fuck, sorry. i don't know why i went off on that tangent. but anyways, until recently, i still found myself looking at the ground a lot when i walked. i didn't pick stuff up anymore because i didn't wanna end up like that guy from 'La Ficelle' (that's a lie, or at least euphemism for 'because i didn't want to look weird' because yeah i tell myself i don't care but fuck it, we all do). but i looked down more often than not, and let me digress for a second to tell you that your awareness of the seasons is heightened when you spend most of your time outside looking at the few square feet around your shoes, 'cos think about it: you REALLY notice the snow or the multicolored leaves or the crushed flowers. and even the fluctuations of all the different types of insects. nevertheless, a few weeks ago, i decided that i wanted to be more aware of the world around me. people, trees, buildings, whatever's out there. i figured looking around me would be the first step to becoming, you know, sorry to speak in such abstract terms but... to becoming the person i wanted to be.

so i designed this game. i'm a math-oriented person, so i figured it'd be about numbers. counting. but it had to have stakes, or there'd be no reason to play. i decided it'd be about probability--if my count came up too improbable, there'd be consequences. i don't quite remember the thought process that led me to here, otherwise i'd walk you through it, so i'll just jump right to what i decided: every day, i'd come up with something with a predictable distribution, and i'd count up the distribution that i came across, and if it was so improbable as to not be a result of chance, i'd have to... well, you know what i'd have to do. so, i started out simple. the male:female ratio at my school is 51:49, right? so i counted all the members of each gender i saw around and sure enough, the ratio came out to about that. i calculated the chi square to make sure and, you know, accepted the null hypothesis. the next day i counted races and compared to my school's released diversity data and, miraculously, my numbers came out to within the range of probability. i won't bore you with the other things i went through but every day my count came up accurate when compared to known data. i continued to use objective categories like gender, race, hair color, color or style of clothing, colors of cars.

yesterday, though, i decided to try something a little different. what if i did something subjective? what if i tried to categorize couples as in love or not in love? i thought i could do that pretty well, and i know you might doubt that, because how could this aspie kid who barely even pays attention to people know anything about social cues? but that's precisely why i figured i'd do a good job. the whole alien observer effect, you know? i could notice the subtle gestures that most people don't even perceive because they are so used to them.

so i made a two-column list of indicators: 'in love' vs. 'not in love'. i spent a while on it, trying to be fair (how could i tell if they were a couple in the first place, rather than just a guy and a girl walking together? i decided they had to be holding hands or lying on the green together. what if they were just in the process of an argument? i decided that a couple fighting loudly in public was not in love). i even watched some youtube videos of those those guys on TV who analyze celebrities' love lives based on their photos. 'social analysis experts' or whatever they call themselves. i came up with what i thought was a pretty reliable categorization system--it was as good as one can get, at least.

now i had to decide what my null hypothesis would be. 50% of couples get divorced, right? and the majority of them are in love originally. and it's not like these couples are all marriage-bound, but they see enough in each other to be dating rather than fuckbuddies, so... 50/50 would be an incredibly safe bet, right? enough to compensate for errors in my categorization system. this day would be different because i'd only 'lose' if my numbers were off in one direction. if MORE than 50% of the couples evaluated to 'in love', even an improbable amount, that'd fall within my range of acceptability.

it was Friday and i didn't have much work. and it was really nice out, too. so i figured i could spend a lot of the day outside on the green in order to get a large sample size. i think i spent nine hours out there total. i did some reading, but for the majority of the time, i was counting and recording. it was my biggest day so far, in terms of people-watching. i started picking up on some of the trends and what not. (why do all girls wear jeans tucked into their boots? seems uncomfortable. and what's with leggings? do they actually provide warmth?)

it got dark and i returned home to look at the data. my tally came out to 27 'in love' and 45 'not'. calculated the chi square. P came out to 2.25 + 2.25. 4.5. one degree of freedom. i held my breath. checked the chart. 5% chance of error due to randomness is 3.841 for one degree of freedom. fuck. 'reject null hypothesis,' i scrawled in my notebook. got the wrench and took it to my forearms. the game was over.

fun game. any of you have games you like to play?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1144358&forum_id=2#13330807)

btw,

your pumo is

1+2=

3?

2+3=

5?

3+5=

8?

8+5=

13?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1144358&forum_id=2#13340112)