Posts tagged ‘Social Sciences’
I discovered the Myers Briggs personality test in college, courtesy of Rev. K. Super Aims. The story of Rev. K. Super Aims is a good one, and you can go check it out. Suffice it to say that he was such an important part of my life that I can very easily divide my life into before I met Rev. K. Super Aims and after I met Rev. K. Super Aims.
I can also divide my life into before and after Rev. K. Super Aims was arrested for child molestation. The incident puts such a stain on that part of my life that I wouldn’t be surprised if old photographs had all turned the color of bile. Like arsenic and brown sugar, viewed in hindsight those years are now poisonsweet. It causes you to question everything you think you know but particularly your judgment of people. So, people I’m no longer certain of, but I still believe in God and the Myers Briggs.
The Myers Briggs is also referred to as the MBTI or Myers Briggs Type Indicator. It was invented by two women: Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. The duo were a mother and daughter team. They wrote the test to help women decide on suitable careers. They based their work on the writings of Carl Jung. The Myers Briggs test was designed to measure differences in people’s choices and the perceptions on which their decisions were based.
The test divides people into sixteen possible types. It’s designed to measure where the test taker falls on a continuum of four different opposite traits. Those traits are:
Extroversion v. Introversion
Sensing v. Intution
Thinking v. Feeling
Judgment v. Perception
Rev. K. Super Aims administered the test through a book called Please Understand Me. The members of his leadership team all took the test. We called ourselves The K Club because we all had a K in our names (Okay. You caught me. My name is Gooseberry K. Bush, but don’t expect me to tell you my middle name). All of us were ENFPs, Rev. K. Super Aims included. Since I’ve graduated from college and joined the real world I’ve become an ENFJ, and that never waivers.
Reading the description of my own personality was like looking into a mirror and seeing my own reflection. It explained so much. It was revelatory. It would be really easy, I suppose, to use it as a crutch or a book of excuses, but I’ve never done so. I just feel like I have a reason for why I am the way I am but not a license for bad behavior.
If you haven’t already taken the MBTI, I urge you to do so. I’ve never known anyone who’s taken the test to doubt its accuracy. If nothing else, you can think of it as entertainment. And if you read along faithfully with this blog and you want to know more about me, you can always read the profile of an ENFJ. If you read up on that and you read this blog you will know me almost as well as someone who, well, knows me. If that’s your thing. Anyway, you should take the test.
The photo is of women from the Solomon Islands. Though I don’t agree with his contentions about feminism being merely one-sided, I do agree largely with this guy’s post. Here is evidence that a man can make intelligent comments about the gender gap. It is possible. It’s just definitely not coming from Dalrock or Solomon II. It is also coming in the form of comments from a new reader called, oddly enough, Dalrock Reader.
Take a look at this:
Men who comment here sometimes, and men from the manosphere, frequently espouse views of evolutionary psychology in order to refute feminism. As “evidence” they mention sex stereotypes and attribute them merely to animal behavior and the human species’ wish to propagate our genes to the next generation.
The problem with this, of course, is two-fold. First of all, people are not merely animals. We have the ability to reason which differentiates us from many other species. Secondly, how does evolutionary psychology explain anomalies in our culture and how does it explain the phenomenon of feminism. Does it?
Evolutionary psychology says that women are valued only for their ability to reproduce and carry on a man’s genes, that women are only interested in sex in order to produce babies and are choosier in picking partners because it’s in their best interests to do so. Evolutionary psychology says that men are solely interested in young, hot women and that women are reduced to their “sexual market value.”
It doesn’t take into account those men who mate with older women. It especially discounts all the media cases lately of young men featured in the media who are “hot for teacher,” even when sometimes these much older teachers are not especially physically attractive in a conventional sense. It doesn’t take into account that most women don’t lose their desire for sex after they reach menopause. How does evolutionary psychology explain these behaviors?
Men do generally prefer younger women, but what explains the differentiations from this? How do we account for the couples where the woman makes more money or has more money than the man? What is the evolutionary psychologist’s explanation for how this propagates the species? If evolutionary psychology can explain the relationship between the sexes, then how does feminism help to propagate the species? I’d be interested in hearing some theories.
But someone smarter than I am has written an article that refutes evolutionary psychology’s claims better than I can. Check out the article here:
Do you know anything about urban planning? Yeah, neither do I. I’m going to learn. Our neighborhood is undergoing a long process that I’ve been involved in on and off for quite a while now. The process is called neighborhood planning, and it involves zoning and streetscapes.
As far as I can tell, the city seems to be working toward developing neighborhood pockets of mixed commercial and residential zoning with multi-level buildings like what we have going on downtown. They do ask for the input of the people of the neighborhood. There’s no doubt that the eye appeal of my neighborhood could be vastly improved.
However, what I’m greatly concerned with is affordability. If every neighborhood in Austin, and especially ours, since we’re labeled as a future core transit corridor (which means, as I understand it, that they anticipate that we will be a major hub for transportation) becomes gentrified, then eventually the poorest people cannot afford to live in the city.
Poorer people will be forced to the outskirts of town or to more affordable suburbs such as, for instance, Manor. This means that people who may already not have access to their own personal transportation, or to put it better, people who can’t afford to drive, or to drive legally, that is, will be forced into areas where public transportation is not offered or becomes very impractical since the commute times will be hellaciously long. Quality of living for people who already experience the lowest quality of living will lower even more.
No one seems to care. The city seems to have an agenda that will improve things but will also increase property values, perhaps, to the extent that some people will no longer be able to afford to live in the city. I’m all for trees and sidewalks. I like pretty. I can’t argue with better property values. I understand wanting all these things, but it also saddens me that this will make urban unaffordable for all except the most wealthy individuals. This has already happened in many neighborhoods surrounding us. Tiny crackerbox houses can cost as much as half a million dollars.
The saddest part of this equation is that the people who are going to be most affected by the decisions being made in these meetings are not, by and large, attending the meetings. The poverty stricken, the uneducated, the illiterate, the minorities and the immigrants are not exactly known for their civic mindedness. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, I’ve found that stereotype to be true.
So, I choose to be involved in this process because I myself want to continue to be able to live in the city. I don’t want to live in urban squalor, but I don’t want to be forced out so that the rich can enjoy their urban splendor, either.