I have a theory that what I’m going to call “standard issue humans” are kind of like the Borg. They have a part of their brain that is devoted to and specialized in sending and receiving social signals. Furthermore, their brain does not distinguish between “local resources” and “network resources”. For many of their ways of thinking, they are utterly dependent on their network resources, and don’t really realize why their thinking is “incomplete” when they are alone. They just feel the anxiety of resources not answering system calls.
For us, either we lack this node, or we have it but it’s just unreliable, like a wifi router with a busted antenna. Either way, we have been forced to mature in a fashion that does not rely on network resources. When we do need to communicate with the outside, we have to rely on software emulation and creative use of other hardware. Either way, it is a slow and alien way to move information, and so we absolutely do distinguish between local and network resources.
This affects friendship. “Normal” friendship is like Data’s (Star Trek: TNG) idea of friendship. They become accustomed to regular communication with another node, to the point where that node becomes indistinguishable from local resources. Many parts make system calls to this node. When this node becomes unavailable for an extended period of time, the absence is nearly as traumatic as the absence of a limb. This being the common experience, failure to “keep in touch” can be seen as an act of supreme carelessness, if not aggression. It is also potential evidence that you are not as integrated into their system as they are into yours.
But for us, just establishing communications protocols is an awkward and painful process, so we rarely do it. Even when we do, we grow accustomed to long absences, due simply to the extremely slow bandwidth and irregularity of contact inherent in how our external communications work. We do integrate people, we just don’t do it as often. But when we do, it is normal for us for contact to be sporadic and unreliable, simply due to poor signal. So “network resources” are flagged as such, and such a resource “going dark” for extended periods of time is normal. Resumption after long periods of time is also normal.
I love this. Finally someone else who can explain this in my language. The human brain really is a sort of extremely advanced computer, after all. So networking analogies like this really do make sense.
I have a theory that what I’m going to call “standard issue humans” are kind of like the Borg. They have a part of their brain that is devoted to and specialized in sending and receiving social signals. Furthermore, their brain does not distinguish between “local resources” and “network resources”. For many of their ways of thinking, they are utterly dependent on their network resources, and don’t really realize why their thinking is “incomplete” when they are alone. They just feel the anxiety of resources not answering system calls.
For us, either we lack this node, or we have it but it’s just unreliable, like a wifi router with a busted antenna. Either way, we have been forced to mature in a fashion that does not rely on network resources. When we do need to communicate with the outside, we have to rely on software emulation and creative use of other hardware. Either way, it is a slow and alien way to move information, and so we absolutely do distinguish between local and network resources.
This affects friendship. “Normal” friendship is like Data’s (Star Trek: TNG) idea of friendship. They become accustomed to regular communication with another node, to the point where that node becomes indistinguishable from local resources. Many parts make system calls to this node. When this node becomes unavailable for an extended period of time, the absence is nearly as traumatic as the absence of a limb. This being the common experience, failure to “keep in touch” can be seen as an act of supreme carelessness, if not aggression. It is also potential evidence that you are not as integrated into their system as they are into yours.
But for us, just establishing communications protocols is an awkward and painful process, so we rarely do it. Even when we do, we grow accustomed to long absences, due simply to the extremely slow bandwidth and irregularity of contact inherent in how our external communications work. We do integrate people, we just don’t do it as often. But when we do, it is normal for us for contact to be sporadic and unreliable, simply due to poor signal. So “network resources” are flagged as such, and such a resource “going dark” for extended periods of time is normal. Resumption after long periods of time is also normal.
I love this. Finally someone else who can explain this in my language. The human brain really is a sort of extremely advanced computer, after all. So networking analogies like this really do make sense.
I like this analogy. It captures the concept quite well and easy to understand :D