A game of drawing conceptual spandrels*:
There’s a mind game like to play: I weave extra hints or messages or humor or sometimes oblique concepts into the statements I make; and, then, see who picks up on them. You score points by volleying a similar extra layer of meaning. Style points are awarded for the flavor of the volley: Is it thematically, stylistically, or structurally similar? Does it extend, engage the woven thread? Did it oppose or mock it? Did it trump or topple the original?
It’s always been odd to go through the day rarely meeting other people who play the game. Much less, finding people who are interested in it. Sometimes those who play a little will catch on and go a few rounds with you. Sometimes you meet players who are too different in style, structure, content for it to be a complete game.
This is my favorite sport. And, yet, there’s no league for it. It’s all pick-up games. In some places, you get labeled a witch for talking and thinking with such powerful cleverness.
* I borrow Stephen Jay Gould’s biology term “spandrels” for it’s ingenuity and uniqueness.
A variation on the theme:
Because so much time can pass between games, I’ve come up with a one-player variation to keep me mentally active. (I like to sharpen my knives, so to speak.)
In the single-player game, I use my imagination to paint layers of character on people when I’m with them; and, then, testing them – almost systematically – on whether and how the layers fit them. It’s as if I were looking at you through that optometrists’ tools where they flip the lenses to determine the appropriate refractive corrective.
Recognizing mental profiles:
“Persona Recognition” you might call the form of action that is the engine of both games. Think of it as on par with face recognition, verbal recognition, pattern recognition. But, this is another kind of recognition. I tend to think that cognition is as adaptive as any other biological trait. And, I tend to think that meta-cognition is undergoing an especially rapid period of adaptation.
Three dimensions of the game are:
- [breadth of space in 3D, spread along the plane formed by the x-, y-axes] represents the diversity of personas recognized;
- [number of peaks in the space] represents the number of personas recognized;
- [height of each peak, z-axis] represents the thoroughness with which one understands each persona.
I think there are other dimensions to the game – for instance, with how many people can you simultaneously keep a game going? Similarly, are those simultaneous games unified? On what level? Or, are they individual, simultaneous games?
It becomes apparent that the scoring above is not additive, but the scores are of different kinds and are separate units of measure.
I didn’t stay with any (physical) sport for very long, yet I always played these games. I will teach them to my children. I still seek challengers.
Tying this back to spandrels:
In chemistry, there is a process called chromatography, which helps you identify the molecules or atoms in a source sample based on the unique spectrum of light they display when excited. (I’m especially thinking of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which I had a bit of experience with in college.) I see those spandrels and character layers as the materials that excite mental states to a point where they reveal their characteristic identifying properties.
At some point, perhaps I’ll work on defining a mechanism for formally or experimentally revealing mental characteristics like this. Of course, maybe it’s been done.
Mind Games: Drawing spandrels into the conversation
A game of drawing conceptual spandrels*:
There’s a mind game like to play: I weave extra hints or messages or humor or sometimes oblique concepts into the statements I make; and, then, see who picks up on them. You score points by volleying a similar extra layer of meaning. Style points are awarded for the flavor of the volley: Is it thematically, stylistically, or structurally similar? Does it extend, engage the woven thread? Did it oppose or mock it? Did it trump or topple the original?
It’s always been odd to go through the day rarely meeting other people who play the game. Much less, finding people who are interested in it. Sometimes those who play a little will catch on and go a few rounds with you. Sometimes you meet players who are too different in style, structure, content for it to be a complete game.
This is my favorite sport. And, yet, there’s no league for it. It’s all pick-up games. In some places, you get labeled a witch for talking and thinking with such powerful cleverness.
* I borrow Stephen Jay Gould’s biology term “spandrels” for it’s ingenuity and uniqueness.
A variation on the theme:
Because so much time can pass between games, I’ve come up with a one-player variation to keep me mentally active. (I like to sharpen my knives, so to speak.)
In the single-player game, I use my imagination to paint layers of character on people when I’m with them; and, then, testing them – almost systematically – on whether and how the layers fit them. It’s as if I were looking at you through that optometrists’ tools where they flip the lenses to determine the appropriate refractive corrective.
Recognizing mental profiles:
“Persona Recognition” you might call the form of action that is the engine of both games. Think of it as on par with face recognition, verbal recognition, pattern recognition. But, this is another kind of recognition. I tend to think that cognition is as adaptive as any other biological trait. And, I tend to think that meta-cognition is undergoing an especially rapid period of adaptation.
Three dimensions of the game are:
I think there are other dimensions to the game – for instance, with how many people can you simultaneously keep a game going? Similarly, are those simultaneous games unified? On what level? Or, are they individual, simultaneous games?
It becomes apparent that the scoring above is not additive, but the scores are of different kinds and are separate units of measure.
I didn’t stay with any (physical) sport for very long, yet I always played these games. I will teach them to my children. I still seek challengers.
Tying this back to spandrels:
In chemistry, there is a process called chromatography, which helps you identify the molecules or atoms in a source sample based on the unique spectrum of light they display when excited. (I’m especially thinking of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which I had a bit of experience with in college.) I see those spandrels and character layers as the materials that excite mental states to a point where they reveal their characteristic identifying properties.
At some point, perhaps I’ll work on defining a mechanism for formally or experimentally revealing mental characteristics like this. Of course, maybe it’s been done.