Below are the 17 most recent journal entries recorded in Charles' Blurty:

Wednesday, June 11th, 2003
1:43 pm	Others Empathize Too While the past few entries have been dwelling on the stalker gathering knowledge and empathy, one must also be aware that we don't exist in a vacuum. To put it in another way, others have empathy and deduce their info as well, although perhaps not on such a finely honed level. Which entails that this might disrupt our gathering of info, if not into trouble. For one thing, we're prying into people's lives, perhaps their public lives but generally something they don't want people to dwell on. Thus if they think "we're onto them", they might avoid use entirely and tell us to go away, or compromise themselves by not acting in character or keeping a tight lid on their actions and words. Of course the fact that others have good perception as well is a means for us to gather also more data. We can rely not only on our own findings but on other people's as well. Just be sure to distinguish what part is gossip and what part actually happened. Lastly, we shouldn't act like a know-it-all. I dislike bragging, especially since it draws attention to you when more often than not, a stalker should be discreet (but sometimes, appearing in public is a way of concealing yourself though). It enables other people to gather information about us (and someone else will always be watching), which is something we should guard against. And of course, there's probably someone better than you at stalking, but you shouldn't let the other side know that. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, May 16th, 2003
9:39 pm	Folly of the Righteous When people usually make judgements, especially when it comes to morals, their reference is usually themselves. For example, person A might steal the proverbial candy from a baby. Person B feels what person A is wrong because he wouldn't do such a thing. At least not from a baby. Maybe from the president of the Philippines since he steals anyway but not from a defenseless baby. Or person C might agree with what person A did because he himself steals, whether boy or girl, child or adult. Of course it's not only limited to this. Some people might generalize that what is easy for them is easy for everyone else. Let us take the subject of Theology. Let us say person A is receptive to Catholic doctrine and has a good memory. He can recite church canon at will and with perfect accuracy. To him, Theology is easy. Then comes along person B who is good at calculating stuff (his favorite subject is Math) but is horrible when it comes to memorization. He finds Theology difficult because it requires one to be quite familiar with church doctrine, which he isn't. When person B confronts person A, person A merely scoffs at him and says that he shouldn't have problems with Theology. And when person B flunks the subject, person A merely thinks that person B is an idiot. It's only Theology, a very easy subject. In that situation, person A is applying his situation with person B, which shouldn't be the case because their situations are different. But person A's basis is his own experience (excelling in Theology) and so he judges others by the standards he judges himself. There are several things which can be derived from this: As a stalker observing someone, to know how someone "judges" others opens an insight to his/her psyche. But the first part is to establish whether he/she is following this model of thought (judging others by the way he judges himself/herself) or not. If it is the former, then his/her judgements can serve as a viable source of information about the person. If not, well, you know that he/she's open minded or has a certain empathy with other people. As a stalker making judgements, one should be careful not to fall into this pit trap. One of the greatest strenghts of a stalker is to establish a certain empathy (a rapport even if that is possible) with the other person. Making judgements based on your own experiences is not a sign of empathy. Rather, it is imposing one's own situation with the other. It is more "feeling what I would feel" rather than "feeling what he/she feels". That is not to say one shouldn't try to see how one would feel in the situation of the other. Rather, it should be a source of your difference from the other person. For example, the person being stalked is person A. Person A gets punched by person B. Person A does not retaliate. You, on the other hand, might hit back when struck by person B. Your reaction differs from the reactions of person A. One can learn a lot from observing that difference and finding the cause of it. Also sometimes in the situation of lacking information, such as not knowing how person A would react if hit by person B, the only option left to figure out how person A would react is based on your own reactions. One should just be familiar with the difference in one's attitude compared with person A to account for any differences. Everyone has different beliefs, different attitudes, different circumstances, and different environments. While one can try to empathize with them using one's own feelings or norms, sometimes that is not always applicable, and one must account for this. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 10th, 2003
8:01 pm	Patterns There's a natural order to things, from laws man imposes on others to even nature itself like fractals in snowflakes. It's also not limited to general things. It even applies to people; it can be as simple as drinking coffee every morning or coming to work at 7 am. And a perceptive fellow who notices these things is at a distinct advantage. Familiarizing one's self with the pattern of the person you're stalking goes a long way. These patterns can take the form of habits (such as chewing his/her hair whenever they're tense), speech pattern (for example, speaking slang most of the time), or even time-tested reactions (like almost always nodding before hearing the end of the question). A really emphatic person (or close friend) might even pick up these patterns themselves. The point of identifying patterns is that it aids you in predicting the actions of the other person (which is vital in establishing empathy or in deducing what he/she will do next, especially in the situation of lacking information). It increases your chances of making an accurate prediction, although one must always note patterns aren't a 100% guarantee. They can be broken under certain circumstances and one should make allowances for anomalies (or exceptions). And don't forget that one can always choose to change the pattern they're currently following. You might also ask, what if the other person is "unpredictable?". Well, unpredictability itself has its own pattern, although not as distinct as a person who's stable and does things by routine. One might surmise that an unpredictable or spontaneous person might do something unexpected when faced with a situation. And these kinds of reactions have a tendency to lean towards unconventionality. For example, one might ask a spontaneous person a yes/no question. If his unpredictable manner is at work, he might choose yes or no depending on which answer is less frequently given, or even answer outside of those two choices. That in itself is a pattern, although not as narrowed down as one who is conventional and "predictable". While perhaps not everything has a pattern, a lot of things do have patterns. The difficulty is in locating and discerning these patterns. And since people behave logically to a certain extent (we're not slot machines!), there's definitely a pattern in your behavior and actions. (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 4th, 2003
10:01 am	Empathy Lately, we've been talking about managing data and information. This is usually associated with the realm of Science and its "objective" perception of things. Or to take it to the next level, like a computer who merely analyzes things bereft of emotion or personal investment. That is, not to feel. Perhaps in an ideal setting, where all the necessary facts are in front of us, this is how a stalker should behave. But reality is far from ideal, and we deal with incomplete information and sometimes inscrutable data. Sure, we might arbritrarily guess to fill in those gaps, but that is hardly efficient, much less accurate. The only solution is to fill those gaps with our own answers, and the only way to do this with some measure of precision is to understand and feel what the other person is feeling. That is, to be emphatic. We all know that people react differently to different things. Person A might scream when he/she sees a spider. Person B might stomp it. Person C might flee the scene. And Person D might just stand there, ignoring it. If we treat these four people as merely machines coated with skin, we will never be able to predict how they will react. But a good stalker at the very least will know how the other person feels, at least to a certain degree. A stalker might know that Person A is insecure and frightened by a lot of things, hence scream at the sight of the spider. Spider B might also be insecure but does not want to look weak in front of other people hence step on the spider. Person C usually reacts via the flight reaction in the "fight or flight" respone to danger, hence run away. And Person D might be the type that's aloof and sees things such as spiders as trivial, hence ignoring it. The key to all this is that the stalker understands (and knows) how the other person feels, thus able to predict their actions (to a certain extent). It is very wrong to come to the conclusion that a good stalker should not feel and merely rely on facts, evidence, and logic (especially not logic since people seldom behave rationally). However, that is not to say a stalker should be unwary of his or her own emotions. The problem with that is that emotions might sometimes cloud your judgement. In assessing another person, there is always the possibility that you are imposing your own feelings rather than actually understanding the other person's emotions. Errors can pop up from the stalker like "it's what I would do" or "he/she should have done this, not that". In the former case, the stalker is associating himself with the one being stalked. Remember that you are not the other person, and that they behave and perceive things differently the way you do. In the latter case, you're letting your own expectations of the other person cloud your judgement. Maybe it's because you desire the other person to behave like this, or think that you know all the answers, but in either case, you end up with a very wrong conclusion. Empathy is a key element in stalking (or just plain encountering other people). Predicting other people's behavior is augmented not only by facts but by feelings as well. (Comment on this)
Monday, April 28th, 2003
7:37 am	The Boon and Bane of "Trademarks" Some people have identification markers of "trademarks" as I'd like to call them. For example, there's an actor here in the Philippines who's known for always wearing shades. Similarly, other people have distinguishing marks that enables people to single them out in a crowd or from far away. Others see this as a boon since it gives them an "identity", makes them unique among their peers. Some see it as a bane since they're singled out in a crowd or in a group. In actuality, one can reap both benefits, either as a stalker or as the one being stalked. As one being stalked, having a trademark makes you an easy target. You can be seen from afar. You don't blend in a crowd. You are easier to find, at least visually (unless your trademark is oriented with another sense such as constantly tapping your foot or whistling a specific tune frequently). However, trademarks can be discarded, at least temporarily, especially if it's related to apparel (such as wearing a leather jacket in the middle of summer, or sunglasses during the evening). If a guy who usually wears shades stops wearing them, it might suddenly be more difficult to find him since you usually associate the trademark with the person. No shades? I guess he's not here. Suddenly, you start blending in a crowd. People might come to depend on identifying you with your trademark. By discarding it, people at the very least will be surprised and will serve as a distraction to your whereabouts. It can even serve as a red herring by letting another person (or a group of people) don your trademarks. While other people's eyes are on them, you quickly sneak away in the guise of a mundane person. As a stalker, it is not advisable to have a trademark. After all, the point of stalking is not to let other people realize that you're there. A trademark is an identifier for who you are, especially if it's something too radical (such as colored hairdo in a conservative society full of black-haired people). The more unconspicuous you look (no trenchcoats!), the more it'll help you conceal yourself (unless you're looking for a handicap). Of course there are reasons for a stalker to have a trademark. As mentioned before, it could serve as a red herring to other people (unfortunately, this requires the participation of someone else aside from you, whether voluntary or involuntarily). The other is that others might look for your trademark to look for you. When you discard it yourself, you blend in with the crowd. It might also serve as an "alter-ego". Your public image is that with the trademark. When you're out stalking, you discard the trademark (like a superhero with a secret identity). Of course this can be problematic if you're caught. People now know that if you're without your trademark, you're out to do some stalking. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2003
11:44 am	Stalker Rule #11 Stalker Rule #11: Truth is No One's Best Friend People might claim they know the truth. Even people have occupations that deal with the truth: stalkers, reporters, lawyers, etc. But it is foolish to think that truth is on anyone's side. Truth belongs to itself, and it brings to discomfort to many, including those who seek it. There is wisdom in the saying "ignorance is bliss". I mean what person knows all the truth about himself/herself. People have illusions, and more often than not, they cling to it as if their lives depended on it. And beleive me, stalkers are no exception. There are certain truths, not only about themselves but also about others, that they can't or refuse to see. Truth is a double-edged sword. People usually wield truth when they associate it with being on their side. But as I said, truth cuts both ways. When it doesn't suit those wielding it, they refuse to continue carrying the burden of truth. It is only useful to them so far as it coincides with their aims. Thus truth is twisted, manipulated, and even concealed. That only goes to show that truth belongs to itself and not on anyone's side. No matter what you may beleive, each one of us has illusions that we refuse or can't distinguish from the truth. And while a stalker should strive for the truth, one should always bear this limitation in mind. And it also helps to know that not everything the other person beleives is true. Just because he or she says she is kind or independent does not mean it is necessarily so. They might beleive it, but it is not automatically make it true. And just because you are sure of your info does not mean it is true or will always remain to be so. (Comment on this)
11:33 am	Stalker Rule #10 Stalker Rule #10: People's Perceptions Means Everything People already have precept notions about things. Examples of these attitudes are paranoia, prejudice, racism, self-righteousness, etc. Some are taken as virtues, others as vices. But in either case, this mental state of theirs affects their encounters with reality and with other people. Case in point: an optimist will more often than not try to see the good side of things. A glass of water is half full. A pessimist, on the other hand, would claim it's half empty. When stalking someone, you should take this into consideration. Even the most innocent of acts such as saying hello to a person might seem offensive to someone who thinks everyone is out to take advantage of him or her. And a lot can be learned from their very reaction to you. For example, people usually judge other people by their own behaviors. Thus a person who suspects everyone is out to cheat him or her is probably cheating other people or carries this sort of attitude in all of his/her tasks. The way someone perceives things plays a significant role in his or her personality. You can suit your style to appeal to their sensibilities, or at least you can be careful how to act around them if they're hostile or paranoid. But in either case, knowing their concepts uncovers a layer of their personality, and who they are. (Comment on this)
Saturday, March 15th, 2003
3:04 pm	Stalker Rule #9 Stalker Rule #9: Say it with confidence While this rule might also apply to oratory skills, as a stalker, one must speak statements with confidence. Whether you're bluffing (because of deduced info or a hypothesis) or saying a fact that has not yet been established, speaking with confidence gives you the extra edge that makes people hesitant in contradicting you at worst, or actually beleive you in some circumstances, no matter how preposterous the statement is. A bluff might appear as truth when said with firm resolution. Of course don't overdo it, but shyness and meekness, or worse, saying something as if it were a question, diminishes the image of you as a stalker. The other day, I told a friend that I should apologize to her for doing something wrong. She asked me what was the crime I committed. In fact, I didn't commit any crime but it was just an excuse to get more information out of her. Of course since I said it with enough confidence, she thought I actually did something wrong and was pestering me what it is that I did. (Comment on this)
Thursday, March 6th, 2003
8:11 pm	Stalker Rule #8 Stalker Rule #8 :People Forget I called up my friend since he was asking the other day where to obtain a particular CD. Me being the resourceful stalker that I am, I did manage to locate a shop that was selling the CD he wanted. Me: Hi! Found out where you can get the CD you wanted. Friend: Uh, how do you know my number? Me: I'm a stalker. Actually, the reason I know his phone number is because he gave it to me. Two years ago that is. (And fortunately for me, he hasn't changed numbers.) My bluff would be seen as a bluff if he remembered that fact. But people do forget, especially for extended periods of time. I mean if I called him up the day after he gave me his phone number, I'm sure he'd remember. But I called up him two years later and my existence is as much of a mystery to him as well as the fact of how I obtained his phone number. I also want to stress the importance of taking down info and noting them down, if not for present use but for future use. You never know when a particular piece of information is going to be useful, and the passage of time only increases its value. (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 27th, 2003
9:35 pm	Stalker Rule #7 Stalker Rule #7: Maximize Existing Resources A friend of mine got a missed call from his Nokia mobile phone. He was angry at the person who called him but he didn't know who. I got it and checked the call register of his phone. The person who called him was listed there. He thought that the call register feature only stored the numbers of people that actually got through to his phone, not the missed calls. His phone had a lot of potential but he just wasn't aware of it to utilize it. A good stalker should maximize his existing resources. Hopefully, the anecdote above shouldn't occur often. Before you go seeking out information outside your "sphere of influence", you should be aware of most, if not all, that is happening around you. If you can't find out what's happening to your own life, your family, and your friends, how much more can you hope to know about the lives of others? Focus on your existing circumstances and work outward from there. Perhaps a good exercise to try is to describe your room without looking at it (close your eyes, go out of the room, etc.). Be sure to list as many details and features as you can. Then go back inside and see what you missed. I'm sure you missed a lot, unless you live in a box. Better yet, choose a close friend and list all you know about him/her. Is there anything that you don't know yet about that person? Did you miss out on any of his/her hobbies? How about friends? Relatives? Perks? Before you go on expanding your contacts or find other means to acquire info, make sure you're using what existing sources you have to its full potential. I mean I don't want to waste a Pentium 4 computer on simple arithmetic when an abacus or calculator could already do that. The same could be said for, uh, stalking. ^^ (Comment on this)
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003
7:15 pm	Stalker Rule #5 and #6 Stalker Rule #5: Deduce your Info There are some things you don't need to see to know. If I release an apple from my hand, you'll probably think it'll fall. And you're right. The same laws can be applied to stalking. You don't need to be at the person's side every hour, every minute, every moment. And not all information will be spoon-fed to you. Sometimes, you'll just have to rack up your brains and think what'll most likely that person would do or act. For example, you have a friend and you call him up on Sunday morning. He/she's not at home, and you know that your friend doesn't usually go out on Sundays. What can you deduce from that? Is he/she religious? If he/she is, he/she probably went to mass. Narrow that possibility down by listening who answers the phone when you call him/her. If the entire family's Catholic, chances are they all went to church which is the reason why no one is answering the phone. And while filling those gaps of knowledge is one of the goals of deducing your info, it's also a test of how well you know the person. A good stalker should know the person quite well by now, hence a higher percentage of "guessing" what the person is currently doing. If by chance you can't ascertain what he/she is doing and this happens often, you're doing something wrong. Check whether your existing data is wrong and needs updating, or you don't know the person well enough, or you just don't understand how he or she thinks. Stalker Rule #6: Confirm your Info As much as you should practice rule #5, you should always enforce rule #6. Since the former relies on some educated guesswork and rational conjectures, there's no way to check if you're correct unless you confirm that he/she did it. A high percentage of making correct deductions is good, but don't get too cocky. No matter how likely the person did do something, you should confirm it for there is always the chance of deviance and change. The biggest mistake a stalker can make is to assume that his/her assumption is correct. While this might irk some as being "too careful", it's well worth it as it'll save you from embarassing situations at the very least. Confirming also has a side-effect of making you look fallible and a chance to practice rule #4, especially the part about feigning ignorance. (Comment on this)
Sunday, February 23rd, 2003
7:39 pm	Sorry, no Bullshit for Today As if there's actually anyone reading this stuff (and naughty you if you are), suffice to say, I still have a book to finish reading and a whole new category on "stalking" which I have to classify. It's been "part of me" that articulating myself is harder than I originally envisioned. And yes, this site has crappy layout... (Comment on this)
Saturday, February 22nd, 2003
8:08 pm	Stalker Rule #4 Stalker Rule #4: Information Management To make things simple, it's like this: you want a lot of info, and you don't want to give out a lot of info in exchange for it. The value of knowledge (and secrets) decreases when more people know about it. Just look at the stereotypical stalker. He thrives on what is not common knowledge, which is why people get freaked out. If it were something a lot of people know, the situation wouldn't have been awkward. And perhaps the biggest mistake the stereotypical stalker makes is that he loses one of the most valuable pieces of information: that he exists, and that he knows what the other person doesn't want others people to know. While Stalker Rule #1 lets you acquire information, rules #2 and #3 are proofs that there is something that hinders knowledge. They are, in fact, the gaps in what you know. Information Management means that you are able to fill those gaps and without a huge cost to you. For example, by asking say, a person's phone number directly, you are alerting to the other person that you are interested in their phone number. Whereas if you asked the a friend of the person involved what's the phone number they know by heart aside from their own, they might reveal to you the phone number you want to know and it leaves them "in the dark" since they can only suspect your motives since it wasn't a direct question (what's his/her names phone number). This also means that when trading information, you should divulge less and try to gain as much as possible. Hoard knowledge as you would money, but not too much that you don't spend it on anything. If were follow the "stalking someone" analogy (which is used here as an example because it is convenient and should actually not be practiced), you don't want to give out a hard-to-acquire info like who the crush of the guy/girl is (since that info is usually reserved for close friends) in exchange for something like his/her phone number of schedule, the former because it is probably listed in the telephone directory or a directory of a smaller scale (the school's directory, for example) and the latter because that can be observed using rule #1 and merely takes perseverance rather than actual hounding of info. Other means of filling the gap short of actual facts like deductive reasoning and psychic predictions (if you know someone who can actually perform this with a certain accuracy) can be used but be warned: these are, after all, hypothetical propositions and there is always a chance that this manner of acquiring info is not always accurate. But still a viable method in the absence of a primary source of knowlege. Future rules will discuss these methods. At times, it is worth feigning ignorance to acquire info, and partial knowledge is helpful in confirming data acquired from deductive reasoning and such. I mean you can call a person by another name and chances are, they will correct you. Of course if you only know the person's first name, in correcting you, they might also give out their last name, something you didn't know previously. And if you know the subjects likes to eat sushi, a person that might mention that person likes chocolate, sushi, and steak. Since you have established the fact that the person likes to eat sushi and this info corresponds to what the other person said, chances are the person is also right about the person liking chocolate and steak. The more info you know and the less people know about it (in the sense of the info itself and that you know that info), the more resources you have. (Comment on this)
Friday, February 21st, 2003
5:51 pm	Stalker Rule #3 Stalker Rule #3: Knowledge is Dynamic Simply put, not only do things and situations change but people change as well. Whatever you know now might not be applicable a year from now. For example, if you've memorized a person's schedule in school, you can bet that person won't have the same schedule when the new term begins. And while that example pertains to an external factor (schedule), the same rules are applicable when we're referring to knowledge itself and people. Just because a person acts this way at this point in time does not necessarily mean he or she will continue to act that way in the future. While people certainly follow patterns, it is possible they will change those patterns. In applying rules #1 and #2, be sure to regularly follow up on them and keep them updated. The nature of knowledge isn't static but rather a dynamic and even evolving matter. (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 20th, 2003
11:04 pm	Stalker Rule #2 Stalker Rule #2: You can never totally know a person. If we manage to know every single detail about a person, we'd be God. Well, people hardly know themselves. Can you really expect to know more than that? And even when we use the expression "I know him/her better than he/she knows himself/herself", we don't know what the person is currently thinking. Maybe in the future, they'll come up with a device that allows people to communicate via telepathy. But before then, the inadequancy of language fills that gap. And certainly people don't speak what's on their minds to everyone they meet. Even to their closest confidants, people keep secrets. For all that is unconcealed by the person, a whole lot more is hidden. It would be arrogant and false to judge a person based on one aspect of their life, be it an encounter, their blog (especially not blogs), and other trivial circumstances. For every piece of information you have about a person, there will be several more that you don't know. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you "don't know". Acknowledging that fact enables you to seek out information. P.S. It only occurred to me now that some people might actually take this seriously. Don't! I actually have better things to do than stalk people. And so do you. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, February 19th, 2003
10:17 pm	Stalker Rule #1 Since there's nothing better for me to do, and I have claimed over the past few years that I'm a stalker, consider this a crash course in "stalking". Stalker Rule #1: Whatever knowledge you have, it is only because the other person discloses it. I mean come on, this is obvious. If we ask a person a question, we get info about them because they answer the question. Naturally, their answer would be something favorable to them or if it is in their interest to do so. Surely, a stranger won't tell you their personal info. They might tell you their name but nothing more personal like their address or phone number, unless you seem trustworthy or a friend of theirs. Similarly, if you're acquiring info from reading online journals and blogs like this, you should know that the person is only telling you public info. Their best-kept secrets won't be posted on something as open as the Internet, and certainly not to a place that has few protections. A corollary to this rule is that you can learn a lot from a person by the way they present theirselves. Their clothes, actions, speech patterns, habits, are all manifested and can be observed. Even when they are concealing an aspect (e.g. acting stoic), you can learn something from that fact. A person who finds a question offensive might not answer it, or a person who might answer in the negative might just opt not to give a reply. Before you delve into the deeper intricacies of a person (e.g. psyche), observe the obvious. There's a lot of details in plain sight. (Comment on this)
Friday, February 14th, 2003
11:09 pm	Buwahahahaha! Another blog to feed my megalomania. ^^ (3 Comments |Comment on this)