Hello Curious Friend. Welcome to my book about Hate. The number tells you where you are in the sequence. I look forward to your comments.
Actors and Audience (Continued)
That’s it. Three friends, three choices. So, to use our first hate play as our guide, the first time they went to the store Oscar got three apples, Sierra bought two, and Tango bought one: O (observer) > S (source) > T (target).
The next time they went to the store, Oscar bought one and Sierra and Tango each bought two. So in this case, O < S = T.
Here’s what we do next. We can make a table showing every possible combination of apple purchases for our three shoppers.
It looks like this:
O: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
S: 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
T: 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Look down each column and you’ll see every possible combination of apples for each of our shopping friends. Notice how Tango’s row changes every column, while Oscar’s row changes only every 9 positions. In this way we can see that we end up with 27 different combinations of friends and apples.
So where are the 13 we talked about? Here’s where they are. Turns out that for our relative purposes, we only care if someone’s pedestal is higher relative to the others. This means, for our purposes, we don’t care if Tango has 3 or 2 apples as long as he has more than the others. So for us, 3 > 2 = 2 is exactly the same as 3 > 1 = 1 and 2 > 1 = 1. In each case Tango is higher than the others, who are equal to each other.
That’s the important element. We removed 2 combinations, so what was 27 becomes 25. To make our job easier, here’s a list of all the unique combinations. I’m doing my best to spare you boring details, the good news is that there aren’t that many to worry about.
- O = S = T
- O = S < T
- O = S > T
- O = T < S
- O = T > S
- O > S = T
- T > O > S
- S > O > T
- O > T > S
- O > S > T
- O < S = T
- O < S < T
- O < T < S
This means there’s a total of 13 basic hate situations for us to consider. This fact may make you think that our job of solving hate within our lifetimes is doable.
Alas, I don’t want to leave you with that impression. Yes, using a bit of math and basic logic simplifies our task, but that doesn’t make the task easy.
One more factor needs to be discussed, and it may be the most confounding of them all. It’s more confounding than discerning harmful intent in the mind of our source. And it’s more confounding than cataloging the biases inherent in our actors.
It’s even more confounding than attempting to discern their motives, or determining with confidence their levels with respect to one another. This most confounding factor involves defining the individual we’re analyzing.
To be continued …