Some things to ponder or discuss over the weekend.
Archive for October, 2010
I often try to keep weekend posts lighter. This time I complain about my readers and WordPress.
In my earlier post, I discussed how the preference order for the various cognitive processes affected type. In this post, I will examine how the preference position might affect the presentation of each process. Depending on its position in your preference hierarchy a particular process might be a hero or a villain.
My previous somewhat silly attempt at a blog war was moderately successful; some people actually visited my blog. I am glad that posters and some bloggers got into the spirit of the thing (a joke).
Special thanks go out to Hawaiian Libertarian (did anyone notice that I referred to him as Hawaiian Librarian in the “war” post?) and Dalrock. Dave declared Fargin War, and Dalrock expressed dismay at his exclusion from hostilities.
Dalrock’s post brought me to the next evolution of blog war. (more…)
I have a plan. It is amazing the things that can start with those few words. Well, I do have a plan, it is the blogging equivalent of “Hold ma beer and watch this.”
I have covered Myers-Briggs typing before. I will assume that most are familiar with it. In short, it breaks human behaviors into four groupings of dichotomous traits. These traits are Extraversion or Introversion (E or I), Sensing or intuition (S or N), Thinking or Feeling (T or F), and Perceiving or Judging (P or J). Adding your preference letters together reveals your type (e.g., ESTJ).
Myers and Briggs based their work on the ideas of Carl Jung. While their typing made his work easier to understand, it also hid some of the subtleties. In this post, I will attempt to explain the deeper meanings behind the letters and perhaps help resolve some typing confusion.
I am not sure how many of you saw my Tweet on the dust up between libertarian Todd Seavey and National Review editor Helen Rittelmeyer. The confrontation was during a conference related to Jonah Goldberg’s book Proud to be Right. The book is a collection of essays from young conservatives. Early in the proceedings Goldberg mentioned how debates on the right were always more interesting than those amongst the left. For once, Goldberg was correct.
As I briefly touched upon in my This I believe post, while we like to say it takes all types, we actually prefer some over others. Outside of the awesomely nice or the fearfully PC we know that some types are better than others. This may not be true in some cosmic, spiritual, “all men are created equal” way, but it assuredly is in a Darwinian way. That is to say: some types are better adapted, some types are more useful. While the basic premise of needing all types may be true, the fact is we do not need equal numbers of all types.