Habits+Neuroses,+Talents+Shaw

I have more trouble articulating the frame than the object. I like to learn all about the topic, but find it difficult to set the parameters of what the topic actually is defined as.
 * • Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? **

I tend to project hop more than I like to. I have numerous and varied interests and I have trouble deciding which one of my interests is most important to me. It often changes based on recent experiences. I wish I could do more than one and learn about everything! But that is not possible. In the end I know I must choose a project, but I often do not feel like I have chosen the right one, or at least continue to feel like there are multiple projects I’d like to be doing.
 * • Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? **

 **• Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire is to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.** I think that it is hard to think about the internal dynamics without also thinking about the external determinations. Using your lab example, the policies that affect the lab would decide how it would structure its research, and it could be vice-versa as well. Maybe because this is my answer it means that I tend to think about external determinations more than the internal dynamics.

 **• What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it?** While I think that it sometimes is easier to throw out things that don’t align with the original thesis, it is more interesting to work in counter-examples. I like to use them to my advantage, by proving them wrong or proving they are anomalous. But if I can’t, I prefer to integrate them. I think it makes one more intelligent to understand different aspects of something and understand that one way of looking at things is never the only way to do so.

I don’t think I do either. I do like to look at the world in a logical way, but I understand that sometimes people or actors do not follow a logical path.
 * • Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? **

 **• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?** I tend to hold back from overarching argument. I prefer to work with specifics, where I feel more comfortable knowing that I understand the situation. I typically do not feel confident enough to extrapolate to overarching concepts and arguments.

I enjoy reading interpretations other than my own. As I wrote earlier, I believe seeing more sides of an issue makes one more educated. I could end up realizing that my interpretation was incorrect, or decide they both are correct, or it could even strengthen my interpretation if I could prove the other one is wrong.
 * • Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? **

I tend to make the argument work, no matter what. Although I do like to understand other views on an issue, I like to prove them wrong rather than let them change my argument.
 * • Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Metaphors are very useful for understanding foreign concepts. I do think in terms of them, because it helps me understand things that I wouldn’t immediately understand. However, I think it is important to understand the bounds of a metaphor. For example, in my high school chemistry class, my teacher would personify electrons when speaking about them, and sometimes this would confuse me more, because instead of understanding why chemical reactions happened, I was trying to understand why an electron “wanted” to do something. It’s important to choose an appropriate metaphor and not use it when it is no longer applicable or necessary.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">• Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I do like gaming understanding in this way because it is a quicker way to understand new concepts. I am not frustrated that my answers don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions, although it is frustrating that the questions are set up so that it seems like my answers should fit nicely on one side or the other, due to the way they are worded.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">• Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”) **