the variable need not be linear). Nevertheless, while replyting to Anju, I had an idea which I mentioned in my previous reply. You may find it useful/interesting

 

[annch]

Kapil,
Thanks for simplifying it, appreciate it
I struggle with qualitative stuff.
I go back to my initial arguement. The author of the article quoted in the post, decided that people who are self centered are strange. Whereas I might pick another "function" to provide value for strange behaviour. So, in a way, it is all subjective and we will all turn up to be strange in some way...right?
Regards

Yeah, I am no great shakes either . I am not sure how what you want to do intersects with gaussian maths (maybe anil has some ideas). But basically, as per normal curve, most people would be close to average behavior (that is the probability of that behavior would be maximum). And as you go further from average behavior, the number of people corresponding to that behavior would decrease. If we look at a physical attribute like height and say that average indian male height is 160cm. Then according to gaussian maths, if you try to arrange indian population on a graph, you will get max. people in the 155-165 cms range. Then lesser people in 145-155 or 165-175 cm range. Even lesser people in less than 100 cm or greater than 200 cm range. If you plot a graph, you will get a bell shaped curve (see link).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

What you want to do on the other hand, seems entirely qualitative to me. But now thinking about it, one way of using above theory is to probably list 10 qualities and make their normal curves based on human population. Then look at the people who are present in most tails- they are truly strange, as they show rare behavior in all qualities. For illustration, if I reduce the number of qualities to 2- height and weight (taking objective characteristics just for ease of description). Then <100 cm would be very few. Similarly >150 Kg would also be very few. But less than 100 cm AND >150 kg would be very very few (that is the joint probability of finding both these characteristics is very low). Extending this to your set of qualities, you can arrange the population in descending order of strangeness. Hope it makes some sense.

 

[anilsinghd]

I have my disgreements with the above (basically I believe that the variable need not be linear). Nevertheless, while replyting to Anju, I had an idea which I mentioned in my previous reply. You may find it useful/interesting

Ohh sorry for confusing you guys!

In more simpler terms what i was saying is that you need to have an order on the quality.
Like you know easily that a 5 ft tall guy is shorter than 6ft tall guy. This comes from the fact that real numbers are ordered.

What i was asking anju was to associate a sense of measure with "strangenss" and then we can quantify the strangeness.

Once we have the quantitative measure , we can translate that to real axis and plot all the population of humans and if the resultant graph comes out to be similar to normal , we are kind of done. Then look at the tails as you mentioned.

And i totally agree with you approach of doing it one variable at a time.

Or better plot it in M dimension

But what my original plan was ( and that was what i asked Anju if she can come up with a function that translates a person's strangeness into a measurable variable ) !

I guess i was less confusing this time !

 

[anilsinghd]

The author of the article quoted in the post, decided that people who are self centered are strange. Whereas I might pick another "function" to provide value for strange behaviour. So, in a way, it is all subjective and we will all turn up to be strange in some way...right?
Regards

Yo !!! That was the exact reason I was asking you to come up with a function of n-variables (x1,x2,.....xn) where each variable represents some strage behaviour and f( x1,x2,....xn) gives out a value which represents "strangeness" if the inputs represents "strange" behaviour of variables.

The usual boundary conditions are if all the input variables represents strange behaviour in their particular domains , the output represents a truly strange behaviour.
And if all the inputs represent "non-strange" , the output is "non-strange" !


Do it mate What more simplifications do you need ?

 

[kapdal]

Kapil,
Thanks for simplifying it, appreciate it
I struggle with qualitative stuff.
I go back to my initial arguement. The author of the article quoted in the post, decided that people who are self centered are strange. Whereas I might pick another "function" to provide value for strange behaviour. So, in a way, it is all subjective and we will all turn up to be strange in some way...right?
Regards

Yeah, I didn't understand the blog post that Jit had pasted in the original post. First of all, the descriptive para describes a hypocrite rather than a self-centric or a selfish person (as the essence seemed to be that what is right for me is not right for you). Secondly, hypocrite behavior is not "strange" at all. Thirdly, even self-centric or selfish behavior is not "strange" (In both cases I mean rare when I say "strange"). Fourthly, strangeness is based on a reference frame. One can look at my employer HSBC's marketing campaign for examples. The ads show how different things are perceived differently by different people, one example below
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-28UC1WqIJc/SQKd_xcqIWI/AAAAAAAAAMk/4wnsgSc59fc/s1600-h/realhsbcadgif2.jpg