Ernesto's+Habits,+Neuroses,+and+Talents


 * __Ernesto's Habits, Neuroses, and Talents__**

• Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? //I believe, based on the research that I have done over the years, my trouble is more around the social theoretical questions than it is the overall scope/area of the work that I do my research on. For example: I usually have a set target group and particular aspects of that group that I want to focus my work on, but usually I find it hard to frame specific questions that would allow me to narrow my research//

• Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? //Flat out, I project-hop. I do plenty of it. It might seem like a bad habit to do, and it can become a bad habit from time to time, but almost always, the projects that I engage in are very similar in terms of the overall scope of work that is being looked on and/or the social theoretical questions framed around them. This comes about from, first of all, not wanting to turn down a project, as I find it hard to say no to a project. I really enjoy engaging in all sorts of research- work that passions me and is aligned with what I want to do as a career and for the rest of my life as well as new work that I have never been able to explore-because it enables me to acquire knowledge that I would otherwise not gain in the classroom setting.//

• 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 love both! I am the type of individual that looks at the nitty gritty with respect to the social theoretical questions that are being posed, developing root cause analyses, and then using such information to get a better understanding of the bigger picture of things. It really is the most effective way to approach such questions, as it allows for minimal error when coming about with solutions.//

• What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? //Not all questions have binary answers, and I believe that moving from traditional approaches as a means of exploring new or "unusual" examples allows for us, more so myself, to reevaluate the initial approach that I had to such questions. There are certain instances where such examples are really out of this world, but of course, I wouldn't be one to easily discredit it or completely ignore the approach. I always try to develop and bring about explanations as to why such examples are not feasible or do not really fit in with respect to what is being done.//

• Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? //I can say that there are times when I have over-imposed logics on particular arguments and situations/issues and usually that comes about after seeing or hearing the wrong arguments being brought on to the table or the misrepresentation of the narrative that is being brought into question. Because of particular situations, individuals can and will have biases based on personal experiences with that particular narrative, which can sway from providing a coherent and logical argument, but again, this fluctuates on the narrative.//

• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? //This is, to a certain extent, similar to the previous question, and again, I have come about to have done both over the years. Overgeneralization can, at times provide inaccurate answers, but that is only when they are personalized to a certain extent that the data that is being used to develop such argument is twisted in a way where it does not line up with the stance. I've learned to pick my battles in arguments, and there are some that I simply just stay away from because of the direction from where it has moved on to (meaning that the argument is no longer aligned with what was initially discussed).//

• Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? //I really enjoy, and am very open, to new interpretations that are not as similar as mine. They allow me to perceive things in a new angle that I otherwise would not have been able to get exposed to, and allows for personal growth and understanding of topics that I engage in. A well-rounded researcher and argument/development should be inclusive of as many perspectives attainable in order to reduce ambiguity and space for error.//

• Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? //This really fluctuates on what it is that I begin my work on, but for a majority of the time, I always begin with an argument that provides for the development of a foundational basis where I can go on with my work. Depending on the findings that come about on the research and/or if I hit any walls, then that is when to usually change it around in a way where the initial sought-out questions remain about, but done through a new avenue that would allow me to acquire more information.//

• 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 try to refrain myself as much as I can to speak and make points through the usage of metaphors. Of course, there might be times when I do use them in order to explain things, but I try my very best to rather use analogies instead of metaphors.//

• 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.”) //One of the things that has come about through the extensive research and qualitative reasoning methods that I have come to develop over the years is that there is not one concise answer to the questions that I pose in my research- addressing a disparity and/or acquiring the knowledge to understand a social theoretical questions comes through different perspectives and approaches, which provide for more effective, efficient, innovative, and sustainable answers to such social theoretical questions.//