I’m not fond of graphs because my experience has led me to associate them with mundane math. They also make the line between math and art that much more undefined. But here are two I enjoy: 

What we have above is a 2D representation of the changes in head feeling that I, and I’m sure all of you, experience. The intersection of the axis is not significant, although you may like to consider that the location on the y-axis at the intersection represents normal thought processing, where, theoretically, normal is an average of the current thought processes being used by everyone in the world, or, lacking that information, everyone in a scientific group study. The interval of time is a guess, and speaks more towards my personal experience. I wonder what such a graph could tell us about a person. The biggest obstacle is to develop a standard method by which thought processes can be drawn out in this manner. But assuming:

1. In the future societies will have both the technological and intellectual capacity to produce such graphs and
2. The graph results are dependable

Then I’m sure that the frequency of peak to peak, the amplitude of the waves, and the magnitude of the slope from peak to trough would all be very telling aspects of someone’s graph (mental health/stability). I further suspect that, if the graphing methods/technology were sufficiently refined, you would find that everyone has their own unique graph. Even when the graphs don’t repeat, as they probably never do,you might find that there is an unquestionable unique characteristic that shows up every so often in each person’s graph (say, once a day or week). It might even be a superior identification technique, making fingerprints and retina scans a thing of the past. Although, criminals who are wanted by the government might be more inclined to do hard drugs in an attempt to disrupt their unique graph characteristic in unpredictable ways and thus be able to live under the radar. Right, onto the next one:

This one, by contrast, is pretty self-explanatory and can readily be measured with today’s technology. Also different is that the intersection between axis is significant and, on the y-axis, represents the subject of the professor’s lecture. As you can see, class has been adjourned and students are packing their things away and heading towards the door. And, not surprisingly, they’re also talking amongst themselves. Each line protruding from the y-axis at time equals 0 represents two or more students in conversation and so you see we have 3 conversations going. The y-axis, as labeled, is the range of conversation subjects available, quite numerous, obviously. Note that whether a conversation line is below the x-axis or above it is of no importance. It is the distance from the x-axis (y = 0) that has meaning. And so we begin the analysis. We see that one group of students was not at all interested in the course material, as their conversation line begins way off target (lowest line) and therefore has no relevance to the subject of the professor’s lecture. The next lineup begins at y = 0 and stays there for some time, perhaps discussing what the professor would have if not cut off by the clock. The next highest line is a conversation with some relevancy to the course subject but it quickly evolves into “what are you doing tonight?” or something similar. Finally, regarding the branching off of lines. The branches represent the subjects of conversation, so that if one line becomes two, during this time there are two subjects in one conversation. It is tempting to believe that the branching means that a large group has split into two groups, each of which is talking about something different, but a new group would not share a root line. Since two subjects rarely both survive in one conversation, the length of one of the branches is usually rather short, and, a more realistic graph would probably trim the long branch of the top line.