10,000 people are trying to resolve a problem. 500 of them increase their double negative usage. 1500 increase their usage of adjectives. 1000 of them increase their usage of verbs. 20,000 people are trying to resolve a dispute. 3000 of them go and talk to their younger female siblings. 1000 of them review their memories from the 1990's. 5,000 of them talk to a non-relative friend. 5,000 people are trying to find an answer to a question. 700 of them look down at the ground. 800 of them walk in circles. 200 of them look to the left. Author: David Elkins
I don't like critiques without actual argumentation. Explain why this piece is drivel in a least one sentence. Some argumentation would help me. What I am doing in this piece is taking details which are usually associated individualistically and applying them on a mass scale. So for example normally one might say, 'He reviewed his memories from the 1950's'. But if you say '2000 people are examining their memories from the 1950's' then this bespeaks of a vast panorama of activities across a broad spectrum of the human population in the present moment. What are the billions of people out there doing right now? By putting this in broad form this hints at the vast complexity out there. I do not see why this approach is drivel. As far as why I specified that I am the author of the piece, I especially wanted people to get back to me. I am looking for a conversation and an exploration. That is like asking me why I used text. Do I need to answer that? It would be pointless. DE
Don't be ridiculous. It's because you posted a series of apparently unrelated statements, with no explanation and no question. It's like me posting a shopping list and expecting to get enthusiastic and engaged responses. Absurd. As for the explanation you now offer for it, It still seems fairly pointless. You'll need to put more meat on the bones before it gets interesting enough for a discussion to ensue.
