Eff's Rambles (Archive)

9/29/2004

A Cruel Question

The plight of the British hostage in Iraq has made me wonder about the responsibility a man has to his nation. It is taken by many as a given that giving into the demands of hostage takers inspires more hostage taking; gives it legitimacy as a tactic. But it is also said that hostage taking has succeeded. Though, there usually seems to be a difference in the matter of scale. And some claims of steadfastness in not negotiating might be disingenuous. Buying time is a major part of it. But, considering all this from the standpoint of the interest of a nation, what, then, should be the behavior of hostages? Human nature is understandable, but I cannot but wonder, as empathic as I wish to be, if people in such situations should not resign themselves, or show less, though understandable, deperation. I know that comes off as cruel, but I am thinking of the pain the loved ones of hostages are feeling; thinking that if hostages are strong perhaps their family and friends can find comfort. I aslo feel for the governments burdened with this terrible problem. However, I am sure many experts will say to never surrender, which is right, I suppose.

E-Harmony

For fun I decided to fill out the overly long Eharmony.com questionnaire. Here are my results. I am compatable with no one, least of all myself.


Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching system is not suitable for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply would not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand that we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.


Overview


You prefer to wait until you're sure of your ground before acting. This might mean after several visits to a new place, or after a few meetings with a new person, you will feel more open to risk or share trust.


You will generally not act impulsively. As a result, others around you may perceive a slowness of thought or action. This results not from slow thinking, but from complete analysis of the situation before acting.


You prefer not to seek quick personal relationships, but rather build relationships slowly. Once your relationships are formed, they tend to be lasting.


You function best in an environment relatively free of conflict or hostility. When tension mounts, you may become silent; and if tension continues, you may withdraw or avoid the situation altogether.


You may not jump in immediately for a new idea or activity. You may need time to consider all aspects of the idea before supporting it with time and talent.


You tend to think before you act. As a result, the things you do will be purposeful and deliberate.


Communication


You prefer to wait until you're sure of your ground before acting. This might mean after several visits to a new place, or after a few meetings with a new person, you will feel more open to risk or share trust.


You will generally not act impulsively. As a result, others around you may perceive a slowness of thought or action. This results not from slow thinking, but from complete analysis of the situation before acting.


You prefer not to seek quick personal relationships, but rather build relationships slowly. Once your relationships are formed, they tend to be lasting.


You function best in an environment relatively free of conflict or hostility. When tension mounts, you may become silent; and if tension continues, you may withdraw or avoid the situation altogether.


You may not jump in immediately for a new idea or activity. You may need time to consider all aspects of the idea before supporting it with time and talent.


You tend to think before you act. As a result, the things you do will be purposeful and deliberate.


Improving Communication


Take your time and proceed slowly.


Take time during explanations.


Approach in an honest, sincere manner.


Allow time to ask questions.


Minimize risks by providing assurances for participation.


Prepare your "case" in advance--do your homework.


Provide solid, tangible, practical ideas and evidence.


If you disagree, organize your thoughts before confronting your partner.


Take time to be certain that you reach an agreement.


Keep the conversation at the discussion level, rather than confrontation.


Strengths


You are skilled at being diplomatic with people in all settings.


You are generally good at cooling down tense situations in a relationship.


You generally take pride in being a strong community member.


You tend to have very high values.


You are excellent at listening to your partner.


You are very respectful of the needs and wants of other people.


You tend to set and maintain very high standards for yourself.


You tend to be an objective, careful evaluator of situations.


You like to gather facts and think things over before offering a strong opinion.


You tend to bring feelings of security and stability to a relationship.


Needs

You may want:

Things done "right" the first time.


Others to adhere to your high standards.


Straight talk and straight dealing.


Security and safety procedures around the house: fire safety, smoke detectors, electronic security systems, etc.


A supportive environment where you do not have to display great emotion.


Time to adjust to change.


Facts and data before making decisions relating to others.


Others to present their ideas and information in a logical order.


Recognition for your concern for quality relationships.


Fewer changes, if many changes have occurred recently.


Objectivity and logic in relationships and activities.

9/28/2004

Pet Peeve: The Arrogance and Disingenousness of Names.

People are aware that names are not always indicative of the "true" biases of the editorial leanings of newspapers, but names for outlets that are about the expression of opinions should, as a matter of ethics, be as reflective of the names as possible. I am tired of going into web pages and chatrooms with general, non suggestive names, only to find clear biases in them. Owners are well within their rights to put out whatever view they want, usually (I think there may be some legal exceptions). But giving a misleading title, one that suggests one's opinions are those of the people, using terms like independent, mainstream, truth, is very arrogant to me.

9/23/2004

Irrational Fear and the Civilised

There are two old maxims that state that man fears the unknown and what he cannot understand. They seem to be often used as indictments of man for his supposedly destructive nature due to the irrationality and impatience of his mind.

I may be terribly misunderstanding this issue but I am continuing on regardless.

While mans nature may be destructive, I believe it is a fact which the unknown is not germane to by default. I believe the maxim that has an absence of understanding as the aforementioned kind of element instead is more fair.

Yes, I am being semantical, perhaps fallaciously. But my basis is in the impression I have gotten from the maxims in the context of judging man.

I see the unknown almost as if it were an entity. And I see understanding as a matter of circumstance, sometimes exigency.

I contend that man is therefor not uncivil if his nature is to destroy the unknown, but by his misunderstanding of the need to destroy in the context of his circumstance. I find it difficult to believe mans nature is to kill and murder things unknown to him with no basis in the reality, or perceived reality, of the situations around him.

The unknown is not always threatening by intent on its part, but because of mans ignorance of its intent and possibly of his understanding of the surrounding circumstances at the time, its destruction may be necessary. And fears are not always baseless. So circumstances can be just cause to destroy.

Destruction is bad when the reasons therefor have nothing to do with the preservation of a greater good. Or, if one is so accepting, in some circumstances when it is a so called selfish good. Man is uncivil because of unecessary destruction. Knowing when it is necessary is the major question.

Global Personality Test Results
Stability (40%) moderately low which suggests you are worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.
Orderliness (40%) moderately low which suggests you tend to be unreliable, lazy, careless, and unmotivated.
Extraversion (53%) medium which suggests you are moderately talkative, outgoing, sociable and energetic.
Take Free Global Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com


Enneagram Test Results
Type 1 Perfectionism34%
Type 2Helpfulness42%
Type 3Image Focus34%
Type 4Hypersensitivity54%
Type 5Detachment70%
Type 6Anxiety70%
Type 7Adventurousness30%
Type 8Aggressiveness38%
Type 9Calmness58%
Take Free Enneagram Word Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Big Five Word Test Results
Extroversion (30%) low which suggests you are very reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.
Friendliness (55%) medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful.
Orderliness (38%) moderately low which suggests you tend to be unreliable, lazy, careless, and unmotivated.
Emotional Stability (47%) medium which suggests you are moderately relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.
Openmindedness (67%) moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.
Take Free Big Five Word Choice Test
personality tests by similarminds.com


The most common interests of people who like Philosophy are...
music, reading, writing, poetry, art, movies, photography, books, psychology, love, computers, sex, cats, rain, anime, history, fantasy, literature, mythology, politics, dreams, friends, drawing, dancing, singing, coffee, cooking, nature, sarcasm, science fiction, tattoos, monty python, religion, intelligence, travel, painting, stars, radiohead, harry potter, candles, life, chocolate, sleeping, lord of the rings, spirituality, thinking, theatre, shakespeare, sushi, video games
Query The Universal Mind


The less common interests of people who like Philosophy are...
the cure, the beatles, techno, star wars, sociology, pink floyd, nirvana, magic, internet, humor, hugs, comedy, cartoons, surrealism, invader zim, film, roleplaying, games, technology, martial arts, storms, dvds, geeks, physics, logic, wine, coldplay, manga, japan, web design, ani difranco, musicals, douglas adams, yoga, tim burton, languages, bondage, rpgs, traveling, black, swords, star trek, rock, industrial, faeries, eyes, concerts, people, depression, vegetarianism
Query The Universal Mind

Brain Lateralization Test Results
Right Brain (24%) The right hemisphere is the visual, figurative, artistic, and intuitive side of the brain.
Left Brain (72%) The left hemisphere is the logical, articulate, assertive, and practical side of the brain


Brain Lateralization Test Results
Right Brain (32%) The right hemisphere is the visual, figurative, artistic, and intuitive side of the brain.
Left Brain (56%) The left hemisphere is the logical, articulate, assertive, and practical side of the brain


9/22/2004

On the subject of debates. (Ranting)

Maybe it is just me, but I am tired of red herrings, specious and spurious, generally fallacious, logic and their too frequent use. Imperfect logic is natural, I would presume. I am not an expert on it. But it seems to me it ought not take much knowledge of fair applications of logic to understand if a negative charge against somone is predicated on hate more than on even modest standards of reasonable doubt. I am tired of people in debates making several good contentions, with supporting statistics (yes, not all of them give statistics, but that is not a major beef of mine, unless finding a statistic on my own proves elusive), then degenerating the debate down into personal attacks with the bases thereof being either specious or so poorly defined that observers are left confused, unable to understand the debater's reasoning. The generalised definition of objective fairness might help the tone. Yes, I am hypocritical on these complaints to varying degrees. I acknowledge and accept it. I shall not ask anyone to look beyond what irritation that might cause them and judge my opinion outside of it. I might not be denied that right or privilege on the grounds of hypocrisy, but I choose now, at least, not to pursue it. But I do hope if other, highly credible people speak a like opinion on this subject, many will listen. I hope that less and less debates are predicated on hate.

9/21/2004

New understandings.

Lately my mind has been jogging, well, stumbling. Perceptions I have had are becoming more lateral, but my beliefs on what is right and wrong have not become totally abandoned. I have begun to see values that I had not before.
There are times when the values of some assumptions are lost because those giving them are disliked by the other participants in a debate. But espousers of these assumption are also at times ignored because, no matter how accurate their claims, when they are predicated on animosity their validity become suspicious. Herein comes the label of being niave. To those making assumptions about the guilt of a person, the true intent of a person, the refusal to accept the truth that reasoning must lead a person to is frustrating for them, thus to them those not agreeing with them are naive. Where I am going with this is my change from considering the naive label as mostly a condescending term to a possible attempt at finding common ground from which to move a debate forward. While their basis may still be hate first and foremost, perhaps it is stubborness on the part of others to draw conclusions that is the real fallacy, not so much the seeming ad hominem of the labeler. When does fairness go too far and into being just stubborn, or outright stupid? And, of course, to dismiss the claims of other because you disliked their presentation, is itself premising an assumption from negativity you feel toward them. But you are not obligated to believe for the sake of avoiding labels which may be a misnomer, depending on the circumstance.
Sound ideas are immortal. As wise now as when they were first stated. While some of them may not pertain to the present in every detail, their basic principles last in value. At least I would presume that. But now I have begun to see a value in originality. Ideas spoken before with little deviation from one repeat of themselves through time can come from careful study, cursory observation, or perhaps plain genius, where an idea seems to come from no material nor tutoring. Whereever they come from, they are not weaker by it. Though some processes are more impressive than others. But originality of reasoning and ideas gives a sense of worth, of place that old conclusions, no matter how brilliantly one comes to them, cannot match. Originality is valuable for its fleeting uniqueness. It puts one on top of the world of thinkers for a brief time until his name is forgotten and people hear his ideas repeated a thousand times over by others over the centuries to the point that the brilliance of his idea when it was first stated becomes lost due to its constant repetition. It becomes obvious to others and no longer as groundbreaking as it was. But that is not guaranteed to happen. It is a presumption
of mine of human behavior. Original ideas are not great automatically, but they do give a tremendous sense of worth.

9/15/2004

Thanks, Estte

I have had a Gostats counter for a little while now, though I have had to reset the counter a few times. Well, now that Blogger has this blogger tool thing at the top of some pages that allows one to view random, listed blogs, I get hits here from people that do not have the slightest interest in me besides general curiousity. Victims, all of them. Fantastic!

Oh, and to a certain someone, http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=110&topic=22

Is either wrong or incompatible with some templates, at least as they are. So what I did was to copy the add links portion (just the old template) of the html from a temporary template I was using to this one.

http://kbimages.blogspot.com/template-links-new.jpg

9/14/2004

Errors Galore

Yes, I know there are a lot of grammatical errors in most of my posts, but, while I edited a few of them, I became bored, so the rest stay with lazine . . . I mean, nostalgia, as the reason why. Send a comment to me if you are confused by a post.

9/13/2004

Main Type
Overall Self
Take Free Enneagram Personality Test




Enneagram Test Results
Type 1 Perfectionism 41%
Type 2 Helpfulness 33%
Type 3 Image Focus 70%
Type 4 Hypersensitivity 49%
Type 5 Detachment 52%
Type 6 Anxiety 73%
Type 7 Adventurousness 21%
Type 8 Aggressiveness 38%
Type 9 Calmness 39%
Your main type is 6
Your variant is self pres
Take Free Enneagram Personality Test


 

Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click