What’s next, blog dinners?!
I managed to restrain myself from blogging for the past few hours, because I've definately evolved from experimental blogger into part-of-daily-schedule blogger. It's unsettling, I'm fighting the urge to add a "to blog" folder to my Personal Bookmarks Toolbar. What's next, blog dinners?!
I'm ok with this realisation, provided I maintain a certain level of originality to justify the time spent. But now it happened again, and I feel the need to ask again, but with more depth this time.
...and it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that this is not just "Something That Happened." This cannot be "One of those things...". This, please, cannot be that. And for what I would like to say, I can't. This was not just A Matter Of Chance.
I should probably mention beforehand, that I have a subconscious habit of finding mathematical equations around me. It's not as complicated as you think, or in anyway lending towards Pi or Phi: without thinking, I make sums with random numbers or try make sense of them in some way or another. For example: take a car number plate, and rearrange the numbers into a valid arithmetic solution. I don't know why, it's just something I enjoy doing. Problem solving and all that.
So it started when I first arrived in London. I'd glance at the time, and on the odd occasion it would be 12:34. A nicely arranged sequence of minutes and hours.
I never thought anything of it, until it started happening more regularly. Eventually, just about every second day. Today, it happenened twice, first on my notebook and then 3 minutes later on my cellphone. Which made me ask myself, (a) how often do I check the time in a day, considering I don't own a watch?, and (b) considering this can happen 14 times a week, but only for a minute at a time, is it happening only because I want it to?
There are other examples I could use to further explain that second question. You notice someone waiting for your morning bus or train. The next morning, by chance, you see them. And from then on, you recognize them almost weekly. But have you ever stopped to think, out of all the people sharing your schedule, who you could coincide with on any particular morning, are you noticing this person only because you choose to? If you made a point of noticing everybody, every morning, what's the probability that it would happen with them too?
I tried this with the time, using 11:11, without success.
UPDATE: Moments after posting the above blog, I changed to Thunderbird to check it in my RSS feed. This is what I saw. I've fixed the GMT times in my feeds, I think.
- leave a comment
11 Comments
I count stairs …. I once counted the number of steps I took on an entire day-long hike in the drakensburg. If you like numbers you should look up a particularly interesting variety… lychrel numbers
Dude, you just think that you’re always looking at the time when its showing coincidental numbers. The reality is that you probably glance at the time a thousand times a day but your attention is only drawn to it when the numbers displayed are interesting.
It’s a psychological function refered to as ‘monitoring’. Technically it’s the fact that you’re brain is sifting through loads of crap every second, but only makes you consciously aware of something when it stands out as being important or worthwhile. Kind of like when you veg out when driving and then all of a sudden realize you’ve gone 10 miles while in a daydream. It’s all monitoring. If something important happened during your daydream (like a red light or stop sign) your brain would have snapped you out of your current state to deal with it.
In the same way it says… ‘he look, there’s funny numbers on the clock this time around!’ and all of a sudden you’re aware of it. You just aren’t aware of the zillion other times you’ve looked at the clock and it’s been something like 16:57 – although you were probably subconsciously aware of the time.
That’s all for today class. Please remember to read Skinners’ theory of behavioural conditioning for next weeks lesson.
So then by that explanation I should be able to look at the clock and notice 11:11 as many times as I’ve noticed 12:34, right?
Something like that. For some bizare reason I always notice the clock when it shows 9:11.
And typing that has left blotching raspberry jam marks on my keyboard. Damnit I hate typing over brekkers.
You psychology students are so full of crap it makes me sick in the head. Ian, do you know why you look at the clock when it says 9:11? THAT IS BECAUSE I AM CONTROLLING YOUR MIND AND YOU MUST NOW HIT YOURSELF IN THE CROTCH. CODA, HIT IAN IN THE CROTCH NEXT TIME YOU SEE HIM. THAT GOES FOR ALL THE REST OF YOU TOO. Ian, when everyone is hitting you in the crotch it is only a coincidence.
I agree that you won’t remember all those times you looked at your watch and the numbers were irrelevant… which is what I tell anyone who says “that can’t just be a coincidence”, having said this I still agree that someone deserves to me hit in the crotch !
Hey Damien – came across this article a while back that relates to this:
“Familiar Strangers” – http://www.thefeature.com...
Really impressed with your photography, awesome stuff (hope it’s okay for me to link to your CT flickr photoset on about my about CT section.)
Ciao
Simon
PS I once had the experience of everytime I checked out my digital watch back in school when it read 7:47 (am & pm). Happened about 6 times that week. Freaked me out because my Dad was flying overseas around soon…
Thanks Simon, for the link and feedback. Although are you sure that’s the correct link?
How awesome are TheFeature.com’s icons, though! Wow.
TheFeature’s article is a bit dense reading actually…Check out this then, from Intel’s sandpit at Berkeley, for a more succint treatment of it.
The Familiar Stranger is a social phenomenon first addressed by the psychologist Stanley Milgram in his 1972 essay on the subject. Familiar Strangers are individuals that we regularly observe but do not interact with. By definition a Familiar Stranger (1) must be observed, (2) repeatedly, and (3) without any interaction. The claim is that the relationship we have with these Familiar Strangers is indeed a real relationship in which both parties agree to mutually ignore each other, without any implications of hostility. A good example is a person that one sees on the subway every morning. If that person fails to appear, we notice.
Familiar Strangers form a border zone between people we know and the completely unknown strangers we encounter once and never see again. While we are bound to the people we know by a circle of social reciprocity, no such bond exists between us and complete strangers. Familiar Strangers buffer the middle ground between these two relationships. Because we encounter them regularly in familiar settings, they establish our connection to individual places.
Very cool design, I’ve been watching them grow that site. Funded by Nokia for independent thinking around mobile. Clever strategy.
ciao
simon
Simon,
I’m actually reading Milgram’s book “The individual in Social World” at the moment (it’s a collection of essays, the “Familiar Stranger” being one of them) – very interesting reading, makes you think about why you think about things (locations, specifically) in certain ways!
Leave a Comment
Your e-mail address is required, but will not be published.
19 January 2005
Martin10:17 am
I’m reading “The Individual in a Social World” at the moment… Apparently, it’s scientifically proven that the inclination for “familiar strangers” (such as those who see each other every morning) to greet each other increases in direct relation to the distance from their usual meeting spot. Funnily enough, at the usual spot, it’s never likely to go past a knowing nod…