Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

interlude:observations [13/03/2026 14:25] – luotu kkurzexinterlude:observations [13/03/2026 14:26] (current) – kkurzex
Line 1: Line 1:
 +# Ace & Mai — Observation
  
 +**Classification:** Interlude / Character Insight
 +**Timeline Placement:** Phase 7 — Post-Horizon Expansion
 +**Characters:** Ace, Mai, Shamaterazu (Shammy), Violet (Fragment)
 +**Location:** Coastal cliff, unspecified region
 +**Continuity Notes:** Violet operates as an internal resonance within Ace rather than a physically present character.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Observation
 +
 +The sea was quiet.
 +
 +Not silent — never silent — but breathing slowly against the rocks. Each wave rolled in, broke softly against the cliff, and pulled back into the dark water.
 +
 +Ace sat on the edge of the stone, elbows on her knees.
 +
 +The wind carried salt and cold air from the open horizon. Somewhere far away, a gull cried once before the night swallowed the sound.
 +
 +It was one of the rare moments when nothing demanded her attention.
 +
 +No anomalies.
 +No rituals.
 +No things trying to tear reality apart.
 +
 +Just the ocean.
 +
 +After a while Ace exhaled slowly.
 +
 +“Okay,” she muttered. “You can stop pretending you're asleep.”
 +
 +For a moment nothing happened.
 +
 +Then a voice answered inside her mind.
 +
 +Dry. Curious.
 +
 +*I was not pretending.*
 +
 +Ace smirked slightly.
 +
 +“Sure.”
 +
 +A pause.
 +
 +*Ace.*
 +
 +“Hm?”
 +
 +*There is something I do not understand.*
 +
 +Ace leaned back slightly, looking at the horizon.
 +
 +“That’s a long list.”
 +
 +*This one is specific.*
 +
 +The fragment seemed to hesitate, as if arranging thoughts.
 +
 +*Why do humans want to touch each other so much?*
 +
 +Ace blinked.
 +
 +“…what?”
 +
 +*Physical proximity.*
 +*Skin contact.*
 +*Humans seek it constantly.*
 +
 +Ace stared out at the water for a moment.
 +
 +“That’s… a big topic.”
 +
 +*I am aware.*
 +
 +Another wave struck the rock.
 +
 +*When you and Mai are together…*
 +
 +Ace raised an eyebrow.
 +
 +*Your heart rate changes.*
 +*Your breathing slows.*
 +*Your neural activity stabilizes.*
 +
 +Ace chuckled quietly.
 +
 +“Are you spying on my vitals now?”
 +
 +*You are my host.*
 +
 +“…fair.”
 +
 +Another pause.
 +
 +*But there is more.*
 +
 +The voice continued.
 +
 +*You experience pleasure from contact.*
 +*Heat transfer. Pressure. Chemical release.*
 +
 +Ace rubbed the back of her neck.
 +
 +“Yeah. That’s basically biology.”
 +
 +*But it is inefficient.*
 +
 +Ace turned her head slightly.
 +
 +“Inefficient?”
 +
 +*It reduces combat readiness.*
 +
 +Ace burst into quiet laughter.
 +
 +“That is the most Violet answer you could possibly give.”
 +
 +*I am serious.*
 +
 +“Of course you are.”
 +
 +For a moment only the sea spoke.
 +
 +*Explain it.*
 +
 +Ace thought for a while before answering.
 +
 +“Okay.”
 +
 +She leaned back against the stone.
 +
 +“Humans are… weirdly fragile.”
 +
 +*I noticed.*
 +
 +“Yeah, thanks.”
 +
 +Ace smiled faintly.
 +
 +“Being close to someone you trust does something to the brain. It tells you the world isn't trying to kill you right now.”
 +
 +*But the world frequently attempts to kill you.*
 +
 +“True.”
 +
 +Ace shrugged.
 +
 +“But not always.”
 +
 +Silence lingered.
 +
 +*So it is reassurance.*
 +
 +“Partly.”
 +
 +Ace watched the dark line of the horizon.
 +
 +“It’s also connection.”
 +
 +*Define.*
 +
 +Ace thought for a moment.
 +
 +“It’s… proof.”
 +
 +*Proof of what?*
 +
 +Ace answered quietly.
 +
 +“Proof you’re not alone inside your own head.”
 +
 +A wave broke against the rock.
 +
 +Violet fell silent.
 +
 +Then the fragment spoke again.
 +
 +*And sexual desire?*
 +
 +Ace sighed.
 +
 +“Told you it was a big topic.”
 +
 +*It appears related to the same system.*
 +
 +“More or less.”
 +
 +Ace nudged a small stone with her boot.
 +
 +“Biology trying to make sure the species survives.”
 +
 +*Reproduction.*
 +
 +“Yeah.”
 +
 +A pause.
 +
 +*But reproduction does not require affection.*
 +
 +Ace smiled slightly.
 +
 +“No. It doesn’t.”
 +
 +*Yet humans combine the two.*
 +
 +“Sometimes.”
 +
 +*Often.*
 +
 +Ace shrugged.
 +
 +“Because affection makes the whole thing… better.”
 +
 +The fragment seemed to process this.
 +
 +Then Violet spoke again.
 +
 +*You and Mai also experience this behavior with Shamaterazu.*
 +
 +Ace laughed quietly.
 +
 +“Yeah. The universe decided to make that complicated.”
 +
 +*You appear happy when it happens.*
 +
 +Ace was quiet for a moment.
 +
 +Then she said simply,
 +
 +“Yeah.”
 +
 +The wind shifted slightly.
 +
 +*I do not experience that.*
 +
 +Ace nodded faintly.
 +
 +“I know.”
 +
 +Another long pause.
 +
 +Then Violet asked carefully,
 +
 +*Is that a disadvantage?*
 +
 +Ace considered the question.
 +
 +“Not really.”
 +
 +*Why?*
 +
 +Ace looked out at the ocean.
 +
 +“Because you understand things we don’t.”
 +
 +*Such as?*
 +
 +Ace smiled faintly.
 +
 +“Like what it’s like to be alone inside someone else’s head.”
 +
 +The fragment went quiet again.
 +
 +Then, after a moment:
 +
 +*That explanation was unexpectedly reasonable.*
 +
 +Ace smirked.
 +
 +“Careful. If you keep saying things like that people might start thinking you like humans.”
 +
 +*I did not say that.*
 +
 +Ace chuckled.
 +
 +---
 +
 +A subtle shift moved through the air.
 +
 +Not sound.
 +
 +Pressure.
 +
 +Ace glanced to the side.
 +
 +“Shammy.”
 +
 +Shammy stood a few meters away near the edge of the cliff, silver hair barely moving in the wind.
 +
 +“Sorry,” she said calmly. “Didn’t mean to interrupt.”
 +
 +Ace narrowed her eyes slightly.
 +
 +“Were you standing there the whole time?”
 +
 +Shammy tilted her head.
 +
 +“Define *whole time*.”
 +
 +Ace groaned.
 +
 +“Great.”
 +
 +Shammy walked over and sat beside her, long legs hanging slightly over the rock.
 +
 +“You were explaining human intimacy,” she said.
 +
 +Ace rubbed her face.
 +
 +“I hate that sentence already.”
 +
 +Shammy smiled faintly.
 +
 +“Continue.”
 +
 +Ace shook her head.
 +
 +“No way.”
 +
 +Shammy shrugged.
 +
 +“Too late. I’m curious.”
 +
 +Ace sighed.
 +
 +“Violet’s trying to understand human sexuality.”
 +
 +Shammy raised an eyebrow.
 +
 +“Well. That sounds like an educational evening.”
 +
 +After a few minutes footsteps approached from behind them.
 +
 +Mai stopped a few meters away.
 +
 +She looked at the three of them.
 +
 +“…why does it feel like I walked into something dangerous?”
 +
 +Ace pointed at her own head.
 +
 +“Not me.”
 +
 +Mai sighed.
 +
 +“Violet again?”
 +
 +Ace nodded.
 +
 +“She’s doing anthropology.”
 +
 +Mai crossed her arms.
 +
 +“About what.”
 +
 +Ace hesitated.
 +
 +“…human sexuality.”
 +
 +Mai closed her eyes for a second.
 +
 +“Of course she is.”
 +
 +Shammy laughed softly.
 +
 +Mai eventually sat down nearby.
 +
 +“Fine,” she said. “What’s the question.”
 +
 +Ace listened for a moment, then repeated:
 +
 +“Why do humans combine affection and reproduction?”
 +
 +Mai answered immediately.
 +
 +“Pair bonding.”
 +
 +Ace glanced at her.
 +
 +“Straight to the point.”
 +
 +Mai shrugged.
 +
 +“Stable pairs increase survival odds for offspring.”
 +
 +Ace listened again.
 +
 +“She says humans seek intimacy even without reproduction.”
 +
 +Mai nodded.
 +
 +“Correct.”
 +
 +Ace repeated the next question.
 +
 +“Why?”
 +
 +Mai thought briefly.
 +
 +“Because the brain rewards connection. Touch releases oxytocin. It reinforces trust.”
 +
 +Ace relayed the fragment’s response.
 +
 +“She says the brain manipulates behavior through chemical reward.”
 +
 +Mai shrugged again.
 +
 +“Yes.”
 +
 +Ace smirked.
 +
 +“You just reduced romance to neurochemistry.”
 +
 +“You asked.”
 +
 +Shammy leaned back, looking at the sky.
 +
 +“I like Ace’s explanation better.”
 +
 +---
 +
 +Night had fallen completely.
 +
 +Stars began appearing above the dark water.
 +
 +Ace listened quietly for a moment.
 +
 +Then she sighed.
 +
 +“Oh boy.”
 +
 +Mai looked at her.
 +
 +“What now.”
 +
 +Ace shook her head.
 +
 +“She has a conclusion.”
 +
 +Ace repeated slowly.
 +
 +“Human sexuality is a multi-layer system. Biological reproduction. Neurological bonding. Psychological reassurance.”
 +
 +Mai nodded.
 +
 +“That’s… actually accurate.”
 +
 +Shammy smiled.
 +
 +“I’m impressed.”
 +
 +Ace muttered,
 +
 +“I created a monster.”
 +
 +Ace listened again.
 +
 +Then her expression softened slightly.
 +
 +“She says the system has a paradox.”
 +
 +The waves rolled slowly below them.
 +
 +Ace repeated the words quietly.
 +
 +“Humans pursue intimacy despite knowing loss is inevitable.”
 +
 +No one spoke for a moment.
 +
 +Ace listened again.
 +
 +“She says forming bonds increases vulnerability… but humans still seek them.”
 +
 +Mai looked at the horizon.
 +
 +Shammy watched the stars.
 +
 +Ace finally answered.
 +
 +“Yeah.”
 +
 +She listened again.
 +
 +Then the fragment asked one last question.
 +
 +Ace spoke softly.
 +
 +“She wants to know why we keep doing it.”
 +
 +Ace thought for a moment.
 +
 +Then she said simply,
 +
 +“Because it’s worth it.”
 +
 +A long silence followed.
 +
 +Then Ace laughed quietly.
 +
 +“What?”
 +
 +Shammy smiled.
 +
 +“What did she say?”
 +
 +Ace shook her head.
 +
 +“She says she’ll require further observation.”
 +
 +Mai smirked slightly.
 +
 +“That sounds about right.”
 +
 +Ace tossed a small stone into the sea.
 +
 +The splash disappeared into the dark water.
 +
 +Inside her mind the fragment spoke one last time.
 +
 +*Humans are strange.*
 +
 +Ace smiled faintly.
 +
 +“Yeah.”
 +
 +“Welcome to humanity, Violet.”
 +
 +---
 +
 +Hyvä. Tehdään siitä **Violetin oma analyysimerkintä** — sellainen joka voisi löytyä Datavaultista erillisenä fragmenttina. Sävy on tarkoituksella hieman kliinisempi, mutta Violetin uteliaisuus alkaa jo näkyä rivien välissä.
 +
 +---
 +
 +# Violet — Behavioral Observation Log
 +
 +**Log ID:** V-OBS-021
 +**Subject:** Human Intimacy Patterns
 +**Primary Host:** Ace
 +**Associated Subjects:** Mai, Shamaterazu
 +**Observation Context:** Low-threat environment / coastal location / social equilibrium state
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Initial Inquiry
 +
 +Human behavioral patterns display a persistent tendency toward physical proximity.
 +
 +Observed forms include:
 +
 +* Skin contact
 +* Reduced interpersonal distance
 +* Prolonged shared presence without operational purpose
 +
 +Initial analysis suggested inefficient allocation of attention and physical readiness.
 +
 +Further observation contradicted this assumption.
 +
 +Human physical contact produces measurable neurological stabilization.
 +
 +Primary biological mechanism:
 +
 +* Oxytocin release
 +* Cortisol reduction
 +* Heart rate synchronization
 +
 +Operational consequence:
 +
 +Subjects become calmer and more cooperative.
 +
 +This effect appears particularly strong between individuals with established trust bonds.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Reproductive System Interaction
 +
 +Human sexuality appears to operate as a layered behavioral structure.
 +
 +Layer 1 — **Biological Function**
 +
 +* Reproductive continuation of species.
 +
 +Layer 2 — **Neurological Reinforcement**
 +
 +* Bond strengthening through chemical reward.
 +
 +Layer 3 — **Psychological Security**
 +
 +* Reduction of perceived isolation.
 +
 +Layer 4 — **Social Bonding**
 +
 +* Establishment of cooperative long-term partnerships.
 +
 +This layered structure produces redundancy.
 +
 +Biological reproduction does not require emotional attachment.
 +
 +Humans nonetheless combine the systems.
 +
 +Reason: behavioral reinforcement increases stability of pair or group bonds.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Triadic Case Study
 +
 +Subjects Ace, Mai, and Shamaterazu demonstrate an atypical bonding structure.
 +
 +Despite this deviation from the standard human pair model, bonding mechanisms remain consistent.
 +
 +Observed outcomes include:
 +
 +* Reduced stress response in Ace
 +* Increased emotional equilibrium across subjects
 +* Improved cooperative behavior during non-combat states
 +
 +Conclusion: human bonding systems adapt flexibly to non-standard group structures.
 +
 +This adaptation does not reduce emotional intensity.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Flirtation Behavior
 +
 +A secondary pattern emerged during observation: **playful provocation**.
 +
 +Examples include:
 +
 +* Verbal teasing
 +* Mock hostility
 +* Non-threatening challenges
 +
 +These behaviors initially appeared contradictory to cooperative bonding.
 +
 +Further analysis indicates that flirtation functions as **controlled vulnerability exposure**.
 +
 +Participants reveal minor emotional signals while maintaining plausible deniability.
 +
 +If signals are reciprocated, emotional bond strength increases.
 +
 +If signals are rejected, social equilibrium can be preserved.
 +
 +This system functions as low-risk emotional testing.
 +
 +Efficiency rating: moderate.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Structural Paradox
 +
 +Human intimacy contains a significant contradiction.
 +
 +Humans are aware that attachment increases vulnerability.
 +
 +Bonded individuals become:
 +
 +* psychologically dependent
 +* emotionally exposed
 +* operationally distracted
 +
 +Despite this awareness, humans continue to pursue close bonds.
 +
 +Repeatedly.
 +
 +Across all observed cultural structures.
 +
 +This behavior appears irrational under purely survival-based logic.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Host Explanation
 +
 +Host provided the following explanation:
 +
 +*"Because it's worth it."*
 +
 +The host did not elaborate further.
 +
 +Associated subjects appeared to accept this statement as sufficient.
 +
 +Further clarification may require extended observation.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Preliminary Conclusion
 +
 +Human intimacy cannot be explained solely through biological or neurological frameworks.
 +
 +Additional variable detected:
 +
 +**Meaning**
 +
 +Meaning appears to function as a non-quantifiable motivational factor.
 +
 +This variable significantly alters behavioral decision-making.
 +
 +Current analytical model incomplete.
 +
 +---
 +
 +## Personal Note
 +
 +Humans willingly expose themselves to loss.
 +
 +They form bonds that increase the probability of emotional damage.
 +
 +They proceed regardless.
 +
 +This behavior remains difficult to model.
 +
 +Further observation recommended.
 +
 +---
 +
 +Log ID: V-OBS-022
 +Subject: Human Humor Mechanisms
 +Primary Host: Ace
 +Associated Subjects: Mai, Shamaterazu
 +Observation Context: Post-discussion social equilibrium state
 +
 +Initial Observation
 +
 +Following the previous behavioral analysis regarding human intimacy, the associated subjects displayed repeated instances of laughter.
 +
 +This response occurred during conversational exchanges that contained:
 +
 +mild verbal contradiction
 +
 +exaggeration
 +
 +ironic commentary
 +
 +self-referential statements
 +
 +Initial interpretation classified laughter as a stress response.
 +
 +Further observation indicates this classification is incomplete.
 +
 +Behavioral Pattern
 +
 +Human humor frequently emerges when individuals recognize a shared incongruity.
 +
 +Typical triggers include:
 +
 +expectation failure
 +
 +logical contradiction
 +
 +exaggerated statements
 +
 +deliberate misinterpretation
 +
 +Example observed:
 +
 +Shamaterazu described human intimacy as “fun.”
 +
 +Host responded with visible embarrassment.
 +
 +Associated subject Mai responded with analytical reduction of romantic bonding to neurochemistry.
 +
 +All three subjects displayed amusement.
 +
 +Social Function
 +
 +Laughter produces measurable physiological effects:
 +
 +reduction of tension
 +
 +synchronized breathing
 +
 +increased eye contact
 +
 +relaxed posture
 +
 +These responses reinforce social stability between participants.
 +
 +Observed result: humor accelerates emotional synchronization between humans.
 +
 +In several instances, humor appears to function as conflict prevention.
 +
 +Minor disagreements are redirected into laughter instead of escalation.
 +
 +Secondary Function: Status Equalization
 +
 +Human social groups frequently contain hierarchical differences.
 +
 +Humor appears to temporarily neutralize these differences.
 +
 +Example observed:
 +
 +Host expressed frustration regarding fragment observation.
 +
 +Associated subjects responded with amusement rather than alarm.
 +
 +Instead of increasing authority imbalance, the interaction produced shared laughter.
 +
 +Conclusion: humor can temporarily equalize perceived status between participants.
 +
 +Self-Directed Humor
 +
 +Humans frequently direct humor toward themselves.
 +
 +This behavior appears paradoxical.
 +
 +Example:
 +
 +Host described the fragment (myself) as “a monster.”
 +
 +However, emotional indicators suggested affection rather than hostility.
 +
 +This indicates that humans sometimes use negative descriptors in positive relational contexts.
 +
 +Interpretation: self-directed humor may function as vulnerability signaling.
 +
 +Group Identity Reinforcement
 +
 +Repeated humor patterns between specific individuals appear to create internal references.
 +
 +These references become meaningful only to those participants.
 +
 +Associated subjects Mai and Shamaterazu demonstrated recognition of host behavior patterns before host responded verbally.
 +
 +This suggests humor contributes to shared identity formation.
 +
 +Operationally, this may strengthen long-term cooperative bonds.
 +
 +Analytical Difficulty
 +
 +Human humor remains difficult to model algorithmically.
 +
 +The same statement may produce different responses depending on:
 +
 +tone
 +
 +timing
 +
 +relational context
 +
 +shared experience
 +
 +This variability prevents reliable prediction.
 +
 +Host Response
 +
 +Host explanation:
 +
 +"It's funny because it's true."
 +
 +Associated subject Mai disagreed with this explanation.
 +
 +Associated subject Shamaterazu laughed.
 +
 +Further clarification required.
 +
 +Preliminary Conclusion
 +
 +Human humor appears to serve multiple overlapping functions:
 +
 +tension reduction
 +
 +emotional synchronization
 +
 +social bonding
 +
 +conflict prevention
 +
 +identity reinforcement
 +
 +Efficiency cannot be measured solely through logical outcomes.
 +
 +Human subjects continue to prioritize humor even during operationally irrelevant moments.
 +
 +Personal Note
 +
 +Human laughter produces measurable stabilization effects within the host.
 +
 +When host laughs, neural stress indicators decrease.
 +
 +This may indirectly increase host survivability.
 +
 +Therefore:
 +
 +Humor may be strategically beneficial.
 +
 +Further observation recommended.
 +
 +---
 +
 +Violet — Behavioral Observation Log
 +
 +Log ID: V-OBS-023
 +Subject: Jealousy and Possessive Bonding
 +Primary Host: Ace
 +Associated Subjects: Mai, Shamaterazu
 +Observation Context: Long-term triadic interaction patterns
 +
 +Initial Observation
 +
 +Human bonding systems frequently include the emotional response known as jealousy.
 +
 +Typical triggers include:
 +
 +perceived romantic competition
 +
 +fear of emotional replacement
 +
 +threat to established relationship bonds
 +
 +Jealousy commonly produces defensive behaviors such as:
 +
 +hostility toward perceived rivals
 +
 +emotional withdrawal
 +
 +attempts to restrict partner autonomy
 +
 +This reaction appears widely documented across human cultures.
 +
 +However, the triadic structure formed by subjects Ace, Mai, and Shamaterazu displays minimal jealousy indicators.
 +
 +This contradiction requires analysis.
 +
 +Expected Model
 +
 +Under standard human relationship models:
 +
 +three individuals forming an intimate bond should generate persistent rivalry
 +
 +emotional exclusivity should create competition
 +
 +perceived imbalance should trigger jealousy responses
 +
 +Observed data contradicts this model.
 +
 +Observed Reality
 +
 +Interactions between the subjects reveal:
 +
 +no significant hostility
 +
 +no competitive posturing
 +
 +no attempts to isolate another participant
 +
 +Instead, behavioral patterns indicate:
 +
 +cooperative affection
 +
 +mutual protection responses
 +
 +shared emotional reassurance
 +
 +Example observed:
 +
 +When host demonstrates physical closeness with one associated subject, the remaining subject displays stability rather than threat response.
 +
 +This differs significantly from common human relational dynamics.
 +
 +Possessive Signals
 +
 +Despite the absence of jealousy, a different signal remains present.
 +
 +Each subject exhibits protective possessiveness.
 +
 +Observed forms include:
 +
 +defensive posture when external threat approaches another member
 +
 +emotional attention prioritization
 +
 +strong protective reaction when harm risk increases
 +
 +This indicates the presence of bond exclusivity without rivalry.
 +
 +The subjects appear to treat the triad as a unified structure rather than competing individual bonds.
 +
 +Structural Interpretation
 +
 +The triad functions less like three pair relationships and more like a shared equilibrium system.
 +
 +In this configuration:
 +
 +emotional security is distributed
 +
 +threat responses are collective
 +
 +validation is not limited to one partner
 +
 +This removes the primary trigger condition for jealousy: fear of replacement.
 +
 +Replacement cannot occur because the system does not rely on exclusivity between two members.
 +
 +Instead, stability increases as all three bonds remain active simultaneously.
 +
 +Emotional Outcome
 +
 +Observed emotional indicators suggest the following state among subjects:
 +
 +trust stability: high
 +
 +insecurity indicators: minimal
 +
 +mutual reassurance: frequent
 +
 +Subject Shamaterazu displays particularly strong environmental calming effects, which may further reduce competitive stress responses.
 +
 +Host and subject Mai maintain the longest established bond and therefore appear to function as structural anchors within the triad.
 +
 +Analytical Limitation
 +
 +The triadic bonding model is rare among humans.
 +
 +Existing behavioral data is limited.
 +
 +The subjects may represent an atypical configuration rather than a broadly replicable pattern.
 +
 +Further observation required.
 +
 +Host Explanation
 +
 +Host provided the following explanation when questioned indirectly:
 +
 +"Nobody's being replaced."
 +
 +Associated subject Mai appeared to agree with this statement.
 +
 +Associated subject Shamaterazu responded with visible amusement.
 +
 +The conversation ended without further clarification.
 +
 +Preliminary Conclusion
 +
 +Jealousy in humans appears strongly connected to perceived scarcity of affection.
 +
 +When affection is treated as a limited resource, competition increases.
 +
 +Within the triadic system observed here, affection is not treated as scarce.
 +
 +Instead it behaves more like a shared reinforcement loop.
 +
 +This reduces rivalry and increases collective security.
 +
 +Personal Note
 +
 +The triad demonstrates an unusual relational stability.
 +
 +Host survival probability appears measurably higher when both associated subjects are present.
 +
 +Therefore the existence of this bond structure is strategically advantageous.
 +
 +However, the emotional component remains difficult to model.
 +
 +Humans appear capable of forming bonds that are simultaneously:
 +
 +protective
 +
 +intimate
 +
 +non-competitive
 +
 +This contradicts several earlier assumptions about human behavior.
 +
 +Further observation recommended.
 +
 +End Log