(no subject)
Jan. 7th, 2007 09:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
which_chickIn which our beloved narrator experiences more difficulty interacting with the flesh people.
So I was out visiting the other night. A fellow visitor took it upon herself to arrange a puzzle with crayolas. The puzzle looked like this:
The directions that she gave were to move two crayolas (each straight line segment represents a crayola) and change that into "a big box". That's the directions I got for how to solve the puzzle. Move two sticks, make "a big box".
I'd like to take a minute here to point out that I go through life without cutting up people in an orgy of blood-o-rific slaughter. I know that I'm not supposed to kill other people for a variety of convincing-sounding reasons though I do have quite a bit of difficulty understanding why it's okay to kill doggies and kitties and ponies and cowieows and piggywigs but it's SPECIAL and DIFFERENT and WRONG to kill humans. Fortunately, while I'm somewhat fuzzy on the rational underpinnings of Thou Shalt Not Kill, I also don't think I'd get a whole lot of enjoyment out of doing so, so I don't. There is no need to worry that I'm going to head out and serial kill people for fun or profit. Aside from the serial killing, which I'm not interested in, I have a very Dexter perception of some aspects of how people interact with each other. Some days it feels like rather a lot of the culture of argumentative apes is totally fucking beyond me.
Case in point is the social puzzle or brainteaser. When someone (in a social context involving normal people) shows up with a puzzle, I know that the audience is not supposed to be able to solve the puzzle. They're supposed to try, because that's part of being a good sport and playing along with the received construct, but the audience is NOT supposed to succeed at the puzzle. It took me a very long time to figure this out. The social puzzle confused me for a long time because, as with so much else in the world of the argumentative apes, it isn't even remotely about what they say it's about. You might think, on the surface, that the purpose of a social puzzle is to provide fun and pass the time. You'd be as wrong as I was when I thought that was what they were about. Social puzzles are not about finding elegant solutions to brainteaser questions. They're not about seeing how other people's minds work. They're not about referencing whether or not other people's minds work like yours does. The social puzzle has fuck-all to do with the solution or the audience's ability to solve the puzzle. It's not about that. In fact, if the audience provides a genuine effort towards solving the puzzle, that diminishes the puzzle-bringer's satisfaction from the social puzzle.
My current understanding of the social puzzle is that the whole POINT, at least from the perspective of the puzzle-bringer, is that the person who offers up the puzzle gets to be the clever person with the solution. In my very-special (and I'm talking very special as in rides the short bus in these matters) view of reality, that's why these puzzles exist -- to make the puzzle-bringers feel special and smart and the center of attention for a little while. Persons receiving the puzzle are obviously supposed to try to solve it, in a playing-along way. It'd be no fun if they didn't and their trying makes the puzzle-bringer the center of attention. The puzzle-recipients have to try to solve the puzzle, but they are not generally expected (by themselves or by the puzzle-bringer) to succeed. They're not SUPPOSED to succeed because that would spoil the point of the puzzle.
But, y'know, I was quite full of myself, in a good mood, and rather less inclined than normal (... all the doctors are gonna find in me when they do the autopsy) to pay attention to the rules as I see 'em.
Here's my solution:
That is not, as it turns out, what is supposed to be done to solve the puzzle. That is NOT THE ANSWER, even though I thought it was a really good answer, all things considered. In the (inevitable, at this point) postmortem of the puzzle, we discovered that the original clue was supposed to be to move two crayolas and make a manhole. Those weren't the instructions that we were given because the puzzle-bringer had kind of messed up the presentation of the puzzle. Anyway, here's the solution we were supposed to have failed to come up with:
Note that the social puzzle could still have come out as expected with the setup we were given ("a big box" and the solution "cunt") because box is an acceptable slang for cunt, though it has sort of a quaint, archaic feel to it in my book. You lose the pun on "manhole" but that isn't really the point anyway (see above about the point of these damn things) and it would have been fine if I'd just left it alone and not offered a solution to the puzzle as presented. (Yes, yes, I'm supposed to pretend to try to solve the puzzle for the form of the thing. Note the word pretend. Nobody is supposed to actually attempt like for real. My understanding of the social puzzle construct is limited, but I'm pretty damn sure that I'm not supposed to provide a fucking bizarre and literal solution that clearly illustrates the sort of dysfunctional asshat I am.) The only reason that the puzzle-bringer had to disclose any of the botched presentation was that I buggered up someone else's social puzzle. If I'd just let things rest, the social construct could have played out as intended and the punchline would still sort-of have worked.
I am an idiot.
I really, really hate that normal people can get through an evening out without these sorts of events during the evening. I despise the fact that normal people can get through an event postmortem without this level of overthinking. (Do normal people even have event postmortems?)
So I was out visiting the other night. A fellow visitor took it upon herself to arrange a puzzle with crayolas. The puzzle looked like this:
The directions that she gave were to move two crayolas (each straight line segment represents a crayola) and change that into "a big box". That's the directions I got for how to solve the puzzle. Move two sticks, make "a big box".
I'd like to take a minute here to point out that I go through life without cutting up people in an orgy of blood-o-rific slaughter. I know that I'm not supposed to kill other people for a variety of convincing-sounding reasons though I do have quite a bit of difficulty understanding why it's okay to kill doggies and kitties and ponies and cowieows and piggywigs but it's SPECIAL and DIFFERENT and WRONG to kill humans. Fortunately, while I'm somewhat fuzzy on the rational underpinnings of Thou Shalt Not Kill, I also don't think I'd get a whole lot of enjoyment out of doing so, so I don't. There is no need to worry that I'm going to head out and serial kill people for fun or profit. Aside from the serial killing, which I'm not interested in, I have a very Dexter perception of some aspects of how people interact with each other. Some days it feels like rather a lot of the culture of argumentative apes is totally fucking beyond me.
Case in point is the social puzzle or brainteaser. When someone (in a social context involving normal people) shows up with a puzzle, I know that the audience is not supposed to be able to solve the puzzle. They're supposed to try, because that's part of being a good sport and playing along with the received construct, but the audience is NOT supposed to succeed at the puzzle. It took me a very long time to figure this out. The social puzzle confused me for a long time because, as with so much else in the world of the argumentative apes, it isn't even remotely about what they say it's about. You might think, on the surface, that the purpose of a social puzzle is to provide fun and pass the time. You'd be as wrong as I was when I thought that was what they were about. Social puzzles are not about finding elegant solutions to brainteaser questions. They're not about seeing how other people's minds work. They're not about referencing whether or not other people's minds work like yours does. The social puzzle has fuck-all to do with the solution or the audience's ability to solve the puzzle. It's not about that. In fact, if the audience provides a genuine effort towards solving the puzzle, that diminishes the puzzle-bringer's satisfaction from the social puzzle.
My current understanding of the social puzzle is that the whole POINT, at least from the perspective of the puzzle-bringer, is that the person who offers up the puzzle gets to be the clever person with the solution. In my very-special (and I'm talking very special as in rides the short bus in these matters) view of reality, that's why these puzzles exist -- to make the puzzle-bringers feel special and smart and the center of attention for a little while. Persons receiving the puzzle are obviously supposed to try to solve it, in a playing-along way. It'd be no fun if they didn't and their trying makes the puzzle-bringer the center of attention. The puzzle-recipients have to try to solve the puzzle, but they are not generally expected (by themselves or by the puzzle-bringer) to succeed. They're not SUPPOSED to succeed because that would spoil the point of the puzzle.
But, y'know, I was quite full of myself, in a good mood, and rather less inclined than normal (... all the doctors are gonna find in me when they do the autopsy) to pay attention to the rules as I see 'em.
Here's my solution:
That is not, as it turns out, what is supposed to be done to solve the puzzle. That is NOT THE ANSWER, even though I thought it was a really good answer, all things considered. In the (inevitable, at this point) postmortem of the puzzle, we discovered that the original clue was supposed to be to move two crayolas and make a manhole. Those weren't the instructions that we were given because the puzzle-bringer had kind of messed up the presentation of the puzzle. Anyway, here's the solution we were supposed to have failed to come up with:
Note that the social puzzle could still have come out as expected with the setup we were given ("a big box" and the solution "cunt") because box is an acceptable slang for cunt, though it has sort of a quaint, archaic feel to it in my book. You lose the pun on "manhole" but that isn't really the point anyway (see above about the point of these damn things) and it would have been fine if I'd just left it alone and not offered a solution to the puzzle as presented. (Yes, yes, I'm supposed to pretend to try to solve the puzzle for the form of the thing. Note the word pretend. Nobody is supposed to actually attempt like for real. My understanding of the social puzzle construct is limited, but I'm pretty damn sure that I'm not supposed to provide a fucking bizarre and literal solution that clearly illustrates the sort of dysfunctional asshat I am.) The only reason that the puzzle-bringer had to disclose any of the botched presentation was that I buggered up someone else's social puzzle. If I'd just let things rest, the social construct could have played out as intended and the punchline would still sort-of have worked.
I am an idiot.
I really, really hate that normal people can get through an evening out without these sorts of events during the evening. I despise the fact that normal people can get through an event postmortem without this level of overthinking. (Do normal people even have event postmortems?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 03:53 am (UTC)Doggies and kitties and piggywigs don't have seats in the legislature.
No matter what Snowball and Napoleon might tell you.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 03:54 am (UTC)This has been your anal-retentive grammar comment for the evening. Thank you for your attention. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Live Journal, already in progress.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 03:49 pm (UTC)I guess.
I thought it was rather insulting to women, but then ... many people are.
I guess I'm just not supposed to be around people either...
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 05:14 pm (UTC)Uncomfortable.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 03:20 am (UTC)But not supposed to solve them? What the huh? Not only did I not know that, I think I'm still not going to import that patch into my system.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:15 pm (UTC)Clearly you were never in the summer of your seventh grade year and blowing an afternoon listening to a (six-years-older) friend's college-age boyfriend playing absolutely filthy songs on cassette. (Seriously. They were funny, in a sophomoric sort fo way and he was a sophomore in college. I figured it was all good. I harbor a huge soft spot for The Rodeo Song to this day.) That was quite entertaining until the tape got to the limerick-y part of things.
There was a young woman from Sader
Who had sex with an alligator.
We never knew
the result of that screw
There is only one line that tidily finishes this limerick. I'd never heard the damn thing before, but I knew what it had to be, how it had to come out. And so, with the guy on the tape, I said the last line. I was kind of chuffed that I'd gotten it totally and exactly right. And then I spent the next fifteen minutes feeling like some kind of freak because the aforementioned boyfriend wanted to know if I'd heard it before or if I was lying about not having heard it before to make myself seem smart or if I was really some kind of freak. While he wasn't mean about it or anything, he didn't believe me when I explained that it was clear as day what the line had to be.
Now, take that experience and repeat it about fifty times, in assorted settings and with different people. I'm not really sure what I was supposed to have gotten from the whole thing, other than the obvious: You're not supposed to solve the puzzles. If you don't solve the puzzles, don't know the punchlines, don't finish the limericks, don't know how the movies end... people do not think you're some kind of freak. You don't have to spend fifteen or twenty minutes explaining your damn self and trying to convince them that you're not lying about having had no prior experience with the thing. It's easy. It doesn't upset anyone. There's no staring.