09/05/24
Akinator: The Self Defined Through Positives and Negative Spaces
At the end of our lives, are we defined by the positive space we have explored and the negative space that marks what we haven’t? Or are they both just outlining the same thing?
In my sophomore year drawing course, we focused on negative space—the often overlooked areas that actually define an object. By drawing the negative space, the object itself (the positive space) comes into view, rather than drawing the object directly. This approach made me consider how we define ourselves. We frequently introduce ourselves by what we are—our qualities, achievements, and roles—but rarely by what we are not. This raises the question: Is it easier and quicker to define ourselves by what we are, or by what we are not? Perhaps a full understanding of ourselves requires more than just listing our positive traits; it necessitates acknowledging our limitations and exclusions.
Are we merely a collection of “yes”s and “no”s that shape our identity?
This concept is vividly illustrated by the game Akinator. The game guesses the person you're thinking of by narrowing down from millions of possibilities based on your "yes" or "no" answers to a series of questions. You can’t identify the person based solely on all “yes” or all “no” responses; it’s the combination of both that guides the process. In Akinator, the "no" answers—the things you’re not—are just as crucial as the "yes" answers in shaping the final guess.
This leads to an intriguing thought: Akinator operates on the principle of elimination. Does this mean that defining ourselves involves not just accumulating our own DNA sequence of "yes" and "no" answers but also considering how others' responses to similar questions contribute to our unique identity? Essentially, we might be the sum of our own affirmations and rejections, but we also become distinct through the elimination of other people's "yes" and "no" answers, leading to our own unique identity.
In my sophomore year drawing course, we focused on negative space—the often overlooked areas that actually define an object. By drawing the negative space, the object itself (the positive space) comes into view, rather than drawing the object directly. This approach made me consider how we define ourselves. We frequently introduce ourselves by what we are—our qualities, achievements, and roles—but rarely by what we are not. This raises the question: Is it easier and quicker to define ourselves by what we are, or by what we are not? Perhaps a full understanding of ourselves requires more than just listing our positive traits; it necessitates acknowledging our limitations and exclusions.
Are we merely a collection of “yes”s and “no”s that shape our identity?
This concept is vividly illustrated by the game Akinator. The game guesses the person you're thinking of by narrowing down from millions of possibilities based on your "yes" or "no" answers to a series of questions. You can’t identify the person based solely on all “yes” or all “no” responses; it’s the combination of both that guides the process. In Akinator, the "no" answers—the things you’re not—are just as crucial as the "yes" answers in shaping the final guess.
This leads to an intriguing thought: Akinator operates on the principle of elimination. Does this mean that defining ourselves involves not just accumulating our own DNA sequence of "yes" and "no" answers but also considering how others' responses to similar questions contribute to our unique identity? Essentially, we might be the sum of our own affirmations and rejections, but we also become distinct through the elimination of other people's "yes" and "no" answers, leading to our own unique identity.