Yourself?

Read Bob Garfield's book on Advertising titled "And now a few words from me". Quite a good book, discussing bad ad campaigns and why they failed, and why good ad campaigns were good. I read it trying to learn how to sell things I guess, and how to sell myself (to perhaps a few grotty interviewers). It has to do alot with knowing your selling point. Alot to do with promoting the best bits of yourself, and bridging the distance between you and the other person.

Was also thinking today from the viewpoint of someone else. Specifically what games would robots really enjoy. My conclusion was robots really love Chess (all kinds), Mah Jong, and Magic : The gathering. But really, which games can surprise, and provide an equal opportunity for two calculating machines? Chess is already flawed because the person who starts first gets a tempo advantage. Mah Jong benefits the dealer, but the whole game is based very much on luck. Especially if the players are all flawless ( like computers will be). I think Magic is still the closest to flawless with it's mix of chance, and strategy. But until it's better balanced, and the cards are sufficiently varied to carve unthought of combinations out of, it would not be a very suitable game for computers. And uberdecks would surely win, since the cards play themselves. It'll be very hard to change tactics midway, unlike Mahjong or Chess.

I guess it should be based on the system of magic, as well as some freedom in what the cards actually get to do. sort of the one card actually can produce two effects sort.

As to other fronts, just wanted to talk about a certain point that he makes. That much of advertising is really self serving. Like the episode of a company donating 125,000 dollars to some impoverished nation, while spending 6 million on the ad campaign publicizing their deed. How much of money is spent to make ourselves look good, and how much of us is actually good. I don't know. I know I spend nothing promoting myself. I don't even make an effort to behave in a generally accepted manner so as to gain acceptance. (or so someone claims. But I do try to sometimes. Just not very hard.) I mean no matter how much or how hard we try to be someone else, or to do things your friends do, in the end, the person your friends accept isn't you. But a fascimile of themselves.

Oh yes I remember one of the good good points he makes. The cliche of being rule breakers. About how most companies that break the rules PURELY for the sake of breaking rules usually fails. Rules are there for a reason. He talked about how Shakespeare managed wonderful poetry in spite of being restricted to iambic pentameter, how blank pieces of paper were the most intimidating things in the world to artists. And I wondered, if it weren't for the supremely restrictive Singapore education system, would we be what we are today? And perhaps, without the limitations of technology, or culture, or even freedom (ala the Matrix), can we even rise above a caveman like existence?

posted by Downhere. @ 9:14 pm