[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

[sythyry]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

Thanks, truly, for everyone who answered my last post. I am trying to thrash this out, and I don’t have very many people around that I can safely talk to about it. I appreciate the discussion — I appreciate the direct challenge to some of my basic principles, even. I do not promise to agree with anything you say, but I will try to be an intellectually honest little lizard, and try to understand them at least.

I am not sure quite how to go about this, though.

There are at least two sensible approaches.

First, I might have mis-classified myself in my current (and correct) classification system. I had somewhat assumed that in my previous post, but many of you have challenged me on it, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this is the wrong question altogether.

Or Second, my current classification system might be incorrect, in a lesser or greater degree. (Example ‘lesser’: modify the definition of ‘traff’ to allow some same-species interest. Example ‘greater’: toss the whole thing out, and simply rank a person’s possible interest in each of the eight prime species on a scale from 1-12.)

But I can’t see all the way to picking a new classification system right now. Before that, I should at least try to think of what makes a good classification system. Here are a few thoughts from a distinctly dazed dragonet:

1. Conciseness: it has as few categories as possible.
2. Simplicity: Each category is well-described by a simple phrase.
3. Accuracy: it describes people well; in particular, nobody is in two categories.
4. Ethnocentricity: it makes sense in terms of prime people and culture
5. Canonicality: it is, in a sense that I cannot currently define, defined sensibly. (E.g., a system with “likes mammals” and “likes non-mammals” is more canonical than “likes Cani and Rassimel” and “likes the other six species”.)
6. Usefulness: it is useful, e.g., for telling who I should admit to Castle Wrong on the basis of romantic preferences.

Bearing in mind that my current system scores well on all of these save, perhaps, accuracy. [Bard adds 'and canonicality' for reasons of its own. -bb]

Addendum: Tarfnie

(Tarfnie’s situation was rather more complicated than it might have seemed from my brief description. The Considerable Drama part of it include a number of regrettable incidents from nearly everyone involved, and I might have expelled Tarfnie — or Yowdon — on the basis of violence. The observation that Tarfnie was not traff and Yowdon was did help my decision. One or both of them had to go, though. I grant that several aspects of the situation continue to trouble me, and that I did not behave particularly well myself: but it was not so simple or wicked as discovering that Tarfnie was cissy and immediately tossing him out.)

Comments

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

A concept with a certain undeniable elegance, but I am afraid I don't know what to do with it. And are those the only axes one might wish to consider? What of, say, "passive" to "aggressive" (in the sense of, some people tend to have passes made at them, and others tend to make passes)? Or "asexual" to "intensely sexual" (some people don't mind going for a few decades without a lover; others find it a hardship to go a few days without.) Or many others, I suppose, that one might want to know.

This approach is a triumph of accuracy and usefulness over simplicity and conciseness. But I seek to balance them.

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

Well if you wanted to you could try to quantify a potential lover as a point in n-dimensional space, where n is a number larger than fourteen because you've let yourself come up with far too many axes. And not so much classify them as points but as clouds, as areas that they wander around in.

but mostly my point is that you need to disconnect the 'cis/transaffectionate' axis from the 'capable of loyalty' one.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Quit talking like a locador demon! n-dimensional space and all that! ick!

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Ah! I understand better, I think.

[alex-muridae.livejournal.com]

Keep talking like a Locodor demon; it's delightfully clear and, I find, an attractive quality. ^^

Having said that, I'm intrigued by the idea of expanding the concept from points to clouds; surely that would increase accuracy but decrease simplicity, right?

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

Sir, are you flirting with me?

[alex-muridae.livejournal.com]

I am certainly paying you a compliment, and teasing Gavin as a secondary goal!

I don't think flirting was my first intent, but I do not leave off the possibility. However, it is my general policy not to flirt with anyone I do not know well, and more so, I like to have some inkling as to if they would appreciate said flirting. Now, if you wish me to flirt, I can certainly do so, but I would prefer some conversation beforehand, flirting or no. You will have to forgive me if that is a high cost to ask; conversation is a lost art, and therefore quite the delicacy. ^^

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

At its simplest level, the same-species vs other-species axis can work much as your current notion of traff vs cis, so long as you're willing to accept some variance. That is where your rigid model fails - it trains the mind to not even accept that there might be crossover.

You can loosely class people into cisaffectionate, transaffectionate, and, say, panaffectionate(capable of affection for any of the prime species - not sure if there would be a better prefix), and get a general idea of how to treat people based on that. The advantage of thinking of it as a position on an axis is that even if you assign a cut-off value, it encourages the thought that it's not actually discrete, that there is a sliding scale. You can use the cut-off values as useful guidelines, without being quite so sidelined when someone straddles them.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

Addendum: Yes, you can consider multiple variables, like how sexual they are and how sexually aggressive they are. But that's something that's lacking in your current system, too. Don't overload it, or you won't ever be able to come up with something adequate. Consider the values independently. Thinking along axes in general can help you to avoid the false duality trap - but also remember that a person's position on any of those axes is not entirely fixed, but might shift over time, usually subtly, but sometimes dramatically if they have a suitable life experience.