The Primary Status as seen in my mind game.

How is the Tertiary Status organized as of today?

Last updated: Aug 14, 2005
Level 4 update on Oct 15, 2006 - section 2.4 rewritten with other parts and pieces updated

1 Introduction

The Tertiary Status is the only status bar referred to often since around 2004. It relates to how much you like something. The scaling and design has changed quite a bit over the years, but the base principal has remained the same. I bring it up indirectly on the forums and throughout my site.

2 Tertiary Status basics

2.1 The principal of the Tertiary Status

The Tertiary Status' principal has remained unchanged since it was first formed. The concept of using the principal has changed some. The principal behind it is that it is a rating system where things are rated on a scale from 0 to 1000 with 500 being neutral. This is known as compatibility, or COM for short. The higher the number, the more it is liked and the lower the number, the more it is disliked. Everything starts off on the neutral 500 and adjusts from there.

2.2 Brief history of changes

The concept has changed throughout time. Earlier, it was based on a linear scale. The disadvantage about this is that it was often easy to get a rating of 1000 and was misleading because of it. The letter rating system helped, but not enough as it was confusing to remember all those values. Until about March or April of 2006, it was based on the half-step technique. Today, it's now entirely based on the "times better than neutral" system which is much easier to understand.

2.3 The half-step technique

The half-step technique is somewhat simple to understand. From neutral, each half-step you take toward the maximum or minimum, it has 4 times the impact, an inverse square. That is, something at 750 has 4 times the impact than something at 500. 875, the next half-step, has 16 times the impact than 500 or 4 times the impact than 750. When around the neutral point, the compatibility changes very quickly, but, as it gets into the 900's it slows down very fast. A rating of 900 has 25 times the impact than 500. The letter rating system still exists to a very limited extent, but has been modified and is much simpler. Here's a chart comparing common or significant values.

Compatibility reference chart Chart last updated: Aug 15, 2007
Times Better Than Neutral System*	COM value**	5 neutral***	0 base†	Remarks
undefined‡	0	0	10	Not possible‡
-60,000	2.041	0.02	9.959	Ultra extreme hate
-30,000	2.887	0.029	9.942	Ultra extreme hate
-15,000	4.082	0.041	9.918	Ultra extreme hate
-8000	5.59	0.056	9.888	Ultra extreme hate
-5100	7.001	0.07	9.86	The lowest compatibility known to me; Ultra extreme hate
-4000	7.906	0.079	9.842	Ultra extreme hate (highest point)
-2000	11.180	0.112	9.776	Extreme hate
-1000	15.811	0.158	9.684	Extreme hate
-500	22.361	0.224	9.553	High hate
-320	27.951	0.28	9.441	High hate (highest point)
-250	31.623	0.316	9.368	Hate
-120	45.644	0.456	9.087	Hate
-100	50	0.5	9	Hate (highest point)
-60	64.55	0.645	8.709	Semi-hate
-50	70.711	0.707	8.586	Below here is rarely seen or encountered; Semi-hate
-30	91.287	0.913	8.174	Semi-hate
-25	100	1	8	Semi-hate (highest point)
-15	129.099	1.291	7.418	Slight hate
-11.111	150	1.5	7	Slight hate
-8	176.777	1.768	6.464	Slight hate
-6.25	200	2	4	Slight hate (highest point)
-4	250	2.5	5	Well-disliked
-2.778	300	3	4	Moderately disliked
-2.04	350	3.5	3	Somewhat disliked
-2	353.553	3.536	2.929	Somewhat disliked
-1.563	400	4	2	Slightly disliked
-1.233	450	4.5	1	Very slightly disliked
1	500	5	0	Neutral
1.233	550	5.5	1	Very slightly liked
1.563	600	6	2	Slightly liked
2	646.447	6.464	2.929	Somewhat liked
2.04	650	6.5	3	Somewhat liked
2.778	700	7	4	Moderately liked
4	750	7.5	5	Well-liked
6.25	800	8	6	Slight favorite (lowest point)
8	823.223	8.232	6.464	Slight favorite
11.111	850	8.5	7	Slight favorite
15	870.901	8.709	7.418	Slight favorite
25	900	9	8	Semi-favorite (lowest point)
30	908.713	9.087	8.174	Semi-favorite
50	929.289	9.293	8.586	Above here is rarely seen or encountered; semi-favorite
60	935.45	9.355	8.709	Semi-favorite
100	950	9.5	9	Favorite (lowest point)
120	954.356	9.544	9.087	Favorite
250	968.377	9.684	9.368	Favorite
320	972.049	9.72	9.441	High favorite (lowest point)
500	977.639	9.776	9.553	High favorite
1000	984.189	9.842	9.684	Extreme favorite (lowest point)
2000	988.82	9.888	9.776	Extreme favorite
2200	989.34	9.893	9.787	Highest known sustained compatibility; extreme favorite
3190	991.147	9.911	9.823	The highest compatibility known to me; extreme favorite
4000	992.094	9.921	9.842	Ultra extreme favorite (lowest point)
5000	992.929	9.929	9.859	Beyond here is where it starts getting dangerous; ultra extreme favorite
8000	994.41	9.944	9.888	Ultra extreme favorite
15,000	995.918	9.959	9.918	Ultra extreme favorite
30,000	997.113	9.971	9.942	Ultra extreme favorite
60,000	997.959	9.98	9.959	Ultra extreme favorite
undefined‡	1000	10	10	Not possible‡
Times Better Than Neutral System	COM value	5 neutral	0 base	Remarks

Table footnotes:
* This is what the new compatibility system uses and is the most commonly referred to due to its numerous benefits. I use this in my dream journal's newest dreams, my blog, forums E-mails, everywhere.
** This is what the old compatibility system uses and only old documents on my site refer to it. It is no longer used in the newer updates.
*** This only applies to the dream journal's older dreams, of which applies to the general, nature, story, scenery, and fun ratings.
† This only applies to the dream journal's older dreams and only applies to the scary and weird ratings.
‡ Not possible due to the formula and division by zero (from the -2 exponent - putting in 0 or 1000 for COM eventually yields 0^-2, of which cannot be done):

COMP = ( 1 - ( ( | COM - 500 | ) ÷ 500 ) ) ^ -2

COMP = ( 1 - ( ( | COM - 500 | ) ÷ 500 ) ) ^ -2

Solved for COM, the formula is this (for the positive part): "COM = ( 1 - ( COMP ^ -0.5 ) ) * 500 + 500". You can't get 1000 or better no matter what you put in for "COMP", even a googol isn't high enough.

2.4 The modern system

2.4.1 What it is

The half-step technique was found to be rather confusing and often inaccurate and it made calculations rather complex to work with. When something is liked twice as much, it's hard to represent that using the old half-step technique, but is much easier using the current system. A value of 1 indicates neutral, just like 500 in the half-step technique. Neutral is defined as something neither liked nor disliked where one wouldn't care of it's existance or not. When something is liked twice as much, it has a value of 2. If something is liked half as much than neutral, it has a value of -2 often used, but is actually 0.5 when calculations are involved. Negative values indicate the times worse than neutral value for it's positive counterpart. -5 means 5 times worse than neutral whereas 3 means 3 times better than neutral.

2.4.2 The usefulness of this new system

By using this system, it is much easier to understand, the math is much faster to process, and it led to two very useful discoveries. One of which is that, if the compatibility is doubled, you can sustain it for at most four times longer. This seems to be the case with me and music and I even predicted something that seems rather crazy with remarkable accuracy. On my MP3 player, I made a prediction that I'll make just over 100 days straight at the maximum from the same source when I was only 60 days in, which is already a record. It turned out I made 107 days straight. I made a few other such predictions and they came out quite correct. Although I came short on some cases, that was due to getting heavily involved with something else, which is the reason for "up to". It also led to a greater understanding of motive and it now even affects my buying decisions.

2.4.3 Motive

Motive is directly related to compatibility, but has variations caused from affectors. For example, a monitor has a base compatibility of 1.1, where I pretty much don't care much about them but there is a slight positive like toward them. What makes a big difference in my motive toward the various types of monitors are their features, issues, the manufacturers, and others. LCD monitors cost a bit over twice as much as the CRT's do and I have a -5 affector on my motive to getting an LCD as a result. Affectors that high have a huge impact. By tripling the price, it'll take 9 times the motive to justify it. Because resolution is important to me and LCD's don't support the very high resolutions I want, I had a further -2.1 affector on my buying decision toward getting an LCD. Put the price and resolution affectors together and it's a -10.5 combined affector. The weight of LCD's, however, has an affector of 2, a positive value. They weigh very little compared to the bulky CRT's which has a considerable impact on the affectors. Due to the fact it rarely needs to be moved around as it is, the impact isn't all that high. Putting these 3 elements together gives me a combined affector of -5.3. Appearance plays almost no role, as I generally don't care how the casing and general appearance is (how the image on the screen appears is not part of this). Color has an affector of 1.1 - I don't care much about what color it is, but dark colors are preferred. Shape has an affector of 1. As I continue evaluating the various aspects (dead pixels, clarity, resolution support, electricity usage, the company's policies (the big one is whether or not they charge for support - long distance calls only have a minor effect, but a $35 fee per incident would very quickly add a -7 affector to my buying decisions for that product). Merge all the details together, I'm 30 times more likely to get a CRT than an LCD and I do whatever has the highest motive. Since I wanted a monitor, the motive was focused toward that. From factoring in everything, my choice was made. In the case of ties, then I need to go toward the lesser important aspects such as the general appearance, the color of the casing, and things otherwise unimportant. If there's still a tie, then it's chosen randomly.

Motive affects my actions as well such as whether I want to work on my 2D game, update my website, watch TV, do housework, or other things. Housework has a base compatibility of -5.5, but it varies depending on what it is. Most housework, by its nature, is negative compatibility, but some things are slightly into positive territory. If I see no sense in doing it (such as raking leaves when more are just going to fall anyway), then a negative affector is added onto it. By my parents complaining about me doing it, positive affectors are added and the more they complain, the greater the affector gets. Even legal and safety things have an impact, a much bigger impact. If it's illegal to do something, the affector can easily be four, five or even six digits negative (depending mainly on severity) and it would take a huge positive affector to counter it. When safety is involved, huge positive affectors are added. Having to put a seat belt on in a car to minimize damage in a car has a double or triple-digit positive affector.

2.4.4 Gradual neutralization revisited

Earlier, I tried coming up with a formula for gradual neutralization. The concept is proven, but found that the rate of the affector added to something varies depending on the individual and the activity. By excessively doing the same task for a long time (such as listening to the same song several hundred times in a row), negative affectors are added. By not doing something for extended time such as visiting relatives when they haven't been seen in ten years, positive affectors are added. Even the rate at which the affectors increase varies among the individual. Those with OCD have a much smaller rate of change than those who have the opposite effect and thus a consistant formula is not directly possible. The severity of the condition also plays a role. For music, the basis is on the time the song has played over length of the song. There is a square root of the base value used and from which is raised to some power based on the duration. One example is something like this:

grad_neutral_affector = base_value^(duration^0.5);

The base value is either something slightly above 1 or slightly below 1. Slightly above is a positive affector and slightly below is a negative affector. For excessive use, the base value is around 0.992 and for long durations without, it's more around 1.008 or 1.00265 for someone with a severe case of OCD (like me). The duration is in seconds.

2.4.1 What it is

One step further toward simplification is the "times better than neutral" system, of which is in use today. This system uses neutral as the basis. At neutral, you neither like nor dislike something and otherwise wouldn't care about it. When better than neutral, you like it and when worse than neutral, you dislike it. 6 1/4 times better than neutral is a liked object or minor friend. 25 times better than neutral is a favorite object or a friend. 100 times better than neutral, rarely encountered, is a top favorite object or a best friend. 6 1/4 times worse than neutral is a disliked object or minor enemy. 25 times worse than neutral is a strongly disliked object or an enemy. 100 times worst than neutral, rarely encountered, is hated object or worst enemy.

2.4.2 About motive

Unlike earlier cases, motive can more easily be determined. The higher the motive, the higher the chance you have of doing something. The times better than neutral rating has a very strong influence on motive. Affectors, factors that have a further effect, whether positive or negative, determine the final motive. If something is required by law, it would have a huge impact on the motive. The compatibility with doing paper work is often low, but with it being required by law to do or extremely important (such as insurance), the motive is affected very strongly towards the higher end. If some activity had hazards to it, such as mining, it would lower the motive. After applying all affectors to a particular item, the end result can be determined. Listening to music has no known hazards (except when very loud) and can be calming or fun, it adds to the motive further.

2.5 New or unknown objects

If something isn't known well or long enough, a one-of-a-kind rating of "X" will appear. X indicates an unknown as it is with mathematics.

3 Formulas

3.1 COM points - X times the impact over neutral

3.1.1 Basic formula

Confirmation status: confirmed;

The chart above explains the half-step technique and that each half-step from the neutral point has 4 times the impact. The formula for it seems weird which makes it tough to give a COM points rating on something. It's simpler than it looks though.

COMP = ( 1 - ( | COM - 500 | ÷ 500 ) ) ^ -2

COMP is the compatibility points. COM is your base compatibility, the value on the scale from 0 to 1000. Knowing this formula, a rating of exactly 0 or 1000 is impossible due to division by zero. The | symbols | indicate to take the absolute value of what's inside here (or, simply put, take away the negative sign if there is one). To find the "impact on neutral" value with one value below 500 and another above it, just multiply the two values. If both are above or both are below 500, then just divide instead.

3.1.2 Compatibility comparisons

If you have one object with a compatibility of 350 and another of 920, basically use the basic formula twice and compute the two values. If one is above neutral and the other is below, simply multiply the two results. If both were above neutral (as in 620 versus 870) or both were below neutral (as in 240 versus 180), then divide the results with the smaller number being taken into the bigger one so it's always greater than or equal to 1. That is, take 870's result and divide by 620's result to get about 4 16/25. Take 180's result and divide by 240's result to get 1 7/9. In the first example, you'd multiply both results together to get 79 5/7. Thus, you'd be almost 80 times as motivated to work with the 920 rated object than the 350 rated object.

3.2 Gradual neutralization

Concept confirmation status: strongly proven;
Formula confirmation status: yet to be tested;

I don't know with great certainty whether there is such a concept as gradual neutralization or not. It seems like there is at times, and it seems like there isn't. Perhaps it's object dependent.

The concept, however, is simple. Gradual neutralization is the effect of something gradually going toward the neutral point after extended time. The formula is based on the compatibility points, the value that is better or worse than neutral (see table above for this).

After you get to know someone or something for a long time then you don't get to see that object for an extended time, your compatibility rating will slowly go up or down toward neutral, which is 500. This effect is called "gradual neutralization" because the object is becoming neutral gradually over a long time. The concept was inaccurate due to the way the ratings were organized before. The formula needs to be thought over again as I think it's linear and strongly based on the COM points, but then again, the whole concept is debated, especially in the short term.

This is the old formula which has been strongly disproven:

ACOM = ( COM - 500 ) × ( ( 1 + ( TM ÷ TK ) ^ 0.5 ) ^ -1 ) + 500

ACOM = ( COM - 500 ) × ( ( 1 + ( TM ÷ TK ) ^ 0.5 ) ^ -1 ) + 500

In this formula, ACOM is the adjusted COM value you get, COM is what your current compatibility value is, TM stands for "time missed", the amount of time passed since you last messed with the object, and TK stands for "time known", the total time, including time missed and from past missed times, since you first heard about the object. Keep in mind though, this formula has been disproven, but does seem somewhat close in certain areas.

4 Extreme cases

4.1 The extreme high end

As you probably may know me, I listen to the same song for hundreds, even thousands of times in a row before changing the speed (by editting the sample rate) or the song. If you looked at the compatibilities, you can understand why. Anything much above 100 is rarely seen. At 2000, the effect is seriously amplified. Most would rarely get much past 100 times better than neutral compatibility which, in turn, allows for about 40 plays straight before changing songs. With 2000, 20 times higher, I can continue on for 400 times longer in theory. Note that 400 is the square of 20. With 2000 times better than neutral compatibility, I could listen to the same song for 16,000 times before getting signs of getting bored of it and wanting to switch. The highest spike on record, set on Jun 18, 2006, is 3190 times better than neutral. If a song remained that high, it would otherwise average nearly 40,000 plays, which easily could span over a month. This explains why I'm able to listen to the same song for thousands of loops before even changing songs. The highest on record for an individual is 160.

4.2 The extreme low end

The lowest on record is 5100 times worse than neutral, set during late 1999 or early 2000. Considering that anything worse than 100 times worse than neutral is rarely seen, this is truly astronomical. Only an individual has got this low, someone who has always caused me far more trouble than I even needed. The lowest on record for other things besides an individual is 1300 times worse than neutral. This happens to be the school I went to during my 9th grade year. I had a hard enough time with that school and that cruel "teacher" made it even worse than it had to me, which explains the 5100 times worse than neutral case. The overall span with these extremes is just over 16 1/4 million (after multiplying them 5100 and 3190). TV ads that have whistling in them often get as low as 400 times worse than neutral so low, I always mute them. Nothing since the date the record has been set has come even considerably close to the record low, only getting to within 15% of it.

Previous page | Next page

3.1.2 Status System - Learn about my Status System from it's history to how it works. My Status System is very rarely used today, except compatibility.
3.1.2.1 Status System home - The introduction to my Status System
3.1.2.1-1 About the Status System report
3.1.2.1-2 The most important pages to read
3.1.2.2 History - the history of the Status System from birth to today and it's possible future
3.1.2.2-1 Status System's birth
3.1.2.2-2 Changes were slow at first
3.1.2.2-3 The biggest leap forward
3.1.2.2-4 Progress slows down drastically
3.1.2.3 Primary Status - how the Primary Status works and the meaning of the terms it uses
3.1.2.3-1 Introduction
3.1.2.3-2 The individual stats
3.1.2.3-3 Very large or very small numbers
3.1.2.3-4 Formulas
3.1.2.4 Primary Status Laws - laws, theories, and hypotheses for the Primary Status (and not the others)
3.1.2.4-1 Introduction
3.1.2.4-2 (Attack) minus defense law
3.1.2.4-3 Theory of maximum values
3.1.2.4-4 The laws of hit points
3.1.2.5 Secondary Status - the defense system and how it works
3.1.2.5-1 What the Secondary Status is
3.1.2.5-2 An example of its purpose
3.1.2.5-3 A relationship with Primary Status laws
3.1.2.6 Tertiary Status (compatibility) - what compatibility is and how it works
3.1.2.6-1 Introduction
3.1.2.6-2 Tertiary Status basics
3.1.2.6-3 Formulas
3.1.2.7 Quaternary Status - various other statistics like pulse, weight, or eye color
3.1.2.8 Fifth Status - what status abnormalities are is and how it works
3.1.2.8-1 Introduction
3.1.2.8-2 The colorings for condition
3.1.2.8-3 Warnings
3.1.2.9 Sixth Status - how ability-learning works
3.1.2.9-1 Introduction
3.1.2.9-2 Sixth Status common terms
3.1.2.9-3 A short story
3.1.2.9-4 Sixth Status laws and theories
3.1.2.10 Seventh Status - what events are and how they help
3.1.2.10-1 What the Seventh Status is
3.1.2.10-2 The three types of events
3.1.2.10-3 Event properties
3.1.2.10-4 The story continued
3.1.2.11 Eighth Status - levelling up abilities
3.1.2.11-1 What the Eighth Status is
3.1.2.11-2 Eighth Status common terms
3.1.2.11-3 Level experience groups
3.1.2.11-4 How much EXP is needed?
3.1.2.11-5 Properties of levelling up abilities
3.1.2.11-6 Plus abilities
3.1.2.11-7 Eighth Status laws and theories
3.1.2.12 Ninth Status - equipping abilities for learning and use
3.1.2.12-1 What the Ninth Status is
3.1.2.12-2 Use of the Ninth Status
3.1.2.13 Summary - a brief summary of the report
3.1.2.13-1 Primary Status
3.1.2.13-2 Secondary Status
3.1.2.13-3 Tertiary Status
3.1.2.13-4 Quaternary Status
3.1.2.13-5 Fifth Status
3.1.2.13-6 Sixth Status
3.1.2.13-7 Seventh Status
3.1.2.13-8 Eighth Status
3.1.2.13-9 Ninth Status
3.1.2.13-10 Formulas
3.1.2.14 Glossary - glossary of the terms used
3.1.2.14-1 About the glossary
3.1.2.14-2 The glossary terms

Footnotes:
There are no footnotes for this page.