You'd never think I was a master of the universe, now would ya?
In today's entry, you get to read a sampling of the kinds of thoughts that run through my head. (I know, just what you never asked for.) Perhaps this will serve as further caution against telling someone to "think for himself."
And then just for kicks, the results of my Jung Typology Test and my thoughts on that! What a deal!
- I'm glad it wasn't up to me to design the human form. I think if I had done it, our bodies would be much more practical and boring. We'd almost certainly have wheels and would probably be big, bulky and square, resembling some sort of mack truck. The human body seems so unique and oddly-shaped to me, but I really do enjoy it on an artistic level. It's neat, no?
- Although it is well-known that my sister has already claimed the best possible dog name with her decision to name her future best friend "Remy Lebeau" (and if you don't get that reference, we're not friends anymore), I think I have finally come up with a suitable and creative name for my future puppy. He shall be called "america." With a small "a"! (And if you get that reference, I like you a little more.)
- When I was a kid I never would have imagined how ingrained sex is in the world. Not only in modern culture, but throughout history. I knew as a kid that it was a popular hobby of sorts, but it's really so much more than that. It seems to reach into everything. Sexual innuendo is one of the strangest phenomenons in the world. That our minds are so constantly on sex that anything that could even be remotely suggestive becomes a joke about sex. "I had to unclog the pipes."; "Third base."; "That's what she said." Simply amazing. I think someone could make a reasonable case that orgasms are the meaning of life. Or maybe it would be the pursuit of the perfect orgasm. And I suppose if you made that case that would make Wilt Chamberlain the Dalai Lama.
- And speaking of the Dalai Lama, what I think makes him so "wise" is his total lack of experience. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think experience actually makes you less qualified to have an opinion on a subject. I broached this topic long ago in high school during my always interesting discussions with Laura Davulis (who no longer speaks to me of course) when I tried to make the case that my opinion about the movie Contact was of more value because I hadn't actually seen it and she had. But it seems to hold true for nearly all things. It really is a matter of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Most people seem incapable of removing themselves from situations in which they were personally involved enough emotionally to make sound judgements. Dennis Miller made a good point about John Kerry's wartime service using this logic in one of his stand up acts, noting that while he thought John Kerry's experience made him a more honorable man, it made him a less capable wartime president; that his judgement would be impaired by the horrors he witnessed and endured. And I think there's something to that.
- All right, I admit it: Dane Cook can be pretty funny sometimes. But that does not excuse his fanatics.
- I think the three most important questions people can ask are: "Why?"; "Is that a good thing or a bad thing?"; and "Which movie?"
- I have a fundamental problem with the idea of independent movies as a genre. Being an independent movie is not a reflection of your genre, but of your production methods. I still like to consider the "Star Wars" movies as independent films, since they were made without studio interference, but it's certainly not their "genre." And it really bothers me that "indie" is considered a style. It's not. Maybe a lot of them end up being similarly-styled movies, but that style is not "independent" and I refuse to go along with it.
- Similarly, I don't understand "classic rock" as a music genre. How old does the rock have to be to be considered "classic"? Where's the cut off? Will 80's rock one day slide into the classic rock genre? If a band puts out a song today that sounds the same as "classic rock," is that classic rock too? Can any new rock music sound be declared the new standard and instantly "classic"? Who would decide? Who decides now?
- Where is the streetwise Hercules? Bonnie and I want to know!
- I'm pretty sure that my cat Max is my new girlfriend. He's my favorite pussy, we cuddle regularly, and he never stops complaining!
And as promised, I took the Jung Typology Test. I'm an INTJ. Here are the in-depth explanations:
Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on.
It is in their abilities that Masterminds differ from the other Rationals, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or "entailers."
Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals. Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy.
A full description of the Mastermind and Rational is in People Patterns or Please Understand Me II
General Ulysses S. Grant is an example of Mastermind Rational
~~~~~~
To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.
INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.
INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.
In the broadest terms, what INTJs "do" tends to be what they "know". Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.
Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.
This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', paralleling that of many Fs -- only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.
Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.
My thoughts: It's pretty accurate. But I guess then, it has to be, at least to me, since I filled out the survey. It's like one of those math riddles where they say "what is the lowest number that is three times the sum of its two lowest whole number factors?" Only, you're asking the question, and the test is giving you the answer. You say, "They've got my number," but only because you've just described your number to them. I'd be much more interested in knowing if other people thought it to be accurate. (And you have your chance to tell me here!)
I like that the first one thought of me as a "mastermind" that's always planning out things and has multiple backup plans, but I liked the second analysis more. It's perhaps less flattering, but it also seems more honest. It nailed the self-confidence thing exactly, as far as I'm concerned. I once had a friend who was bothered by the confidence I have in all my theories. As if I thought I couldn't be wrong, because, well, frankly, I don't think I could. It's not meant to be arrogance. I just like to think I take the time to examine all possibilities and perhaps more importantly, constantly retest them to make sure they stand up to any other new information I acquire.
I also liked their description of my general disregard for social norms. The above-mentioned friend also once said that I was "blind" to the subtleties of social norms. But it's not a blindness. It's a refusal. I can't stand the idea of my life being controlled by arbitrary guidelines. And it really bothers me that so many people subscribe to such ideas, sometimes at the expense of their own happiness (which I can only assume true friends would come to support, even if one were to break a norm).
It is a little off in its assessment of my intolerance for flirtation. I enjoy it quite a bit. I just have to believe that I would want (or if in a mood, at least could get) it to lead somewhere. No flirting for the sake of it.
And I liked that it said that I may "simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask [my] inherent unconventionality." Which is accurate, I suppose. Lacey used to say that we were like chameleons who lacked true identities. I waver on this at times, sometimes believing there is a core to me that's always there under all the manipulative layers, but other times worry that I don't really care at all, that it's all been a charade, and I'm not always consciously in on it. That just has to be senseless paranoia though. I know I've felt meaningfully touched and connected in the past couple years, and I can't believe that that was faked. But now that it's gone I worry that it has (and will continue to) become legend, to the point that nothing can be its match and that I will forever be disappointed by all others.
So, anyway, if you read my results, those are my thoughts. If you have any thoughts of your own on any of my random thoughts, or my personality, feel free to comment. Or, since this seems relevant, why don't you go ahead and pick some adjectives that best describe me on this Johari Window thing, and we'll see if we agree. Good stuff.
And then just for kicks, the results of my Jung Typology Test and my thoughts on that! What a deal!
- I'm glad it wasn't up to me to design the human form. I think if I had done it, our bodies would be much more practical and boring. We'd almost certainly have wheels and would probably be big, bulky and square, resembling some sort of mack truck. The human body seems so unique and oddly-shaped to me, but I really do enjoy it on an artistic level. It's neat, no?
- Although it is well-known that my sister has already claimed the best possible dog name with her decision to name her future best friend "Remy Lebeau" (and if you don't get that reference, we're not friends anymore), I think I have finally come up with a suitable and creative name for my future puppy. He shall be called "america." With a small "a"! (And if you get that reference, I like you a little more.)
- When I was a kid I never would have imagined how ingrained sex is in the world. Not only in modern culture, but throughout history. I knew as a kid that it was a popular hobby of sorts, but it's really so much more than that. It seems to reach into everything. Sexual innuendo is one of the strangest phenomenons in the world. That our minds are so constantly on sex that anything that could even be remotely suggestive becomes a joke about sex. "I had to unclog the pipes."; "Third base."; "That's what she said." Simply amazing. I think someone could make a reasonable case that orgasms are the meaning of life. Or maybe it would be the pursuit of the perfect orgasm. And I suppose if you made that case that would make Wilt Chamberlain the Dalai Lama.
- And speaking of the Dalai Lama, what I think makes him so "wise" is his total lack of experience. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think experience actually makes you less qualified to have an opinion on a subject. I broached this topic long ago in high school during my always interesting discussions with Laura Davulis (who no longer speaks to me of course) when I tried to make the case that my opinion about the movie Contact was of more value because I hadn't actually seen it and she had. But it seems to hold true for nearly all things. It really is a matter of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Most people seem incapable of removing themselves from situations in which they were personally involved enough emotionally to make sound judgements. Dennis Miller made a good point about John Kerry's wartime service using this logic in one of his stand up acts, noting that while he thought John Kerry's experience made him a more honorable man, it made him a less capable wartime president; that his judgement would be impaired by the horrors he witnessed and endured. And I think there's something to that.
- All right, I admit it: Dane Cook can be pretty funny sometimes. But that does not excuse his fanatics.
- I think the three most important questions people can ask are: "Why?"; "Is that a good thing or a bad thing?"; and "Which movie?"
- I have a fundamental problem with the idea of independent movies as a genre. Being an independent movie is not a reflection of your genre, but of your production methods. I still like to consider the "Star Wars" movies as independent films, since they were made without studio interference, but it's certainly not their "genre." And it really bothers me that "indie" is considered a style. It's not. Maybe a lot of them end up being similarly-styled movies, but that style is not "independent" and I refuse to go along with it.
- Similarly, I don't understand "classic rock" as a music genre. How old does the rock have to be to be considered "classic"? Where's the cut off? Will 80's rock one day slide into the classic rock genre? If a band puts out a song today that sounds the same as "classic rock," is that classic rock too? Can any new rock music sound be declared the new standard and instantly "classic"? Who would decide? Who decides now?
- Where is the streetwise Hercules? Bonnie and I want to know!
- I'm pretty sure that my cat Max is my new girlfriend. He's my favorite pussy, we cuddle regularly, and he never stops complaining!
And as promised, I took the Jung Typology Test. I'm an INTJ. Here are the in-depth explanations:
Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on.
It is in their abilities that Masterminds differ from the other Rationals, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or "entailers."
Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals. Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy.
A full description of the Mastermind and Rational is in People Patterns or Please Understand Me II
General Ulysses S. Grant is an example of Mastermind Rational
~~~~~~
To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.
INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.
INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.
In the broadest terms, what INTJs "do" tends to be what they "know". Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.
Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.
This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', paralleling that of many Fs -- only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.
Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.
My thoughts: It's pretty accurate. But I guess then, it has to be, at least to me, since I filled out the survey. It's like one of those math riddles where they say "what is the lowest number that is three times the sum of its two lowest whole number factors?" Only, you're asking the question, and the test is giving you the answer. You say, "They've got my number," but only because you've just described your number to them. I'd be much more interested in knowing if other people thought it to be accurate. (And you have your chance to tell me here!)
I like that the first one thought of me as a "mastermind" that's always planning out things and has multiple backup plans, but I liked the second analysis more. It's perhaps less flattering, but it also seems more honest. It nailed the self-confidence thing exactly, as far as I'm concerned. I once had a friend who was bothered by the confidence I have in all my theories. As if I thought I couldn't be wrong, because, well, frankly, I don't think I could. It's not meant to be arrogance. I just like to think I take the time to examine all possibilities and perhaps more importantly, constantly retest them to make sure they stand up to any other new information I acquire.
I also liked their description of my general disregard for social norms. The above-mentioned friend also once said that I was "blind" to the subtleties of social norms. But it's not a blindness. It's a refusal. I can't stand the idea of my life being controlled by arbitrary guidelines. And it really bothers me that so many people subscribe to such ideas, sometimes at the expense of their own happiness (which I can only assume true friends would come to support, even if one were to break a norm).
It is a little off in its assessment of my intolerance for flirtation. I enjoy it quite a bit. I just have to believe that I would want (or if in a mood, at least could get) it to lead somewhere. No flirting for the sake of it.
And I liked that it said that I may "simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask [my] inherent unconventionality." Which is accurate, I suppose. Lacey used to say that we were like chameleons who lacked true identities. I waver on this at times, sometimes believing there is a core to me that's always there under all the manipulative layers, but other times worry that I don't really care at all, that it's all been a charade, and I'm not always consciously in on it. That just has to be senseless paranoia though. I know I've felt meaningfully touched and connected in the past couple years, and I can't believe that that was faked. But now that it's gone I worry that it has (and will continue to) become legend, to the point that nothing can be its match and that I will forever be disappointed by all others.
So, anyway, if you read my results, those are my thoughts. If you have any thoughts of your own on any of my random thoughts, or my personality, feel free to comment. Or, since this seems relevant, why don't you go ahead and pick some adjectives that best describe me on this Johari Window thing, and we'll see if we agree. Good stuff.