This evening I started reading An Experiment in Criticism again, and I noted Lewis' mention of the other arts as well as literature, and his suggestion that we could evaluate them with the same method as he was suggesting for books. This got me thinking about music in particular.
"Many people enjoy popular music in a way which is compatible with humming the tune, stamping in time, talking, and eating. And when the popular tune hasonce gone out of fashion they enjoy it no more. Those who like Bach react quite differently." (Lewis)
I had also watched a movie about Beethoven earlier this evening and the one line that stood out to me went something like: 'What is music? What does it do? It has the power to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer.'
So tonight as I listened to some of my favorite music, I thought I'd write a little concerning a brief observation I'd made to myself a few days ago: That I like music that sounds Grand. I am not really sure if there is any better word for it.
I was thinking to myself the other day, 'what is it that I like about the music that I like?' and the answer that first came to me was the sense of Grandure. I don't like only Grand sounding music, to be sure, but it struck me that my favorite music, the music that stirrs me most, that I most would not want to live without is the symphonic music that has a kind of swelling to it, usually with an optimistic flavor, though not always, which brings to mind a sense of something immense, soemthing great, something that evokes a sense of Wonder. This sense of wonder can also be found in the 'magical' sounding music that I enjoy. It is not large scale wonder, but wonder at a mysterious beauty.
What exactly do I mean by wonder? I think that wonder is.....delight in something that is beyond one's grasp or understanding. It does not usually have a negative connotation, though it often includes the sense of being very small or insignificant in comparrison to something else. But wonder does not focus on one's smallness, nor cause one to be fearfull because of it. The state of Wonder is focused on the apprciation of something amazing, and in this appreciation one's small self is draw out and uplifted so that it too, for a moment, feels so much larger, so much greater than one normally feels.
I love music that gives me a sense of grandure, wonder, enchantment, and beauty. I also enjoy music that sounds urgent and exciting, or triumphant. On the quieter side, I like music that has a feeling of tenderness, of sweet emotions, of being quietly reflective, as well as magical and having a sense of quiet awe.
I think much of the sense of gandure in the music I like is communicated through the quality of the sounds of the instruments - the aural texture. My favorite component is always the entire string section of an orchestra playing together their individual parts - they seem to add so much space and depth. I also really enjoy the deep round sounds of some kind of horn (not sure which of the brass instruments is my favorite) - not so much when they are played high and brassy. I also very much like the shimmering sound of small chimes.
The sense of grandure is also contributed to by the apparent layers to the music, the number of instruments playing and the number of varying parts they play which make up the whole. I am never very gripped by small scale music, such as quartets or solos. A solo embedded into a piece in which many more instruments join it can be nice, but I generally find that I enjoy the moment that everyone else joins in and we at last have the fullness of the music much more than a solo part, however lovely it may be. A good analogy, perhaps, would be the kind of illustrations I like. I love pictures that are so full of details that it seems like I could find something new every time I look at them. So too, do I like a lot of details in music. I like to be able to listen to a song many different times and each time tune into a different layer, notice different details. It must be full enough, detailed enough, deep enough so as to always inspire wonder, never coming to the point that I feel completely familiar with every bit of it. I like the mystery of a myriad of sounds blending together, so that I cannot know exactly what is going on.
I tend to like music that seems to be building up to something, which has a grand finnish, or a climactic moment before dwindling back down to restate a calmer earlier theme. As suggested by this, I like a song to have a kind of landscape or plot. I like music that isn't the same volume texture or mood from start to finnish. Along with liking progression and variation in a piece, I dislike too much repetition. I enjoy restatements that have some kind of variation to them, but music that repeats itself too closely, or repeats even with variations too many times just about drives me mad.
I seem to really like when the rhythm is communicated through instruments other than just drums, or when the underlying rhythm isn't blatently stated. I'm not sure if this ties into the Grand feeling at all, but it is my feeling that a constantly rapped out beat somehow makes the music feel flatter to me, and I tend to find it distracting from the other sounds. Since it is the textures of the instruments which I beleive most captivates me, I suppose it is no surprise that I should dislike having my attention drawn away from that. Why exactly it does so isn't clear to me though. One thing that I think is fairly true, however, is that music that has drums prominently keeping the time tends to be less likely to have a varied landscape, as I mentioned above, and is more likely to maintain a constant volume texture and mood.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Struggling to Identify with the Profile Description
I am quite curious to know what some other INFPs are like.
There is a lot in the type description that completely fits me, but there are a few things which I feel a strong reaction of not identifying with (which I'm not going to adress here). I also find myself annoyed every time I read those descriptions by the over-emphasis on focusing on people. Maybe I'm not the only one who feels the analysis is unballanced? Maybe I'm extreemly introverted?
It feels to me like in the case of IFs they totally throw out the Introverted traits and focus only on their natrual empathy and care for others, blowing out of proportion their desire to make a difference in people's lives. In my experience Introversion wars with Empathy, it doesn't just sumbit to it.
For myself, while I care deeply about my friends and family and have great empathy with people around me, I find that rather than feeling a drive to focus my life on interacting with people and doing everything I can to better them, it feels as though this is an urge which I do daily battle with. I seem to have at least a slightly greater drive to not pay attention to people or put off interacting with them than my drive to show my care. I feel like this care for other's well being is a secondary thing which is persued instinctively in a periferal setting. I feel the bulk of my attention is directed toward my personal creativity - reading books, immagining, writing stories, creating/enjoying beautifull surroundings, and my persuite of understanding - theorizing and philosophizing about the nature of the world and why things are the way they are. Granted, much of my thought does involve people-related theories, like understanding personalities, as well as understanding society. And I do feel I have an intuitive understanding of how people work both on an individual and group level, and I long for the ability to run tests and surveys to prove or disprove my theories. But my intellectual interest is not limited to analysing people, and is not over-ridden by a desire to connect with them. I connect warmly with those close to me, but I tend to approach people at large as alien beings to be avoided or analysed.
I feel general good will toward people, and if my writings about the things I contemplate can be of use to others, all the better. But I don't have a sense of specifically setting out on any of my endeavors for the purpose of helping others. That is where my issue mainly lies. I'm not obsessed with serving the common good as the profiles seem to imply. My interests are mainly wrapped up in things other than people. Or at least, I have little interest in connecting with people in general beyond an abstract theoretical level - they are out there, and they are interesting specimens to study and try to understand.
When I encounter people I am generally only drawn out to connect with them for two reasons - 1) they are in need of comfort, 2) they are interested in the same topics I am, such as fantasy and fairy tales, the value of forrests, symphonic music, historic culture and art, tea, analysing all those other alien people out there, etc. When face to face with human-kind at large I tend to retreat and prefer to love them, in theory, and from afar. I would much rather devote my thoughts to writing fairy tales, than taking care of people in general, and have almost no interest whatsoever in persuing a career that brings me into contact with lots of other people - particularly needy ones. I care about them and have a hard time resisting, but I do feel an inner resistance because they can be very draining, and most of them are very uninteresting to me.
Just listening to myself talk here doesn't sound like the people-oriented gushing-with-care-for-humanity and ploting-the-salvation-of-the-world-at-large person that I feel is portrayed in most INFP profiles. I am naturally empathetic, yes, but I do not actively persue connecting with others and influencing their lives. If the opportunity happens upon me, I am more than happy to encourage and comfort others, but I'm not out there looking for people who need me or trying to refine my ability to help people and put it to constant use.
I do have strong impluses to help the emotionally distressed, which I do act upon if I can do so within the realm of social tact - I'm not going to butt in where I don't know I'm wanted. But I also try to stay out of the way of potentially needy people because I know I am likely to feel leeched if I allow my empathy to involve me. I'm afraid this all sounds a bit harsh - which I certainly am not in person. I am very kind hearted, and find pleas for help nearly irresistable, but it is never-the-less true that I haven't chosen to make my life a quest to help others. I hope I do positively affect the people I do have contact with, and heaven forbid I should ever turn away friends in need! But I have no great humanitarian cause driving me in everything I do as the profiles seem to always suggest. My interests in immagination and theory will never be forgotten on the back-burner for the sake of persuing a people-helping crusade. The very thought of such a thing is tantamount to loosing my very self. Though I also cannot immagine myself ever being uncaring toward my family and friends, I can easily immagine myself living with very limited contact with people other than one or two very close friends, and would feel no disappointment if I didn't manage to make a difference in the world beyond the very small and immediate circle around me.
So my question is, am I unusual among INFPs? Have I continually minunderstood the profiles? What are other INFPs like out there? Are they all obsessed with helping people? Or do many of them, like me, find helping people to be a sidenote to their most intense personal persuits?
There is a lot in the type description that completely fits me, but there are a few things which I feel a strong reaction of not identifying with (which I'm not going to adress here). I also find myself annoyed every time I read those descriptions by the over-emphasis on focusing on people. Maybe I'm not the only one who feels the analysis is unballanced? Maybe I'm extreemly introverted?
It feels to me like in the case of IFs they totally throw out the Introverted traits and focus only on their natrual empathy and care for others, blowing out of proportion their desire to make a difference in people's lives. In my experience Introversion wars with Empathy, it doesn't just sumbit to it.
For myself, while I care deeply about my friends and family and have great empathy with people around me, I find that rather than feeling a drive to focus my life on interacting with people and doing everything I can to better them, it feels as though this is an urge which I do daily battle with. I seem to have at least a slightly greater drive to not pay attention to people or put off interacting with them than my drive to show my care. I feel like this care for other's well being is a secondary thing which is persued instinctively in a periferal setting. I feel the bulk of my attention is directed toward my personal creativity - reading books, immagining, writing stories, creating/enjoying beautifull surroundings, and my persuite of understanding - theorizing and philosophizing about the nature of the world and why things are the way they are. Granted, much of my thought does involve people-related theories, like understanding personalities, as well as understanding society. And I do feel I have an intuitive understanding of how people work both on an individual and group level, and I long for the ability to run tests and surveys to prove or disprove my theories. But my intellectual interest is not limited to analysing people, and is not over-ridden by a desire to connect with them. I connect warmly with those close to me, but I tend to approach people at large as alien beings to be avoided or analysed.
I feel general good will toward people, and if my writings about the things I contemplate can be of use to others, all the better. But I don't have a sense of specifically setting out on any of my endeavors for the purpose of helping others. That is where my issue mainly lies. I'm not obsessed with serving the common good as the profiles seem to imply. My interests are mainly wrapped up in things other than people. Or at least, I have little interest in connecting with people in general beyond an abstract theoretical level - they are out there, and they are interesting specimens to study and try to understand.
When I encounter people I am generally only drawn out to connect with them for two reasons - 1) they are in need of comfort, 2) they are interested in the same topics I am, such as fantasy and fairy tales, the value of forrests, symphonic music, historic culture and art, tea, analysing all those other alien people out there, etc. When face to face with human-kind at large I tend to retreat and prefer to love them, in theory, and from afar. I would much rather devote my thoughts to writing fairy tales, than taking care of people in general, and have almost no interest whatsoever in persuing a career that brings me into contact with lots of other people - particularly needy ones. I care about them and have a hard time resisting, but I do feel an inner resistance because they can be very draining, and most of them are very uninteresting to me.
Just listening to myself talk here doesn't sound like the people-oriented gushing-with-care-for-humanity and ploting-the-salvation-of-the-world-at-large person that I feel is portrayed in most INFP profiles. I am naturally empathetic, yes, but I do not actively persue connecting with others and influencing their lives. If the opportunity happens upon me, I am more than happy to encourage and comfort others, but I'm not out there looking for people who need me or trying to refine my ability to help people and put it to constant use.
I do have strong impluses to help the emotionally distressed, which I do act upon if I can do so within the realm of social tact - I'm not going to butt in where I don't know I'm wanted. But I also try to stay out of the way of potentially needy people because I know I am likely to feel leeched if I allow my empathy to involve me. I'm afraid this all sounds a bit harsh - which I certainly am not in person. I am very kind hearted, and find pleas for help nearly irresistable, but it is never-the-less true that I haven't chosen to make my life a quest to help others. I hope I do positively affect the people I do have contact with, and heaven forbid I should ever turn away friends in need! But I have no great humanitarian cause driving me in everything I do as the profiles seem to always suggest. My interests in immagination and theory will never be forgotten on the back-burner for the sake of persuing a people-helping crusade. The very thought of such a thing is tantamount to loosing my very self. Though I also cannot immagine myself ever being uncaring toward my family and friends, I can easily immagine myself living with very limited contact with people other than one or two very close friends, and would feel no disappointment if I didn't manage to make a difference in the world beyond the very small and immediate circle around me.
So my question is, am I unusual among INFPs? Have I continually minunderstood the profiles? What are other INFPs like out there? Are they all obsessed with helping people? Or do many of them, like me, find helping people to be a sidenote to their most intense personal persuits?
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Impossible Hair
I love animated hair! You can give ridiculous ammounts of it to people with small heads, and it somehow never weighs them down or gets in the way. It never catches on the cuff buttons of passersby nor collects twigs and leaves when it's longer than the person is tall. When sat upon it just magically grows an inch or two to accomodate neck movement. sigh....and it Flows! It's almost weightless so it ripples and tosses as you move your head and billows behind you when the wind blows. It it silky and flows around itself without tangling and matting up. Sometimes it even defys gravity completely and swirls dramtically around you, or stays up in impossible styles with just one tie. Oh! to have hair like that! I love my long hair, but all those amazing hairdos in animes and cartoons are pretty much impossible. You'd have to have WAY too thick of hair to accomplish a lot of those things, it would just weigh your whole head down! alas alas.....
Two Animated Characters whose hair I've always adored are Thumbelina and Megara (from Hercules).
I really like their huge thick pony-tails and the way they stick up behind them. I think I like hairdoes that extend the back of the head *shrug*. I realised today that the impossible huge thick mass of hair sticking way out behind one hair tie is totally possible! Only it's not also possible to have soft swirling waves falling from it. Dreads actually do that same big-animated-pony-tale thing where they stick out behind the head when tied back.....but then they are dreads afterall so they don't exactly flow and swirl in smooth waves. alas!
Needless to say I'm excited to see all that animated hair in the upcoming Tangled (Rapunzel) :D
Two Animated Characters whose hair I've always adored are Thumbelina and Megara (from Hercules).
I really like their huge thick pony-tails and the way they stick up behind them. I think I like hairdoes that extend the back of the head *shrug*. I realised today that the impossible huge thick mass of hair sticking way out behind one hair tie is totally possible! Only it's not also possible to have soft swirling waves falling from it. Dreads actually do that same big-animated-pony-tale thing where they stick out behind the head when tied back.....but then they are dreads afterall so they don't exactly flow and swirl in smooth waves. alas!
Needless to say I'm excited to see all that animated hair in the upcoming Tangled (Rapunzel) :D
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
prospects
I often find myself very excited and motivated by the prospect of accomplishing a number of different things. But being equally enticed by all I end up unable to focus or get fully involved enough in any of them so that none of them actually gets done. I feel stuck in a state of anticipation and unrealised potential. I really want to do all these things, but somehow actually doing them seems to elude me. I end up wasting time in less interesting, though apparently quite engrossing persuits such as sorting and re-organizing things on my desktop, or doing dishes.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Owlish
sometimes I feel that if it stayed dark all the time I would stay energized longer. I always seem to feel wide awake and feel like I could stay up all day early in the morning, but then shortly after it becomes light I start to feel that perhaps I am tired after all. In any case I find that I really do enjoy being awake at night so very much more than being awake in the day. I love the dim quiet hours, the cool sweet air. I like to sleep during the bright warm hours of the day, I hardly miss them. I thoroughly enjoy being nocturnal :D
Thursday, August 12, 2010
I really want to enjoy it with my friends who do, but it always seems to make me irritated.
I like making profiles about myself, I like seeing other people's profiles about themselves, I like posting pictures and seeing other's pictures, I like being able to write blog-like entries and have people respond, I like sending people cute little gifts or whatever that let them know I'm thinking of them. But I just can't seem to enjoy being on facebook.
I think partly it feels too extraverted. All those random updates on the news feed and the wall about what people are doing and saying to other people on there feels like, well....... like a horribly cluttered room to a neat-freak. I feel beffuddled and overwhelmed, slightly dirty, and, moreover, uninterested. It feels like it's trying to make me a busy body, which is annoying.
I also dislike the sense I get that many people on there assume that because you have a profile your life ought to be an open book to them. Although I don't check it often enough myself, I feel like people I barely know are checking up on my status (or whatever) constantly. What? I don't even talk to them in real life.
Of course that's a BIG part of the problem, there's not a good distinction between actual friends and people who are aquaintances. It feels rude to refuse people you know in some capacity when they ask to add you on there, but they're not really asking to be your actual friend. They have no intention of getting to know you well, hanging out with you, being there when you need someone. They are merely an aquaintance. Furthermore, even if I don't add a lot of these periferal people as my friends, if they know some of my actual friends that I have added, they still get notifications of things my real friends have said or sent to me. They still see the new pictures my friends upload of me. So why even bother to not add them?
They also seem to feel the need to send you millions of notifications apart from the automatic newsfeed ones. Kill the Sith with me, Accept a gift of Strawberries on Farmville, Somebody Hugged you - do something back!, Someone liked the movie you want to see, Someone tagged you in some random note, blah blah blah. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of these activities are fun, or at least look like fun. But somehow they just don't seem to hold my attention long enough to get into them.
I know I know, there are privacy settings, you can turn things off, you can not share your info with applications. Yes, but it seems like all that is what Facebook is all about....so I wonder to myself, why even be on there?
Now, I love making profiles which is why I joined in the first place......but I guess I like them better when they sit there quietly and aquire comments about what I've posted/shared. All these other comments and, and... things just feel like a muddle to me.
The other big problem is the layout and those horrible adds. I hate the adds. Whenever I am on a page with adds I try to leave as quickly as possible - which is every page with facebook. I also hate the way everything is crammed together in narrow collumns with tons of white space all around it. Somehow for me it's just super hard to focus on anything. I don't feel comfortable on any of the pages. ....and I also don't really enjoy the blue.
One last thing I find really annoying about it is that it displays all the most recent pictures of you uploaded by other people first, so people aren't going to see the pictures you like of yourself. Most likely it'll be some awfull group shot where you've got red-eye or something. It's really annoying. And people can just upload pictures of you and tag you in them whenever they like and you can't do anything about it. But not only that - then everyone they know is notified that they've uploaded these pictures. bah!
I'm really toying with the idea of quitting it alltogether.....I don't know. Can I mass remove "friends" and pare it down to just the people I actually know well? - without insulting everyone?
Should I just remove pretty much everything on there, and then just not check it anymore?
I don't know. I really want it to be fun. It feels like it has the potential to be fun.....if it wasn't crawling with all those people I barely know, stupid notifications, and adds!
I like making profiles about myself, I like seeing other people's profiles about themselves, I like posting pictures and seeing other's pictures, I like being able to write blog-like entries and have people respond, I like sending people cute little gifts or whatever that let them know I'm thinking of them. But I just can't seem to enjoy being on facebook.
I think partly it feels too extraverted. All those random updates on the news feed and the wall about what people are doing and saying to other people on there feels like, well....... like a horribly cluttered room to a neat-freak. I feel beffuddled and overwhelmed, slightly dirty, and, moreover, uninterested. It feels like it's trying to make me a busy body, which is annoying.
I also dislike the sense I get that many people on there assume that because you have a profile your life ought to be an open book to them. Although I don't check it often enough myself, I feel like people I barely know are checking up on my status (or whatever) constantly. What? I don't even talk to them in real life.
Of course that's a BIG part of the problem, there's not a good distinction between actual friends and people who are aquaintances. It feels rude to refuse people you know in some capacity when they ask to add you on there, but they're not really asking to be your actual friend. They have no intention of getting to know you well, hanging out with you, being there when you need someone. They are merely an aquaintance. Furthermore, even if I don't add a lot of these periferal people as my friends, if they know some of my actual friends that I have added, they still get notifications of things my real friends have said or sent to me. They still see the new pictures my friends upload of me. So why even bother to not add them?
They also seem to feel the need to send you millions of notifications apart from the automatic newsfeed ones. Kill the Sith with me, Accept a gift of Strawberries on Farmville, Somebody Hugged you - do something back!, Someone liked the movie you want to see, Someone tagged you in some random note, blah blah blah. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of these activities are fun, or at least look like fun. But somehow they just don't seem to hold my attention long enough to get into them.
I know I know, there are privacy settings, you can turn things off, you can not share your info with applications. Yes, but it seems like all that is what Facebook is all about....so I wonder to myself, why even be on there?
Now, I love making profiles which is why I joined in the first place......but I guess I like them better when they sit there quietly and aquire comments about what I've posted/shared. All these other comments and, and... things just feel like a muddle to me.
The other big problem is the layout and those horrible adds. I hate the adds. Whenever I am on a page with adds I try to leave as quickly as possible - which is every page with facebook. I also hate the way everything is crammed together in narrow collumns with tons of white space all around it. Somehow for me it's just super hard to focus on anything. I don't feel comfortable on any of the pages. ....and I also don't really enjoy the blue.
One last thing I find really annoying about it is that it displays all the most recent pictures of you uploaded by other people first, so people aren't going to see the pictures you like of yourself. Most likely it'll be some awfull group shot where you've got red-eye or something. It's really annoying. And people can just upload pictures of you and tag you in them whenever they like and you can't do anything about it. But not only that - then everyone they know is notified that they've uploaded these pictures. bah!
I'm really toying with the idea of quitting it alltogether.....I don't know. Can I mass remove "friends" and pare it down to just the people I actually know well? - without insulting everyone?
Should I just remove pretty much everything on there, and then just not check it anymore?
I don't know. I really want it to be fun. It feels like it has the potential to be fun.....if it wasn't crawling with all those people I barely know, stupid notifications, and adds!
Friday, August 06, 2010
why I like kiersy best
Today I started some more research into what I hope to someday turn into a website - one that compares, links to, and brings together...synthesizes might be the word...different personality theories. I'm most familiar with the Kiersy Temperament Sorter/Meyers-Briggs theory, and I was wondering what other things are out there, and wanting to take a closer look at them. Yet it seems to keep being confirmed to me just why it's the Kiersy theory that I'm...well rather obsessed with. Finally I was provoked into writing a bit while starting to read (trying for probably the 3rd time or so) Personality Types Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery by Don Riso.
The problem I have with the enneagram, as well as many other personality theories (which I don’t see so much in the Kiersy books -Please Understand Me) is that most other theorists focus so much on the negative and make it sound like all these personalities are dysfunctional. The fact is that most people have their problems, it's a given, but it’s more usefull to look at the basic neutral personality, not nessesarily all it’s problems, at least not right up front. Of course it can be interesting or helpfull to note how different personalities may handle emotional/psychological problems, but that should be just one aspect, not the focus of the profile for any given type. Much more focus should be on the underlying traits which can be expressed either good or bad. The good ways that personalities are expressed ought to be emphasized because people will be impacted much more for the good by identifying their individuality in a positive light. Smacking people in the face with their faults is not a good way to make them open to understanding themselves and others. Reading a berating of your personality in a profile might help you learn something, but probably isn't going to make you feel excited about understanding the concepts, and reading a berating of other people's types will just make you more judgemental of others, rather than helping you appreciate their differences.
I also find, though I hadn’t specifically thought about it till reading a note about it on wikipedia, that I much prefer the personality theories which focus on individual traits and how they look when grouped in different ways, rather than the sets of supposedly all encompassing types. Those "type" ones all seem to have the same problem: you can identify a lot with some aspects of one type, and identify a lot with other aspects of a different one. They paint a picture of stereotypes, but don't allow for all the different variations, nor the degrees of different traits.
Looking at individual traits makes much more sense, and allows for the variety of unique people you see in real life, rather than stereotyping, or "pidgeon-holing". While there may be some very basic underlying characteristics which can be used to group people into relatively few categories, the "type" theories tend to offer much more detail about one group than can be applied to all of it's members. Looking at traits is also usefull in that it helps explain why different types act certain ways. It’s not just that you happen to be like this random type someone came up with, but you can observe individual traits in yourself as they affect different thoughts, motives, actions, and reactions.
I find that the Kiersy method of looking at several spectrums of traits individually allows for much more individual accuracy and deeper understanding of the inner workings of unique people. In the books, while there are 16 combinations of the 4 spectrums, it also makes note of the strength of each of the preferred traits. I think this alerts people to realizing that they are free to read the profiles with a grain of salt. No one is telling them they are exactly like this profile - this is a basic profile outlining different traits which they may identiy with to varying degrees depending on the strength of their trait preferences. It helps people understand better why they may be similar to different people in different ways, by recognizing shared or opposing traits. The trait method to personality theory presents people as unique combinations of many underlying traits - essentially presenting humanity on a spectrum, whereas the type theories present people in a segregated fashion - as being part of just one group, one type. In trait theories one can learn about other types of people while reading one's own profile, whereas in type theories the information is usually presented as only applying to your type and the similarities with others is not noted. Of course I admit to not having read other theories in as great detail as I have the Meyers-Briggs, so perhaps they do a better job in the details than I have seen.
Something I have been thinking about in regards to the Kiersy books is that I think it is also usefull to look at how trait preferences play out in different contexts. People may be more one way in certain situations, and more another way in other situations. It does talk a bit about the opposite traits in Please Understand Me II, but I felt like more discussion and examples of how being on a spectrum plays out would be usefull. I also think it would be interesting to read more discussion of how the different traits affect eachother. Such as - how does Thinking look in conjunction with iNtuition vs. how it looks when coupled with Sensing. Or how might Introversion look in a Feeling person vs. a Thinking person.
well, now I have typed much longer than I intended, but I feel a bit better and might be able to attempt reading more of the enneagram book, although I may be forced to write about my disapproval again. I'm certainly not looking forward to wading through the looooong negative profiles provided in it.
The problem I have with the enneagram, as well as many other personality theories (which I don’t see so much in the Kiersy books -Please Understand Me) is that most other theorists focus so much on the negative and make it sound like all these personalities are dysfunctional. The fact is that most people have their problems, it's a given, but it’s more usefull to look at the basic neutral personality, not nessesarily all it’s problems, at least not right up front. Of course it can be interesting or helpfull to note how different personalities may handle emotional/psychological problems, but that should be just one aspect, not the focus of the profile for any given type. Much more focus should be on the underlying traits which can be expressed either good or bad. The good ways that personalities are expressed ought to be emphasized because people will be impacted much more for the good by identifying their individuality in a positive light. Smacking people in the face with their faults is not a good way to make them open to understanding themselves and others. Reading a berating of your personality in a profile might help you learn something, but probably isn't going to make you feel excited about understanding the concepts, and reading a berating of other people's types will just make you more judgemental of others, rather than helping you appreciate their differences.
I also find, though I hadn’t specifically thought about it till reading a note about it on wikipedia, that I much prefer the personality theories which focus on individual traits and how they look when grouped in different ways, rather than the sets of supposedly all encompassing types. Those "type" ones all seem to have the same problem: you can identify a lot with some aspects of one type, and identify a lot with other aspects of a different one. They paint a picture of stereotypes, but don't allow for all the different variations, nor the degrees of different traits.
Looking at individual traits makes much more sense, and allows for the variety of unique people you see in real life, rather than stereotyping, or "pidgeon-holing". While there may be some very basic underlying characteristics which can be used to group people into relatively few categories, the "type" theories tend to offer much more detail about one group than can be applied to all of it's members. Looking at traits is also usefull in that it helps explain why different types act certain ways. It’s not just that you happen to be like this random type someone came up with, but you can observe individual traits in yourself as they affect different thoughts, motives, actions, and reactions.
I find that the Kiersy method of looking at several spectrums of traits individually allows for much more individual accuracy and deeper understanding of the inner workings of unique people. In the books, while there are 16 combinations of the 4 spectrums, it also makes note of the strength of each of the preferred traits. I think this alerts people to realizing that they are free to read the profiles with a grain of salt. No one is telling them they are exactly like this profile - this is a basic profile outlining different traits which they may identiy with to varying degrees depending on the strength of their trait preferences. It helps people understand better why they may be similar to different people in different ways, by recognizing shared or opposing traits. The trait method to personality theory presents people as unique combinations of many underlying traits - essentially presenting humanity on a spectrum, whereas the type theories present people in a segregated fashion - as being part of just one group, one type. In trait theories one can learn about other types of people while reading one's own profile, whereas in type theories the information is usually presented as only applying to your type and the similarities with others is not noted. Of course I admit to not having read other theories in as great detail as I have the Meyers-Briggs, so perhaps they do a better job in the details than I have seen.
Something I have been thinking about in regards to the Kiersy books is that I think it is also usefull to look at how trait preferences play out in different contexts. People may be more one way in certain situations, and more another way in other situations. It does talk a bit about the opposite traits in Please Understand Me II, but I felt like more discussion and examples of how being on a spectrum plays out would be usefull. I also think it would be interesting to read more discussion of how the different traits affect eachother. Such as - how does Thinking look in conjunction with iNtuition vs. how it looks when coupled with Sensing. Or how might Introversion look in a Feeling person vs. a Thinking person.
well, now I have typed much longer than I intended, but I feel a bit better and might be able to attempt reading more of the enneagram book, although I may be forced to write about my disapproval again. I'm certainly not looking forward to wading through the looooong negative profiles provided in it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Trying to understand Sensing vs. Intution
This Kiersy personality aspect often seems hard for people to grasp and understand, I know it has been for me......I think I've got it down now a bit better.
An example of the difference between sensing and intuition:
iNtuitives stand back and look at a situation, and then comment on it - theorizing why it is the way it is, how it came to be that way, whether it is good or bad, how it affects other things, how it is related to other things, how it could be changed, why it won’t be changed, how it will continue to develope, and what other people may think about it and why they may think as they do. - They enjoy theoretical and analytical discussion and mental exploration of things and are satisfied when they feel they have fully understood something.
A Sensing person will most likely be in the thick of the action to begin with, but when they do stand back and look at a situation they'll say "This is how it is" and are content to leave the conversation at that. If they do any analysis they are likely to focus on discussing exactly how to impliment certain tactics and then get right back into action. Analysis in and of itself is of no use or interest to them - it must result in application. They believe that something cannot be understood untill the idea has been tested. Thus their analysis takes the form of experimentation. They do not think one can 'know' without physical experience of the conclusion. Becoming adept at something is a driving motivation for them, and the point of theorizing is to further their ability to do whatever it is well. They feel satisfied when they feel they have mastered some action.
The book states that this trait divides people more than any other. While I don't think I've had as many arguments or personality clashes with people because of this as I have because of Thinking/Feeling or Judging/Percieving, I think this is a trait that naturally separates people as they interact with others. INtuitives are much more likely to talk about abstract ideas and theories, and thus will more often find themselves talking with other people who also like ideas and theories. Sensing people are much more likely to be involved in activities and to talk about things they have done rather than the intagible or things they have not experienced, thus they will more often find themselves doing things with other people who prefer action to contemplation, and talking with people about experiences rather than theories. So just by a kind of 'natural selection' if you'll excuse my stealing the term, people will tend to find they are friends with other people of the same type in this regard.
It is this trait that most greatly affects what you do and what you talk about, which naturally affects who you meet and who you connect best with.
This is not to be confused with Extraversion and Introversion, which it often can be.
A Sensing person who is extraverted will seek activities with other people over solitary activities.
A Sensing person who is introverted will seek activities that can be done alone over social activities.
An iNtutitive person who is extraverted will seek discussion of theories and ideas with other people.
An iNtuitive person who is an introvert will contemplate or write down ideas and theories on their own, and choose to read books for extra insight rather than talking with others to gain more insight.
Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Percieving affect why and how you do or say things.
hmm, Kiersy Types in a Nutshell:
Sensing/Intuition = What.
Action, Experience, Skill vs. Contemplation, Analysis, Understanding
Extroverion/Introversion = With Whom.
Others, Community vs. Self, Individuality
Thinking/Feeling = Why.
Logic vs. Emotion
Judging/Percieving = How.
Control, Conclusions, Order, Duty vs. Discovery, Exploration, Spontinaeity, Play
An example of the difference between sensing and intuition:
iNtuitives stand back and look at a situation, and then comment on it - theorizing why it is the way it is, how it came to be that way, whether it is good or bad, how it affects other things, how it is related to other things, how it could be changed, why it won’t be changed, how it will continue to develope, and what other people may think about it and why they may think as they do. - They enjoy theoretical and analytical discussion and mental exploration of things and are satisfied when they feel they have fully understood something.
A Sensing person will most likely be in the thick of the action to begin with, but when they do stand back and look at a situation they'll say "This is how it is" and are content to leave the conversation at that. If they do any analysis they are likely to focus on discussing exactly how to impliment certain tactics and then get right back into action. Analysis in and of itself is of no use or interest to them - it must result in application. They believe that something cannot be understood untill the idea has been tested. Thus their analysis takes the form of experimentation. They do not think one can 'know' without physical experience of the conclusion. Becoming adept at something is a driving motivation for them, and the point of theorizing is to further their ability to do whatever it is well. They feel satisfied when they feel they have mastered some action.
The book states that this trait divides people more than any other. While I don't think I've had as many arguments or personality clashes with people because of this as I have because of Thinking/Feeling or Judging/Percieving, I think this is a trait that naturally separates people as they interact with others. INtuitives are much more likely to talk about abstract ideas and theories, and thus will more often find themselves talking with other people who also like ideas and theories. Sensing people are much more likely to be involved in activities and to talk about things they have done rather than the intagible or things they have not experienced, thus they will more often find themselves doing things with other people who prefer action to contemplation, and talking with people about experiences rather than theories. So just by a kind of 'natural selection' if you'll excuse my stealing the term, people will tend to find they are friends with other people of the same type in this regard.
It is this trait that most greatly affects what you do and what you talk about, which naturally affects who you meet and who you connect best with.
This is not to be confused with Extraversion and Introversion, which it often can be.
A Sensing person who is extraverted will seek activities with other people over solitary activities.
A Sensing person who is introverted will seek activities that can be done alone over social activities.
An iNtutitive person who is extraverted will seek discussion of theories and ideas with other people.
An iNtuitive person who is an introvert will contemplate or write down ideas and theories on their own, and choose to read books for extra insight rather than talking with others to gain more insight.
Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Percieving affect why and how you do or say things.
hmm, Kiersy Types in a Nutshell:
Sensing/Intuition = What.
Action, Experience, Skill vs. Contemplation, Analysis, Understanding
Extroverion/Introversion = With Whom.
Others, Community vs. Self, Individuality
Thinking/Feeling = Why.
Logic vs. Emotion
Judging/Percieving = How.
Control, Conclusions, Order, Duty vs. Discovery, Exploration, Spontinaeity, Play
Saturday, April 24, 2010
grilled cheese
I was just making grilled cheese and remembered getting them from the Eagle's Nest at Biola and they had Mayonase on them! Eeeeeeew! that was sooo gross! can you immagine it? warm mayo ooozing out of a grilled cheese sandwich! blech! I remember being totally flabbergasted that anyone would think of doing such a thing!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
a couple of thoughts on a sunny afternoon
I don't think it's so much that children don't know how to stay clean, as it is that they enjoy doing things it's hard not to get dirty at. And they don't particularly mind getting dirty. Afterall, what is so bad about that? Mostly, I fancy, it is the idea that we look ridiculous or incapable to other people. Practicaly speaking there are some things you can probably do a lot better if you're not fretting about how you look doing it, and there are few messes which one really can't clean up afterwards.
I've never understood why some people seem to like being scared - a totally unpleasant and inconvenient feeling if you ask me! But I suppose perhaps part of it comes from enjoying the feeling of adrenalin. I should rather get it doing things that make me supremely happy, but...to each his own...I suppose. It may also be because of the lack of real physical danger in modern society. (You know how people always seem to want what they haven't got). People, for one thing, usually persue the feeling of fear in ways that are actually relatively safe - such as horror movies and roller coasters. Thus they can achieve a sense of bravery even though the danger was never actually 'real'. Few people can, in these days, claim true acts of heroism, in anything beyond the inner battles of the mind and will. But you can win a kind of prestige from comrades by exposing yourself to all kinds of these safe dangers and showing that you are not terribly bothered by them. Whether or not this would actually prepare one for real dangers probably depends a great deal on the person, though I immagine it would help. So the honor may be to some degree deserved.
I've never understood why some people seem to like being scared - a totally unpleasant and inconvenient feeling if you ask me! But I suppose perhaps part of it comes from enjoying the feeling of adrenalin. I should rather get it doing things that make me supremely happy, but...to each his own...I suppose. It may also be because of the lack of real physical danger in modern society. (You know how people always seem to want what they haven't got). People, for one thing, usually persue the feeling of fear in ways that are actually relatively safe - such as horror movies and roller coasters. Thus they can achieve a sense of bravery even though the danger was never actually 'real'. Few people can, in these days, claim true acts of heroism, in anything beyond the inner battles of the mind and will. But you can win a kind of prestige from comrades by exposing yourself to all kinds of these safe dangers and showing that you are not terribly bothered by them. Whether or not this would actually prepare one for real dangers probably depends a great deal on the person, though I immagine it would help. So the honor may be to some degree deserved.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
one fry short of a.....
I just typed in barking mad and it took me straight to Insanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_mad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_mad
Thursday, October 29, 2009
cereal
the only thing I have against cereal is that it's so noisy. It's impossible to pour yourself a quiet bowl at 2 in the morning.
Friday, October 23, 2009
In a world without edges, only unending horizons
I was thinking about creating worlds and making fantasy maps and thinking how most of the time fantasy worlds just fade off along the edges, and how it often feels much better to me that way, than having precise edges and knowing everything that exists in that world. So I was thinking about worlds without edges. And then I was thinking, hey wait a minute, in a way that is our world, one of no edges, just horizons which keep revealing themselves. You think you can reach an edge, an end, a point of Here at last It Is, or I Am, or whatever, but each of those places we see from afar, when we reach them, reveal a whole new vista, and prove to be yet another step on the road, as much an end as a beginning.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Mysterious Art of Flipping Eggs
is quite beyond me!
How on earth is one supposed to accomplish this magical feat?
(we're talking the over-easy/hard kind, you know, fried flat in a pan)
The thing could be swimming in butter but it still sticks to the spatula so I can't slide it all the way under!! If I try it just ends up wrinkling up and then bunching on the far side of the pan. I have to get three spatulas to even attempt the trick. I get one in under the edge and lift it up, then I slip another one under further and repeat. Then I try and remove the first one without tearing the egg and get it in from the other side. Then I have to juggle these three spatula handles that aren't all going the same direction and lift the whole awkward contraption and try to get it to flip over quickly without creating disater. Half the time the egg just folds over on itself and doesn't actually flip, or I break the yolk. bah! If only I didn't like eggs cooked this way so much! hehe
How on earth is one supposed to accomplish this magical feat?
(we're talking the over-easy/hard kind, you know, fried flat in a pan)
The thing could be swimming in butter but it still sticks to the spatula so I can't slide it all the way under!! If I try it just ends up wrinkling up and then bunching on the far side of the pan. I have to get three spatulas to even attempt the trick. I get one in under the edge and lift it up, then I slip another one under further and repeat. Then I try and remove the first one without tearing the egg and get it in from the other side. Then I have to juggle these three spatula handles that aren't all going the same direction and lift the whole awkward contraption and try to get it to flip over quickly without creating disater. Half the time the egg just folds over on itself and doesn't actually flip, or I break the yolk. bah! If only I didn't like eggs cooked this way so much! hehe
Why is a Raven like a Writing Desk?
a poem has been written on it.
I'm sitting here with a cup of tea looking out the kitchen window at the rainy world, watching a black bird up in the autumn coloured trees and thinking of Poe while this line from Alice in Wonderland is going through my head. This riddle troubled me greatly as a child. I must admit I've never actually read the book and don't know whether it even appears in it, where it's from, or whether any answer is ever given. but in any case this answer finally formed itself in my head now and I was reflecting on the fact that it working depends on the use of the word 'on' in English, and that it probably wouldn't translate well to some other languages.
I'm sitting here with a cup of tea looking out the kitchen window at the rainy world, watching a black bird up in the autumn coloured trees and thinking of Poe while this line from Alice in Wonderland is going through my head. This riddle troubled me greatly as a child. I must admit I've never actually read the book and don't know whether it even appears in it, where it's from, or whether any answer is ever given. but in any case this answer finally formed itself in my head now and I was reflecting on the fact that it working depends on the use of the word 'on' in English, and that it probably wouldn't translate well to some other languages.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
exasperation!
I have come to the conclusion that I hate feather pillows! You can pile five of them up at once and in the space of five secconds you are flat with the mattress again! They give no support whatsoever. They have utterly no purpose other than to get in the way, smother you, and generally be obnoxious! They poof up around the rest of your head so that you cannot breath, but where you want them to poof, such as under your neck or your ear or between your head and your arm - no! they go flat as a pancake! and they might even poke you to boot!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
the magic of sun and water
There's a sprinkler going in the field across the way. It keeps hitting the roof of the house like a nice hard rain, making a mistcloud as it bounces off. Then as it moves on past there is a waterfall of droplets rolling off in sheets and strands....the light shining on the drops is mezmerising and magical. How sweet such simple joys are! ^.^
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It's only a Bug
aye, it’s only a bug. Only. How would you like it if someone said that about you? But you are different, yes. You are a person, you know what you are, you think about things, you experience the world and yourself and others, you remember, you anticipate. Do bugs do these things? Do they immagine, hope, feel emotions? We do not rightly know. Yet, even so, is it not terrifying to contemplate that your heart, You, would kill something just because it was inconvenient for you?
“Oh look, it’s an ant on the counter.” *Smash*
Have you ever looked at those searching antenas in the moment before your finger comes down out of the sky in a flash and cuts off all that bug knew. Have you ever thought of how sudden and unexpected that ending was? Have you ever looked at your finger and realised that it has the power to separate things from this world forever? Have you ever considered and trembled at the thought of such a thing happening to you? The idea that suddenly, for no reason other than your existance slighty bothering someone, it might just be stoppped, eliminated, without a thought or care or pause or remembrance, without a moment even to realise it is happening. Have you ever looked at your heart and realised the darkness of that impulse within you.......I don’t like it - Smash! Have you ever considered what it might do? If you believed other things were bugs as well? Have you remembered, and shuddered, that it happens all the time? That people believe even people like themselves are only bugs.
To the bugs, we are like gods. Remember the Romans gods? Whose intrests and petty whims upturned the lives of humans below without their asking? How greatly do your petty whims upturn many little lives that do not even understand your existance. Is that your right? Are you a god? Over what? What in this world truely belongs to you? Perhaps it is our gift and right to herd the sheep, the beetles, the bushes of this earth. Even so, do we know where our will should stop? Over what it has precedence, and over what it does not? Do we have the grace to consider what is under us? Or do we act only upon our whims? And even if it is our right to do so......is it truely right? Is it good? Is it best? Is it, perhaps, only through giving up our right voluntarily that we become something more? More than an act of fate, a ‘force of nature’ if you will. Will we interact with, consider, what is under us? Do we recognise that there may be something over us, even as we are over the bugs? Will we pay attention to the interaction of what is above us when it reaches down into our lives?
“Oh look, it’s an ant on the counter.” *Smash*
Have you ever looked at those searching antenas in the moment before your finger comes down out of the sky in a flash and cuts off all that bug knew. Have you ever thought of how sudden and unexpected that ending was? Have you ever looked at your finger and realised that it has the power to separate things from this world forever? Have you ever considered and trembled at the thought of such a thing happening to you? The idea that suddenly, for no reason other than your existance slighty bothering someone, it might just be stoppped, eliminated, without a thought or care or pause or remembrance, without a moment even to realise it is happening. Have you ever looked at your heart and realised the darkness of that impulse within you.......I don’t like it - Smash! Have you ever considered what it might do? If you believed other things were bugs as well? Have you remembered, and shuddered, that it happens all the time? That people believe even people like themselves are only bugs.
To the bugs, we are like gods. Remember the Romans gods? Whose intrests and petty whims upturned the lives of humans below without their asking? How greatly do your petty whims upturn many little lives that do not even understand your existance. Is that your right? Are you a god? Over what? What in this world truely belongs to you? Perhaps it is our gift and right to herd the sheep, the beetles, the bushes of this earth. Even so, do we know where our will should stop? Over what it has precedence, and over what it does not? Do we have the grace to consider what is under us? Or do we act only upon our whims? And even if it is our right to do so......is it truely right? Is it good? Is it best? Is it, perhaps, only through giving up our right voluntarily that we become something more? More than an act of fate, a ‘force of nature’ if you will. Will we interact with, consider, what is under us? Do we recognise that there may be something over us, even as we are over the bugs? Will we pay attention to the interaction of what is above us when it reaches down into our lives?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
ever so gratefull
ever so
for all who have loved
for all who have given
for all who have shared
for all who have listened
for all who have smiled
for all who have laughed
for all who have cared
for all who have shown me wonder and beauty and comfort and hope
for all who have made life so abundantly beautifull
I am gatefull
ever so gratefull
for all who have loved
for all who have given
for all who have shared
for all who have listened
for all who have smiled
for all who have laughed
for all who have cared
for all who have shown me wonder and beauty and comfort and hope
for all who have made life so abundantly beautifull
I am gatefull
ever so gratefull
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Stuffed
It seems to me that as a culture we are generally very bad at knowing what it is that we want when we feel that we want something. I wonder why this is.
Perhaps we introspect too little? Because of being busy? Because of being distracted by constact noise and immages? Because people who spend quiet time alone are considered boring and strange? Because somehow we don't know how to keep our own company and feel compelled to always be out with others in order to have a good time? Because we are afriad of discussing deep personal things, like inner desires, with these others we spend our time with? Who knows.
Or perhaps because we are constantly subjected to being told that we want things from commercials and other sales tactics. So that either we aren't used to coming up with the answer of what we want ourselves, having it always told us from the outside, or we are constantly having the feeling of want arroused so that we begin to deal with it almost subconciously so that we can get on with other things. Instead of pausing every time to determine whether the source of the want is within or coming from without, and analysing what exactly we are in want of, we have a set of automatic fullfillment responces which can be selected with little thought or energy.
Thus our lives become overstuffed with fillers while still remaining relatively empty. In fact, sometimes the things that do fullfill us get pushed away or disconnected from our lives just to make room for more stuffing.
Such quick-fix stuffings are frequently food of various kinds, or money, or stuff that one buys through un-premeditated shopping. And here we come to, what I think is, the reason why we see the 'inexplicable' despare and emptiness of people living in a land where even the homeless have more things than could be brought on a plane without an extra fee, where obesity is found even among (and possibly especially among) the poor classes, where there is such abundance of physical provision far beyond the basic needs for survival. It would seem that people are taught culturally to ignore their true desires and inner needs in favor of the misguided persuit of Stuffing.
Perhaps we introspect too little? Because of being busy? Because of being distracted by constact noise and immages? Because people who spend quiet time alone are considered boring and strange? Because somehow we don't know how to keep our own company and feel compelled to always be out with others in order to have a good time? Because we are afriad of discussing deep personal things, like inner desires, with these others we spend our time with? Who knows.
Or perhaps because we are constantly subjected to being told that we want things from commercials and other sales tactics. So that either we aren't used to coming up with the answer of what we want ourselves, having it always told us from the outside, or we are constantly having the feeling of want arroused so that we begin to deal with it almost subconciously so that we can get on with other things. Instead of pausing every time to determine whether the source of the want is within or coming from without, and analysing what exactly we are in want of, we have a set of automatic fullfillment responces which can be selected with little thought or energy.
Thus our lives become overstuffed with fillers while still remaining relatively empty. In fact, sometimes the things that do fullfill us get pushed away or disconnected from our lives just to make room for more stuffing.
Such quick-fix stuffings are frequently food of various kinds, or money, or stuff that one buys through un-premeditated shopping. And here we come to, what I think is, the reason why we see the 'inexplicable' despare and emptiness of people living in a land where even the homeless have more things than could be brought on a plane without an extra fee, where obesity is found even among (and possibly especially among) the poor classes, where there is such abundance of physical provision far beyond the basic needs for survival. It would seem that people are taught culturally to ignore their true desires and inner needs in favor of the misguided persuit of Stuffing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)