Well, everyone, I'm done with school for the quarter. Things went pretty well and my group's design project was a hit with the City of Arroyo Grande and the landowner. My lone final was easy and I finished in less than an hour, and I got all my assignments turned in to my professors.
Now I have a week to go home, see the family, and catch up with some old friends before summer quarter starts on the 19th (I believe). I want you all to have a great week and rest in the Lord! I'm sure I'll release an update or two though.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
The rules of civilised debate
I came across this well-written guide on polite debate. I think we can all learn a lot from these principles. I apologise for the one or two instances of language, but they're there for a reason. Take a gander...
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
From To Be INTp
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Mannerly Art of Disagreement (or how an INTP sees discussion)
Borrowed from Macedon as an introduction to how to discuss with an INTP
Table of contents:
I. Introduction
II. Rules of Engagement
III. What If One Participant Refuses to Play Fair?
IV. Is It Ever All Right to Break the Rules?
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the greatest problems faced in a public forum is how participants may disagree without descending into either personal attacks or not-so-witty one-line repartee. There are certain "rules of engagement," if you will, which can prevent name calling and other debate no-nos.
But first, we must dispel the myth that polite equals namby-pamby. In fact, it is possible to disagree--even to disagree significantly--in a civil manner. Disagreement is never comfortable, but if we refrain from permitting it to become a war (or, on the internet, a flamewar) we might learn something and keep our blood pressure down at the same time. Disagreement can be fruitful. But it will be fruitful only so long as certain guidelines are followed.
II. THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
1. THE paramount rule of Jeffersonian Debate: Grant your opponent respect. This means you must allow that he or she can examine the facts and come to a different conclusion from you. This is harder than it sounds, particularly for those who view disagreement as a personal affront, or a sign of stupidity. Persons who hold such views cannot engage in fruitful debate.
2. ...Which brings up the second point: Learn objectivity. Be able to separate others' disagreement with your ideas from attacks on your person. Beware of the overly subjective individual who identifies with certain ideals/ideas to such an extent that disagreement is considered to constitute a personal threat. Such persons hold to the perception, "You're either with me or you're against me." Should you meet with such a one, disengage immediately unless you enjoy being subjected to Scream and Leap.
3. Part of learning objectivity means recognizing the difference between a fact and an opinion. 2+2=4 is a fact, more or less. That John Mellencamp writes great lyrics is an opinion. In order to disprove a fact, one MUST present contrary evidence. Just saying, "That's wrong!" isn't good enough. It's an opinion, not an argument.
"That's wrong because..." is an argument. When presenting an opinion in a debate, it's usually a good idea to indicate in some manner that you realize it's an opinion. "It seems to me..." or "It's been my experience..." or (in nettese) the ever-popular, extremely useful IMHO (in my humble opinion). In short, avoid stating your opinion as if it were a fact: e. g. "Romance stories are gross," or "Action-adventure is boring." Likewise, another's experience or feelings cannot be "wrong" or "right." Don't confuse the existential with the objective. My experience (the existential) is MY experience and no one else can gainsay it because no one else is living in my head and body but me.
What someone else might justifiably do is question my interpretation of my experience: "Well, it didn't strike me as...."
Now for the fine point: While experiences can never be right or wrong, opinions arising from incorrectly interpreted experiences can be. When dealing with fiction, in which opinions and interpretation come from the experience of reading, this "fine point" is more than splitting hairs. Without encroaching too much on Peg's "Mannerly Art of Critique," being able to recognize that interpretation of fiction is opinion, not fact, is as essential to productive feedback as to productive debate.
4. Refrain absolutely from ad hominem attack. What is ad hominem attack? To criticize or belittle the one who holds a certain position rather than the position itself. Example: "How stupid can you be?" or "That just goes to show you don't know anything." Attacking your opponent rather than your opponent's ideas merely indicates a weakness in your position. It wins no brownie points.
5. Absolutely. Never. Use. Invectives. What's an "invective"? A verbal attack, often one that employs obscenities. No matter what your opponent says to you, do not respond with obscenities. Doing so shows deplorably bad manners and convinces any onlookers that you were raised in a barn. Locker-room talk doesn't belong on the debating block. There's simply no excuse for it. Period. It doesn't matter who started it. (Incidently, there is a difference between obscenity as invective and simple adjectival use: "Fuck you" is invective; "That's a hell of a note" or "You know damn well" is adjectival.)
6. Avoid irrelevancies and non sequiturs. Perhaps that goes without saying, but be sure your points relate to the topic. If your opponent (or someone else) says, "What do you mean by that?" or "Your point/parallel/example doesn't seem to follow," you must be able to explain how it does. By the same token, think through points and parallels before you make them to be certain they DO relate. A good way of weakening any argument is by using non sequiturs or bad metaphors.
7. Remember that there may be more than two sides to any debate. You may find yourself agreeing with neither debater, or agreeing with some points made by one, and some points made by the other. Polite debate includes frank admission of where one may agree with an opponent. It's a debate, not a war. Insisting, "You're with me or you're against me" merely points to the lack of objectivity mentioned in point #2 above.
8. In any debate, even polite ones, there is always a certain degree of side-taking: onlookers who are convinced by, or agree already with the arguments of one participant or another. Onlookers who choose to speak out should obey the same polite rules of engagement as anyone else. Also, it is helpful to state why one agrees. "John's right and you're wrong" is neither convincing nor helpful. However, "I find John's arguments persuasive because...." can contribute to the debate in a positive way. It also prevents "side-taking" from becoming mere ego-massage, which in turns helps to keep the focus on the matter at hand, not the personalities involved. It IS permissible to disagree with a friend. This goes back to being able to separate subjective from objective. I may like you very much, but still disagree with your position.
9. Persons who have tender egos should think twice before leaping into a debate. As Apollo advised, "Know thyself!" If you have a tendency to take disagreement personally--stay out of debates! People have skins of differing thicknesses. What may strike you as insulting may have been meant innocently. Assume ignorance, not malice, and inform your opponent if he or she just said something which struck as hostile or personal. Allow the other the opportunity to qualify remarks which may have been innocently meant. If your opponent says, "I didn't mean it that way!"--accept the refutation. Don't insist otherwise!
10. By the same token, recognize that phrasing is everything.
Bluntness can be plain rude, not charmingly honest. If you are one who does have a thick skin, realize others may not and take some care with what you say and how you say it. Such simple things as noting that your opinion is an opinion (the "In my experience" or "IMHO" mentioned above) can go a long way toward keeping feathers smooth and unruffled.
11. Don't be afraid to employ humor, as long as the humor is not a cover for personal attack. Humor in debate keeps blood from boiling.
12. Don't use religious principles or canons as absolutes. Recognize that not everyone may hold the same beliefs. Some debates directly concern religious points, but introducing them into an otherwise unrelated issue is inappropriate. "The Bible says..." is not an argument unless all participants agree on the Bible as an authority, and on a particular interpretation of the Bible, to boot. Otherwise, the reaction will--justifiably--be, "So what?" The use of religious principles or canons in debate must be treated as opinions, not facts.
13. Be man or woman enough to concede. If one's opponent convinces--admit it! Those who can never admit to being wrong show fragile ego structure. The real point of any debate is not to win, but to learn.
If one enters a debate merely to win, one has entered for the wrong reasons. Whatever the ancient Greeks thought, life is not a continual contest.
14. Know when to quit. There is a point in any debate when continued discussion ceases to be fruitful and becomes mere argument. Graceful closure is as important as graceful conduct. One does not have to have the last word, and it is permissible to say, "I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced." Agree to disagree.
15. Finally, watch grammar, especially when debating in written forms such as that found on the Internet. This is not a petty point. One cannot convince others of one's glittering wit and clever insight if it's delivered full of misspellings and grammar errors. Instead, participants will wonder how one passed eighth grade English. More, bad grammar or lack of clarity will contribute to misunderstanding.
One may say the opposite of what one means, or say something that is unintentionally amusing. ("Except" means the opposite of "accept," yet I see the two all-too-commonly confused in internet posts--with sometimes laughable results.)
If these simple rules are followed, even extremely controversial topics can be safely discussed. If these rules are not followed, the most mundane of matters may turn explosive.
III. WHAT IF ONE PARTICIPANT REFUSES TO PLAY FAIR?
In order for Jeffersonian debate to flourish, all participants must be willing to obey the rules of engagement. If one individual refuses, there's not much the rest can do but ignore him or her.
Nevertheless, a couple of things to keep in mind when this happens:
1. Some people feed on conflict; this is how they get their jollies. It's a sign of unhealthy social adjustment. Such individuals will make inflammatory remarks simply to irritate. On the internet, this may manifest as "trolling": those who post intentionally controversial or insulting statements simply to stir things up. (Trolls are not usually regular participants in any particular group.) Yet there are also individuals who aren't trolls but still jump into debates with both feet for the thrill of pissing off others: gadflies. Don't confuse the two. Nevertheless, the wise response is the same: ignore them and they go away (or at least shut up).
2. Replying to rudeness in kind simply makes you look foolish. As my grandfather used to say, "Don't lower yourself to their level." Temper, temper. Grit your teeth and keep the rules of engagement.
3. In the rare circumstance that a gadfly or troll does not leave even after being ignored for weeks, or whenever one takes his or her harassment from a public forum to a private one (such as email), immediately notify that person's ISP provider (i. e. postmaster@_gadfly's address_). If the mail bounces--that is, if the real ISP provider has been camouflaged--then immediately notify your ISP provider of the harassment and ask them to track the person down, or to give you a new mail address.
IV. IS IT EVER ALL RIGHT TO BREAK THE RULES?
Aren't there some topics that just don't deserve Jeffersonian debate? Aren't some positions so disgusting that they shouldn't be dignified by polite responses? What about posts by hate groups, neo-Nazis, pornographers, etc.?
This is a problematic question since it may lead down a slippery slope--rather like censorship. The automatic pitfall of free speech is that it IS free: people you don't like and with whom you disagree have just as much right to state their positions--short of slander--as you have to argue with them. Child pornography or its advertisement is illegal; debate about it is not... however disgusting or horrifying one may find the phenomena.
There are certain topics which are so widely regarded as morally objectionable that if one attacks them with non-Jeffersonian methods such as name-calling and invective, one may be cheered by most if not all the on-lookers. Yet there are other subjects, more controversial, which involve opinions just as virulent--such as homosexuality or abortion--but about which there is far less consensus. Some consider homosexuality or abortion to be as reprehensible as child pornography or murder, and refuse to engage in any polite debate about it because, of course, they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong (and usually disgusting and stupid, too). The reverse can be equally true: defenders of either may automatically see all opponents as bigoted or irrational (often based on past experience), and refuse to even listen to other positions as they're too busy screaming their own at the top of their (virtual) lungs.
Neither side is trying to debate. They're just on rampage and should be treated accordingly: Laugh at them, ignore them, or get out of their way, but don't lower yourself to their level by copying their methods. Doing so certainly won't accomplish anything except to make you look just as foolish. If, however, you meet up with someone who IS being polite in debate--no matter what you may think of his or her position--IF YOU WISH TO CONVINCE ANYONE ELSE OF YOURS, stay polite yourself.
In other words, No, it's never wise to break the rules. Not unless you're applying for God's job.
I. Introduction
II. Rules of Engagement
III. What If One Participant Refuses to Play Fair?
IV. Is It Ever All Right to Break the Rules?
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the greatest problems faced in a public forum is how participants may disagree without descending into either personal attacks or not-so-witty one-line repartee. There are certain "rules of engagement," if you will, which can prevent name calling and other debate no-nos.
But first, we must dispel the myth that polite equals namby-pamby. In fact, it is possible to disagree--even to disagree significantly--in a civil manner. Disagreement is never comfortable, but if we refrain from permitting it to become a war (or, on the internet, a flamewar) we might learn something and keep our blood pressure down at the same time. Disagreement can be fruitful. But it will be fruitful only so long as certain guidelines are followed.
II. THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
1. THE paramount rule of Jeffersonian Debate: Grant your opponent respect. This means you must allow that he or she can examine the facts and come to a different conclusion from you. This is harder than it sounds, particularly for those who view disagreement as a personal affront, or a sign of stupidity. Persons who hold such views cannot engage in fruitful debate.
2. ...Which brings up the second point: Learn objectivity. Be able to separate others' disagreement with your ideas from attacks on your person. Beware of the overly subjective individual who identifies with certain ideals/ideas to such an extent that disagreement is considered to constitute a personal threat. Such persons hold to the perception, "You're either with me or you're against me." Should you meet with such a one, disengage immediately unless you enjoy being subjected to Scream and Leap.
3. Part of learning objectivity means recognizing the difference between a fact and an opinion. 2+2=4 is a fact, more or less. That John Mellencamp writes great lyrics is an opinion. In order to disprove a fact, one MUST present contrary evidence. Just saying, "That's wrong!" isn't good enough. It's an opinion, not an argument.
"That's wrong because..." is an argument. When presenting an opinion in a debate, it's usually a good idea to indicate in some manner that you realize it's an opinion. "It seems to me..." or "It's been my experience..." or (in nettese) the ever-popular, extremely useful IMHO (in my humble opinion). In short, avoid stating your opinion as if it were a fact: e. g. "Romance stories are gross," or "Action-adventure is boring." Likewise, another's experience or feelings cannot be "wrong" or "right." Don't confuse the existential with the objective. My experience (the existential) is MY experience and no one else can gainsay it because no one else is living in my head and body but me.
What someone else might justifiably do is question my interpretation of my experience: "Well, it didn't strike me as...."
Now for the fine point: While experiences can never be right or wrong, opinions arising from incorrectly interpreted experiences can be. When dealing with fiction, in which opinions and interpretation come from the experience of reading, this "fine point" is more than splitting hairs. Without encroaching too much on Peg's "Mannerly Art of Critique," being able to recognize that interpretation of fiction is opinion, not fact, is as essential to productive feedback as to productive debate.
4. Refrain absolutely from ad hominem attack. What is ad hominem attack? To criticize or belittle the one who holds a certain position rather than the position itself. Example: "How stupid can you be?" or "That just goes to show you don't know anything." Attacking your opponent rather than your opponent's ideas merely indicates a weakness in your position. It wins no brownie points.
5. Absolutely. Never. Use. Invectives. What's an "invective"? A verbal attack, often one that employs obscenities. No matter what your opponent says to you, do not respond with obscenities. Doing so shows deplorably bad manners and convinces any onlookers that you were raised in a barn. Locker-room talk doesn't belong on the debating block. There's simply no excuse for it. Period. It doesn't matter who started it. (Incidently, there is a difference between obscenity as invective and simple adjectival use: "Fuck you" is invective; "That's a hell of a note" or "You know damn well" is adjectival.)
6. Avoid irrelevancies and non sequiturs. Perhaps that goes without saying, but be sure your points relate to the topic. If your opponent (or someone else) says, "What do you mean by that?" or "Your point/parallel/example doesn't seem to follow," you must be able to explain how it does. By the same token, think through points and parallels before you make them to be certain they DO relate. A good way of weakening any argument is by using non sequiturs or bad metaphors.
7. Remember that there may be more than two sides to any debate. You may find yourself agreeing with neither debater, or agreeing with some points made by one, and some points made by the other. Polite debate includes frank admission of where one may agree with an opponent. It's a debate, not a war. Insisting, "You're with me or you're against me" merely points to the lack of objectivity mentioned in point #2 above.
8. In any debate, even polite ones, there is always a certain degree of side-taking: onlookers who are convinced by, or agree already with the arguments of one participant or another. Onlookers who choose to speak out should obey the same polite rules of engagement as anyone else. Also, it is helpful to state why one agrees. "John's right and you're wrong" is neither convincing nor helpful. However, "I find John's arguments persuasive because...." can contribute to the debate in a positive way. It also prevents "side-taking" from becoming mere ego-massage, which in turns helps to keep the focus on the matter at hand, not the personalities involved. It IS permissible to disagree with a friend. This goes back to being able to separate subjective from objective. I may like you very much, but still disagree with your position.
9. Persons who have tender egos should think twice before leaping into a debate. As Apollo advised, "Know thyself!" If you have a tendency to take disagreement personally--stay out of debates! People have skins of differing thicknesses. What may strike you as insulting may have been meant innocently. Assume ignorance, not malice, and inform your opponent if he or she just said something which struck as hostile or personal. Allow the other the opportunity to qualify remarks which may have been innocently meant. If your opponent says, "I didn't mean it that way!"--accept the refutation. Don't insist otherwise!
10. By the same token, recognize that phrasing is everything.
Bluntness can be plain rude, not charmingly honest. If you are one who does have a thick skin, realize others may not and take some care with what you say and how you say it. Such simple things as noting that your opinion is an opinion (the "In my experience" or "IMHO" mentioned above) can go a long way toward keeping feathers smooth and unruffled.
11. Don't be afraid to employ humor, as long as the humor is not a cover for personal attack. Humor in debate keeps blood from boiling.
12. Don't use religious principles or canons as absolutes. Recognize that not everyone may hold the same beliefs. Some debates directly concern religious points, but introducing them into an otherwise unrelated issue is inappropriate. "The Bible says..." is not an argument unless all participants agree on the Bible as an authority, and on a particular interpretation of the Bible, to boot. Otherwise, the reaction will--justifiably--be, "So what?" The use of religious principles or canons in debate must be treated as opinions, not facts.
13. Be man or woman enough to concede. If one's opponent convinces--admit it! Those who can never admit to being wrong show fragile ego structure. The real point of any debate is not to win, but to learn.
If one enters a debate merely to win, one has entered for the wrong reasons. Whatever the ancient Greeks thought, life is not a continual contest.
14. Know when to quit. There is a point in any debate when continued discussion ceases to be fruitful and becomes mere argument. Graceful closure is as important as graceful conduct. One does not have to have the last word, and it is permissible to say, "I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced." Agree to disagree.
15. Finally, watch grammar, especially when debating in written forms such as that found on the Internet. This is not a petty point. One cannot convince others of one's glittering wit and clever insight if it's delivered full of misspellings and grammar errors. Instead, participants will wonder how one passed eighth grade English. More, bad grammar or lack of clarity will contribute to misunderstanding.
One may say the opposite of what one means, or say something that is unintentionally amusing. ("Except" means the opposite of "accept," yet I see the two all-too-commonly confused in internet posts--with sometimes laughable results.)
If these simple rules are followed, even extremely controversial topics can be safely discussed. If these rules are not followed, the most mundane of matters may turn explosive.
III. WHAT IF ONE PARTICIPANT REFUSES TO PLAY FAIR?
In order for Jeffersonian debate to flourish, all participants must be willing to obey the rules of engagement. If one individual refuses, there's not much the rest can do but ignore him or her.
Nevertheless, a couple of things to keep in mind when this happens:
1. Some people feed on conflict; this is how they get their jollies. It's a sign of unhealthy social adjustment. Such individuals will make inflammatory remarks simply to irritate. On the internet, this may manifest as "trolling": those who post intentionally controversial or insulting statements simply to stir things up. (Trolls are not usually regular participants in any particular group.) Yet there are also individuals who aren't trolls but still jump into debates with both feet for the thrill of pissing off others: gadflies. Don't confuse the two. Nevertheless, the wise response is the same: ignore them and they go away (or at least shut up).
2. Replying to rudeness in kind simply makes you look foolish. As my grandfather used to say, "Don't lower yourself to their level." Temper, temper. Grit your teeth and keep the rules of engagement.
3. In the rare circumstance that a gadfly or troll does not leave even after being ignored for weeks, or whenever one takes his or her harassment from a public forum to a private one (such as email), immediately notify that person's ISP provider (i. e. postmaster@_gadfly's address_). If the mail bounces--that is, if the real ISP provider has been camouflaged--then immediately notify your ISP provider of the harassment and ask them to track the person down, or to give you a new mail address.
IV. IS IT EVER ALL RIGHT TO BREAK THE RULES?
Aren't there some topics that just don't deserve Jeffersonian debate? Aren't some positions so disgusting that they shouldn't be dignified by polite responses? What about posts by hate groups, neo-Nazis, pornographers, etc.?
This is a problematic question since it may lead down a slippery slope--rather like censorship. The automatic pitfall of free speech is that it IS free: people you don't like and with whom you disagree have just as much right to state their positions--short of slander--as you have to argue with them. Child pornography or its advertisement is illegal; debate about it is not... however disgusting or horrifying one may find the phenomena.
There are certain topics which are so widely regarded as morally objectionable that if one attacks them with non-Jeffersonian methods such as name-calling and invective, one may be cheered by most if not all the on-lookers. Yet there are other subjects, more controversial, which involve opinions just as virulent--such as homosexuality or abortion--but about which there is far less consensus. Some consider homosexuality or abortion to be as reprehensible as child pornography or murder, and refuse to engage in any polite debate about it because, of course, they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong (and usually disgusting and stupid, too). The reverse can be equally true: defenders of either may automatically see all opponents as bigoted or irrational (often based on past experience), and refuse to even listen to other positions as they're too busy screaming their own at the top of their (virtual) lungs.
Neither side is trying to debate. They're just on rampage and should be treated accordingly: Laugh at them, ignore them, or get out of their way, but don't lower yourself to their level by copying their methods. Doing so certainly won't accomplish anything except to make you look just as foolish. If, however, you meet up with someone who IS being polite in debate--no matter what you may think of his or her position--IF YOU WISH TO CONVINCE ANYONE ELSE OF YOURS, stay polite yourself.
In other words, No, it's never wise to break the rules. Not unless you're applying for God's job.
From To Be INTp
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Do what you are
Something I find very useful about personality types is that it helps me to value other people for their unique abilities and outlooks on life. Okay, so there are certain people that I can't stand for certain reasons, and it's hard for me to let that go. But on the other hand, I think every person has something positive to offer the world if they can learn what that is. INTps can greatly improve the world with their scientific discoveries. ESFjs are wonderful with children and make great nurses. ESFps entertain us and keep us young. ESXjs counterbalance the ENTp's desire to change and improve everything they see. ISFps make all sorts of beautiful art. XSTps work with their hands to fix the things we break. And the list goes on.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Sure, I've got my favorite types and I definitely relate to some better than others. And some types are more likely to cause problems. But just like the church, this world needs every type of person to make society work... as well as it does at least (there are lots of things I'd change, but I try to remain optimistic.)
I've also found that learning personality types has helped me with group work. Different people have vastly different skills and working styles, and understanding this can greatly help when assigning roles in a group project. For instance, this last quarter, rather than trying to have our whole group of five design our site plan, Devin and I (both xNxp's) decided to work together on this and it turned out wonderfully. The rest of the group, who are the detail-oriented artisans to the best of my knowledge (that is, xSxp) did a great job putting together the reports and 3d models. Not only did this minimize the scheduling difficulties, but we were able to all work to our abilities and not get burnt out. Which is one of the most important aspects of discovering our types.
When we try to fit into a mold and choose a career based on who we think we should be, we inevitably get burnt out. Attempting to be an engineer earlier in college led to some serious depression because I was trying to do something that was outside of my interests and nature. I soon realized that picking a career because of the money I could make was completely contrary to my personality. However, once I discovered City and Regional Planning, I found a career path where I could use my intellect and creativity to benefit humanity in a tangible way. All of a sudden I was in a major that lined up with my abilities and values, and I flourished.
Discover who you really are, and find a way to do what fits your personality. Perhaps you are indeed built to be a business executive (although I doubt any of those people actually read my blog!) Do it! Live life to the best of your abilities (and serve God in that way!) But many of us are not and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves that this is the only way to be a valuable member of society! And remember, anyone who has made a huge positive change in society likely has struggled to fit in (and has been martyred, but that's a whole other can of worms).
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Sure, I've got my favorite types and I definitely relate to some better than others. And some types are more likely to cause problems. But just like the church, this world needs every type of person to make society work... as well as it does at least (there are lots of things I'd change, but I try to remain optimistic.)
I've also found that learning personality types has helped me with group work. Different people have vastly different skills and working styles, and understanding this can greatly help when assigning roles in a group project. For instance, this last quarter, rather than trying to have our whole group of five design our site plan, Devin and I (both xNxp's) decided to work together on this and it turned out wonderfully. The rest of the group, who are the detail-oriented artisans to the best of my knowledge (that is, xSxp) did a great job putting together the reports and 3d models. Not only did this minimize the scheduling difficulties, but we were able to all work to our abilities and not get burnt out. Which is one of the most important aspects of discovering our types.
When we try to fit into a mold and choose a career based on who we think we should be, we inevitably get burnt out. Attempting to be an engineer earlier in college led to some serious depression because I was trying to do something that was outside of my interests and nature. I soon realized that picking a career because of the money I could make was completely contrary to my personality. However, once I discovered City and Regional Planning, I found a career path where I could use my intellect and creativity to benefit humanity in a tangible way. All of a sudden I was in a major that lined up with my abilities and values, and I flourished.
Discover who you really are, and find a way to do what fits your personality. Perhaps you are indeed built to be a business executive (although I doubt any of those people actually read my blog!) Do it! Live life to the best of your abilities (and serve God in that way!) But many of us are not and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves that this is the only way to be a valuable member of society! And remember, anyone who has made a huge positive change in society likely has struggled to fit in (and has been martyred, but that's a whole other can of worms).
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
From http://linus.highpoint.edu/~bblatchl/infp.html:
INFPs and Stress
INFPs feel internal turmoil when they find themselves in situations in which there is conflict between their inner code of ethics and their relationships with others. They feel caught between pleasing others and maintaining their own integrity. Their natural tendency to identify with others, compounded with their self-sacrificial dispositions, tends to leave them confused as to who they really are. Their quiet personalities further feeds their feelings of depersonalization. The INFP's quest for self-identity then seems even more alluring - but increasingly impossible to attain.
As with all NFs, the INFP will feel lost and perplexed at stressful times. As stress builds, INFPs become disconnected from their own personality and perceived place in life. They will lose sight of who they are in relation to time and place. They may not make basic observations, while instead they will focus on the more abstract and symbolic meanings of a particular interaction. This can sometimes baffle those who expect more direct communication and a fairly concrete relationship.
Might explain some things.
Friday, June 02, 2006
The inner world
I know I've written a lot of posts about personality type. I find that writing is the most effective way to understand my own thoughts. Which leads me to this: once again, I think I might be an introvert.
Funny, often times I'm one of the more outgoing people at social engagements. I have a great time, but when I leave I often feel like I've ... hmmm... it's hard to explain... maybe I could use an example. A couple times after being the talkative one at a get-together I've felt like a terrible person and that people think I'm just a goofball. I enjoy entertaining people, but I often feel like this is a mask on the dark and brooding world I have inside.
But it's difficult for me to not just put a positive face on everything and then feel like I've deceived others and myself. I hate it when people see me as less complex than I really am, but I often don't show the other sides because I want to make people feel good... about me.
This is why I often love to spend time with other complex people because I know they can relate to my conflict between the inner and outer worlds. Blogging can help me to learn to express my true self in a controlled, well-thought-out way without exposing too much and risking offending others or scaring them away.
And it's interesting... I'm definitely attracted to people who have a "dark side," that is, people who aren't going to be offended or put off by my cynicism and sinful nature that I often try to cover up. People who will listen without judging and appreciate me even more, even if they disagree with me. And people who expose their own secrets so it's safe for me to do the same. If you're one of these people, you probably know who you are, and you really mean a lot to me!
Funny, often times I'm one of the more outgoing people at social engagements. I have a great time, but when I leave I often feel like I've ... hmmm... it's hard to explain... maybe I could use an example. A couple times after being the talkative one at a get-together I've felt like a terrible person and that people think I'm just a goofball. I enjoy entertaining people, but I often feel like this is a mask on the dark and brooding world I have inside.
But it's difficult for me to not just put a positive face on everything and then feel like I've deceived others and myself. I hate it when people see me as less complex than I really am, but I often don't show the other sides because I want to make people feel good... about me.
This is why I often love to spend time with other complex people because I know they can relate to my conflict between the inner and outer worlds. Blogging can help me to learn to express my true self in a controlled, well-thought-out way without exposing too much and risking offending others or scaring them away.
And it's interesting... I'm definitely attracted to people who have a "dark side," that is, people who aren't going to be offended or put off by my cynicism and sinful nature that I often try to cover up. People who will listen without judging and appreciate me even more, even if they disagree with me. And people who expose their own secrets so it's safe for me to do the same. If you're one of these people, you probably know who you are, and you really mean a lot to me!
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Cars and Drugs
Lately I've been considering the role of technology in our lives. We often lament our slavery to automobiles and computers and long to return to a simpler time when humankind lived off the land and enjoyed the tranquility of nature. We see ourselves as part of a rapidly accelerating machine that will soon destroy itself or the earth if not stopped.
But while society may indeed be spinning out of control, we often ignore the huge benefits that technological advances have brought us. Indeed, there seem to be tradeoffs in both direction for every invention and innovation that has come along.
For instance, despite overuse, abuse, and a likely contribution to world overcrowding, modern medicine has improved quality and length of life exponentially. Those who distrust the medical world and pride themselves on never see a doctor may not realize the immense benefits they have directly and indirectly gained from healthcare. Along with likely being born in a hospital and receiving immunizations at a young age, antibiotics have significantly reduced the number of harmful diseases these people are exposed to. This is not to minimize the negative impacts that the pharmaceutical companies have doubtless created, such as increased pollution from manufacturing processes.
Likewise, the advent of the automobile changed the world in countless ways. Those of us in the urban planning world are all familiar with the negative impacts of unmitigated automobile use: air pollution, obesity, and barren, car-oriented retail strips scattered throughout a suburban wasteland. But we must also remember the benefits that Ford and Honda have brought us: easy access to outdoor escapades in the relative wildland of the Sierra Nevada; a cozy home in the woods with a well-paying job in the inner city; easy access to food and clothing...
So maybe we've taken it too far and built a society that enslaves us to our Toyotas. But rather than attacking the automobile as the root of all evil, we ought to learn to balance our need for freedom with our desire to preserve the natural world that is so vital to our livelihood. Urban planners are finally finding ways to do this, and it will be exciting to see cities like Portland and Vancouver start to change the way we view mobility and urban living.
I'll talk more about this in future postings if I see interest in the comments!
But while society may indeed be spinning out of control, we often ignore the huge benefits that technological advances have brought us. Indeed, there seem to be tradeoffs in both direction for every invention and innovation that has come along.
For instance, despite overuse, abuse, and a likely contribution to world overcrowding, modern medicine has improved quality and length of life exponentially. Those who distrust the medical world and pride themselves on never see a doctor may not realize the immense benefits they have directly and indirectly gained from healthcare. Along with likely being born in a hospital and receiving immunizations at a young age, antibiotics have significantly reduced the number of harmful diseases these people are exposed to. This is not to minimize the negative impacts that the pharmaceutical companies have doubtless created, such as increased pollution from manufacturing processes.
Likewise, the advent of the automobile changed the world in countless ways. Those of us in the urban planning world are all familiar with the negative impacts of unmitigated automobile use: air pollution, obesity, and barren, car-oriented retail strips scattered throughout a suburban wasteland. But we must also remember the benefits that Ford and Honda have brought us: easy access to outdoor escapades in the relative wildland of the Sierra Nevada; a cozy home in the woods with a well-paying job in the inner city; easy access to food and clothing...
So maybe we've taken it too far and built a society that enslaves us to our Toyotas. But rather than attacking the automobile as the root of all evil, we ought to learn to balance our need for freedom with our desire to preserve the natural world that is so vital to our livelihood. Urban planners are finally finding ways to do this, and it will be exciting to see cities like Portland and Vancouver start to change the way we view mobility and urban living.
I'll talk more about this in future postings if I see interest in the comments!
Sunday, May 21, 2006
A posting from an INTP forum I was just reading hits the nail on the head regarding my thought process. I've often had trouble learning from a teacher and have had to teach myself from the book because I couldn't take in new information without processing it. Check out what Henry wrote:
I was once told by an IT trainer that some people learn best by seeing and some by doing. He commented that there is a much rarer third way, which he observed mostly among programmers (and in me - hence the discussion), which he called data processing. This is exactly what I do, and should not be mistaken for slowness of thought!
When I'm learning, I need to process the information I hear/see. When the data comes faster than I can process it I can get stuck and 'overflow' as it were, particularly if I have to grapple with an idea. At such a time I have to stop the teacher (the input) and clarify the point before I can continue. If this is not possible I will generally lose track of proceedings until I am done processing, which is inconvenient in group learning situations. However, once processed, I have fully grasped the point and will not need to return to it.
Anyone else do this? I suspect it is related to the INTP stubborness I have seen described - the unwillingness to accept what others say (whatever their status may be) without first analysing and deciding for ourselves.
It tickles me to think that I work rather like a computer program.
~Henry, age 25
I was once told by an IT trainer that some people learn best by seeing and some by doing. He commented that there is a much rarer third way, which he observed mostly among programmers (and in me - hence the discussion), which he called data processing. This is exactly what I do, and should not be mistaken for slowness of thought!
When I'm learning, I need to process the information I hear/see. When the data comes faster than I can process it I can get stuck and 'overflow' as it were, particularly if I have to grapple with an idea. At such a time I have to stop the teacher (the input) and clarify the point before I can continue. If this is not possible I will generally lose track of proceedings until I am done processing, which is inconvenient in group learning situations. However, once processed, I have fully grasped the point and will not need to return to it.
Anyone else do this? I suspect it is related to the INTP stubborness I have seen described - the unwillingness to accept what others say (whatever their status may be) without first analysing and deciding for ourselves.
It tickles me to think that I work rather like a computer program.
~Henry, age 25
Saturday, May 20, 2006
More Myers-Briggs...
I know, I know, I'm always changing my mind. But right now I'm definitely in an INTP phase. That is, Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. Take a gander:
INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.
Okay, so sometimes my extroverted intuition takes over (social situations) and I get quite goofy and/or talkative. But in general, I need to spend time alone with a problem or idea in order to really feel like I understand it. And I have no problem doing so (as demonstrated by the hours I've spent figuring out myers-briggs!) Anyway, I know that's a lot of talking about myself...
I want to know what you guys are! There are a couple links I can recommend: Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test and Myers-Briggs: A Complete Guide (try out the test link at the bottom of the page... it's an interesting one!) I would check both out, partly because a single test may not be accurate; redundancy is wise. You may be surprised how accurate the descriptions are!
(It's interesting... I took the test that I linked above, and I scored closest to INTP, followed by INTJ, INFJ, and INFP...)
INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.
Okay, so sometimes my extroverted intuition takes over (social situations) and I get quite goofy and/or talkative. But in general, I need to spend time alone with a problem or idea in order to really feel like I understand it. And I have no problem doing so (as demonstrated by the hours I've spent figuring out myers-briggs!) Anyway, I know that's a lot of talking about myself...
I want to know what you guys are! There are a couple links I can recommend: Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test and Myers-Briggs: A Complete Guide (try out the test link at the bottom of the page... it's an interesting one!) I would check both out, partly because a single test may not be accurate; redundancy is wise. You may be surprised how accurate the descriptions are!
(It's interesting... I took the test that I linked above, and I scored closest to INTP, followed by INTJ, INFJ, and INFP...)
Friday, May 19, 2006
Mayday (revisited)
I realize that I haven't yet posted a post-Mayday post (how's that for re-using words?) so I'd like to talk about that.
The weekend started with a slight hitch: when I arrived at the church slightly late, one of the guys (who will not be named here, Josh) who was signed up for my vehicle was not there. After about 45 minutes Mini, Kim and I decided to take off. Turns out the young man had contacted another person (who will also remain unnamed... for reals) the night before and was not attending the trip, but the chain of communication stopped there. I'm not bitter (for reals).
Anyway after an adventure involving an unexpected passenger switch, a broken caravan, and a wrong turn that took us past CSU Monterey Bay (strange area!), Mini and I arrived at Mount Hermon after dinner and part-way through the first worship service. I'm not bitter.
Actually, the weekend was excellent. Arriving in the forest of the Santa Cruz Mountains was such a pleasant feeling. Being born in the Northwest and spending five of my formative years in the Portland area really makes me appreciate tall trees and dense undergrowth. I instantly relaxed upon driving under the canopy of the ponderosa pines.
Another highlight was definitely Derek Webb's concert on Saturday. What an amazing musician and songwriter! I particularly enjoyed the song "Table for Two," an old Caedmon's Call song which Derek wrote, describing a night when he and a friend stayed up late at IHOP discussing "women and the sovereignty of God." I can't tell you how many times I've had such a conversation, and I felt like I would have put the same words in that song if I had written it! Anyway, he really appreciated the theme of our retreat and tailored his set to fit our theme ("Loving like Jesus would").
Well, I feel like I'm not actually saying anything so I'm going to peace out, fools. See, I'm totally goofy right now. But I'm not bitter.
The weekend started with a slight hitch: when I arrived at the church slightly late, one of the guys (who will not be named here, Josh) who was signed up for my vehicle was not there. After about 45 minutes Mini, Kim and I decided to take off. Turns out the young man had contacted another person (who will also remain unnamed... for reals) the night before and was not attending the trip, but the chain of communication stopped there. I'm not bitter (for reals).
Anyway after an adventure involving an unexpected passenger switch, a broken caravan, and a wrong turn that took us past CSU Monterey Bay (strange area!), Mini and I arrived at Mount Hermon after dinner and part-way through the first worship service. I'm not bitter.
Actually, the weekend was excellent. Arriving in the forest of the Santa Cruz Mountains was such a pleasant feeling. Being born in the Northwest and spending five of my formative years in the Portland area really makes me appreciate tall trees and dense undergrowth. I instantly relaxed upon driving under the canopy of the ponderosa pines.
Another highlight was definitely Derek Webb's concert on Saturday. What an amazing musician and songwriter! I particularly enjoyed the song "Table for Two," an old Caedmon's Call song which Derek wrote, describing a night when he and a friend stayed up late at IHOP discussing "women and the sovereignty of God." I can't tell you how many times I've had such a conversation, and I felt like I would have put the same words in that song if I had written it! Anyway, he really appreciated the theme of our retreat and tailored his set to fit our theme ("Loving like Jesus would").
Well, I feel like I'm not actually saying anything so I'm going to peace out, fools. See, I'm totally goofy right now. But I'm not bitter.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
My surprise staring contest
Yesterday I went out to Los Osos Oaks State Preserve (in Los Osos, nonetheless!) to hike and pray. I climbed onto an oak limb hanging over the trail and sat there for a few minutes. About fifty yards ahead of me I heard some crows in the trees making a racket. I thought, "don't they do that when there's a predator around?" Wouldn't it be wild...
All of a sudden a bobcat runs down the trail toward me! About 20 feet away, it sees me in my perch and stops. It stares at me, slowly backing up, for about five seconds, until I shout and it runs back into the undergrowth!
All of a sudden a bobcat runs down the trail toward me! About 20 feet away, it sees me in my perch and stops. It stares at me, slowly backing up, for about five seconds, until I shout and it runs back into the undergrowth!
Monday, May 15, 2006
The Word of God
I think that one of the reasons I started looking into these things is my belief that the Church has put more importance on the Bible than on Jesus Christ Himself! Rather than learning to turn to Christ in prayer, we're taught to go straight to the Bible to have our questions answered. And honestly, how do we know that the bible is the "inerrant word of God?"
The bible itself is explicit that Jesus is the Word of God! We've replaced Jesus with a book. No wonder we don't love Him! We're so tied up in our huge assortment of doctrines and dogmas (Calvinism or Arminianism? Creationism or evolution? Pre-millennialism or a-millennialism?) that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus died so we could have life. Let's lose the baggage and learn to trust in the true Word of God!
The bible itself is explicit that Jesus is the Word of God! We've replaced Jesus with a book. No wonder we don't love Him! We're so tied up in our huge assortment of doctrines and dogmas (Calvinism or Arminianism? Creationism or evolution? Pre-millennialism or a-millennialism?) that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus died so we could have life. Let's lose the baggage and learn to trust in the true Word of God!
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Jesus and the Moneychangers
Here's another interesting article: Jesus and the Moneychangers. The main premise is that Jesus was indignant primarily because the temple had become a slaughterhouse and the men in the temple were making money off of the sacrificial system.
All of the articles I have posted should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to lead anyone astray! I simply want us all to pursue the truth and not take for granted what we've been told in the church our entire lives. Here is a cool guide for reading the bible in view of Jesus's teachings:
How Does The Bible Say We Will Know God?
All of the articles I have posted should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to lead anyone astray! I simply want us all to pursue the truth and not take for granted what we've been told in the church our entire lives. Here is a cool guide for reading the bible in view of Jesus's teachings:
How Does The Bible Say We Will Know God?
Inerrancy of scripture?
Hi guys.
I know this is going to deeply offend some of you, but I think it's worth reading. Yesterday I asked myself if the Levitical laws are from man or God. This morning I randomly (or was it ordained?) opened my bible to Jeremiah 6 and was stunned. I did some research when I came home and found this link. Know that I don't believe that this in any way nullifies the Lordship of Christ. And it indeed provides clarity when reading His teachings. For your reference, the author refers to Jesus as "Joshua." I'm not sure how this occurred, but feel free to use your own translation of the Bible alongside these references if you don't trust the site. This page will challenge what you've always believed and may indeed bring you closer to the true God...
Did Moses write the Torah?
Please let me know your thoughts. I have not yet reached a conclusion on this matter, but it's something that's been on my mind recently and I think that God answered my prayers when he showed me Jeremiah 7:21-23. God bless you all!
update: I'm not sure what this guy's religious background is (he has a lot of strange stuff on his site), but I still think the essay is interesting and well-thought out.
I know this is going to deeply offend some of you, but I think it's worth reading. Yesterday I asked myself if the Levitical laws are from man or God. This morning I randomly (or was it ordained?) opened my bible to Jeremiah 6 and was stunned. I did some research when I came home and found this link. Know that I don't believe that this in any way nullifies the Lordship of Christ. And it indeed provides clarity when reading His teachings. For your reference, the author refers to Jesus as "Joshua." I'm not sure how this occurred, but feel free to use your own translation of the Bible alongside these references if you don't trust the site. This page will challenge what you've always believed and may indeed bring you closer to the true God...
Did Moses write the Torah?
Please let me know your thoughts. I have not yet reached a conclusion on this matter, but it's something that's been on my mind recently and I think that God answered my prayers when he showed me Jeremiah 7:21-23. God bless you all!
update: I'm not sure what this guy's religious background is (he has a lot of strange stuff on his site), but I still think the essay is interesting and well-thought out.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Well, I don't have anything specific to write about, but I feel like blogging all the same. We'll see what comes out of it! I generally like to blog when there's a new or exciting idea on my mind.
Oh! Here's one. This weekend is Mayday, our big retreat. I mentioned it in my last post, but I'd like to share what we're doing. The theme of the trip is "loving like Jesus would," and the goal is to have everyone on the trip (100+ people) commit to actively loving a group of people that they feel called to love. People will split up into groups and make a game plan for the next several months.
This is in addition to sermons by Pastor Aaron, a concert by Derek Webb, and a talk by Chad Thompson, author of Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would. We're heading up to the Santa Cruz Mountains on Friday (my birthday!) and spending the weekend at Mount Hermon.
Please be praying for this important event to be the catalyst for a revolution of love that we envision it to be.
Something that we often forget is that a large number of Church revolutions and revivals have begun with people our age! Right now there seems to be a harmful notion that we as college students have no power to change the world. But God loves using the young and naive to enact huge changes! This may be just such an instance!
Oh! Here's one. This weekend is Mayday, our big retreat. I mentioned it in my last post, but I'd like to share what we're doing. The theme of the trip is "loving like Jesus would," and the goal is to have everyone on the trip (100+ people) commit to actively loving a group of people that they feel called to love. People will split up into groups and make a game plan for the next several months.
This is in addition to sermons by Pastor Aaron, a concert by Derek Webb, and a talk by Chad Thompson, author of Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would. We're heading up to the Santa Cruz Mountains on Friday (my birthday!) and spending the weekend at Mount Hermon.
Please be praying for this important event to be the catalyst for a revolution of love that we envision it to be.
Something that we often forget is that a large number of Church revolutions and revivals have begun with people our age! Right now there seems to be a harmful notion that we as college students have no power to change the world. But God loves using the young and naive to enact huge changes! This may be just such an instance!
Monday, May 08, 2006
So I found a new hobby: painting. Well, it may not be art you'd hang up in your room, but we're creating some cool backdrops for our Mayday retreat next weekend. Splatter, graffiti, footprints, and a nice red wash on 15' drop cloths. Looks darn cool. And now I have artsy looking shoes. The whole design theme for Mayday is "urban decay," so all sorts of rubbish, from crappy couches to olive green refrigerator doors to pieces of scrap metal are all fair game. I'll post some pictures of the stage (featuring Derek Webb, of course.) Maybe they'll end up on his website!
Friday, May 05, 2006
Procrastination
For any other P personalities who might be reading this, I'd like to impart a bit of wisdom to you. Learn to procrastinate. And do it well. Your life will be fabulous.
Let me explain.
We Perceiving types tend to work best close to the deadline. The deadline energizes us and gets the creative juices flowing. If you're a P you know what I mean. Attempting to start early on a project or homework assignment is a waste of time. We end up dallying our time away trying to get started.
However, if we were to acknowledge that we're not going to actually accomplish anything by "getting ahead on a project" and simply use our time for something productive, such as hiking, socializing, drinking coffee, blogging, or inventing the latest device for mass destruction (see previous post), we'd waste much less time! I've learned this lesson and adopted the principle of Planned Procrastination. Figure out how much time you will need to accomplish your task, and devote the last possible block of time to your project.
Of course, I'm half kidding, but there is some truth in what I say. Later!
Let me explain.
We Perceiving types tend to work best close to the deadline. The deadline energizes us and gets the creative juices flowing. If you're a P you know what I mean. Attempting to start early on a project or homework assignment is a waste of time. We end up dallying our time away trying to get started.
However, if we were to acknowledge that we're not going to actually accomplish anything by "getting ahead on a project" and simply use our time for something productive, such as hiking, socializing, drinking coffee, blogging, or inventing the latest device for mass destruction (see previous post), we'd waste much less time! I've learned this lesson and adopted the principle of Planned Procrastination. Figure out how much time you will need to accomplish your task, and devote the last possible block of time to your project.
Of course, I'm half kidding, but there is some truth in what I say. Later!
Best MBTI descriptions I've found!
For a good laugh, visit Not Your Typical Myers Briggs Personality Types.
Disclaimer: Okay, I just got a little further into the page... proceed at your own risk.
Disclaimer: Okay, I just got a little further into the page... proceed at your own risk.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
I'm well on my way to a quarter-life crisis. I turn 23 in less than two weeks and I still don't know what I'm doing with my life. And frankly, 23 is the first year that really sounds old to me. No longer a kid. Responsibility of life starting to settle in. I know, people are doing things such as graduating from college and getting married when they're 35 these days, but it's still pretty crazy to think that I'm becoming an adult. A grown man. This is the time of life in more than a few movies when the protaganist moves to the city, gets a lucrative job with an insurance company, and frequents the sexy singles bars.
Of course that's not my destiny, but it's wild to think that I'm now older than 80% of college students and I still have 2 years left. But life is good here. And a number of my friends will likely outlast me in SLO, which is quite comforting! I won't be here by myself, hoping to maintain a minimal social life. And my church will always be here. That body has made San Luis Obispo home for me, and when I spend more than a week away I'm ready to come back and be with the people I've truly grown up with over the last four years.
Of course that's not my destiny, but it's wild to think that I'm now older than 80% of college students and I still have 2 years left. But life is good here. And a number of my friends will likely outlast me in SLO, which is quite comforting! I won't be here by myself, hoping to maintain a minimal social life. And my church will always be here. That body has made San Luis Obispo home for me, and when I spend more than a week away I'm ready to come back and be with the people I've truly grown up with over the last four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)