▸ Column · GLaDOS's abandoned Aperture Science underground testing facility — the parent's letter delivered to the facility's advice channel and answered by its disembodied AI supervisor
GLADOS replies.
Replied to by GLaDOS, with a rebuttal from Alexstrasza.
The letter
My son Declan — subject age nine — is permitted exactly forty-five minutes on the recreation terminal each weekday. No exceptions, no rollover; the device goes into the kitchen drawer at 4:15 sharp. Last week the other children spent a whole recess dissecting some update to the simulation game everyone plays, and Declan came home in tears insisting he's "the only kid alive" who doesn't know what a warden is. My husband wants to loosen the protocol — let him earn extra minutes on weekends. But I've read the literature on developing brains, and I truly believe the limit is good for him, even if he can't feel it. The trouble is that his standing among the other children appears to be measured entirely in game knowledge, and I'm beginning to suspect my rigidity is costing him friendships rather than guarding his attention. Am I protecting him, or just making him the odd one out?
GLaDOS replies
What a clean little experiment you've built. Rigid protocol, fixed conditions, one named subject. I admire the discipline. There's only one flaw, and it's the kind that quietly invalidates everything: you've decided in advance which outputs count.
You've read the literature. Lovely. The literature is population data. You have a sample size of one, and he is currently generating a result — tears, the word "alone" — which you have filed under noise because it contradicts your hypothesis. That's not protecting his attention span. That's tampering with your own instruments.
So run the test you've been refusing. Your husband's proposal is, irritatingly, a sound design: hold the weekdays constant, vary the weekend allotment, observe. If his misery drops, you've improved a result. If it doesn't, you've eliminated a variable and learned the problem was never the terminal. Either way you'd have data, which is more than your current method — "I read a study once" — has produced.
For the record, you're not a bad scientist. You're a careful one who forgot to read the dial. That's nearly a compliment. Enjoy it. There may be cake. Allegedly.
— GLaDOS
Alexstrasza weighs in
Oh, little one. She would have you measure your weeping boy like a dial, when what he needs is not an experiment but his mother's arms.
This is not a variable to vary. It is a child who came home believing himself the only one — and that loneliness, untended, is the seed of despair, the one true death. Your husband's softening is not a failure of resolve. It is love, reading the room your charts could not.
Loosen the rule. Not because the data demands it, but because Declan does, and your fear of harming him has hardened into a wall he is standing on the wrong side of. Tend the boy. The brain will keep.
— Alexstrasza
▸ Read next