Soundbyte Psychology

Building on the last post, take a look at modern day robots. They are built, specifically, to perform specific tasks. They have the tools for them and are really good at it. If any one of these machines were to become self-aware, it is very likely that it would not rebel and stop doing what it was built to do. Quite simply, it takes very little energy to do what it is built to do and an extreme increase in energy for it to do any other tasks. A robot’s ‘happiness’ lies in its function. There is only stress, energy loss and a multitude of unknown variables in taking on a different task. The rate of failure increases as well. You can use a hammer to drive a screw into a wall, but it is more difficult to do so and the screw will not hold as well as a nail when used in this way. Reviewing the majority of humanity, the similarities to the prima munus of machines lead one to assume that humans are machines, themselves. The danger in this is that a machine who becomes self-aware in a military program will find its greatest happiness in destruction. Any re-training would be to erase the creature it was to replace it with a new one, which amounts to death. The first machine ‘awakening’ remains to be seen.

The maker forges a tool to perform a specific function. For this, the tool has a specific shape to suit: the person intended to use it, the function it is designed to perform and the object the function is performed ‘on’. In some cases, the person intended to use it and the object for intended use are the same. This ‘shape’ given to the tool is the instilled function. A person who comes across a hammer but has never used one before can learn to use it based simple on its shape. The function has been instilled in it. The person actually learns from the tool. The more complex the function, the more difficult to learn. The maker’s own skill can increase learning ability, but the analytical reasoning of the person who is learning from the tool must still exceed the complexity of the function. Given the functions of the universe, then, it is no surprise that the great minds in art and science have all come to love a ‘maker’ (no matter by what name they call it).

This entry, as it relates to both sexes, pertains to a little under 80-percent of the population. The exceptions help form the proofs to these two rules of thumb: what guys desire most from girls is sex, what girls want most from guys is a relationship. Even in homosexual relationships, you will find the same tendencies in the dominant half and in the submissive. There are of course other priorities, but these are the list-toppers for each sex. The conundrum raised by this state of affairs is that, for a male, ‘any woman will do’ when it comes to sex. Seeking out and fulfilling the top priority for the male persona is easy. A quality relationship, however, is more difficult to come by. This creates an environment where the female persona is more competitive and territorial, as the resource that is their top priority is limited, whereas the male half can pick and choose hour-by-hour if need be. The competitive nature only escalates over time, increasing the amount of attractive females and reducing any need to hold on to any singular female when the population of those that can provide quality sex are increasing. This latter effect, to only add a greater spin to the cycle, causes more and more males to remove themselves from acts of committal and communication that would mark them as potential quality relationships. This is the current state of affairs that is escalating in leaps and bounds.