Memo+2+(Dan+F)



• Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object?

I don’t feel like I have too much trouble framing but there is room for improvement. I am much better at conveying my thoughts on paper than just talking about it in discussion.

• Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this?

I have a ton of interests and I like to try everything I possibly can in my personal life when possible, but I am not sure if that could be considered project hopping. When I start a project I have a difficult time starting a new one until I finish the first one. I really dislike have multiple projects in various stages of completion. In school I generally try to do an entire project for a class while lining up but not starting the next project until the first one is done.

• 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.

In general I would say that context and the big picture (paranoid) are a major focus for me, but I don’t think that clouds out my specific points too severely. Arguments have to be heavily cemented in mainstream theory before they can go off to stand on their own.

• What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it?

Nothing can be omitted simply because it doesn’t fit. Nothing is entirely black or white and something needs to exist to prove the rule. Generally if something doesn’t fit it just encourages me to dig deeper to try and find an explanation. If it is irrefutable enough to change my opinion all together then I accept the facts for what they are.

• Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? I don’t think I tend to over impose logic. I recognize that people are irrational and situations vary. I am inclined to cite multiple reasons for a particular phenomenon rather then attributing something to a single cause or reason. It really depends on the narrative honestly.

• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?

I am sure I have been guilty of both extremes during my education. I overgeneralize problems sometimes, but usually I can give multiple specific examples to support it. I hold back from overarching arguments at other times when I feel that an argument (almost always a mainstream argument) has completely misrepresented what really happens in the real world. I don’t usually have trouble explaining what I think is wrong with the mainstream argument and I don’t feel that I have much trouble substituting my own theory for a particular phenomenon. If I do substitute my own theory I try to have as many supporting arguments as possible.

• Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them?

I like seeing things from other people’s point of view because I feel it provides me with perspective. Despite this there are times I can’t help but cringe at the faulty logic used to support certain ideas about how things can be done. It is crucial to include views from all sides so that nothing is overlooked.

• Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what?

My argument will generally be amended or at least reframed as new information pours in. If something doesn’t fit I still include it or I feel like I am wasting my time as well as the readers.

• 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?

I don’t tend to think in terms of metaphors. I prefer to spell it out so that there is very little doubt about my intentions or interpretations.

• 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.”)

I accept that there is no clear answer and am often annoyed when something is attributed to only a single narrow cause. There is no silver bullet approach to solving any problem.