General hypothesis of people and their actions

- Fate is decided by God but destiny is the path you choose to get there -

The general consensus between 2 person or more, in the abscence of constraints like blood ties and hereditary factors versus their actions can be attributed or represented by a simple normal distribution graph with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. While the Y axis represent the extreme exponential (capped) tolerence of the extent a normal person will sacrifice his / her actions for another person, reflected by a positive relationship on the right side of the mean, and a negative relationship on the left side of the mean. The correlation between the 2 variables on the X and Y axis respectively can therefore be interpreted as the general relationship of people and the extent to which they would react, sacrifice or choice of action to take with direct reference to the Y variable to either assist, or to benefit both positively and negatively.

This relationship is best illustrated by the following example. 2 person with a relationship of a max variance of 1, either friends, acquaintances, or intimately linked, and the extent to which they will commit and accomplish a request, not necessary amounting to a demand, from the other party. Accordingly to the graph, the trigger to measure the correlation is not the actual relationship between the 2 person but rather the extenxt that they will go to determine the correlation. In short, it's not the mental proximity of 2 person that determines to what extent they would sacrifice themselves for the other person. but rather the other way round.

The choices that one make, the sacrifices and the commitment will be the most influential factor to determine how much this person weighs the relationship with the other person.

This is also a probable indicator although not actually proven or disproven, to test who your actual friends are. I have apparently come up with this hypothesis after allocating and then from subsequent observation from how people who you call friends can cook up with a relatively indepth excuses to cover themselves for not being able to complete a simple task that was previously assigned to them. Despite the fact that these people will actually affirm their competency and will remind you numerous times that they will get the task done. That's because they simply knew at that instance that I would be of great use to them sometime in the future which literally implies that the equilibrium of the general consensus between 2 people was already skewed from that instance. While I clearly assigned a task based purely on trust and respect for this person to get it done, it is clear that no one else gets it simply because of the paramount importance I put on both the task and to the person assigned.

It's only when the other person realised that he or she have alternative options to get what he / she wants and I have simply slipped down on the priority scale, that's when I realised that the relationship held with this person have to be reviewed since I knew the task that I have assigned have slip to the tail end of the distribution graph. This implies that I no longer should be bothered with any negligible relationship with this person since a simple task to be done can generate so much outcomes which none of them would be dispersed anywhere near the mean of the graph.

On the other hand, there are some people, when assigned simple tasks, generate intense and irratic results which is dispersed around the mean. This simply implies that the extent to which these people will take to accomplish a task given, clearly indicates that they do weigh the correlation between 2 people significantly. These people will always seem bland and will not actually impress but the results they generate are usually astonishing.

The above observation and test results have allowed me to compose a renew and clearer understanding of which friends to keep, and to what extent I would go for them.

As for the rest who are so good at cooking up excuses, go fuck yourself.