saturn return to sender

And of course after all my hostility, I do appreciate some of insight offered by the Meyers Briggs assessment I had to take for a class the other day. It turns out I tested INFP rather than INTP, which is how I’ve tested before, but I came up borderline and I insist that I’m genuinely both, depending on context, and not one or the other as the administrator insisted must be the case. And that at least shows the limitations of the whole concept. It’s a compression of a complex system into four little letters and you can’t do that without throwing away information. Doing that to people (and then taking it seriously) pisses me off. And if you’re going to do it, at least write questions that aren’t #$%@ing nonsensical! (The previous post is user-level limited ’cause of the embarrassing amount of cursing in it.)

But yes, it does still provide some useful insight; I just can’t accept it as a voice of authority as some people seem to. More like a voice of a peer saying “hey this is cool, check this out.” I’m like, “Yeah, that’s kinda cool. Got some problems here and there, but pretty nifty!”

Anyway, today a metafilter post directed me to this interview of a fellow who wrote a short piece back in 2003 called Caring For Your Introvert, which has turned out to be enormously popular. It’s entertaining and cheeky, and there are definitely some things I agree with or identify with in there. Such as: “The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.” Heh. The kids I teach should be familiar with that one.

Other things I don’t identify with so much.

I don’t find people tiring, in general, I just rarely have anything I think is worthwhile to say. And then when I do say something, if I get a disinterested response, I stop talking. I do place a high value on the quality of interaction, and expect the same from other people. That probably makes me unfairly annoyed at people who don’t have a simliar expectation. I don’t take well to being cut off mid-sentence due to being ignored in “task-based” interaction, where I feel I have something valuable to add. When I say something, it’s ’cause I bloody well think it will be worth your while to hear it!*

Also I’m fine with dumb banter in non-task-based interaction. Kinda like this blog. But then it’s more like dance or play, and of course I prefer a compatible partner there, too. Similar backgrounds, interests, wit and speed, etc. Likes to dance to the same kind of music, as it were.

I like hanging out in groups of three or more and I do enjoy parties, to an extent. It’s actually the group of two — me and someone else — in which I feel the most “brain pressure,” as the author calls it. Depending on who the other is, of course. This can make dating in the traditional sense unfortunately a lot more work than it should be.

Also, you can take his antagonistic tone towards extroverts as tongue-in-cheek or not, but I wouldn’t expect any special treatment from extroverts, or special understanding. I take it as a personal challenge to be more balanced on the introvert-extrovert scale so I can screw with the MBTI there, too. It’s all about choice to me: being what you choose to be as appropriate. That’s freedom. Other people aren’t my responsibility.

Finally, grouping extroverts together and evaluating their character as a group is as bad as calling all introverts “depressed.” You can have thoughtless and obnoxious extroverts, but you can also have warm, fun extroverts who might actually have empathetic tendencies for introverts.**

See, now how is all of this subtlety captured by the letters I and E? It’s not.

I have the should-I-buy-organic debate with myself all the time. For what it’s worth, Consumer Reports has a little page explaining which organic products are worth the cost.

(via MeFi)

The only brilliant thing to come out of America’s involvement in the Montreal climate talks:

The National Environmental Trust distributed custom-printed noise-making rubber whoopee cushions printed with a caricature of President Bush and the words “Emissions Accomplished.”

- U.S., Under Fire, Refuses to Shift in Climate Talks

Brilliant!

Meanwhile, according to New York magazine, there was some sort of very classy move by the Bush administration to try to keep Clinton from speaking in Montreal at all. I dunno. It seems like they were just looking for some reason to walk out. They didn’t care what. It’s like they were bored or something. “Can we go yet?” I picture our delegation whining. “This is boring.”

Ellis Henican used the phrase “the polemic business” to describe “the great cacaphony that is American political dialogue.” Well, at least if by American political dialogue you mean Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly (*flinch*), and the like. I think he must’ve let that phrase slip, ’cause it’s too close to a truthful description of what life here is like. We sell ugliness, we run a trade in dog shit. We buy it, too. We eat it up. Yum.

If none of that is depressing enough, read this:

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?

It seems to be, yes.

Kansas school board redefines science.

The Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. “It gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today,” said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.

Right. Dogma. Well, that is an issue, now, isn’t it?

You know, truth be told, I don’t have a problem with ID being “taught” in classrooms. Any non-idiotic person can discern the difference between ID and an actual rigorous, falsifiable, scientific model of the world. If our kids can’t tell the difference then we’ve got bigger problems, anyway. And seriously? I don’t believe evolution as it’s currently understood (as I understand it) is complete. It’s pretty effing brilliant, but not the whole story. Any self-respecting scientist would undoubtedly agree.

But I’m sorry … this … this … I …. I am completely speechless. I cannot believe that people are this astoundingly stupid. I … I I have no words.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Oh, nice. Uhm … good luck with that. Let me know when you get your God to re-heat your frozen pizza for you. If he can’t, perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster will show mercy.

“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

Yes. That about sums it up.