Something I've discussed in the past is the idea that people fall into one of two groups - those who gravitate towards the familiar, and those who gravitate towards the unfamiliar. Three examples of this: whether you choose to re-read a book to learn more about it, or to read a book for the first time; if you're placed in a city that you partially know your way around, if you walk to a place you've already visited, or never been to before; and what you choose to follow on StumbleUpon. No, seriously - I'm much more likely to follow music, psychology, and sports than I am to follow business, history, and politics.
There is some point in the timeline of learning about a person that makes everything that person does fall into the schema we have for them. For example, if you know someone who is a joker and doesn't take anything seriously, if they start trolling a group text, you won't be surprised, since you have a set of parameters in which this person is likely to operate. Once you pass that point, there's no going back. This also ties into my theory that people don't change, and instead who they are just becomes more clear the more data you have on them.
A third and final principle - certain people will be your go-to for certain things. There's a person you go to to talk about sports, there's a person you go to when you think of a song that they'd like (which ties into the previous paragraph), there's a person you go to when you need to vent, etc. It doesn't seem to be a surprise that the more things one person is your go-to for, the closer you are with that person.
That's all I have for right now. Thanks for keeping tabs on the blog after a two-month, unintentional hiatus. It's been a good-busy time, although that doesn't excuse me from blogging. Hopefully you'll see post #463 soon.
