Hypermys Theory
Hypersensible - is "the meaning, packed in the archive." Hidden in those or other character constructions so that the rule is fulfilled: the more you peer, the more you see. What is it for?
Firstly, for the same reason for which any other dense packages, archives, etc. are needed. solutions. To "say little, say a lot." That is, "save space" and "achieve your own not with mass but with concentration." Secondly, for marketing purposes - to make the user “sticky”: the more time he spends studying your offer, the (other things being equal) the more likely he will accept it. Of course, this works up to a certain limit (and with a number of reservations), but for those who go beyond this limit, the problems of a different plan, with hypersmixes, are usually not related.
Hyperminds are not an invention of our time - in fact, almost any complex sense can be regarded as hypersmision. "Beauty in the eyes of the beholder" Oscard Wilde. There is also a classic story about a student, a professor, and alcoholic fish.
(long, shown here with a slight abbreviation)
More than 15 years ago, I entered the university at the Faculty of Natural Sciences. On the first day I went to the professor's laboratory. He asked me a few questions about the purpose of my income, expectations, and where I thought to apply the knowledge that I would receive at the university. I was interested in zoology, especially the life of insects, which I told the professor about. “When do you want to start?” Asked the professor. “Right now,” I exclaimed enthusiastically. It seems that he liked my answer because, having said vigorously “very well”, the professor immediately took a large vessel with dried fish in a yellowish liquid from the shelf. “Take this fish,” he said, “and examine it carefully. It is called chemulon. After a while, let's see what you saw in it. ” He left these words, but returned a minute later with detailed instructions on how to handle the subject matter. “Only one person can be a real naturalist,” he said, “who knows how to handle research subjects.”
')
On that first day, I carefully examined the fish for 10 minutes and went in search of a professor who, as it turned out, had already left the museum. I wandered among the strange animals kept on the top floor, and returned to my fish, which by then was completely dry. I splashed more liquid on her, as if trying to take her out of a swoon, and watched with excitement as she began to take on her former brilliant appearance. A little excitement receded and I had no choice but to return to the observation of my silent companion. Half an hour passed, an hour, another hour. The fish became hateful to me. I turned her several times, looked into her eyes, looked at her stomach, sides, tail. I was desperate; and although it was not dinner time, I decided that I was hungry, and with a sense of relief put the fish back into the vessel. For an hour I was free.
When I returned, I was told that the professor was at the museum, but he had already left and would return only after a few hours. My friends were too busy to chat with me. And I had to return to my “dearest” fish. With a sense of doom, I stared at her again. There were no instruments in the room, not even a magnifying glass. My hands, my eyes, and the fish — I was only limited by this. With my own finger, I tried the sharpness of fish teeth, began to count them and caught myself thinking that I was doing nonsense. Finally, an interesting thought occurred to me to draw a fish. In the process of drawing, I was surprised to begin to notice new details. It was during this occupation that the professor found me.
“That's right,” he said, “a pencil is one of the best eyes. I am also pleased to see that the observed object is kept wet and the bottle is clogged. ” After these words of approval, he added: “Well, how?” The professor listened attentively to my report on the parts of the fish whose names were still unknown to me: the eyes and eyes, the lateral line, the vertebral fin, the forked tail, the compressor form. When I finished, he paused, as if he expected more, and then with a sigh of disappointment he said: “You were not very attentive. You have not noticed one of the most distinctive features of the object, which is in front of your very nose. See more. Look again! ”And he left me in complete confusion.
I was crushed, destroyed. In this nasty fish there was something else that I did not notice. And I set about the task with the firm intention to see everything. After a while, I discovered a few more features. The criticism of the professor was fair. The second half of the day passed unnoticed. At the end of the day, a professor appeared and asked: “Have you seen already?” “No,” I replied, “not yet, but I realized how little I had seen before.” “This is almost the most important,” the professor said seriously, “today I will not listen to you. Set aside the fish and go home. Maybe in the morning you can give a better answer. I will ask you before you continue your observations of the fish. ” I didn't really like this idea. This meant that I not only had to think about this fish all night, thinking about what an obvious distinctive feature was, but also, the next morning, without refreshing my observations, I had to give a full account of them. And I did not differ by good memory. Therefore, I wandered home in great frustration.
The professor's cordial welcome the next morning was a little comforting. It seemed he really wanted me to see what he saw in that fish. “Maybe you meant that,” I asked, “that the fish has a symmetrical structure with paired organs?” His inspired “Exactly!” Was a reward for the sleepless hours of last night. After he enthusiastically told me about the importance of this fact, I dared to ask what I had to do next. “Well, of course, look at the fish,” he said, and left me alone with my object of study. An hour later, he came back to listen to my new catalog. “Good, very good,” he repeated, “but that's not all. Keep watching. ” And so for three long days he put a fish in front of me, forbidding me to look at anything else or use any tools.
On the fourth day of my first study, next to the first fish, the professor placed the second fish of the same group. And I was asked to point out the similarities and differences between them; then one more and another one added to them, until the whole family lay before me, and a whole legion of jaws filled the table and the surrounding shelves. The stench has turned into a pleasant smell and even now the sight of old 15-centimeter, half eaten traffic jams evokes pleasant memories.
Thus, I studied the entire family of chemulons, their internal organs and bone structure. And in everything, even in the description of the parts, I remembered that in the method of observing the facts that I used, the most important thing was not to stop at what was achieved and what was seen, but to watch again and again. “Facts are very necessary in order,” the professor used to say, “in order to deduce a generalizing law.” Eight months later, I reluctantly left these friends and began working with insects. But the experience I gained was more valuable to me than years of further research in my favorite groups.
')
On that first day, I carefully examined the fish for 10 minutes and went in search of a professor who, as it turned out, had already left the museum. I wandered among the strange animals kept on the top floor, and returned to my fish, which by then was completely dry. I splashed more liquid on her, as if trying to take her out of a swoon, and watched with excitement as she began to take on her former brilliant appearance. A little excitement receded and I had no choice but to return to the observation of my silent companion. Half an hour passed, an hour, another hour. The fish became hateful to me. I turned her several times, looked into her eyes, looked at her stomach, sides, tail. I was desperate; and although it was not dinner time, I decided that I was hungry, and with a sense of relief put the fish back into the vessel. For an hour I was free.
When I returned, I was told that the professor was at the museum, but he had already left and would return only after a few hours. My friends were too busy to chat with me. And I had to return to my “dearest” fish. With a sense of doom, I stared at her again. There were no instruments in the room, not even a magnifying glass. My hands, my eyes, and the fish — I was only limited by this. With my own finger, I tried the sharpness of fish teeth, began to count them and caught myself thinking that I was doing nonsense. Finally, an interesting thought occurred to me to draw a fish. In the process of drawing, I was surprised to begin to notice new details. It was during this occupation that the professor found me.
“That's right,” he said, “a pencil is one of the best eyes. I am also pleased to see that the observed object is kept wet and the bottle is clogged. ” After these words of approval, he added: “Well, how?” The professor listened attentively to my report on the parts of the fish whose names were still unknown to me: the eyes and eyes, the lateral line, the vertebral fin, the forked tail, the compressor form. When I finished, he paused, as if he expected more, and then with a sigh of disappointment he said: “You were not very attentive. You have not noticed one of the most distinctive features of the object, which is in front of your very nose. See more. Look again! ”And he left me in complete confusion.
I was crushed, destroyed. In this nasty fish there was something else that I did not notice. And I set about the task with the firm intention to see everything. After a while, I discovered a few more features. The criticism of the professor was fair. The second half of the day passed unnoticed. At the end of the day, a professor appeared and asked: “Have you seen already?” “No,” I replied, “not yet, but I realized how little I had seen before.” “This is almost the most important,” the professor said seriously, “today I will not listen to you. Set aside the fish and go home. Maybe in the morning you can give a better answer. I will ask you before you continue your observations of the fish. ” I didn't really like this idea. This meant that I not only had to think about this fish all night, thinking about what an obvious distinctive feature was, but also, the next morning, without refreshing my observations, I had to give a full account of them. And I did not differ by good memory. Therefore, I wandered home in great frustration.
The professor's cordial welcome the next morning was a little comforting. It seemed he really wanted me to see what he saw in that fish. “Maybe you meant that,” I asked, “that the fish has a symmetrical structure with paired organs?” His inspired “Exactly!” Was a reward for the sleepless hours of last night. After he enthusiastically told me about the importance of this fact, I dared to ask what I had to do next. “Well, of course, look at the fish,” he said, and left me alone with my object of study. An hour later, he came back to listen to my new catalog. “Good, very good,” he repeated, “but that's not all. Keep watching. ” And so for three long days he put a fish in front of me, forbidding me to look at anything else or use any tools.
On the fourth day of my first study, next to the first fish, the professor placed the second fish of the same group. And I was asked to point out the similarities and differences between them; then one more and another one added to them, until the whole family lay before me, and a whole legion of jaws filled the table and the surrounding shelves. The stench has turned into a pleasant smell and even now the sight of old 15-centimeter, half eaten traffic jams evokes pleasant memories.
Thus, I studied the entire family of chemulons, their internal organs and bone structure. And in everything, even in the description of the parts, I remembered that in the method of observing the facts that I used, the most important thing was not to stop at what was achieved and what was seen, but to watch again and again. “Facts are very necessary in order,” the professor used to say, “in order to deduce a generalizing law.” Eight months later, I reluctantly left these friends and began working with insects. But the experience I gained was more valuable to me than years of further research in my favorite groups.
In addition, it is believed that some ancient texts were written in this way, with the use of hyperthought, which was a kind of encryption that protects knowledge from the uninitiated: the symbols carried both phonetic load and hieroglyphic. The first was available to all, the second - only the elect. But maybe this is just a legend.
“Easter eggs” in games and software, palindromes, acrostics, some mnemotechnical techniques, aphorisms like “in order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion” or “one of the two most annoying things is incompleteness” - these are all examples of hyperthought. Often they are used as simple puzzles or entertainment for undergraduates, but this is not the end of their meaning. Moreover, now hypersensitivity is experiencing another renaissance - it has become difficult to “hook” the modern user, he is in a hurry, uninteresting and leaves at the slightest inconvenience. And he also doesn’t like to perform actions for which he is forced - even if it’s just a page scroll. Therefore, the usual “catchy” headings, along with informative subtitles, are getting worse. Literate structuring of information, of course, has not lost relevance - and it is unlikely to ever lose - but it is not enough of him alone. So they do everything and this is not enough. Therefore, hyperthought are increasingly used. In fact, hypermindality is also the structuring of information, but not “horizontally,” but “vertically,” “layers.” If the “layers” are “removed”, they open easily - attention and understanding “float deep into themselves”. What was required to achieve.
Yes, you yourself probably saw something similar - for example, small pale buttons on the page of the site. It would seem, why force the user to break his eyes? Well this is a direct damage to usability. But you did see these buttons and read what was written on them. What would the page look like if everything were bigger and more contrast? She most likely would have looked overloaded. And it would have caused not so much the desire to study it as the desire to leave it. "It is difficult, mnogabukov." Therefore, the designer did so - and (if he did not ignore the stick), he acted quite reasonably. In any case, you stayed on the page for a second or another longer than they could. Not so much to piss you off - but enough for the site’s Yandex.Metrica to mark this. Sure sure.
A well-made hyper-sense can make the user stare at one screen for a long time without losing attention or negative emotions — on the contrary, he will be interested. And prepared in this way - he will press the button and scroll the page much more readily. What is especially valuable when applied to an audience of mobile devices. But to achieve this effect, it is necessary, of course, to work hard.
Thanks to its “verticality”, “directivity deep into”, “orthogonality to other methods”, hyper-senses are synergistically combined with other methods. For example, with animation, interactivity or voice acting. But they can be harmful - where extreme clarity is needed at a glance, and any ambiguities and “delays in understanding” are extremely undesirable (statutes, important instructions, contracts, etc.). Gandalf at the gates of Moria for a long time tried to find a hyper-sense where it was not - and this delay almost cost the Keepers of the Ring very expensive.
Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the future lies precisely in hypersminds - in giving any information (in the broadest sense of the word) the maximum volume, the maximum number of dimensions. So that everything looks extremely simple, understandable and minimalist - but at the same time it willingly responded to attention, dutifully opening up, “unpacking” in response, meaningfully highlighting with new useful meanings.
The main thing is not to overdo it, of course. Otherwise, to “pack back” an “unpacked” hypermuscle is so far very badly possible. Even in implementations by tracking the camera view of the user.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/448896/
All Articles