I feel compelled to chip in my two cents worth to the “I don’t understand women / men” discussion (initiated by Champagne Heathen last week). This topic crops up all too often when people feel frustrated by their apparent inability to tap into the inner clockwork of the opposite sex. I say “apparent”, because although this may be true (and let’s face it, there is absolutely no way on Google’s green earth that anyone is going to understand an entire gender), it tends to obscure the rather obvious fact that people are individuals.
You can construct statistical models until you’re blue in the face, but the moment you separate someone from the herd, that particular person will revert to individual behaviour. Add emotion to the mix and individual behaviour becomes inconsistent, unpredictable and sometimes downright fucking irrational. Although this is generally applicable to just about anyone you might encounter, it tends to be a whole lot more noticeable when you include the ek laaik jou stukkend+ factor.
The human ability to recognise patterns in a seemingly chaotic environment is how you make sense of your surroundings++, but it also means that you tend to see patterns that aren’t necessarily there+++. It depends on your focus.
Consequently, if you find yourself considering all the confusing things the past, present and potential objects of your affection have done (as one is wont to do), it’s all too tempting to squish them together under the heading “I don’t understand [insert gender of choice]”.
+ i.e. Rough translation: “We go bouncy-bouncy, yes?”
++ this goes some way towards explaining the popularity of Sudoku
+++ which pretty much explains religion