The Naked Rule

You know when you go in the locker room how it always seems like the other dude (or dudette) there has the locker right next to you? Definitely confirmation bias but you know what I’m talking about.

Anyways, assuming you both get there at the same time, around the same age give or take a few years, and everything else that might factor in are equivalent, whoever drops trou first 100% has control over the area. Just planting the man flag—all others be warned. The question now is what is the appropriate course of action?

No matter which way you look at it, homophobia is a strong force in the locker room right up there with intense body odor, and it’s more than just, “Oh, I’m gonna stand far away because I’m not gay and I don’t want to see that.” That's only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. It’s also that you don’t want to come off as gay by standing too close (not that there’s anything wrong with that) anndddd you’re concerned that he might be gay, effectively leading to unwanted flirtation. It’s triple threat of homoquestionality so keep your distance to protect yourself. Keep in mind this could be right up your alley (especially if you’re working out in the San Francisco Gay Area) in which case you should use the Naked Rule for your manvantage. Saddle up right next to someone readying himself for nudity—it’s always best if you can pick the immediately adjacent locker to ensure the closest, reasonable contact. Now comes the hard part…. get it? Hard. You have to try your damndest to mirror each action. Shirts off, shirts off. Socks off, socks off. Thong off, etc. Make sure both parties reach birthday suit status at the same time to blow out the candles and, most importantly, position your body at a cocked angle, 45 degrees facing towards the lockers, in the target’s direction. This is sure to get a rise out of the fellow locker roommate, for better or for worse.

This happened to me today and, since I was leaving the gym, I wasn’t getting to get naked at all so I lost the race and ultimately had to pack my bag on the far bench, reaching across the raw beans and weenie when he allowed me. Take care of yourself, and take care of each other.

-- Spiderman

* Note: edited by JMH

The Importance of Sexual Orientation

I know what you’re thinking: Havel’s about to drop some knowledge on the relative merits of being straight vs. gay, maybe throwing in some ‘big picture’ consequences on modern day society but mainly sticking to the biological interpretation of rampant butt piracy. Or maybe he’s going to highlight the obvious notion that homo gets along better with homo and hetero with hetero. Wrong and wrong. After all, this is a forum for exploring the overlooked subtleties of everyday social interaction— anything lesser would be a waste of everyone’s precious time. No, what I put forth is the necessity to consider the proximity and relative positioning of man and woman in a group environment. Let me explain.

Whilst visiting the wonderful city of New York, I found myself conversing with four old friends at a standard square table, one side benches, one side chairs. Although this particular situation was pairs facing each other across, what I’m about to say applies to the individual, four-sided scenario. Because those involved were friends at varying degrees, some much closer than others, I would have expected conversation to be lopsided— favoring the one who knew the other three the best. In this case that role was filled by yours truly. As it turned out, however, interactions flowed freely with little to no awkwardness and effortless topical transitions. I postulate that this success is due directly to the sexual orientation, namely alternating male and female going around the table.

Having a guy next to two girls and vice versa, a girl sandwiched between guys, keeps all parties deeply interested because, let’s be honest here, everyone’s usually looking to get some. With the options of meaningful one-on-one conversations immediately left and right, pressure is taken off the table, leaving room for unbounded flirting or feigned interest, depending on the situation. Having opposite-sex options close at hand also allows the freedom to play the conversations off each other. Nothing brings out jealousy and carnal desire like purposefully ignoring someone and then turning your full attention to them at the right time. It’s like an alley-oop out of left field— in yo face, panties dropping. The second value added from alternating sexes is the necessary back-up plan of the bro across way. With a go-to guy splitting the table you have an automatic out of any conversation and, as will be explained in a separate but equal post, hitting the hypotenuse in a conversation is an automatic trump over lesser side conversations and is the most effective way to gather attention for either light-hearted banter, game changing information, or motivating towards domination.

Trust me children, this never fails. If you ever catch yourself saddled up next to the same sex, make the decisive moves so you don’t end up vacationing to brokeback mountain, population dude.

Why Conversation Geometry?

-- an unnecessarily scattered, academic perspective

As a species, the human’s awareness of consciousness is entirely cerebral. Neuronal structures and pathways are created through experience, which, in turn, determines future action, thoughts, and emotions. In a sense, we are defined strictly by our past experiences and those of them our mind has deemed “important.” This importance can come through emotional attachment (stimulation of amygdala), sheer repetition (those wired together fire together à the idea of pushing synapses over threshold), or embedded instinctive qualities.

Following this point of view, it is necessary to define the purpose of life. The first and foremost purpose is, in fact, life itself. There is no ulterior motive to our existence, no requirement to help others are lead “fulfilling” lives, only to be. The logical step beyond this is then that a good life is one that maximizes pleasure or happiness. The beauty of this blanket statement is that it effectively takes into account the relativity and subjectivity associated which differentiates individuals. For some, providing humanitarian aid or extreme selflessness gives them pleasure and self-satisfaction. For others, achieving a high score in a video game or playing sports provides the same level of pleasure. That being said, there are universal, biological habits that are highlighted based on satisfaction including sex and satiation of hunger. Maximizing personal success in life is directly correlated with maximizing pleasure.

A metaphorical parallel that can be drawn with the aforementioned concepts is one involving the game of poker. While most people automatically discard the game as gambling, others consider it a game of skill where long-term winnings are based on long-term probabilities such that the best players, although possible to lose in some games, will eventually end up on top and ensure positive returns. To further highlight the skill aspect of the game, I have heard some professional players say that if they can read people well enough they can play without even looking at their cards. Their bets are chosen based on the respective probabilities associated with the cards on the table and the bets of the other players. If one can know what cards the other players at the table have, the luck aspect of the game is eliminated as he or she has a clear advantage. In life, like with poker, knowing what metaphorical “cards” people are playing gives a huge advantages and allows a person to make their best “play.” As morbid as it seems, getting ahead in life is pretty much straight up manipulation. Those that are able to manipulate or hack the system of society make the best decisions for themselves and automatically give themselves advantages in any situation. Therefore, it goes to show that mastery of the abilities to read people and manipulate situations are arguably the most important. One sub-discipline that aggregates these ideas is conversation, the primary focus of this emerging social science.

As a social science of sorts, Conversation Geometry is largely, if not entirely, centered around social interaction. Social interaction can be achieved in many ways whether it be body language, physical touch, or verbal communication. In each case, however, there exists an underlying base of conversation. Conversation by this definition could then be a simple nod to someone across the room, a high five in passing, or a discussion of a new study over a meal. A strong grasp and understanding of conversation nuances will lead to more effective conveyance of information as well as increases in general satisfaction and pleasure. Imagine if every time you meet someone you can stimulate interesting conversation and make everyone involved happy. Conversation geometry focuses specifically on how physical properties affect and determine social interactions. This ranges from the orientation of seating at a table to how you arrange your own body language in relation to others. As you can imagine, there are seemingly countless sub-levels that contribute to conversation geometry. Hopefully, through open discussion and contribution, these sub-levels can eventually be identified and utilized for everyone’s benefit.

-- jhavster

A "Prop"-position: a propositional position on props

For years conversationalists have enlisted the use of props to aid in their soliloquies. Prince Hamlet’s legendary skull, Stephen Hawking’s voicebox, and General Patton’s whipping stick have unmistakably been used to deepen the meaning of their speeches. Like a painter’s brushstrokes, the use of an outside object can effectively turn a ho-hum point into a BAM! moment.

Much like gesticulation, the role of props in everyday conversation cannot be overlooked. In fact, one might go so far as to say that tools are mere extensions of dramatic gestures. When at first one might passively ignore someone’s motives, with doohickey in hand, that simply is no longer plausibly possible.

Allow me to present an argument in support: Oddjob, a funny little Bond villain. Though undoubtedly strong, normal comments from this near-dwarf are all too often scoffed at. With deadly hat in hand, however, this all changes. Knowing he is on the ready to severely sever your cervix, one has to perk up and listen with fear at his demands.

Although many of the scenarios that come to mind deal with props as a demonic tool in conversations, one mustn’t forget alternative impacts. One of my personal favorites is the use of fruit, in particular an apple. No matter how one bites into his/her apple during conversation, the receiving end cannot help but feel that they are in the presence of a pompous individual: “Sure… (chomp)… I totally agree (eyes roll)…”. Or perhaps the use of one’s finger in use of the always influential, albeit nagging, prodding prodigy: “I’ll tell you what (poke… prod) mister (poke 2…poke 3), I sure ain’t listening to your bulls%#$ (prod 2, prod 3, prod 4, prod 5) anymore…”. And the always popular decoy prop: “So I’m at the grocery store the other day (and how does this mangled baby’s hand fit in) and I see the price of cheese is…”.

Though I encourage all to use props, one must follow a few basic guidelines. Firstly, please limit props to being held with one’s hands (all other extremities offer little for non-paraplegics). Secondly, for the average non-pirate, shoulder pets are just weird. And finally, be safe with your props – we don’t want to lose an arm and a leg over a conversation. Follow these simple rules and choose your prop carefully and any jargon that comes out of your mouth will instantly be a little more provocative.

Ashley Miller

outside References

Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers

Practical intelligence includes things like “knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for the maximum.” It is procedural: it is about knowing how to do something without necessarily knowing why you know it or being able to explain it. It’s practical in nature: that is, it’s not knowledge for its own sake. It’s knowledge that helps you read situations correctly and get what you want.

_______________________________________

Big Dan in “O’ Brother Where Art Thou?”

The one thing you don’t want… is air in the conversation.

Thank you, as well, for the conversational hiatus. I generally refrain from speech during gestation. There are those who attempt both at the same time… I find it coarse and vulgar.

the "article"

-- deadly distraction or useful utensil?

In the past I have been on both sides of this heated debate. Say you're in the dining hall, or the bar, or anyplace else where the focus is predominantly on the conversation. Then someone, seemingly out of complete boredom, whips out the newspaper or his laptop, or a porno magazine (in will's case) and starts to give most of their attention to that instead of the person or people they are talking to. A knee jerk reaction from the other conversationalists could be anywhere from confusion to anger, to physical violence, and all would seem justified; The listener thought them so boring as to tune them out in favor of an inanimate object. This is the kind of thing that conversation geometry preaches as a cardinal sin; something that disrupts the natural flow of a pure conversation between people, and it is the kind of touchy signal that can turn a casual friend into an acquainted, and an acquaintance into an enemy.

I would like to take this opportunity to make an argument in favor of the "article," or as I will from here on call it, the conversation stimulus package. First, it is important to consider the situation. If there is a conversation ephemeral enough that a mid-convo read-session is an option, it is probably not that important/meaningful of a discussion to begin with, and one that will surely not be remembered. In addition, if the person or people you are talking with are so easily bruised emotionally by you pulling out a periodical and reading it in front of them that they don't want to be friends with you anymore, then maybe you should get some friends who aren't huge pussies. And if someone is getting really annoyed by you reading, then their anger should not be directed at you as much as at themselves or the situation for providing such infertile soil for a good conversation to grow. Once the initial anger or annoyance is over, however, the real growth can begin. As always, the first step to solving something is admitting you have a problem to begin with., and your problem is lack of stimulating conversation.

This is how the conversation stimulus package can be a boon, not a boor, to any conversation: Substance. So many conversations with friends and others are limited by the asinine bullshit that is small talk.

"how are you?"

"good how about you?"

"good as well... how was your summer (Jared)"

"Good, how about your classes?"

"good, blah, blah, blah.."

Mindless and futile. The only thing that matches the boredom of such a conversation is it's futility in uncovering any useful or interesting information about the other person. Yeah they went to France for break and they saw the Eiffel tower, I want to know if they Eiffel towered any chicks while they were there, and that is not going to be uncovered in that boring "standard" conversation model.

The point of the stimulus is to shape the conversation and get behind the facade that we all put up because we assume (most of the time rightly) that no one cares what we are actually thinking about.

The key to properly applying the article is getting everyone engaged. If you are reading today's paper, ask them about what they feel about current events, and not just the normal dumbass questions, really get them engaged, share your thoughts, dig deeper than the cover story, present them with unexpected facts to get them to start thinking, maybe they have something interesting to say about that, if not, then move on until you find a topic everyone can resonate with. The same premise applies with whatever you're reading, from the wall street journal to juggs, from american science to a vagina care handout from the health center. Any article can be the catalyst of a hilarious and thought provoking conversation in the hands of a skilled reader.

So the next time you sit at a table and someone is reading a book or looking at a magazine, don't shy away from them and assume they want to be left alone. Engage them. Ask them "what are you reading?" See if you can start up a conversation. it might be more fun then you think, and hey, you never know, you just might learn something...

BERD

the Junda Ratio

If you’ve kept up with the exciting new developments in the field of conversation geometry as I have, you are surely salivating over the juicy thoughts of what is to come. However, another similarity we may have is the desire for a more unifying theory. Sure, we’ve presented plenty of ideas for you to mull over while you have much better things to be doing, but what happens when you encounter a conversation configuration that has not yet been catalogued by our visionary researchers. Well, what I present to you is a much anticipated theory that attempts to provide a more general look at the complex web of conversations we seem to ensnare ourselves in with uncanny regularity.

The Junda Ratio is quite simply put as the ratio of the perimeter of the conversation divided by the area enclosed by the conversation. Now, I know you are probably thinking, “how could a conversation possibly enclose an area?” The way I define area here is the area of the (quite possibly irregular and sometimes concave) polygon created by connecting each member of a conversation with a straight line. Then, obviously, the perimeter of this conversation is defined as the sum of the lengths of all of the aforementioned line segments.

The main principle behind this theory is that minimizing the perimeter to area ratio will ensure that, on the whole, members of a conversation are physically as close as possible to each other. It also ensures that there is a reasonably even distribution of people across the conversation. A brief look at the implications of this theory suggests that a circular table has the best conversation geometry of any configuration because it has the smallest possible Junda ratio. This seems to be in agreement with my common sense, boding well for the longevity of this theory.

MMJ