![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
two systems
a bit more mental "stuff" today, just some eddies of thoughts and emotions that i've been streaming nearly continuously for the last few weeks. probably longer, but it gets lost in the shuffle of my life during the school year, and that has me a little bit worried about the fact that school is starting in a couple of days. i need to sort and sift more. i can't really enumerate or describe the things i've been thinking and feeling, only that it's a mess, a smear that ranges from family to past and present lovers to ambitions, hopes, inclinations, and predilections...and that it has left me feeling a bit drained, hollowed out. contemplative. but oddly manic, too--my appetite has been weird, i don't want to sleep, i don't want to go out or stay in (shit, that sounds like a david bowie song). that's how i felt today, all of THAT. today was definitely an I day. (in myers-briggs terms, i mean--I as in introversion, as opposed to E for extroversion.) i spent the morning with some people, moving a friend from point A to point B. then i walked around and melted into various crowds so i could be alone, which was a relief. lol--it sounds paradoxical but it's not. cat power's music is amplifying this mood, i'm afraid...but i want to keep listening to it. her piano playing is making me miss music...miss the days when i had a bunch of instruments to play with whenever i wanted. music in my life every day--clarinet, piano, flute, and my dad's harmonica or my mom's organ if i felt like it. now i don't have an instrument. listening to music is good, but i miss making it. it leaves a hole. but i like feeling those holes sometimes--it keeps me striving, i guess, if nothing else. reminds me that you can't have everything, you have to choose. but you can change your mind, too, about some things. i keep threatening to buy an instrument of some kind, but haven't gotten around to it yet. maybe this year... in the meantime i'll keep singing in the shower.
so i guess i'll write about myers-briggs for a minute. it's been on my mind b/c i've been talking about it with my friend L. it's something to chew on, and i need something because i feel like writing but i don't know about what. i have a weird double-reaction to personality profiling systems--whether it's a supposedly "scientific" system like myers-briggs (or the kiersey temperament sorter, which is basically the same from what i can tell); or a "pseudoscientific" system like astrology, numerology, or whatever. but right now i'm thinking about myers-briggs, and i have a few things to say about it. first of all, FWIW, my "type" comes out as ENTP (extroverted, intuitive, thinking, perceiving). the thing i *dislike* about myers-briggs sorting is that it only yields 16 possible combinations. that's if you think in binary terms, which i think the system kind of invites you to do. so my "opposite" would be an ISFJ (introverted, sensing, feeling, judging). now...what i *like* about myers-briggs is that it doesn't actually place you at one end or the other of any of the 4 axes; instead, it breaks each axis up into percentages. so for example, i come out at about 60/40 on the E/I axis. that means i don't fit neatly into either the E or the I category--i sometimes prefer lots of social stimulation, and sometimes prefer to be alone (though even then i usually end up seeking out crowds to slither around in "alone"). i'm also pretty evenly divided between T and F. (i have tested out as an INTP before--back when i was still married--and an ENFP.) i'm more like 70/30 on the N/S axis, and 95/5 on the P/J axis. that last thing means...i guess...don't like rules, which is no surprise. more like...i function better when there are fewer rules, structured more as "guidelines" than immutable laws. rigid rules make me feel suffocated, and i've noticed that whenever i have tried to *formulate* some kind of rule about myself, the world, or other people (i only like dark-haired men, to give a trivial, purely hypothetical example), i promptly set about disobeying it (by dating a blonde or a redhead, to extend the example).
so here's my double-reaction: on the one hand, quite frankly, systems like this make me roll my eyes. i think...you can't divide humanity up into only 16 distinct types, for crying out loud! i guess this test *sorta* blurs the boundaries between types by giving percentage values for each trait. but i think most people go to the shorthanded version of their type--the 4-letter acronym that spells out the self, graphs it according to 4 binary oppositions. on the other hand, i *know* my 4 letters, and i *know* the blurrier percentage breakdown of those 4 letters, and i know what the whole "says" about me. the same is true for my astrological sign--i have had my chart done (only as a freebie, though), and i know my sun, rising, and moon signs: all aquarius, though my rising sign is right on the cusp with capricorn (i forget where all the planets are). so why do i know all this crap about myself (to the extent that it is "about myself" i mean), if i think it's mostly BS? well for one thing, it's therapeutic to be able to shake my head and laugh at myself, and say, "well...ok, so you're a skeptic, but whatever...you must buy it on some level or you'd completely dismiss it." for another thing, i think it's fascinating to study these intricate systems for making meaning and sense out of one's thoughts, emotions, and sensations. they bill themselves as diagnostic tests of the psyche, personality, or whatever you want to call it. it's a bit of a cliche to point out that they also work to *produce* the psyche, the personality, and thus the self, as unified and coherent wholes. such systems bring order to the cacophony of different inputs and outputs a person experiences, they dial down the noise level, filtering out the stray signals so that it *seems* like only one song is playing, or maybe a few different but coordinated ones that the psyche can draw on as it deals with internal and contextual variety and change. but what about all that static, the stray signals and fragments of other songs? what would happen if you filtered differently? you might find a completely different "self" lurking there...and then what would you do? where would "you" be?
my point, i guess, is that it's a selective process whether you're using psychological tests or astrology: either way, it's all about producing meaning and coherence in the self, along with a degree of self-esteem or pride in the *recognized* (therefore recognizable) self. but it's a chicken and egg argument. does the test find what's "really there" (the self, waiting to be discovered, uncovered, understood) or does it condition one to develop some traits and to downplay others, to value those traits in particular ways, thereby actually producing the self, itself? a little of both, probably, and i'm fine with that. i don't mind the mix of limits and possibilities. but why only 4 variables? why not 5 or 6 or 73? the structure is inherently limiting; i think it overlooks more than it organizes. in that way, personality sorting shares certain structural elements with racist and sexist agendas (both of which have been aided and abetted by science) that regard the self as an essential, stable quantity rather than a dynamic, multiply-determined, socially and historically produced one. this is not new ground.... but i'm not sure most people think about this when they do the little myers-briggs test, or get their chart done. at *those* times, the solipsistic impulse probably dominates, the desire to find out once and for all who one is, what one is made of. or the desire to get a job, i guess, since corporations rely *heavily* on personality profiling systems to help them make staffing decisions. yikes! don't even get me started on that...
and now...time for bed. i've spent altogether too much time writing this!
so i guess i'll write about myers-briggs for a minute. it's been on my mind b/c i've been talking about it with my friend L. it's something to chew on, and i need something because i feel like writing but i don't know about what. i have a weird double-reaction to personality profiling systems--whether it's a supposedly "scientific" system like myers-briggs (or the kiersey temperament sorter, which is basically the same from what i can tell); or a "pseudoscientific" system like astrology, numerology, or whatever. but right now i'm thinking about myers-briggs, and i have a few things to say about it. first of all, FWIW, my "type" comes out as ENTP (extroverted, intuitive, thinking, perceiving). the thing i *dislike* about myers-briggs sorting is that it only yields 16 possible combinations. that's if you think in binary terms, which i think the system kind of invites you to do. so my "opposite" would be an ISFJ (introverted, sensing, feeling, judging). now...what i *like* about myers-briggs is that it doesn't actually place you at one end or the other of any of the 4 axes; instead, it breaks each axis up into percentages. so for example, i come out at about 60/40 on the E/I axis. that means i don't fit neatly into either the E or the I category--i sometimes prefer lots of social stimulation, and sometimes prefer to be alone (though even then i usually end up seeking out crowds to slither around in "alone"). i'm also pretty evenly divided between T and F. (i have tested out as an INTP before--back when i was still married--and an ENFP.) i'm more like 70/30 on the N/S axis, and 95/5 on the P/J axis. that last thing means...i guess...don't like rules, which is no surprise. more like...i function better when there are fewer rules, structured more as "guidelines" than immutable laws. rigid rules make me feel suffocated, and i've noticed that whenever i have tried to *formulate* some kind of rule about myself, the world, or other people (i only like dark-haired men, to give a trivial, purely hypothetical example), i promptly set about disobeying it (by dating a blonde or a redhead, to extend the example).
so here's my double-reaction: on the one hand, quite frankly, systems like this make me roll my eyes. i think...you can't divide humanity up into only 16 distinct types, for crying out loud! i guess this test *sorta* blurs the boundaries between types by giving percentage values for each trait. but i think most people go to the shorthanded version of their type--the 4-letter acronym that spells out the self, graphs it according to 4 binary oppositions. on the other hand, i *know* my 4 letters, and i *know* the blurrier percentage breakdown of those 4 letters, and i know what the whole "says" about me. the same is true for my astrological sign--i have had my chart done (only as a freebie, though), and i know my sun, rising, and moon signs: all aquarius, though my rising sign is right on the cusp with capricorn (i forget where all the planets are). so why do i know all this crap about myself (to the extent that it is "about myself" i mean), if i think it's mostly BS? well for one thing, it's therapeutic to be able to shake my head and laugh at myself, and say, "well...ok, so you're a skeptic, but whatever...you must buy it on some level or you'd completely dismiss it." for another thing, i think it's fascinating to study these intricate systems for making meaning and sense out of one's thoughts, emotions, and sensations. they bill themselves as diagnostic tests of the psyche, personality, or whatever you want to call it. it's a bit of a cliche to point out that they also work to *produce* the psyche, the personality, and thus the self, as unified and coherent wholes. such systems bring order to the cacophony of different inputs and outputs a person experiences, they dial down the noise level, filtering out the stray signals so that it *seems* like only one song is playing, or maybe a few different but coordinated ones that the psyche can draw on as it deals with internal and contextual variety and change. but what about all that static, the stray signals and fragments of other songs? what would happen if you filtered differently? you might find a completely different "self" lurking there...and then what would you do? where would "you" be?
my point, i guess, is that it's a selective process whether you're using psychological tests or astrology: either way, it's all about producing meaning and coherence in the self, along with a degree of self-esteem or pride in the *recognized* (therefore recognizable) self. but it's a chicken and egg argument. does the test find what's "really there" (the self, waiting to be discovered, uncovered, understood) or does it condition one to develop some traits and to downplay others, to value those traits in particular ways, thereby actually producing the self, itself? a little of both, probably, and i'm fine with that. i don't mind the mix of limits and possibilities. but why only 4 variables? why not 5 or 6 or 73? the structure is inherently limiting; i think it overlooks more than it organizes. in that way, personality sorting shares certain structural elements with racist and sexist agendas (both of which have been aided and abetted by science) that regard the self as an essential, stable quantity rather than a dynamic, multiply-determined, socially and historically produced one. this is not new ground.... but i'm not sure most people think about this when they do the little myers-briggs test, or get their chart done. at *those* times, the solipsistic impulse probably dominates, the desire to find out once and for all who one is, what one is made of. or the desire to get a job, i guess, since corporations rely *heavily* on personality profiling systems to help them make staffing decisions. yikes! don't even get me started on that...
and now...time for bed. i've spent altogether too much time writing this!
no subject
There's something nice about atheism and skepticism, always makes you want to learn more, verify everything. At the same time, there's something comforting about saying, "I know this about me" when you're otherwise feeling lost...
no subject
no subject
so the weird thing about the eharmony test, i thought, was that they asked a *ton* of questions about religion, and religious faith, and how important is your faith, and how important is it that your partner share your faith, and how often do you attend religious services, etc. etc. etc. i think i remember reading somewhere that the guy who started eharmony is really religious.