Memo+2+(Thomas)

Memo 2: **Habits, Neuroses, Talents **

Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? I feel like I have more trouble articulating the frame in terms of what’s relevant in a project. For example, I tend to not be able to tell in larger research projects if something is going off on a tangent or if it really is necessary to the project. I struggle with understanding what’s in scope of the project and what isn’t.

• Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? I tend to project hop because I feel like once I go as deep as I feel I need to into a topic, I’m done with it and ready to move on to the next topic and the next project. Staring at a particular project too long makes me want to scream, so even while doing homework, I switch back and forth between subjects. This is something I obviously need to and want to work on in this class, because I’ve never done a research project this extensive before and I am quite overwhelmed by the concept of a research project on this large of a scale.

• 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. While both are important, I tend to be more interested in external determinations and how something works in the overall bigger picture. I like to include all things that could be relevant to the bigger picture which is why I could be described as someone who “only begrudgingly will admit that something is noise, outside the scope” of my project.

• What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? I find myself often drawn to counter examples, I like to get both sides of an argument into my research with clear evidence and examples supporting each side. I feel like this provides a clearer overall picture, with no clear bias towards a specific argument. Without examining counter examples, I feel like you don’t get the whole picture. Also, when data comes out that doesn’t support my argument, while that does frustrate me, that doesn’t mean it can be ignored and it can also open up whole new areas to study.

• Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? I wouldn’t describe myself as someone who over-imposes logics on the world. I feel like by imposing my own logics on others I miss out on hearing their perspective. I tend to keep my thoughts to myself until I hear everyone else’s ideas or logics in order to sound unbiased.

• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? I never like to over-generalize, because in STS, things are never one way or the other, and there are tons of exceptions and special cases. I feel like over-generalizing is a bad thing, and I try to avoid it at all costs.

• Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? I really enjoy reading interpretations different from my own, because it allows the chance to look at an idea from a different viewpoint. It’s hard for you to understand an argument different from your own unless you study interpretations written by someone who has that viewpoint or supports that argument. I feel like by reading interpretations from different people it allows me to get different angles on a project and therefore I can get a better overall understanding of the big picture.

• 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 can change over time, and that is fine with me because as you really get to study a topic, you’ll learn things aren’t as black and white as you had originally thought, and there are exceptions that can make you change your point of view or stance on an argument. I can talk about what my original argument was, how it changed, and what in my research made me change my argument over time.

• 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 tend to think in metaphorical terms. I like providing relatable examples to help others as well as myself understand complex concepts. In my head when I am trying to grasp a difficult concept, I’ll compare it to something I do understand in order to get a better understanding of it.

• 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.”) When answers don’t easily fit on either side of the questions, I do get frustrated but take this as a problem solving opportunity to figure out how to either make my answers work or go back and reformulate my argument and look at the questions from a new angle.